(a)Why was the main Shulchan placed two (or two and a half) Amos away from the north-wall of the Heichal?
(b)How long was ...
1. ... the D'vir (the Kodesh Kodshim)?
2. ... the Heichal?
(c)Where were the following located:
1. the Shulchan?
2. the Menorah?
3. the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav?
(a)The main Shulchan was placed two (or two and a half) Amos away from the north-wall of the Heichal - to allow the two Kohanim who were carrying the two rows of bread from the marble table in the Ulam to the table in the Heichal, to walk abreast there.
(b)The length of ...
1. ... the Dvir (the Kodesh Kodshim) - was twenty Amos.
2. ... the Heichal - was forty Amos.
1. the Shulchan - was located on the north side of the Heichal in the western half, and
2. the Menorah - exactly opposite on the south.
3. the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav - was in the middle, but drawn slightly towards the east.
(a)Just as Shlomoh made ten extra tables, he also made ten extra Menoros. These were placed in the same formation as the tables - five on the right and five, on the left. Why can this not be taken literally (to mean five on the right-side of the entrance, and five on the left?
(b)So what does it mean?
(c)How many Menoros did the Kohanim light each day ...
1. ... according to the Tana Kama?
2. ... Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah?
(d)The Gemara, in explaining the Pasuk in Divrei Hayamim (which describes the Menoros as "Mechalos Zahav") says 'Kilu Zahav shel Shlomoh' (according to the Tiklin Chadtin's text). What does this mean? Why did he do that?
(a)The five Menoros on the right and the five on the left, cannot be taken literally (to mean five on the right-side of the entrance, and five on the left) for the same reason that we gave by the tables i.e. because of the Pasuk in Terumah which specifically writes that the Menorah must be on the south-side of the Azarah, and not the north.
(b)Consequently, it must mean that five Menoros were placed on the right of Moshe's Menorah, and five on the left.
(c)According to ...
1. ... the Tana Kama - the Kohanim lit only one Menorah each day.
2. ... Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah - they lit all eleven.
(d)'Kilu Zahav shel Shlomo' means that it used up all the gold of Shlomo - because he used one thousand Kikar of gold (three million Shekalim) for each Menorah, before heating it in a furnace again and again, until it was so refined, that only one Kikar remained.
(a)Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi describes how they once made a Menorah consisting of one Dinar more than the required Kikar (as in the days of Moshe). What did they attempt to do about that, and what was the result?
(b)Is it feasible that after passing it through the furnace, it remained the same weight?
(a)Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi describes how they once made a Menorah consisting of one Dinar more than the required Kikar - they tried to bring it down to a Kikar by refining it as much as a thousand times, but the excess remained. (Note: They must have attempted to refine it when it was already a Menorah, which seems a strange thing to do).
(b)The Gemara concludes that, once gold has been refined to its fullest, it is quite feasible to say that it cannot be reduced any further.
(a)There were thirteen boxes in the Beis Hamikdash. Seven were marked: Tiklin Chadtin, Tiklin Atikin, Kinin, Gozlei Olah, Eitzim, Levonah, Zahav le'Kapores. What were the other six marked as?
(b)What were the following boxes used for:
1. Tiklin Atikin?
3. Gozlei Olah?
(c)What did they do with the gold placed it in the box marked 'Zahav le'Kapores'?
(d)According to Rebbi Yehudah, all the birds purchased with the money from the boxes marked 'Kinin' and 'Gozlei Olah' were Olos. What do the Chachamim say about ...
1. ... 'Kinin'?
2. ... 'Gozlei Olah'?
(a)There were thirteen boxes in the Beis Hamikdash. Seven were marked: 'Tiklin Chadtin', 'Tiklin Atikin', 'Kinin', 'Gozlei Olah', 'Etzim', 'Levonah', 'Zahav l'Kapores'. The other six were marked as 'Nedavah'.
(b)The box marked ...
1. ... 'Tiklin Atikin' - was used for last year's half-Shekalim that the owners brought only this year.
2. ... 'Kinin' - to buy large pigeons.
3. ... 'Gozlei Olah' - to buy young doves.
4. ... 'Etzim' - was used to buy wood for the Ma'arachah.
5. ... 'Levonah' - to buy frankincense that people had donated.
(c)The gold in the box marked 'Zahav l'Kapores' - was used to purchase Klei Shares (the Tana calls it 'Kapores' because of the bowls for the blood, which are called 'Kipurei Zahav').
(d)According to Rebbi Yehudah, all the birds purchased with the money from the boxes marked 'Kinin' and 'Gozlei Olah' were Olos. The Chachamim say that ...
1. ... 'Kinin' - comprises an Olah and a Chatas.
2. ... 'Gozlei Olah' - are both Olos (like Rebbi Yehudah).
(a)What is the minimum a person would be required to bring if he said that he would donate ...
1. ... 'Eitzim'?
2. ... 'Levonah'?
3. ... 'Zahav'?
(b)Could he donate less than those amounts, if he wanted to?
(c)How does the Pasuk in Tzav "Asham Hu, Ashom Asham la'Hashem" seem to contradict itself?
