(ט) גָּד֣וֹל יִֽהְיֶ֡ה כְּבוֹד֩ הַבַּ֨יִת הַזֶּ֤ה הָאַֽחֲרוֹן֙ מִן־הָ֣רִאשׁ֔וֹן אָמַ֖ר ה' צְבָא֑וֹת וּבַמָּק֤וֹם הַזֶּה֙ אֶתֵּ֣ן שָׁל֔וֹם נְאֻ֖ם ה' צְבָאֽוֹת׃
(9) The glory of this latter House shall be greater than that of the former one, said the LORD of Hosts; and in this place I will grant prosperity—declares the LORD of Hosts.
אלו חמשה דברים שהיו בין מקדש ראשון למקדש שני ואלו הן: ארון וכפורת, וכרובים, אש ושכינה, ורוח הקודש, ואורים ותומים
The Gemara asks: How is that possible? It is a wooden vessel designated to rest in a fixed place and not to be moved. And it was taught: Any wooden vessel designated to rest in a fixed place is not susceptible to ritual impurity, and it serves as a barrier before impurity, preventing its transmission. Rather, the fact that the table is described as pure teaches that the priests lift it in order to display the shewbread to the Festival pilgrims, and they say to them: See how beloved you are before the Omnipresent, as the bread is as hot at its removal on Shabbat, after a week on the table, as it was at its arrangement, as it is stated: “To put out hot bread on the day it was taken away” (I Samuel 21:7). Since the table was moved on occasion, it was not considered a wooden vessel designated to rest and was therefore susceptible to impurity. At the same time, it is clear that the miracle of the shewbread was a miracle performed outside the Sanctuary, as it was visible to all. The Gemara asks: And are there no more miracles performed in the Temple? But didn’t Rav Oshaya say: When Solomon built the Temple he planted all sorts of precious golden fruits there, and these brought forth their fruit in their appointed season like other trees, and when the wind blew them the fruit would fall, as it is stated: “May his fruits rustle like Lebanon” (Psalms 72:16). This indicates that fruits grew in Lebanon, which the Sages interpreted as a reference to the Temple, which was built with cedar trees from Lebanon. And when the gentiles entered the Sanctuary the golden tree withered, as it stated: “And the blossoms of Lebanon wither” (Nahum 1:4). And the Holy One, Blessed be He, will restore the miraculous trees to Israel in the future, as it is stated: “It shall blossom abundantly, it shall also rejoice and shout, the glory of Lebanon will be given to it” (Isaiah 35:2). Apparently, there were additional miracles in the Temple. The Gemara responds: The tanna does not count perpetual miracles on the list. The Gemara comments: Now that you have arrived at this solution, it can resolve an earlier difficulty as well: The Ark and the cherubs are also not counted, since they too were perpetual miracles. § The Master said in listing the miracles that even strong winds were unable to displace the smoke of the arrangement of wood. The Gemara asks: And did smoke rise from the arrangement of wood on the altar? But wasn’t it taught in a baraita: There were five matters stated with regard to the fire of the arrangement of wood: It crouched above the wood like a lion; and it was as clear as the light of the sun; and it had substance to the extent that it could be felt; it was powerful enough to consume wet wood like dry wood; and it did not raise smoke. The Gemara answers: When we said that the smoke was not displaced, indicating that the wood produced smoke, that was in reference to the fire brought by a person, as it was taught in a baraita: “And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar” (Leviticus 1:7), indicating that even though fire descends from the heavens, still there is a special mitzva to bring fire by a person. The fire that the priests brought produced smoke, and the miracle related to that smoke. The Gemara asks: And was the altar’s fire crouched like a lion? But wasn’t it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, said: I saw the fire in the Temple and it was crouched like a dog and not a lion? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, where the baraita stated that the fire resembled a lion, it refers to the fire in the First Temple; there, where Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, said that the fire resembled a dog, it refers to the fire in the Second Temple. The Gemara asks: And was there fire that descended from the heavens in the Second Temple? Didn’t Rav Shmuel bar Inya say: What is the meaning of that which is written with regard to the Second Temple: “Go up to the hills and get wood and build the house; and I will look on it favorably and I will be glorified [ve’ekkaved], said the Lord” (Haggai 1:8)? Even though it is written ve’ekkaved, we read it ve’ikkavda, with an added letter heh. The Gemara explains: What is different that the word is missing the letter heh? This represents five, the numerological value of heh, phenomena that constituted the difference between the First Temple and the Second Temple, in that they were not in the Second Temple. And these are: The Ark of the Covenant, and the Ark cover upon it, and the cherubs that were on the Ark cover; fire; and the Divine Presence; and the Divine Spirit; and the Urim VeTummim. Apparently, there was no fire from heaven in the Second Temple. The Sages say in response: Yes, there was fire from heaven in the Second Temple; however, it did not assist in burning the offerings but was merely visible above the wood. Apropos the fire on the altar, the Gemara cites a related baraita. The Sages taught that there are six kinds of fire: There is fire that consumes solids and does not consume liquids; and there is fire that consumes liquids and does not consume solids; and there is fire that consumes solids and consumes liquids; and there is fire that consumes wet objects like dry objects; and there is fire that repels other fire; and there is fire that consumes other fire. The Gemara elaborates: There is fire that consumes solids and does not consume liquids; that is our standard fire that consumes dry items but does not dry liquids.
