1)

(a)Rav Shimi bar Chiya learns the words "ve'Chein Ta'asu" (in the Pasuk in Terumah, in connection with the construction of the Mishkan] "ke'Chol asher Ani Mareh oscha ... ve'Chein Ta'asu)" that - whenever they would later consecrate the Batei Mikdash, it had to follow the same pattern as that of the Mishkan.

(b)Besides the seventy elders, we learn the necessary participation of all the dignitaries in our Mishnah from the Mishkan - from Moshe (who was a king and a Navi) and Aharon (who was a Kohen Gadol, and who probably wore the Urim ve'Tumim [see Tosfos DH 've'Chein']).

(c)Even though the Meshichah (the anointing) that consecrated the vessels in the Mishkan, the Beraisa rules that, from now on - it was the Avodah that would consecrate them.

2)

(a)Rava queries Rav Shimi bar Ashi's previous D'rashah from the current Beraisa in that - based on the Pasuk "ve'Chein Ta'asu", future consecrations ought to be conducted through Meshichah?

(b)To answer the Kashya, we learn from the word "Osam" (in the Pasuk in Naso "Va'yimshachem Va'yekadesh Osam") - that Meshichah was confined to that generation only ('Osam bi'Meshichah, ve'Lo le'Doros bi'Meshichah').

(c)And Rav Papa learns from the word "Yesharsu" (in the Pasuk in Bamidbar "Asher Yesharsu bam ba'Kodesh") that - from then on, exclusively Sheirus (Avodah) would consecrate the vessels, and not a choice of Meshichah or Sheirus (which is how we might otherwise have explained "Osam" [that generation alone had to use Meshichah exclusively).

(d)Now that we have the Pasuk "Yesharsu", we need "Osam" - to preclude Meshichah from future generations (otherwise we would have said that future consecrations require both Meshichah and Sheirus).

3)

(a)Nechemyah too, used two Todos for the consecration of the walls of Yerushalayim. The procession walked ...

1. ... along the top of the wall, whilst ...

2. ... the Todos walked outside the wall (see Tosfos Amud Beis DH 'Amtu'. See also "Maharatz Chiyos').

(b)They walked - towards their right (like we do during the Hakafos).

(c)When the Pasuk refers to "Sh'tei Todos Gedolos", it cannot mean the largest species, because then it should have written specifically 'bulls'. Neither can it mean large animals, which are of no significance, bearing in mind what the Torah writes "Isheh Re'ach Nicho'ach" by animals and bird-offerings and by flour-offerings, from which we learn that - it is not the size of the Korban that counts, but the devotion that accompanies it (see Ritva).

(d)Consequently, Rav Chisda concludes - the Pasuk must be referring to the largest of the species of Lachmei Todah (the Chametz loaves as we shall see shortly), corroborating the ruling of the Beraisa, which establishes the 'Todah' in our Mishnah as bread (to preclude the animals).

4)

(a)We have learned in the Mishnah in Menachos, that five Sa'ah Yerushalmiyos (which was originally six Midbariyos) were used for the bread of the Todah, This is - the equivalent of two Eifah.

(b)The Todah comprises four types of loaves ...

(c)... three of Matzah and one of Chametz.

(d)Bearing in mind that twenty Isronos of an Eifah (an Isaron is 'a tenth') are used, ten of these for the Matzah loaves, and ten for the Chametz loaves - each Chametz loaf was three times the size of a Matzah one.

5)

(a)According to Rami bar Chama, the Azarah itself can only be consecrated by the leftovers of the Minchah - because, like the consecration of Yerushalayim (which we learn from Nechemyah), the Azarah must be consecrated by something that can be eaten inside it.

(b)The problem with this is - why the Lachmei Todah, which can also be eaten in the Azarah, are not eligible too.

(c)So we amend his reason to read that - like Yerushalayim, the Azarah can only be consecrated with something that will become Pasul if it leaves its confines (which the Todah, which is Kodshim Kalim, and can be eaten anywhere in Yerushalayim, will not).

6)

(a)The suggestion that the Azarah, like Yerushalayim, must be consecrated with Chametz loaves is basically wrong - since there is no such thing as a Chametz Minchah (seeing as all Menachos must be baked Matzah).

(b)Neither is it possible to use the leftovers Chametz of the part of the Minchah that is eaten by the Kohanikm for the consecration, because of Resh Lakish, who learns from the juxtaposition of "Chelkam" to "Lo Se'afeh Chametz" that - even the part of the Minchah that is eaten by the Kohanim may not be baked Chametz.

(c)The only Minchah that is baked Chametz is - the Sh'tei ha'Lechem on Shevu'os.

(d)We cannot simply require the Beis-Hamikdash to be built at Shevu'os time, in order to consecrate it with the Sh'tei ha'Lechem - because either the building on Yom-Tov or the consecration will cause problems, as we shall now see.

