1) THINGS NECESSARY FOR ADDING TO THE AREA OF YERUSHALAYIM OR THE BEIS HA'MIKDASH
QUESTIONS: The Mishnah (14a) lists the criteria necessary for making additions to the area of Yerushalayim and to the courtyards of the Beis ha'Mikdash. Enlarging the area may be done only in the presence of the king, a prophet, the Urim v'Tumim, and the Sanhedrin of seventy-one judges (Sanhedri Gedolah).
The Gemara inquires about the source for these requirements. Rav Simi bar Chiya says that these requirements are derived from the verse which states with regard to building the Mishkan, "[They shall make a sanctuary for Me...] like everything that I am showing you, the form of the Mishkan and the form of all of its vessels, and so shall you do" (Shemos 25:9). Rav Simi says that "so shall you do" implies that this is what should be done for all generations.
(a) How does Rav Simi derive from this verse that the expansion of the holy areas needs the king, a prophet, the Urim v'Tumim, and the Sanhedri Gedolah?
(b) TOSFOS asks that if Moshe Rabeinu is considered a king, then whenever the Gemara derives from Moshe Rabeinu that a Sanhedrin is necessary (since Moshe Rabeinu was equivalent to the Sanhedri Gedolah, as the Gemara in Sanhedrin 16b teaches), a king and a prophet also should be required!
(c) Tosfos asks further that the Mishkan was erected before Aharon became the Kohen Gadol, and thus clearly the Urim v'Tumim was not in use at that time. How, then, can the Gemara learn from the consecration of the Mishkan that the Urim v'Tumim is necessary when expanding the area of the Mikdash?
(a) RASHI explains that Rav Simi understands that the last words in the verse, "And so shall you do," seem extra. From these words he derives that in the same way the Mishkan was consecrated in the time of Moshe Rabeinu, so shall it be consecrated for all generations. Moshe Rabeinu was considered a king and a prophet, his brother was the Kohen Gadol (with the Urim v'Tumim), and the seventy elders constituted the Sanhedri Gedolah.
(b) Although Tosfos does not answer his second question, he concedes that his first question is not difficult. This is because the phrase, "v'Chen Ta'asu" -- "and so shall you do," implies the inclusion of many things. Accordingly, for adding area to the Mikdash, many requirements must be included, whereas for other things which require the Sanhedrin, as learned from Moshe Rabeinu, only the Sanhedrin is necessary and nothing else.
(c) The RITVA answers the second question of Tosfos. He explains that the requirement for the Urim v'Tumim is based on the first part of the verse. The verse includes everything that Hash-m showed ("Mar'eh") to Moshe Rabeinu. This is similar to the term "Urim v'Tumim." The way in which Hash-m communicated the directions for building the Mishkan, and the way in which Hash-m communicates messages through the Urim v'Tumim, are the same. Therefore, the verse teaches that the Urim v'Tumim is also required.
Alternatively, the Gemara in Ta'anis (11a) states that Moshe Rabeinu served as the Kohen Gadol during the first seven days of the Mishkan's inauguration. The Ritva says that when he served as the Kohen Gadol, he did so with the Urim v'Tumim. (Y. MONTROSE)
2) USING THE "URIM V'TUMIM" TO ADD TO SANCTIFIED AREAS
QUESTION: The Mishnah (14a) lists the criteria necessary for making additions to the area of Yerushalayim and to the courtyards of the Beis ha'Mikdash. Enlarging the area may be done only in the presence of the king, a prophet, the Urim v'Tumim, and the Sanhedrin of seventy-one judges (Sanhedri Gedolah).
TOSFOS asks that the Mishkan was erected before Aharon became the Kohen Gadol, and thus clearly the Urim v'Tumim was not used for the inauguration of the Mishkan. How, then, can the Gemara learn from the consecration of the Mishkan that the Urim v'Tumim is necessary when expanding the area of the Mikdash? (See previous Insight.)
Tosfos states in his question that the Urim v'Tumim was not used for the inauguration of the Mishkan, and not that it was not present. Tosfos implies that when the Mishnah (which is the Halachah) requires the Urim v'Tumim whenever the area of Yerushalayim or the Mikdash is expanded, it means that the Urim v'Tumim must be consulted. How does Tosfos know that the Urim v'Tumim must be asked when consecrated areas are expanded?
ANSWER: The AYELES HA'SHACHAR explains as follows. Tosfos in Yoma (21b) explains that when the Gemara states that the Urim v'Tumim did not exist during the time of the second Beis ha'Mikdash, it does not mean that it was totally absent. Rather, the Gemara means that the Urim v'Tumim was present but that it could no longer answer questions. The KESEF MISHNEH (Hilchos Beis ha'Bechirah 4:1) explains this further and says that the name of Hash-m that was used when the Kohen Gadol would ask questions to the Urim v'Tumim and which was worn on the Urim v'Tumim was missing in the time of the second Beis ha'Mikdash. The Gemara later in Shevuos (16a) says that in the times of Ezra, they could not consecrate the areas because they were missing the Urim v'Tumim. Based on the explanation of Tosfos in Yoma, the Gemara later in Shevuos (16a) means that even though the Urim v'Tumim was physically present during the times of Ezra, they could not consecrate the areas, because consecrating the areas required asking the Urim v'Tumim, which they no longer could do.
The Ayeles ha'Shachar adds that the same question applies with regard to the necessity to have a prophet present at the consecration of areas of Yerushalayim and the Mikdash. Does the prophet need to prophesy that the consecrated area be extended, or is merely his presence required? Since Moshe Rabeinu was giving instructions to consecrate the Mishkan based on Hash-m's word to him, perhaps it is also necessary for the prophet to prophesy in order to extend consecrated areas.