Fire that consumes liquids and does not consume solids is the fever of the sick that dehydrates the body but does not consume the flesh.
Fire that consumes solids and consumes liquids is the fire of Elijah the Prophet, as it is written: “And fire fell from the sky and consumed the offering and the wood and the stones and the earth, and it licked up the water that was in the trench” (I Kings 18:38).
Fire that consumes wet objects like dry objects is the fire of the arrangement of wood.
There is fire that repels other fire; that is the fire of the angel Gabriel. The book of Daniel relates that Gabriel was an angel of fire who descended to the fiery furnace, repelled the fire, and rescued Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, who had been cast inside.
And there is fire that consumes other fire; that is the fire of the Divine Presence, as the Master said in another context: The Holy One, Blessed be He, extended His finger between the angels, who are also made of fire, and burned them. The fire of the Divine Presence consumed the fire of the angels. § The Gemara asks: And with regard to the smoke of the arrangement, is it so that even if all the winds in the world come and blow it, they do not move it from its place and it rises directly heavenward? Didn’t Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Avdimi say: At the conclusion of the final day of the festival of Sukkot, everyone looks to the smoke of the arrangement of wood; if the wind blew from the south and the smoke tends toward the north, the poor were glad and the homeowners were sad. This is because it was a sign that the year’s rains would be plentiful, producing an abundant crop on the one hand, but on the other hand, the fruit would rot due to the humidity, rendering it impossible to store the abundant harvest. This forced the landowners to sell quickly at a lower price. And if a northern wind caused the smoke to tend toward the south, the poor were sad and the homeowners were glad, because it was an indication that the year’s rains would be sparse. The yield would be low, and it would be easy to store the fruit and sell it at a higher price. If a western wind caused the smoke to tend to the east, that was an indication that there would be sufficient rainfall to ensure a substantial crop, and at the same time, it would be possible to store the fruit, and everyone was glad. If an eastern wind caused the smoke to tend to the west that was an indication that there would be a drought because eastern winds do not bring rain, and everyone was sad. Apparently, wind causes the smoke rising from the arrangement of wood to move. The Gemara responds: The smoke comes and goes like a palm tree, swaying in the wind, but it did not disperse. The Master said: If a western wind caused the pillar of smoke to tend to the east everyone is glad; if an eastern wind caused the smoke to tend to the west everyone was sad. And the Gemara raised a contradiction, as the Sages said: An eastern wind is always good; a western wind is always bad; a northern wind is good for wheat when it has reached one-third of its potential growth, and bad for olives when they are ripening; a southern wind is bad for wheat when it has reached one-third of its potential growth, and good for olives when they are ripening. And Rav Yosef said, and some say it was Mar Zutra who said it: And your mnemonic for which is good for wheat and which for olives is that in the Temple the table was in the north and the candelabrum was in the south of the Sanctuary. Bread made out of wheat was placed on the table, and oil made out of olives was burned in the candelabrum. The wind coming from this side, the north, increased its own component, wheat; and the wind coming from this side, the south, increased its own component, olives. In any event, there are contradictory opinions with regard to the effect of western and eastern winds. The Gemara responds: This is not difficult: This opinion that a wind from the east is good is for us, in Babylonia. Babylonia is a land whose water is plentiful, and a dry east wind will not harm the crop at all. This opinion that a wind from the east is harmful is for them, in Eretz Yisrael. That is a land where water is sparse, and the dry east wind will dry the land and ruin the crops.
Fire that consumes liquids and does not consume solids is the fever of the sick that dehydrates the body but does not consume the flesh.
Fire that consumes solids and consumes liquids is the fire of Elijah the Prophet, as it is written: “And fire fell from the sky and consumed the offering and the wood and the stones and the earth, and it licked up the water that was in the trench” (I Kings 18:38).
Fire that consumes wet objects like dry objects is the fire of the arrangement of wood.
There is fire that repels other fire; that is the fire of the angel Gabriel. The book of Daniel relates that Gabriel was an angel of fire who descended to the fiery furnace, repelled the fire, and rescued Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, who had been cast inside.
