Question: This is difficult. What pressed Rav Nachman to change the simple meaning of the Mishnah? Many Stam Mishnayos hold that the holiness is forever as stated in the Mishnah in Megilah (10a). The Mishnah in Zevachim (112b) also states that there is no taking away the holiness of Yerushalayim.

Implied Question: Despite the fact that this could cause one to sin, they included it (according to the Maharsha, by doing as much as they could to show they were establishing such holiness) as part of Yerushalayim. (Why?)

Answer: This was in order that they should be more dedicated to this area when it is known as being holy (even though it was not actually made holy).

Question: In Chagigah (3b), when discussing people in Amon and Moav taking Ma'aser Ani on Shemitah, Rebbi Eliezer states that Yerushalayim did not have holiness for the future.

In Beitzah (3b), Rebbi Eliezer also holds that a circle of figs that is Terumah which became mixed amongst other regular circles of figs can be considered nullified, as explained in the Beraisa regarding cut fig cakes. The one who holds this is of the opinion that Terumah nowadays is Rabbinic in nature, as is apparent from Yevamos (81a).

Answer: It is possible to answer that the holiness of the land regarding Terumah and Ma'aser stopped. Our Gemara is discussing the holiness of the walls (of Yerushalayim) which possibly did not stop, as the walls are still called "an inheritance." The holiness of Batei Arei Chomah, discussed nearby, is also dependent on the holiness of the walls.

Even though the holiness of the land is nullified, in Beitzah (5b) Rebbi Eliezer sought to make Kerem Revai (grapes from the fourth year of the vines) ownerless in order for them to be acquired by the poor. This is because according to Rabbinic law, they should have to be taken to Yerushalayim.

Question: If the holiness of the walls is also not holy in the future according to Rebbi Eliezer, what will the poor people gain, being that they cannot eat it in Yerushalayim? If they merely redeem the fruits, how will they benefit?

Answer #1: It is possible to answer that being that they can redeem these grapes Lechatchilah with a Perutah (small copper coin), even though the grapes are worth much more, being that there is no loss to Hekdesh and the Beis Hamikdash is not extant. This is apparent from the Gemara in Erchin (29a) that discusses a person who made all of his possessions Hekdesh. (Rav Yehudah told him he could take four Zuz, transfer the holiness from his possessions to them, and then throw them in the river.)

Answer #2: Alternatively, Rebbi Eliezer admits that Ezra made the walls holy forever.

Question: This is difficult. Why doesn't the Mishnah earlier say two that are six, as we require a Pasuk in the Gemara to teach that becoming impure in the Mikdash also makes one liable?

Answer: Our Mishnah is only discussing impurity that happened outside the Beis Hamikdash.

Implied Question: Despite the fact that we derive later how long one must wait, we do not know for sure that he will receive lashes or Kares for this. (Why not?)

Answer: One might think that there is just a prohibition against it (but not lashes or Kares).

Question: While this could be a source for the punishment, what is the source for the warning? (Every punishment in the Torah has a Pasuk warning not to commit the sin, and another Pasuk stating the punishment.)

Answer: It is possible to answer that the warning is the Pasuk, "And they should not make their camps impure." This implies that this is even forbidden if he became impure in the Mikdash.

This is unlike Rashi's opinion that, "And they should not make impure" means that he became impure outside the Beis Hamikdash and not in the Azarah. Rashi understands this Pasuk cannot be discussing when he became impure in the Beis Hamikdash, as he already made the Azarah impure (and is therefore not the implication of "And they should not make impure").

Implied Question: However, the Gemara originally asks how we know this. (Why doesn't it quote this Pasuk?)

Answer #1: This is because the Pasuk is not yet extra. We therefore cannot establish, "They will not make impure" as referring to anything besides becoming impure outside the Beis Hamikdash which we find that the Torah warned about previously, as the Pasuk says, "And to the Mikdash you should not go."

Answer #2: It additionally seems that originally the Gemara only asked regarding Kares. However, it is clear there is a warning. This is because "They should not make impure" clearly implies becoming impure in the Beis Hamikdash as well. This is as the Pasuk states, "And they will send from the camp (implying someone who became impure in the camp)." However, the Pasuk regarding Kares implies it is referring to something that is fit to be cleansed before the Mishkan becomes impure (see Tosfos ha'Rosh for more explanation on this last statement).

Opinion #1: Rashi explains that there was no longer permission to sacrifice on a Bamah (private altar) after the Beis Hamikdash was built.

Question: This is difficult. If so, we should deduce from here that Rebbi Eliezer holds that the holiness is forever.

According to the Sefarim that have the text Rebbi Elazar, this is still difficult. One could ask that in Chulin (7a) it says that he (Yehudah the son of Rebbi Shimon ben Pazi) missed that Rebbi Shimon ben Elyakim says in the name of Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua that the first holiness...was not holy in the future.

Opinion #2: It is possible to explain that the "holiness that is forever" means that its holiness was extant much longer than that of the Mishkan.

Opinion #3: Alternatively, being that it is not fitting to make any other place holy besides the place of the Beis Hamikdash (unlike the Mishkan which changed locations, the Third Beis Hamikdash will be built in the same locations as the other Batei Mikdash), it is called "holiness that is forever."

Observation: The Gemara implies here that even though the Mikdash is called a Mishkan we do not derive one from the other, unless there are extra Pesukim indicating that we should.

Additionally, in Sotah (16a) the Gemara requires a Pasuk to include Shiloh and the Beis Hamikdash. Similarly, in Yoma (67b) the Pasuk "Midbar, ha'Midbarah" (see Gemara there) includes Nov, Givon, Shiloh, and the Beis Hamikdash.

