1) AGADAH: BINYAMIN'S REWARD
QUESTION: The Gemara teaches that Binyamin was distressed when he learned that his portion of Eretz Yisrael would not contain all parts of the Beis ha'Mikdash and Mizbe'ach. In his portion would be only the Mizbe'ach and the parts of the Beis ha'Mikdash to the west of the Mizbe'ach, while in the portion of Yehudah would be the parts of the Beis ha'Mikdash to the east of the Mizbe'ach and a strip right beneath the eastern (and southern) base of the Mizbe'ach. Binyamin was distressed that he would receive only part of the Mizbe'ach and not the entire Mizbe'ach.
As reward for his strong desire to have all of the parts of the Beis ha'Mikdash in his portion, Binyamin merited "to become the host for the Almighty." RASHI in Megilah (26a, DH v'Na'aseh) explains that this means that "the Aron ha'Kodesh was placed in his portion."
The MAHARSHA asks that if Binyamin saw that his portion of land would contain most of the Mizbe'ach except for one small strip on the eastern side of the Mizbe'ach, then certainly he knew that the Mizbe'ach and the area to the west of it would all be in his portion. Accordingly, he already knew that the Aron ha'Kodesh would be in his portion. What, then, does the Gemara mean when it says that Binyamin was rewarded for his feelings of distress by having the Aron ha'Kodesh in his portion? It was already in his portion!
ANSWERS:
(a) Hash-m revealed to Binyamin that both he and Yehudah would have parts of the Mizbe'ach in their respective portions. Binyamin, however, did not know exactly how this distribution would be executed. All he knew was that he would share the Mizbe'ach with Yehudah. Since he so strongly desired to have all of the Beis ha'Mikdash in his portion, he merited to receive the area to the side of the Mizbe'ach that contained the Aron ha'Kodesh.
(b) The TORAH TEMIMAH (Devarim 33:12; see also IYUN YAKOV) gives a different explanation for what the Gemara means when it says that Binyamin merited "to become the host for the Almighty."
The Gemara in Zevachim (118b) says that the Shechinah dwelled among the Jewish people in three places: in the Mishkan in Shilo, in Nov and Giv'on, and in the Beis ha'Mikdash in Yerushalayim. All three places were in the portion of Binyamin. Binyamin foresaw that he would have the Aron ha'Kodesh in his portion in the Beis ha'Mikdash, while Yehudah would have in his portion only a strip from the Mizbe'ach. As reward for his distress that the eastern base of the Mizbe'ach would not be in his portion, Binyamin merited that the other places in which the Aron ha'Kodesh would reside would be in his portion as well. (This may be the intention of Rashi in Megilah.)
(c) The IYUN YAKOV answers this question based on the Midrash. The Midrash explains that the verse, "u'Vein Keseifav Shachen" -- "and He dwells between his shoulders" (Devarim 33:12), alludes Hash-m's dwelling in the portion of Binyamin at all times, even when there is no Beis ha'Mikdash. Binyamin's reward for his distress is that even when the Beis ha'Mikdash is not standing, the Shechinah rests in Binyamin's portion. (See also Insights to Megilah 26:2 and Yoma 12:3.)
54b----------------------------------------54b
2) WAS THERE A "SHAMIR" IN THE TIME OF THE SECOND BEIS HA'MIKDASH?
OPINIONS: The Gemara discusses the construction of the Mizbe'ach in the second Beis ha'Mikdash. One of the important requirements of the construction of the Mizbe'ach is that the stones must be whole, and they may not be shaped in any way with the use of metal utensils, as the verses teach, "You will build with whole stones the Mizbe'ach of Hash-m, your G-d" (Devarim 26:7), and "Mizbe'ach Avanim Lo Sanif Aleihem Barzel" -- "A Mizbe'ach of stones, do not wield on them metal" (Devarim 26:5).
The Gemara in Sotah (48b) relates that in the first Beis ha'Mikdash, the stones were cut using the Shamir, the miraculous stone-cutting worm. The Gemara here, however, makes no mention of the use of the Shamir in cutting the stones of the Mizbe'ach in the second Beis ha'Mikdash. Was the Shamir in existence during the building of the second Beis ha'Mikdash?
(a) TOSFOS (DH Avanim) cites many proofs that the Shamir existed during the period of the building of the second Beis ha'Mikdash. One proof is from the Mishnah in Sotah (48a). The Mishnah there first states, "When the first Nevi'im died, the Urim v'Tumim stopped." The Mishnah then states, "When the Beis ha'Mikdash was destroyed, the Shamir became extinct." Tosfos explains that the phrase, "When the Beis ha'Mikdash was destroyed," must refer to the second Beis ha'Mikdash, because the Gemara there explains that the phrase, "When the first Nevi'im died," refers to the destruction of the first Beis ha'Mikdash. If the phrase, "When the Beis ha'Mikdash was destroyed," would refer to the first Beis ha'Mikdash, then the Mishnah should make both statements together, saying, "When the first Nevi'im died, the Urim v'Tumim stopped and the Shamir became extinct." The fact that the Mishnah separates these two occurrences into two cases shows that they happened in two different time periods. Hence, the second phrase is teaching that the Shamir became extinct only after the destruction of the second Beis ha'Mikdash.
Tosfos adds that the Gemara in Kidushin (31a) relates the story of Dama ben Nesinah, the Nochri who excelled in his honor of his father and who refused to wake up his father in order to sell the precious stones needed for the Efod. Tosfos says that this incident occurred during the time of the second Beis ha'Mikdash. The Gemara in Sotah (48b) says that according to all opinions, these stones may be cut only by the Shamir. It must be that the Shamir existed in the times of the second Beis ha'Mikdash.
However, Tosfos does not explain why the Gemara here makes no mention of the use of the Shamir in the cutting of the stones for the Mizbe'ach in the second Beis ha'Mikdash.
(b) The MINCHAS CHINUCH (95:6) writes that the RAMBAM and RAMBAN disagree with Tosfos and maintain that the Shamir did not exist in the time of the second Beis ha'Mikdash. The Minchas Chinuch points out that the Rambam (Hilchos Klei ha'Mikdash 9:7) does not record the Halachah, quoted by Tosfos, in the Gemara in Sotah (48b) that the stones of the Efod must be made with the Shamir. The Minchas Chinuch suggests that the Rambam must have had a source which taught that the lack of a Shamir does not disqualify the stones of the Efod.
The MISHNEH L'MELECH explains that the Ramban understands the Gemara in Sotah differently from Tosfos. The Ramban understands that when the Gemara there mentions the stones of the Efod, it does not refer to the stones of the Efod but to the stones of the Choshen, which is sometimes called the Efod (since the two are connected). Only the stones of the Choshen must be carved by the Shamir, but not the actual stones on the Efod. Since there was no Choshen in the times of the second Beis ha'Mikdash (according to the Rambam), the absence of the Shamir was not a problem.
The SHITAH LO NODA L'MI and the ME'IRI in Kidushin (31a) also maintain that there was no Shamir in the times of the second Beis ha'Mikdash. (Y. MONTROSE)