And there is fire that consumes other fire; that is the fire of the Divine Presence, as the Master said in another context: The Holy One, Blessed be He, extended His finger between the angels, who are also made of fire, and burned them. The fire of the Divine Presence consumed the fire of the angels. § The Gemara asks: And with regard to the smoke of the arrangement, is it so that even if all the winds in the world come and blow it, they do not move it from its place and it rises directly heavenward? Didn’t Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Avdimi say: At the conclusion of the final day of the festival of Sukkot, everyone looks to the smoke of the arrangement of wood; if the wind blew from the south and the smoke tends toward the north, the poor were glad and the homeowners were sad. This is because it was a sign that the year’s rains would be plentiful, producing an abundant crop on the one hand, but on the other hand, the fruit would rot due to the humidity, rendering it impossible to store the abundant harvest. This forced the landowners to sell quickly at a lower price. And if a northern wind caused the smoke to tend toward the south, the poor were sad and the homeowners were glad, because it was an indication that the year’s rains would be sparse. The yield would be low, and it would be easy to store the fruit and sell it at a higher price. If a western wind caused the smoke to tend to the east, that was an indication that there would be sufficient rainfall to ensure a substantial crop, and at the same time, it would be possible to store the fruit, and everyone was glad. If an eastern wind caused the smoke to tend to the west that was an indication that there would be a drought because eastern winds do not bring rain, and everyone was sad. Apparently, wind causes the smoke rising from the arrangement of wood to move. The Gemara responds: The smoke comes and goes like a palm tree, swaying in the wind, but it did not disperse. The Master said: If a western wind caused the pillar of smoke to tend to the east everyone is glad; if an eastern wind caused the smoke to tend to the west everyone was sad. And the Gemara raised a contradiction, as the Sages said: An eastern wind is always good; a western wind is always bad; a northern wind is good for wheat when it has reached one-third of its potential growth, and bad for olives when they are ripening; a southern wind is bad for wheat when it has reached one-third of its potential growth, and good for olives when they are ripening. And Rav Yosef said, and some say it was Mar Zutra who said it: And your mnemonic for which is good for wheat and which for olives is that in the Temple the table was in the north and the candelabrum was in the south of the Sanctuary. Bread made out of wheat was placed on the table, and oil made out of olives was burned in the candelabrum. The wind coming from this side, the north, increased its own component, wheat; and the wind coming from this side, the south, increased its own component, olives. In any event, there are contradictory opinions with regard to the effect of western and eastern winds. The Gemara responds: This is not difficult: This opinion that a wind from the east is good is for us, in Babylonia. Babylonia is a land whose water is plentiful, and a dry east wind will not harm the crop at all. This opinion that a wind from the east is harmful is for them, in Eretz Yisrael. That is a land where water is sparse, and the dry east wind will dry the land and ruin the crops.
לא בנו אלא צורת אבן שהם צורות עומדות לשכלל עליהם האולם והמזבח וכל הבית כלו וכיון שראו אבותינו את כסא הכבוד שסלסול מתוכו ועומד בין האולם ולמזבח ולמלכו של עולם מיד נפלו על פניהם ועל אותה שעה אמר (חגי ב ט) גדול יהיה כבוד הבית הזה האחרון מן הראשון:
ובמקדש שני ... כתיב (חגי ב, ט) גדול יהיה כבוד הבית הזה האחרון מן הראשון רב ושמואל ואמרי לה ר' יוחנן ור"א חד אמר בבנין וחד אמר בשנים.
רש'י - בשנים - בית ראשון עמד ד' מאות ועשר ובית שני ד' מאות ועשרים:
so that I can hide from you at that time and avoid coming under your gaze. § The Gemara has so far presented one version of the discussion of the mishna. A different version relates the discussion as follows: The Sages initially assumed: What is the meaning of the term meḥitza mentioned in the mishna? A division, not a partition, as it is written: “And the division of [meḥetzat] the congregation was” (Numbers 31:43). According to this interpretation, the mishna means to say: Since they wished to divide the jointly owned courtyard, they build a proper wall in the center even against the will of one of the partners. Apparently, it may be concluded that damage caused by sight is called damage. The Gemara objects to this conclusion: But why not say: What is the meaning of the term meḥitza mentioned in the mishna? It means a partition. This usage would be as we learned in a baraita: Consider the case where a partition of [meḥitzat] a vineyard which separates the vineyard from a field of grain was breached, resulting, if the situation is not rectified, in the grain and grapes becoming items from which deriving benefit is prohibited. The owner of the field of grain may say to the owner of the vineyard: Build a partition between the vineyard and the field of grain. If the owner of the vineyard did so, and the partition was breached again, the owner of the field of grain may say to him again: Build a partition. If the owner of the vineyard neglected to make the necessary repairs and did not properly build a partition between the fields, the grain and grapes are rendered forbidden due to the prohibition of diverse kinds planted in a vineyard, and he is liable for the monetary loss. The Gemara concludes stating the objection: And according to the understanding that the term meḥitza means a partition, one can infer: The reason that they build a wall is that they both wished to make a partition in their jointly owned courtyard. But if they did not both wish to do so, the court does not obligate the reluctant partner to build such a wall, although his neighbor objects to the fact that the partner can see what he is doing in his courtyard. Apparently, it may be concluded that damage caused by sight is not called damage. The Gemara rejects this argument: If so, the words: They build the wall, are imprecise, as the tanna should have said: They build it, since the wall and the partition are one and the same. The Gemara retorts: Rather, what is the meaning of the term meḥitza? A division. If it is so that the term meḥitza means a division, the words: Who wished to make a division, are imprecise, as the tanna should have said: Who wished to divide. The Gemara answers: The phrasing of the mishna is as people commonly say: Come, let us make a division. Consequently, the mishna can also be understood as referring to two people who wished to divide a jointly owned area. The Gemara asks, according to the understanding that meḥitza means division: But if damage caused by sight is called damage, why does the tanna specifically teach that if they wish, they build a wall? Even if they did not both wish to do so, it should also be possible to compel the reluctant party to build a wall between them. Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Our mishna is referring to a courtyard that is not subject to the halakha of division. Joint owners of a courtyard cannot be compelled to divide the courtyard unless each party will receive at least four square cubits of the courtyard. And therefore, this ruling of the mishna applies only in the case where they both wished to divide the courtyard. The Gemara asks: According to this understanding, what is the tanna teaching us? Is he teaching us that when a courtyard is not subject to the halakha of division, if they nevertheless wished to do so, they divide it? But we already learned this in the latter clause of a different mishna (11a): When do they not divide the courtyard because it is not large enough to compel division? When the joint owners do not both wish to divide it. But when both of them wish to divide it, they divide it even if it is smaller than this, i.e., smaller than four square cubits for each party. The Gemara answers: If we had learned this halakha only from there, I would say that they divide the courtyard even if it is smaller than this by constructing a mere partition of pegs, which does not prevent invasion of privacy. Therefore, the tanna teaches us here in this mishna that if they wish to divide the courtyard they can be compelled to build a proper wall. The Gemara asks: If so, let the tanna teach this mishna and not teach that other mishna, as this mishna teaches more details than the later one. The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the tanna to teach the other mishna to introduce the last clause of that mishna, which states: And jointly owned sacred writings that are contained in a single scroll should not be divided even if both owners wish to do so. The Gemara brings a different version of the previous discussion: And if they wished to divide the courtyard, what of it? What forces them to build the wall? If one of the parties does not wish to build a wall, let him retract. Rav Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said that the mishna is not discussing a case where they merely reached a verbal agreement to divide the courtyard, but rather with a case where each party performed an act of acquisition with the other, confirming their respective commitments. Therefore, neither side can retract. The Gemara asks: Rather than teaching us a case where the courtyard is not subject to the halakha of division, but nevertheless they wished to divide it, let the mishna teach us a case where the courtyard is subject to the halakha of division, even if they did not both wish to divide it. The Gemara answers: Had it taught us only a case where the courtyard is subject to the halakha of division that applies even if they did not both wish to divide it, I would say that in a case where the courtyard is not subject to the halakha of division then even if they both wished to divide it, if one of the parties does not wish to build a proper wall he cannot be compelled to do so. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that he is compelled to participate. The Gemara asks: But how can you say this? Doesn’t the latter clause of the mishna (11a) teach: When do they not divide the courtyard because it is not large enough to compel division? When the joint owners do not both wish to divide it. But when both of them wish to divide it, they divide it even if it is smaller than this. What, is this clause of the mishna not referring to the fact that either one can force the other to build a proper wall? The Gemara answers: No, it is referring to a mere partition of pegs and not to an actual wall. The Gemara asks: If so, let the tanna teach this mishna and not teach that other mishna, as this mishna teaches more details than the later one. The Gemara answers: It was necessary to teach the other mishna for the last clause of that mishna, which states: And jointly owned sacred writings that are contained in a single scroll should not be divided even if both owners wish to do so. This concludes the alternative version of the discussion. The Gemara continues its analysis of the mishna: To what case did you interpret the mishna to be referring? To a case where the courtyard is not subject to the halakha of division. But if there is no halakha of division, then if they wished to divide the courtyard, what of it; how can either one force the other to build a wall? If the parties no longer want to build a wall, let them retract. Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is referring to a case where each party performed an act of acquisition with the other, confirming their respective commitments. Therefore, neither party can retract. The Gemara asks: But even if each party performed an act of acquisition with the other, what of it? It is merely a verbal acquisition, meaning there was no actual transfer of property, but only a verbal agreement to act in a certain manner in the future and not a true act of acquisition. The Gemara answers: They performed an act of acquisition with the other with regard to directions, i.e., not only did they verbally agree to divide the courtyard, they also determined which of them would get which part of the courtyard. Consequently, the acquisition related to actual property, a particular plot of land. Rav Ashi said: For example, this one walked through his designated portion and performed an act demonstrating ownership there, and that one walked through his designated portion and performed an act demonstrating ownership there. § The mishna teaches: In a place where it is customary to build such a wall with non-chiseled stone [gevil], or chiseled stone [gazit], or small bricks [kefisin], or large bricks [leveinim], they must build the wall with that material. The Gemara identifies the various building materials: Gevil refers to stones that are not planed. Gazit means stones that are planed, as it is written: “All these were of costly stones, according to the measures of chiseled stones [gazit], sawed with saws, within and without” (I Kings 7:9). This teaches that chiseled stones are those that have been planed and smoothened. Kefisin refers to small bricks. Leveinim means large bricks. Rabba, the son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: From where do you know that gevil refers to stones that are not planed, and this extra handbreadth that a wall of gevil has compared to what a wall of gazit has is for the protruding edges? That is, a wall of gevil is six handbreadths thick because the stones have not been planed and smoothened, and therefore protrude somewhat outward. Perhaps gevil refers to planed stones that are half the thickness of gazit, namely, just two and a half handbreadths, as compared to gazit, which is five handbreadths thick; and this extra handbreadth in a wall of gevil is for the space between the two rows [urbei]. That is, a wall of gevil is actually two walls of planed stones that are each two and a half handbreadths thick; and the two walls are separated by one handbreadth, which is later filled in with mortar for added strength. A proof for this explanation can be brought from what we say, i.e., that kefisin are small bricks, whereas leveinim are large bricks, twice the thickness of small bricks. And this extra handbreadth of thickness that a wall of kefisin has compared to what a wall of levinim has is for the space between the two rows of small bricks. Rav Ashi said to him: And according to your reasoning, from where do we derive that kefisin are small bricks? Rather, the Sages learned this as a tradition. And so too, they learned as a tradition that gevil refers to non-planed stones. The Gemara presents a different version of the discussion. There are those who say that Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Ashi: From where do you know that kefisin are small bricks, one-half the width of large bricks, and this extra handbreadth of thickness that a wall of kefisin has compared to what a wall of leveinim has covers the space between the two rows of kefisin? Perhaps you should say what are kefisin? Stones that are not planed, and this extra handbreadth of thickness that a wall of kefisin has in comparison to what a wall of leveinim has is for the protruding edges. And proof for this explanation can be brought from what we say, i.e., that gevil refers to stones that are not planed, whereas gazit means planed stones, and this extra handbreadth of thickness that a wall of gevil has compared to what a wall of gazit has is for the protruding edges. Rav Ashi said to him: And according to your reasoning, from where do we derive that gevil are stones that are not planed? Rather, the Sages learned this as a tradition. Here too, they learned as a tradition that kefisin are small bricks. Abaye said: Learn from it that the space left between the two rows of a wall is always a handbreadth. The Gemara comments: This matter applies only when the two rows of the wall are filled in with mortar. But when they are filled in with gravel [berikhsa], more space is required. And there are those who say that this matter applies only when the two rows of the wall are filled in with gravel. But when mortar is used to fill in the space, not as much space is required, and less than a handbreadth suffices. § The Gemara asks: Is this to say that in the case of a wall of chiseled stone, if for every four cubits of height there are five handbreadths of thickness the wall will stand, and if not it will not stand, as this is the required ratio between a wall’s height and its thickness? But wasn’t there the one-cubit-thick wall separating the Holy of Holies from the Sanctuary of the Temple [amah teraksin] separating the Holy of Holies from the Sanctuary, which was thirty cubits high and its thickness was only six handbreadths and nevertheless stood? The Gemara answers: Since there was an extra handbreadth of thickness, it was able to stand even to such a great height. The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that in the Second Temple they did not fashion an amah teraksin to separate between the Holy of Holies and the Sanctuary, as they had done in the First Temple? The Gemara answers: When a partition stands even though it is only six handbreadths thick, it is able to remain standing up to thirty cubits in height. But it will not be able to stand if it is more than that height. The Second Temple was taller than the First Temple, and therefore the partition separating the Holy of Holies from the Sanctuary also had to be higher. The Gemara comments: And from where do we derive that the Second Temple was taller than the First Temple? As it is written: “The glory of this latter house shall be greater than that of the former” (Haggai 2:9). Rav and Shmuel disagree about the meaning of this verse, and some say it was Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar who disagreed as to its meaning. One of them said that it means that the Second Temple will be greater in the size of its structure, i.e., taller. And one of them said
(יב) וְרַבִּ֡ים מֵהַכֹּהֲנִ֣ים וְהַלְוִיִּם֩ וְרָאשֵׁ֨י הָאָב֜וֹת הַזְּקֵנִ֗ים אֲשֶׁ֨ר רָא֜וּ אֶת־הַבַּ֤יִת הָֽרִאשׁוֹן֙ בְּיָסְד֔וֹ זֶ֤ה הַבַּ֙יִת֙ בְּעֵ֣ינֵיהֶ֔ם בֹּכִ֖ים בְּק֣וֹל גָּד֑וֹל וְרַבִּ֛ים בִּתְרוּעָ֥ה בְשִׂמְחָ֖ה לְהָרִ֥ים קֽוֹל׃ (יג) וְאֵ֣ין הָעָ֗ם מַכִּירִים֙ ק֚וֹל תְּרוּעַ֣ת הַשִּׂמְחָ֔ה לְק֖וֹל בְּכִ֣י הָעָ֑ם כִּ֣י הָעָ֗ם מְרִיעִים֙ תְּרוּעָ֣ה גְדוֹלָ֔ה וְהַקּ֥וֹל נִשְׁמַ֖ע עַד־לְמֵרָחֽוֹק׃ (פ)
(12) Many of the priests and Levites and the chiefs of the clans, the old men who had seen the first house, wept loudly at the sight of the founding of this house. Many others shouted joyously at the top of their voices. (13) The people could not distinguish the shouts of joy from the people’s weeping, for the people raised a great shout, the sound of which could be heard from afar.
(ה) כָּל שֶׁהֶחֱזִיקוּ עוֹלֵי מִצְרַיִם וְנִתְקַדֵּשׁ קְדֻשָּׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה כֵּיוָן שֶׁגָּלוּ בָּטְלָה קְדֻשָּׁתָן. שֶׁקְּדֻשָּׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה לְפִי שֶׁהָיְתָה מִפְּנֵי הַכִּבּוּשׁ בִּלְבַד קָדְשָׁה לִשְׁעָתָהּ וְלֹא קָדְשָׁה לֶעָתִיד לָבוֹא. כֵּיוָן שֶׁעָלוּ בְּנֵי הַגּוֹלָה וְהֶחֱזִיקוּ בְּמִקְצָת הָאָרֶץ קִדְּשׁוּהָ קְדֻשָּׁה שְׁנִיָּה הָעוֹמֶדֶת לְעוֹלָם לִשְׁעָתָהּ וְלֶעָתִיד לָבוֹא.