RABEINU CHAIM HA'LEVI SOLOVEITCHIK states that the words spoken by Hash-m to Moshe Rabeinu had the unique status of words of Torah and not words of prophecy. Accordingly, one cannot from Moshe Rabeinu that a prophet must also prophesy and not only be present at the expansion of consecrated areas, because the prophecies of all other prophets do not have the status of words of Torah. Therefore, it suffices for a prophet to be present, and he does not need to prophesy. (Y. MONTROSE)
3) BUILDING THE BEIS HA'MIKDASH AT NIGHT
QUESTION: The Gemara teaches that it is not possible that the Shtei ha'Lechem is necessary for extending the sanctified area of the Beis ha'Mikdash. After it discusses a number of possible scenarios, the Gemara asks that the Shtei ha'Lechem could be used if most of the construction is completed before the arrival of Shavu'os, and then at night, immediately after Shavu'os, the remaining part is finished, at which time the Shtei ha'Lechem has not yet become Nosar (they became Nosar only at sunrise). The Gemara answers that this is not a possibility, because the Beis ha'Mikdash may not be built during the night. Abaye derives this from the verse, "And on the day of the erecting of the Mishkan" (Bamidbar 9:15), which teaches that the Mishkan may be erected only during the day and not at night.
The Gemara here seems to contradict the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah (30a) and Sukah (41a) which clearly says that the third Beis ha'Mikdash may be built in the middle of the night. How are these Gemaras to be reconciled?
(a) RASHI in Rosh Hashanah (30a), TOSFOS here (quoting the Midrash Tanchuma), and others answer that the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah and Sukah refers only to the building of the third Beis ha'Mikdash. Unlike the first two, the third Beis ha'Mikdash will be built by "the hands of Hash-m," as the verse states, "Mikdash Hash-m Konenu Yadecha" -- "the Mikdash, Hash-m, that Your hands established" (Shemos 15:17), and thus Hash-m may build it even at night. The Gemara here in Shevuos refers to the first two Batei Mikdash, which may not be built at night.
The MIKDASH DAVID (#1) analyzes this conclusion. He maintains that this is the view of the MINCHAS CHINUCH. The Minchas Chinuch writes that although there is a prohibition against building the Beis ha'Mikdash at night, if people transgress and build it at night it nevertheless is considered a valid Beis ha'Mikdash. Hash-m is not bound by any prohibition, and thus He certainly may build the Beis ha'Mikdash at night. Since a Beis ha'Mikdash built at night is valid, we may use the Beis ha'Mikdash that Hash-m builds at night. This means that the Halachah is the same for every Beis ha'Mikdash, but the building of the third one circumvents this prohibition (since it will not be built by man but by Hash-m).
However, the Yerushalmi in Yoma (1:1) apparently disagrees with this approach. The Yerushalmi states that if the Mishkan would be erected at night, it indeed would be unfit to use for the Avodah. Abaye himself derives the law with regard to the Beis ha'Mikdash from the Mishkan. Since the verse requires that the Beis ha'Mikdash be built during the day, and if it is not built during the day it is invalid, it should make no difference whether the Beis ha'Mikdash is made by Hash-m or by man.
1. The KEHILOS YAKOV (#10a) gives a simple answer to this question. Even according to the Yerushalmi, the problem is not the building of the Beis ha'Mikdash at night. Rather, the problem is that a Mishkan or a Beis ha'Mikdash that is supposed to be erected by man must be erected in the proper time. He compares this to the Lechem ha'Panim. There is a Mitzvah for the loaves of the Lechem ha'Panim to be arranged on the Shulchan on Shabbos (see Yoma 29a). If it was done before Shabbos, it is not considered "arranged," as the arrangement was not done in its proper time. Similarly, the Mishkan had to be erected by people in the proper time. If it was not erected in the proper time, then the Mitzvah of erecting it was not fulfilled. This prevents the Avodah from being done there. However, this law applies only when there is a requirement to erect it in a certain manner. The verse (in Shemos 15:17) reveals that the third Beis ha'Mikdash has different guidelines, as it is supposed to be made by Hash-m. Since the building of that Beis ha'Mikdash has different guidelines, its construction at night is not relevant.
2. The AYELES HA'SHACHAR suggests a different answer. The Mishkan was constantly being erected and dismantled in the Midbar. The Yerushalmi means that if the Mishkan was erected incorrectly at night, the obligation remained to dismantle it and erect it again during the day. The Beis ha'Mikdash, in contrast, is a permanent structure. If the Beis ha'Mikdash was erected at night, it is not logical to say that the builders must "destroy" an intrinsically valid Beis ha'Mikdash in order to rebuild it. Hence, if they do not rebuild it, the Korbanos brought there are valid. Although there are similarities between the laws of the Mishkan and the laws of the Beis ha'Mikdash, when the Yerushalmi says that the Avodah is invalid when the structure was built at night, it apparently refers only to the Mishkan. (Y. MONTROSE)
(b) The ME'IRI in Sukah (41a) gives an original answer. When the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah and Sukah says that the Beis ha'Mikdash might be built at night, it does not mean that it is permitted to build it at that time. Rather, the Gemara is concerned that a Beis Din To'eh (a misguided Beis Din) will be responsible for the building of the Beis ha'Mikdash. Out of their fervent longing for the Beis ha'Mikdash, they might overlook the Halachah and build it even at a time when its construction is prohibited. Once such a Beis ha'Mikdash has been built, b'Di'eved it may be used.
The Me'iri here in Shevuos suggests another answer. The Me'iri says that the Sugya here and the Sugya in Sukah argue about whether the Beis ha'Mikdash may be built on Yom Tov and at night. The Gemara here prohibits building the Beis ha'Mikdash on Yom Tov and at night.