(Mishnah): An addition that was not made with all of these (does not get Kedushah).

(Rav Huna): This is the correct text.

(Rav Nachman): The text should say 'an addition that was not made with one of these' (does not get Kedushah).

(According to Rav Huna, Ezra could not be Mekadesh the second Mikdash, since they lacked the Urim v'Tumim.) Rav Huna must hold that Shlomo's Kedushah of Bayis Rishon was permanent. Ezra's actions were only a commemoration of Kidush.

Rav Nachman holds that the Kedushah of Bayis Rishon had ceased. (According to his text, Ezra was able to be Mekadesh Bayis Sheni, even without the Urim v'Tumim. Tosfos (DH Teni) asks why he changed the text, for in any case there are Stam Mishnayos that hold that the first Kedushah was permanent.)

Question (Rava - Mishnah): An addition that was not made with all of these (does not get Kedushah).

Answer (Rav Nachman): The text should say 'an addition that was not made with one of these.'

Question (Beraisa - Aba Sha'ul): There were two swamps on the Mount of Olives. The lower one was Mekudash with everything mentioned in the Mishnah (during the first Mikdash), and the upper one was Mekudash by the exiles who returned from Bavel, without a king or the Urim v'Tumim;

The lower swamp had full Kedushah. Ignoramuses would eat Kodshim Kalim there, but not Ma'aser Sheni. Chaverim (people who properly guard the laws) would eat Kodshim Kalim and Ma'aser Sheni there;

The upper swamp did not have full Kedushah. Ignoramuses would eat Kodshim Kalim there, but not Ma'aser Sheni. Chaverim would not eat Kodshim Kalim nor Ma'aser Sheni there.

They could not fully be Mekadesh it, for to add on to Yerushalayim or the Azarah we need a king, a prophet, the Urim v'Tumim, the great Sanhedrin of 71, two loaves of a Todah and singing.

Question: Why were they Mekadesh it?

Objection: The Beraisa said that they could not be Mekadesh it!

Correction: Rather, why did they build a new wall including it within Yerushalayim?

Answer: It was the easiest place for enemies to attack from and conquer Yerushalayim.

Answer: Tana'im argue (below) about whether the Kedushah of the first Mikdash ceased. (Rav Nachman holds like the opinion that it ceased.)

(Tradition of R. Eliezer): When they built the Heichal, they made curtains for the Heichal and the courtyards, but they stood outside when they built the Heichal and within when they built the courtyards.

(Tradition of R. Yehoshua): It is permitted to offer sacrifices in the absence of the building (of the Mikdash), to eat Kodshei Kodshim in the absence of curtains (around the Azarah), and to eat Kodshim Kalim and Ma'aser Sheini in the absence of a wall (around the city) because the first Kedushah did not cease.

R. Eliezer holds that the Kedushah ceased (since he requires curtains)!

Rebuttal (Ravina): Perhaps all agree that the Kedushah did not cease, and each is transmitting the tradition that he received;

R. Eliezer required curtains for privacy.

Rather, the following Tana'im argue about whether or not the first Kedushah ceased. (A Mishnah (Erchin 32a) lists walled cities - old Ketzarah of Tzipori...)

(Beraisa - R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi): Chachamim listed cities that the returning exiles (from Bavel) were Mekadesh;

The Kedushah of walled cities (from the days of Yehoshua) ceased when the Kedushah of Eretz Yisrael ceased (when Nebuchadnetzar conquered it).

This shows that R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi holds that the first Kedushah ceased.

Contradiction (Beraisa - R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi): The cities listed are not the only walled cities. Moshe conquered "Shishim Ir... Mamleches Og... Betzuros Chomah!" We list only the cities that the returning exiles found and were Mekadesh.

Interjection: The Seifa (of this Beraisa) says that they did not need to be Mekadesh them!

Correction: Rather, we list cities known to have had a wall;

If there is a tradition about another city that it had a wall when Yehoshua entered Eretz Yisrael, the Mitzvos of walled cities (one who sells a house has a year to redeem it, and a Metzora cannot stay there) apply also to it, because the first Kedushah remains.

R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi contradicts himself!

Answer #1: The Tana'im of these two Beraisos argue about his opinion.

Answer #2: The latter Beraisa is really R. Elazar b'Rebbi Yosi:

(Beraisa - R. Elazar b'Rebbi Yosi): "Asher Lo Chomah" - 'Lo' is spelled with an Aleph, to hint that even if now it does not have a wall, but once it did, it is considered a walled city (because the first Kedushah remains).

(Mishnah): If he became Tamei in the Azarah and forgot...

Question: What is the source that one is liable (lashes or Kares) if he became Tamei in the Azarah (and did not leave immediately)?

Answer (R. Elazar (the Amora)): It says "Es Mishkan Hash-m Timei" and "Es Mikdash Hash-m Timei";

We do not need two verses for when he became Tamei outside and entered, so one teaches about when he became Tamei inside.

Question: We need both for when he became Tamei outside!

(Beraisa - R. Elazar (the Tana)): The Torah needed to teach that he is liable for the Mishkan and the Mikdash, because we could not learn from one to the other.

Had it taught only about the Mishkan, one might have thought that this is because it was anointed with the anointing oil!

Had it taught only about the Mikdash, one might have thought that this is because its Kedushah is permanent! (Rashi - once the Mikdash was built, private altars were forbidden forever; Tosfos - it endured longer than the Mishkan, or because it can be rebuilt only in the same place.)

Answer: R. Elazar (the Amora) expounded the change of expression.

Since the Mishkan is called Mikdash and vice-versa, the Torah could have written both times 'Mishkan' or 'Mikdash', and we would have known to include both;

It changed the expression to teach another law as well (when he became Tamei inside).

We know that the Mishkan is called Mikdash - "v'Nasati Mishkani b'Sochechem";

Question: What is the source that the Mikdash is called Mishkan?

Suggestion: We learn from "v'Nase'u ha'Kehasim Nose'ei ha'Mikdash."

Rejection: That does not refer to the Mikdash itself, rather to the Aron (and the Kelim of the Mikdash.

Answer: We learn from "v'Asu Li Mikdash v'Shachanti b'Socham... Tavnis ha'Mishkan."

(Mishnah): If one is Mishtachaveh (bows) or delays long enough to be Mishtachaveh...

Version #1 (Rava): (He is liable for a quick Hishtachava'ah.) This is when he bows towards the west (where the Divine Presence is);

If he bows towards the east, he is liable only if he delays (the time of a proper Hishtachava'ah).

Version #2 - Inference: He is liable for Hishtachava'ah only if he delays.

(Rava): This is when he bows towards the east, but if he bows towards the west, he is liable even without delaying. (end of Version #2)

Question: What is Hishtachava'ah with and without delay?

Answer: Hishtachava'ah without delay is bending the knees. Hishtachava'ah with delay is prostrating on the hands and feet.

Question: What is the time for Hishtachava'ah with delay?

Answer #1 (R. Yitzchak bar Nachmani or R. Shimon ben Pazi): It is the time to say the verse "v'Chol Bnei Yisrael ... va'Yichre'u... va'Yishtachavu..."

Answer #2 (the other of R. Yitzchak bar Nachmani and R. Shimon ben Pazi): It is the time to say the end of this verse starting from "va'Yichre'u."

(Beraisa): 'Kidah' refers to bowing and putting one's face on the ground - "va'Tikod Bas Sheva Apayim Eretz";

'Kri'ah' is bending the knees - "mi'Kero'a Al Birkav";

'Hishtachava'ah' is prostrating on the hands and feet - "Lehishtachavos Lecha Artzah."