(5) The part of Eretz Yisrael that was occupied by those who had come up from Egypt received the first consecration, which ceased to be as soon as they were exiled. The first consecration, resulting from the mere conquest, applied only for the time being [while inhabited and ruled by Israelites] and not for the future. As soon as the returned exiles came up and occupied part of the land, they consecrated it a second time with a sanctity lasting forever, both for the time being and the future. They retained, however, certain laws which had been operative in the places occupied by those who had come up from Egypt and unoccupied by those who arrived from Babylonia. These were not exempted from heave-offerings and tithes, so that the poor might rely on them during the sabbatical year.— —
בפרק קמא דיומא (ט ע"ב) מקדש ראשון מפני מה חרב, מפני שהיה בו ג' דברים; עבודה זרה, וגלוי עריות, ושפיכות דמים..... אבל מקדש שני, שאנו בקיאים בהם שהיו עוסקים בתורה ובמצות ובגמילות חסדים, אמאי חרב? מפני שנאת חנם שהיה ביניהם. ללמדך ששקולה שנאת חנם נגד ג' עבירות
ויש לך לשאול, למה חרב בית המקדש ראשון בעון אלו ג' עונות, ואילו מקדש שני בשביל שנאת חנם. ואין לומר שהיה זה במקרה... והפירוש אשר הוא לפי פשוטו, כי מקדש ראשון היה השכינה ביניהם... ולפיכך חורבן שלו כאשר לא היה ראוי שתשרה שכינה ביניהם, והיינו כשטמאו את בית המקדש, ואין השם יתברך שורה בתוך טומאתם, ולפיכך בשביל אלו ג' טומאות חרב הבית... אבל מעלת מקדש שני היה מחמת ישראל עצמם..... ומפני כך נחרב הבית בשביל שנאת חנם, שנחלק לבבם, והיו מחולקים, ולא היו ראוים למקדש אשר הוא התאחדות ישראל. ופירוש פשוט הוא:
משכני עליון להרמח'ל
ועתה אודיע לך סוד אחד עצום ורב מאד, ועל כן תתגבר בשכלך לרדת אל עומק הדברים. דע, כי זה הבית העתיד הוא שראה אותו יחזקאל הנביא מיד אחר חורבן הראשון. כי לא פסק הבית למעלה, גם כי חרב למטה. כי הלא לא נבנה הבית למטה רק ברוב חוזק המאורות, והתגברם להאיר ממדרגה למדרגה, ויגיעו אל העולם הזה, וגם עשו הבית אשר עשו. (כבר) [וכאשר] חסר הכוח הזה, לא היה עוד זה הבית למטה; אך לא מפני זה חרב למעלה, רק הוחשך ולא האיר כבראשונה. אבל הסוד הגדול הנודע בזה הענין למי שהוא מורגל ללכת בדרכי החכמה, והעומד בסוד ה' ויודע אורחותיו, הוא כי כאשר בנה שלמה את הבית הראשון, לולי חטאו, אלא היו מחזיקים בתורתם, היו מתעלים במדרגותיהם, ומגיעים הדברים אל התיקון השלם. ואז היה העולם פושט צורה ולובש צורה, והיה מתגלה מה שלא נתגלה. אך כאשר גברה הרשעה ורבו החטאים, הנה הבית הראשון שנתקן בתקונים הראשונים חרב. ואז אותו הבנין לא עמד עוד למעלה, רק ברגע אחד עבר ונבנה בצורה אחרת, היא הצורה והיא התכנית שעתיד להיות. ונמצאו, שני הבנינים, זה נכנס וזה יוצא ואין ביניהם כמלוא נימא. והבנין הזה לא נגלה למטה, כי רק לעתיד יגלה. אך למעלה, מהיום ההוא והלאה כן היה, וכן הוא. ועל כן ראה אותו יחזקאל, שכבר בנוי ועומד היה, וישראל לולי זכו במעשיהם, היתה ראויה להיות גאולת עזרא כגאולת מצרים, וביאתם כביאת יהושע. ואז היו בונים את הבית בתבנית הזה אשר ראה יחזקאל, והיו שתי המקדשים שלמעלה ושלמטה מכוונים זה לזה:
וכאשר לא הטיבו דרכיהם, היתה הגאולה בחשאי, ולא עצרו כח לעשות כבית ההוא. ואז עשו אותו על פי הנביאים שביניהם, קצת דומה אל הראשון, וקצת דומה אל האחרון, שכבר נתחדש למעלה; אפס קצהו לקחו וכולו לא לקחו, כי לא היתה השעה הראויה לכך. ונמצא, שבזמן שלמה היו שני הבתים - העליון והתחתון מכוונים; על כן מצאה השכינה בו מנוח ושרתה בו. אבל השני, שלא היו דומים זה לזה לא שרתה בו שכינה: אבל לעתיד, ...הכבוד יהיה שורה בו בגילוי גמור, והוא הענין שנאמר עליו, "ונגלה כבוד ה' וראו" וכו'; ואז תהיה השלוה גמורה בלא הפסק כלל. ... וכל אלה הדברים הם עמוקים מאד, ונשרשים בחכמה יותר ממה שהם נראים הרבה:
ועתה אודיע לך סוד אחד עצום ורב מאד, ועל כן תתגבר בשכלך לרדת אל עומק הדברים. דע, כי זה הבית העתיד הוא שראה אותו יחזקאל הנביא מיד אחר חורבן הראשון. כי לא פסק הבית למעלה, גם כי חרב למטה. כי הלא לא נבנה הבית למטה רק ברוב חוזק המאורות, והתגברם להאיר ממדרגה למדרגה, ויגיעו אל העולם הזה, וגם עשו הבית אשר עשו. (כבר) [וכאשר] חסר הכוח הזה, לא היה עוד זה הבית למטה; אך לא מפני זה חרב למעלה, רק הוחשך ולא האיר כבראשונה. אבל הסוד הגדול הנודע בזה הענין למי שהוא מורגל ללכת בדרכי החכמה, והעומד בסוד ה' ויודע אורחותיו, הוא כי כאשר בנה שלמה את הבית הראשון, לולי חטאו, אלא היו מחזיקים בתורתם, היו מתעלים במדרגותיהם, ומגיעים הדברים אל התיקון השלם. ואז היה העולם פושט צורה ולובש צורה, והיה מתגלה מה שלא נתגלה. אך כאשר גברה הרשעה ורבו החטאים, הנה הבית הראשון שנתקן בתקונים הראשונים חרב. ואז אותו הבנין לא עמד עוד למעלה, רק ברגע אחד עבר ונבנה בצורה אחרת, היא הצורה והיא התכנית שעתיד להיות. ונמצאו, שני הבנינים, זה נכנס וזה יוצא ואין ביניהם כמלוא נימא. והבנין הזה לא נגלה למטה, כי רק לעתיד יגלה. אך למעלה, מהיום ההוא והלאה כן היה, וכן הוא. ועל כן ראה אותו יחזקאל, שכבר בנוי ועומד היה, וישראל לולי זכו במעשיהם, היתה ראויה להיות גאולת עזרא כגאולת מצרים, וביאתם כביאת יהושע. ואז היו בונים את הבית בתבנית הזה אשר ראה יחזקאל, והיו שתי המקדשים שלמעלה ושלמטה מכוונים זה לזה:
וכאשר לא הטיבו דרכיהם, היתה הגאולה בחשאי, ולא עצרו כח לעשות כבית ההוא. ואז עשו אותו על פי הנביאים שביניהם, קצת דומה אל הראשון, וקצת דומה אל האחרון, שכבר נתחדש למעלה; אפס קצהו לקחו וכולו לא לקחו, כי לא היתה השעה הראויה לכך. ונמצא, שבזמן שלמה היו שני הבתים - העליון והתחתון מכוונים; על כן מצאה השכינה בו מנוח ושרתה בו. אבל השני, שלא היו דומים זה לזה לא שרתה בו שכינה: אבל לעתיד, ...הכבוד יהיה שורה בו בגילוי גמור, והוא הענין שנאמר עליו, "ונגלה כבוד ה' וראו" וכו'; ואז תהיה השלוה גמורה בלא הפסק כלל. ... וכל אלה הדברים הם עמוקים מאד, ונשרשים בחכמה יותר ממה שהם נראים הרבה:
(ב) וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֵלַ֔י מָ֥ה אַתָּ֖ה רֹאֶ֑ה ויאמר [וָאֹמַ֡ר] רָאִ֣יתִי ׀ וְהִנֵּ֣ה מְנוֹרַת֩ זָהָ֨ב כֻּלָּ֜הּ וְגֻלָּ֣הּ עַל־רֹאשָׁ֗הּ וְשִׁבְעָ֤ה נֵרֹתֶ֙יהָ֙ עָלֶ֔יהָ שִׁבְעָ֤ה וְשִׁבְעָה֙ מֽוּצָק֔וֹת לַנֵּר֖וֹת אֲשֶׁ֥ר עַל־רֹאשָֽׁהּ׃ (ג) וּשְׁנַ֥יִם זֵיתִ֖ים עָלֶ֑יהָ אֶחָד֙ מִימִ֣ין הַגֻּלָּ֔ה וְאֶחָ֖ד עַל־שְׂמֹאלָֽהּ׃ (ד) וָאַ֙עַן֙ וָֽאֹמַ֔ר אֶל־הַמַּלְאָ֛ךְ הַדֹּבֵ֥ר בִּ֖י לֵאמֹ֑ר מָה־אֵ֖לֶּה אֲדֹנִֽי׃ (ה) וַ֠יַּעַן הַמַּלְאָ֞ךְ הַדֹּבֵ֥ר בִּי֙ וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֵלַ֔י הֲל֥וֹא יָדַ֖עְתָּ מָה־הֵ֣מָּה אֵ֑לֶּה וָאֹמַ֖ר לֹ֥א אֲדֹנִֽי׃ (ו) וַיַּ֜עַן וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֵלַי֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר זֶ֚ה דְּבַר־ה' אֶל־זְרֻבָּבֶ֖ל לֵאמֹ֑ר לֹ֤א בְחַ֙יִל֙ וְלֹ֣א בְכֹ֔חַ כִּ֣י אִם־בְּרוּחִ֔י אָמַ֖ר ה' צְבָאֽוֹת׃ ... (יא) וָאַ֖עַן וָאֹמַ֣ר אֵלָ֑יו מַה־שְּׁנֵ֤י הַזֵּיתִים֙ הָאֵ֔לֶה עַל־יְמִ֥ין הַמְּנוֹרָ֖ה וְעַל־שְׂמֹאולָֽהּ׃ ... (יג) וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֵלַי֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר הֲל֥וֹא יָדַ֖עְתָּ מָה־אֵ֑לֶּה וָאֹמַ֖ר לֹ֥א אֲדֹנִֽי׃ (יד) וַיֹּ֕אמֶר אֵ֖לֶּה שְׁנֵ֣י בְנֵֽי־הַיִּצְהָ֑ר הָעֹמְדִ֖ים עַל־אֲד֥וֹן כָּל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃
רש'י - שני בני היצהר. קרן כהונה ומלכות הנמשחים בשמן המשחה:
(1) The angel who talked with me came back and woke me as a man is wakened from sleep. (2) He said to me, “What do you see?” And I answered, “I see a lampstand all of gold, with a bowl above it. The lamps on it are seven in number, and the lamps above it have seven pipes; (3) and by it are two olive trees, one on the right of the bowl and one on its left.” (4) I, in turn, asked the angel who talked with me, “What do those things mean, my lord?” (5) “Do you not know what those things mean?” asked the angel who talked with me; and I said, “No, my lord.” (6) Then he explained to me as follows: “This is the word of the LORD to Zerubbabel: Not by might, nor by power, but by My spirit—said the LORD of Hosts. (7) Whoever you are, O great mountain in the path of Zerubbabel, turn into level ground! For he shall produce that excellent stone; it shall be greeted with shouts of ‘Beautiful! Beautiful!’” (8) And the word of the LORD came to me: (9) “Zerubbabel’s hands have founded this House and Zerubbabel’s hands shall complete it. Then you shall know that it was the LORD of Hosts who sent me to you. (10) Does anyone scorn a day of small beginnings? When they see the stone of distinction in the hand of Zerubbabel, they shall rejoice. “Those seven are the eyes of the LORD, ranging over the whole earth.” (11) “And what,” I asked him, “are those two olive trees, one on the right and one on the left of the lampstand?” (12) And I further asked him, “What are the two tops of the olive trees that feed their gold through those two golden tubes?” (13) He asked me, “Don’t you know what they are?” And I replied, “No, my lord.” (14) Then he explained, “They are the two anointed dignitaries who attend the Lord of all the earth.”
הגר'ח הלוי - גיטין מז
הביאור כך. המלאך אומר הלא ידעת, ובאמת הבין שמראה לו קדושה השניה, אלא דהוא היה סובר דלהקדושה השניה ג׳כ יצטרכו כבוש, ... וא׳כ גם הקדושה השניה תתבטל כמו הקדושה הראשונה, דכיון שיבטל הכיבוש תתבטל הקדושה. ועל זה השיב כי אינו מבין, מה שני הזיתים, דבקדושה שניה לא היה שמן המשחה. וע׳ז השיב המלאך לא בחיל ולא בכח, כי אם ברוחי, כלומר שלא יצטרכו כיבוש לקדושה שניה. ותהי קדושה אחת לעתיד לבא, ואז יהיה שמן המשחה, ושני בני יצהר, ובזה הנבואה נתחדש שלא יצטרכו לכיבוש, בקידוש שני שיהיה די בחזקה לבד, ולכן לא תתבטל.
הביאור כך. המלאך אומר הלא ידעת, ובאמת הבין שמראה לו קדושה השניה, אלא דהוא היה סובר דלהקדושה השניה ג׳כ יצטרכו כבוש, ... וא׳כ גם הקדושה השניה תתבטל כמו הקדושה הראשונה, דכיון שיבטל הכיבוש תתבטל הקדושה. ועל זה השיב כי אינו מבין, מה שני הזיתים, דבקדושה שניה לא היה שמן המשחה. וע׳ז השיב המלאך לא בחיל ולא בכח, כי אם ברוחי, כלומר שלא יצטרכו כיבוש לקדושה שניה. ותהי קדושה אחת לעתיד לבא, ואז יהיה שמן המשחה, ושני בני יצהר, ובזה הנבואה נתחדש שלא יצטרכו לכיבוש, בקידוש שני שיהיה די בחזקה לבד, ולכן לא תתבטל.
מאורות הראיה חנוכה עמ' רלז
מבנין הבית השני יצאה אורה לאומות העולם יותר מאשר מהבית הראשון, ועל זה נרמז: גדול יהיה כבוד הבית האחרון, שזהו לתקון אומות העולם. והנה נקבע שיהיו ישראל בגלות כדי לתקן את אומות העולם, ...על כן מתעכבת הישועה עד שיהיו גם-כן המובחרים שבאומות העולם ראויין. וזהו שנרמז במה שנמסרה אסתר תחת יד ערל, ועל ידה ניצל גם הוא, וגם היתה תשועה לאומות העולם, כי על-ידי כורש שיצא ממנה נבנה הבית, ועל ידו היה אור לאומות העולם באור דעות טהורות הכלולות בתורה הקדושה"
מבנין הבית השני יצאה אורה לאומות העולם יותר מאשר מהבית הראשון, ועל זה נרמז: גדול יהיה כבוד הבית האחרון, שזהו לתקון אומות העולם. והנה נקבע שיהיו ישראל בגלות כדי לתקן את אומות העולם, ...על כן מתעכבת הישועה עד שיהיו גם-כן המובחרים שבאומות העולם ראויין. וזהו שנרמז במה שנמסרה אסתר תחת יד ערל, ועל ידה ניצל גם הוא, וגם היתה תשועה לאומות העולם, כי על-ידי כורש שיצא ממנה נבנה הבית, ועל ידו היה אור לאומות העולם באור דעות טהורות הכלולות בתורה הקדושה"