7)

(a)It is not possible to build the Beis-Hamikdash on Erev Shavu'os and to consecrate it ...

1. ... then - because the Sh'tei ha'Lechem only become sanctified with the Shechitah of the two lambs (which are brought together with them, on Shavu'os).

2. ... on Shavu'os - because the consecration must take place on the same day that the Beis-Hamikdash is built.

(b)Nor can one build the Beis-Hamikdash ...

1. ... on Yom-Tov and consecrate it then - because the building of the Beis-Hamikdash does not override Yom-Tov.

2. ... after Yom-Tov and consecrate it then - because by that time the Sh'tei ha'Lechem will be Pasul be'Linah, by remaining uneaten until the morning ...

(c)... like all Kodshei Kodshim).

(d)The only remaining possibility is - to build the Beis-Hamikdash on Erev Yom-Tov, leaving a little to be completed on Motza'ei Yom-Tov (before midnight [when it will become Pasul mi'de'Rabbanan]), and to consecrate it then.

(e)We reject that too, however, based on the Pasuk in Beha'aloscha "*u've'Yom* Hakim es ha'Mishkan" - from which we learn that the Beis-Hamikdash cannot be built at night-time.

8)

(a)The Berasia now discusses the Shir - where they played harps, ten-stringed harps and cymbals ...

(b)... which were placed - in every corner and on every large stone in Yerushalayim.

(c)Besides 'Mizmor le'Sodah' and 'Aromimcha Hash-m ' (the Song of Consecration), they also played/sang 'Yoshev be'Seiser Elyon' (until "ki Atah Hash-m Machsi ... "), which is called ...

1. ... 'Shir shel Nega'im' (meaning 'plagues') - because it contains the phrase "ve'Nega Lo Yikrav be'Ohalecha".

2. ... 'Shir shel Pega'im' (meaning 'misfortunes') - because of the phrase "Yipol mi'Tzidcha Elef" (which teaches us that when Hash-m is with us, plagues and misfortunes will circumvent us).

(d)Finally, they sang Kapitel 3 ('Mizmor le'David, be'Vorcho Mipnei Avshalom B'no') - because it describes the derision of Yehudah and Binyamin's enemies, as Yehudah and Binyamin labored to erect the walls of Yerushalayim (the success of which is heralded by the current ceremony).

9)

(a)The problem with Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who would recite 'Sir shel Pega'im' before going to sleep is that - he himself issued another ruling forbidding the use of Torah as a cure.

(b)We resolve the problem - by confining the latter to where there is already a wound (to preclude the use of Pesukim to shield oneself from illness, which is permitted).

(c)The Mishnah in Sanhedrin states that someone who 'whispers Pesukim over a wound ('ha'Lochesh al ha'Makah') - loses his portion in the World to Come - posing a Kashya on Rebbi Yehosha ben Levi's second statement, which merely forbids it.

(d)We resolve the problem by citing Rebbi Yochanan, who establishes that Mishnah - by someone who also spits before reciting the Pesukim (and mentioning the Name of Hash-m after spitting is strictly forbidden) ...

(e)... and it is only then that one loses one's portion in the World to Come.

10)

(a)Our Mishnah implies that the Sanhedrin walked in front of the two Todah loaves. To reconcile this with the Pasuk in Nechemyah "Vayeilech Achareihem (behind the loaves) Hoshayah va'Chatzi Sarei Yehudah" we explain that - the Pasuk is only describing how the loaves, as well as the Sanhedrin, formed part of the ceremony (and in fact, they went at the side but in front of the Sanhedrin), and it was the whole of Yisrael who went behind the Sanhedrin.

(b)The Kohanim carried the loaves.

(c)Rebbi Chiya and Rebbi Shimon b'Rebbi argue over how the loaves went. One of them says that the Kohanim carried them one next to the other, the other that - they went one behind the other.

(d)According to the first opinion, the 'inner loaf' (the one that was eaten) refers to the one that was closest to the wall, according to the second opinion, it refers to the one that was behind, the one that was closest to the Sanhedrin.

11)

(a)We initially assume the fact that the inner loaf is eaten, to be easily understandable according to the second opinion - because we think at first, that the preceding loaf consecrated the area in question, in which case the second loaf was then within the sanctified area.

(b)This reason is more problematic than we first thought however - because one loaf does not consecrate the area in question without the other.

(c)Nor will the problem be solved if we assume that any one of the requirements in our Mishnah will suffice - because the two loaves are considered one Mitzvah, and cannot therefore be divided under any circumstances.

(d)We finally attribute the fact that the inner loaf is eaten and the outer one, burned - to the fact that the Nevi'im Chagai, Malachi and Zecharyah were there, and they instituted via Ru'ach ha'Kodesh that the one must be eaten and the other is burned (irrespective of whether the loaves went one beside the other or one behind and one in front).