(d)How did Yehoyada ha'Kohen resolve the discrepancy?
(a)The minimum a person would be required to bring if he said that he would donate ...
1. ... 'Etzim' - is two blocks of wood.
2. ... 'Levonah' - is one fistful of Levonah.
3. ... 'Zahav' - is one golden Dinar.
(b)One could donate as little as he wanted, provide he explicitly said so.
(c)"Asham Hu" - implies that the Nedavah remains an Asham, that is eaten by Kohanim; whereas "Ashom Asham la'Hashem" - implies that it goes entirely to Hash-m.
(d)Yehoyada ha'Kohen explained that the money of Nedavah was used to buy Olos, whose flesh went to Hash-m, and the skin, to the Kohanim. In this way, both Pesukim were implemented.
(a)Rebbi Yehudah says that there was no box for Kinei Chovah. Why was that?
(b)The Beraisa permits a woman who gave birth or who just finished her term of Zivus, to place the money for her birds in the box marked 'Kinin'. What does the Beraisa go on to teach? How does this clash with Rebbi Yehudah's reason?
(c)What is the answer?
(d)Why is Rebbi Yehudah afraid that one of the birds may die? So what if it does? Why can we not just take four (small) Zuzim - the value of the Chatas - and throw it into the Yam ha'Melach?
(a)Rebbi Yehudah says that there was no box for Kinei Chovah - because he is concerned that someone who placed money in the Kinim box may die, and seeing as 'Chatas she'Meisu Ba'leha', all the money in the box will become Pasul and will have to go to the Yam ha'Melach.
(b)The Beraisa permits a woman who gave birth or who just finished her term of Zivus, to place the money for her birds in the box marked 'Kinin' - and she was permitted to eat Kodshim as from the following day. This is because she can rely on the officers to empty the box and bring the Korbanos on that same day. The officers, on the other hand, did not need to worry about the possibility that the owner may die. This appears to clash with Rebbi Yehudah, who is concerned that the person may die (although the Kashya itself is unclear, since the author of this Beraisa, who maintains that the Kinin included Chata'os, must be the Rabanan, and not Rebbi Yehudah).
(c)Rebbi Yehudah is concerned that the owner may die, and that all the birds in the box will then become forbidden. He agrees with the Beraisa however, that we do not contend with the suspicion that the owner may have already died, as long as we do not know that he has.
(d)It will not help, according to Rebbi Yehudah to take four (small) Zuzim - the value of the Chatas - and throw them into the Yam ha'Melach, because Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Ein Bereirah' (it will not become established retroactively that the money which they throw into the Yam ha'Melach was that of the Chatas). (Note: It seems that the Rabanan, who hold that the Kinin do incorporate Chata'os, hold 'Yesh Bereirah', in which case, even if one of the owners dies, they can take out four Zuzim and throw them into the Yam ha'Melach.)
(a)How much wood will someone who says 'Harei Alai Etz' need to bring?
(b)How do we prove this from a Mishnah in Yoma?
(c)Each piece of wood had to measure a square Amah thick and was an Amah in length. Why then, was it not a cube?
(d)Some compare the thickness of the wood to a Turteni. What is a Turteni, and what is the comparison?
(a)Someone who says 'Harei Alai Etz' - needs to bring only one piece of wood.
(b)We prove this from a Mishnah in Yoma - which states that two Kohanim carried two pieces of wood, one piece for each Kohen (which proves that one piece of wood is considered a Korban).
(c)Each piece of wood had to measure a square Amah thick and was an Amah in length. However, the thickness of the wood was measured by a large Amah, and the length, by an exact Amah. Consequently, the pieces were not cubes.
(d)Some compare the thickness of the wood to a 'Turteni' - the measuring-stem of a pair of scales. This opinion disagrees with the previous one, which gives the thickness of the wood as an Amah.
(a)Why was the piece of wood made in such a way as not to be a cubic Amah?
(b)How does the Gemara prove that the Mekom ha'Ma'arachah (the area on the Mizbe'ach where the Korbanos were burnt) was exactly one Amah square (See Hagahos ha'Gra)?
(c)We learn that the Levonah had to consist of a Kometz (a fistful) from a Gezeirah Shavah 'Azkarah' 'Azkarah'. From where do we learn it?
(d)The Gemara suggests that someone who donates Levonah should give two Kematzim.
2. On what grounds does Rebbi Iyla reject this suggestion?
(a)The piece of wood was deliberately made in such a way as so to be a bit less than a cubic Amah - because otherwise, it would not have been possible to fit it on to the Mekom ha'Ma'arachah, which was also an Amah square (and one cannot fit something that is a Amah square on to an area which is also a Amah square).
(b)The Gemara proves that the Mekom ha'Ma'arachah (the area on the Mizbe'ach where the Korbanos were burnt) was exactly one Amah square - from the fact that the Karkov (the area where the Kohanim walked) was an Amah, and each Keren was also an Amah. Consequently, if we deduct four Amos (of the two Keranos and the two opposite sides of the Karkov) from the five Amos by five Amos of the Mizbe'ach, we are left with one Amah by one Amah in the middle for the Me'kom ha'Ma'arachah.