The same (that a Pasuk is needed to connect the two) is true in Yoma (44a) regarding the Pasuk, "And no man should be in the Ohel Moed" and Yoma (53a) regarding Ma'aleh Ashan. (The Gemara there derives from a Pasuk that this special grass that makes the smoke rise straight up is also in the Ketores offered in the Beis Hamikdash.)

Question: This is difficult. In Chulin (24a), regarding the Levites, we derive that one might think that this is also the case regarding Shiloh and the Beis Hamikdash. This is why the Pasuk says, "la'Avod Avodas Avodah etc." This teaches that we only say this when the work must be shouldered (i.e. the Mishkan was carried around). This implies that without a Pasuk we would derive one from the other.

In Eiruvin (2a), the Gemara derives that Shelamim that were slaughtered before the opening of the doors of the Heichal are invalid. This is as the Pasuk says, "And they slaughtered at the opening of the Ohel Moed." We derive that this applies to the Heichal (i.e. Ohel Moed) because the Mishkan is called a Mikdash and the Mikdash is called a Mishkan.

Answer: Perhaps the Shas knew in Eiruvin and Chulin that the Pasuk "Ohel Moed" was extra. In Chulin, when we exclude Shiloh and the Beis Hamikdash, we establish this (the extra Pasuk "Ohel Moed") as being used for another derivation.

Question: However, this is difficult. Being that Mikdash is called Mishkan and Mishkan is called Mikdash, why don't we always know that they are derived from one Pasuk (total), just as we always derive Chayah (undomesticated animal) and Beheimah (domesticated animal) from each other, as one is considered to include the other?

Answer: Rabeinu Chaim Cohen differentiated that laws that are not dependent on the Kedushah of the place, such as the derivations in Eiruvin and Chulin, can have one Pasuk for both the Mishkan and Mikdash. However, regarding Gemaros that depend on the holiness of the place, we do not learn one from the other for the reason explained by Rebbi Elazar.

Similarly, the teachings in Yoma regarding things done in the Beis Hamikdash are relevant to the holiness of the place. Sending the Sa'ir la'Azazel is derived from the Pasuk about the other Sa'ir (ha'Pnimi). The derivation in Sotah is requires the use of the floor of the Mishkan.

Text: Some do not have our text, "Let it state Mikdash regarding both etc." Rather, they have the text, "Let us analyze this. The Mikdash is called a Mishkan, and the Mishkan is called a Mikdash. Why say both Mikdash and Mishkan?"

Question: This is difficult. If so, Rebbi Elazar who is an Amora is arguing on Rebbi Elazar who is a Tana, as Rebbi Elazar explicitly says we do not derive one from the other!

Answer: Rabeinu Shlomo from Droish answers that Rebbi Elazar also holds that we derive one from the other because the Mishkan is called a Mikdash and the Mikdash is called a Mishkan.

This is what the Gemara means when it says, "If Mikdash is said, why say Mishkan." Being that two Pesukim have to be said to include someone who became impure inside the Mishkan/Beis Hamikdash as stated by Rebbi Elazar, why did the Pasuk change its terminology? It should say Mishkan or Beis Hamikdash twice!

The Gemara answers that if Mikdash was stated by both, I would say that the second Pasuk was stated to exclude the Mishkan. I would not say that the Mishkan is called the Mikdash, and that one would be liable for becoming impure inside the Mishkan. Similarly, if the word Mishkan would be said by both, I would think this excludes the Mikdash. This is why both Mishkan and Mikdash are written.

Now that we know this, one Pasuk is good enough for both. We can now understand this applies to both, because the Mikdash is called a Mishkan. This means that one of these Pesukim is extra. It must be that this extra Pasuk includes becoming impure inside the Beis Hamikdash.

Question: There is difficulty from all of the Gemaros quoted above that do require two separate Pesukim for the Mikdash and Mishkan.

In the Gemara in Sotah (16a), Rashi does not have the text, "Nov and Givon" because the Sotos would not drink in Nov and Givon, as is apparent from the Gemara in Zevachim (112a).

Question: Why regarding the teaching from "ha'Midbar" "ha'Midbarah" (in Yoma 67b) do we have to specifically mention Nov and Givon (besides Shiloh) more than in other cases (where the Mishkan is referred to merely as Shiloh)?

Answer: Regarding this topic the Pasuk says, "Kapores...And he will sprinkle towards the Kapores" that is referring to the Aron (ark of the covenant). In Nov and Givon there was no Aron. (The Pasuk therefore presumably would not be discussing Nov and Givon, unless implied otherwise.)

Question: However, this is difficult according to the Riva. Regarding Maleh Ashan (in Yoma 53a), the Pasuk also says, "Kapores!" (Even so, the Gemara does not specifically mention that this also applies to Nov and Givon!)

Answer: It appears to the Riva regarding the sending of the Sa'ir la'Azazel that the Pasuk says, "sending from the camp." (The Riva is negating the answer given above, and giving his own answer to the question regarding the Gemara in Yoma.) This is why the inclusion is necessary, as it is possible that the holiness of the camps did not apply to Nov and Givon, being that the Bamos were permitted to be used during their existence.

Question: This is difficult. We find that bowing down is also done on one's face, as stated in the Pasuk, "And Yosef took them away from his knees, and he bowed down towards him on the his face on the ground." The Pasuk also states, "On the face on the ground they will bow to you." The Pasuk also says, "And he did Kidah and bowed down to (i.e. on) his face."

Answers: It is possible to answer that we know from tradition that Kidah refers to bowing on one's face, and we are merely saying that we also see this from the Pasuk. (The Tosfos ha'Rosh adds that "Hishtachavah" -- "bowing down" can be both either on one's face or just spreading out one's body.)