(c)We learn that the Levonah had to consist of a Kometz (a fistful) from a Gezeirah Shavah 'Azkarah' 'Azkarah' - from the Korban Minchah.
(d)The Gemara suggests that someone who donates Levonah should give two Kematzim ...
1. ... because we should learn it from the Lechem ha'Panim (where there were two Kematzim, one for each row of loaves).
2. Rebbi Iyla rejects this suggestion - from the very fact that we learn the measure of a Kometz from the Lechem ha'Panim. Why is that? Because by the Lechem ha'Panim, each of the two Kematzim must be complete, and if one of them is short (even though the other one supplements the missing measure), the Levonah is Pasul, a clear indication that each Kometz is considered a separate entity (like a separate Korban).
(a)How do we derive from Rebbi Iyla that whoever donated Levonah, had to bring, not his own fistful, but that of the biggest Kohen serving that day in the Beis Hamikdash (though it is unclear how he would know which Kohen that would be)?
(b)What does Rebbi Chizkiyah quoting Rebbi Yirmiyah hold?
(c)We learn in our Mishnah that someone who undertook to donate gold to Hekdesh, had to give a golden Dinar. But that is only if he actually specified 'a coin'. How much would he have to give if he just said 'gold'?
(a)We derive from Rebbi Iyla that whoever donated Levonah, had to bring, not his own fistful, but that of the biggest Kohen serving that day in the Beis Hamikdash - from the fact that he derives it from the Lechem ha'Panim (and by the Lechem ha'Panim, they would not know in advance which Kohen would do the Avodah of the Levonah. Consequently, they would have to provide sufficient Levonah for the largest Kohen present, in order to take his Kometz-full, should he turn out to be the Kohen to bring the Levonah.
(b)According to Rebbi Chizkiyah quoting Rebbi Yirmeyahu - the donor needed to give his own fistful (and did not need to contend with the size of the Kohanim).
(c)Someone who said that he would donate 'gold' to Hekdesh - had to donate sufficient gold to construct the smallest usable vessel (i.e. a small fork).
(a)Our Mishnah says that there were six boxes for Nedavah. They may have corresponded to one of three things. What were the ...
1. ... six Batei Avos?
2. ... six animals?
3. ... six Korbanos?
(b)What logical reason does Rebbi Yochanan give for the large number of boxes for Nedavah?
1. The six Batei Avos - were the six divisions into which the weekly Beis-Av (also known as a Mishmar - who served that week in the Beis Hamikdash) were divided. Each one served on a different day of the week. When the Nedavos were brought on the Mizbe'ach, the Kohanim received the skins. Each Beis-Av its own box, so that the one should not be able to accuse the other of receiving the skins that were rightfully theirs. All the Batei-Avos served together on Shabbos however, in order to promote peace (because Shabbos is called 'Shabbos Shalom').
2. The six animals were - a bull, a calf, a goat, a ram, a kid-goat and a lamb (comprising all the animals from which a Korban Olah could be brought).
3. The six Korbanos were - Kinei Zavin v'Zavos, Kinei Yoldos, Chata'os, Ashamos, Asiris ha'Eifah (like Rebbi Elazar on Daf 6b, Menachos (i.e. Mosar Minchas Chotei). The leftovers of any of these were placed in its respective box and used for Kayitz Olas ha'Mizbe'ach.
(b)According to Rebbi Yochanan, the reason for the large number of boxes for Nedavah is because of the large amount of money that went into them (in order to distribute the money evenly, to prevent it from going bad - due to the pressure of so many coins).
(a)According to the Pasuk in Melachim, Yehoyada ha'Kohen made a box and placed it on the right-hand side of the Mizbe'ach; whereas the Pasuk in Divrei Hayamim says that he placed it outside the gate. Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni quoting Rebbi Yonasan says that there were two boxes. How does Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael reconcile the two Pesukim to learn that there was only one box?
(b)Rebbi Chona proves from the Pasuk in Melachim "Ach Lo Ye'aseh Beis Hash-m Sipos Kesef Mezamros" ... that there must have been two boxes. What is the proof from there?
(a)According to Tana d'Bei Rebbi Yishmael, despite the apparent contradiction in the Pesukim, there was only one box. Yehoyada ha'Kohen made a box and placed it on the right-hand side of the Mizbe'ach. The King however, moved it to outside the gate - to enable people who were Tamei to place their money there, too.
(b)Rebbi Chona proves from the Pasuk in Melachim "Ach Lo Ye'aseh Beis Hash-m Sipos Kesef Mezamros" ... that there must have been two boxes. Because from that Pasuk it is clear that they did not purchase Klei Shares from the main donation that was placed beside the Mizbe'ach inside the Azarah. In that case, the Pasuk in Divrei ha'Yamim, which says that they did indeed construct Klei Shares, must be speaking about the proceeds from the box that was placed outside the gate.
HADRAN ALACH PEREK SHELOSHAH-ASAR SHOFROS