Daf Ditty Moed Katan 9: Solomon’s Closed Gates

Ancient Jerusalem with Solomon's Temple and a list of numbered historical

sites in the city

At the Closed Gates of Justice

To be a Negro in a day like this

Demands forgiveness. Bruised with blow on blow,
Betrayed, like him whose woe dimmed eyes gave bliss
Still must one succor those who brought one low,
To be a Negro in a day like this.

To be a Negro in a day like this

Demands rare patience—patience that can wait
In utter darkness. ’Tis the path to miss,

1
 And knock, unheeded, at an iron gate,
To be a Negro in a day like this.

To be a Negro in a day like this

Demands strange loyalty. We serve a flag
Which is to us white freedom’s emphasis.
Ah! one must love when Truth and Justice lag,
To be a Negro in a day like this.

To be a Negro in a day like this—

Alas! Lord God, what evil have we done?
Still shines the gate, all gold and amethyst,
But I pass by, the glorious goal unwon,
“Merely a Negro”—in a day like this!

James D. Corrothers1

MISHNA: One may not marry a woman on the intermediate days of a Festival, not virgins
and not widows, and one may not perform levirate marriage with his sister-in-law, if his
brother died childless, because it is a joyous occasion for him. However, one may remarry his
divorced wife on the intermediate days of a Festival, as this is not as great a joy for him.

1
In honor of MLK Day Jan 17th, 2022, from The Book of American Negro Poetry (Harcourt, Brace and Company) by James
Weldon Johnson

2
And a woman may engage in all her usual cosmetic treatments to enhance her physical
appearance on the intermediate days of a Festival. Rabbi Yehuda says: She may not apply lime
to her skin because it is temporarily a disgrace to her, as she is unattractive before the lime is
peeled off and will therefore be distressed during the Festival. The mishna continues: A layman,
who is not a skilled tailor, may sew in his usual manner if necessary for the Festival, whereas a
craftsman may form only temporary stitches. And one may interweave the cords attached to
the frames of beds upon which a mattress is placed. Rabbi Yosei says: One may only tighten the
cords but not interweave them.

GEMARA: It was taught in the mishna that one may not marry a woman on the intermediate days
of a Festival, because it is a source of joy for him. The Gemara asks: And if it is a source of joy
for him, what of it? Isn’t there is a mitzva to rejoice on a Festival? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel
said, and, so too, Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Oshaya said, and some say that Rabbi Elazar
said that Rabbi Ḥanina said: The reason that one may not get married on the intermediate days
of a Festival is because one may not mix one joy with another joy, as each requires its own
celebration. Rabba bar Rav Huna said: The reason is because he forsakes the rejoicing of the
pilgrimage Festival and occupies himself with rejoicing with his wife.

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: This statement of Rabba bar Rav Huna is actually a statement of
Rav, as Rav Daniel bar Ketina said that Rav said: From where is it derived that one may not
marry a woman on the intermediate days of a Festival? As it is stated:

3
 ^‫ ַאָתּה וִּב ְנ‬:^‫ ְבַּחֶגּ‬,‫ יד ְוָשַׂמְחָתּ‬14 And thou shalt rejoice in thy feast, thou, and thy son, and
‫ ְוַהֵלּ ִוי ְוַהֵגּר‬,^‫ ְוַﬠְבְדּ^ ַוֲאָמֶת‬,^‫ וִּבֶתּ‬thy daughter, and thy man-servant, and thy maid-servant,
.^‫ ֲאֶשׁר ִבְּשָׁﬠ ֶרי‬,‫ ְוַהָיּתוֹם ְוָהַאְלָמָנה‬and the Levite, and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the
widow, that are within thy gates.
Deut 16:14

“And you shall rejoice in your Festival” This verse emphasizes that you must rejoice in your
Festival and not in your wife.

Ulla said: The reason one may not marry on the intermediate days of a Festival is due to the
excessive exertion that the wedding preparations demand, which is prohibited during the Festival.
Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa said: The reason is due to the neglect of the mitzva to be fruitful and
multiply. If it were permissible to get married during the intermediate days of a Festival, people
would delay getting married until then in order to save money by avoiding the necessity of
preparing separate feasts for the Festival and for the wedding. In the meantime they would neglect
the mitzva of procreation.

§ The Gemara asks: With regard to the principle that one may not mix one joy with another joy,
from where do we derive it? The Gemara explains that the source is as it is written with regard
to the dedication of the Temple:

-‫ֶהָחג ְוָכל‬-‫ַהִהיא ֶאת‬-‫ֹמה ָבֵﬠת‬S‫סה ַוַיַּﬠשׂ ְשׁ‬ 65 So Solomon held the feast at that time, and all Israel
‫ַנַחל‬-‫ִיְשָׂרֵאל ִﬠמּוֹ ָקָהל ָגּדוֹל ִמְלּבוֹא ֲחָמת ַﬠד‬ with him, a great congregation, from the entrance Hamath
,‫ ִשְׁבַﬠת ָיִמים‬,‫ֵהינוּ‬S‫ ִלְפֵני ְיהָוה ֱא‬,‫ִמְצַר ִים‬ unto the Brook of Egypt, before the LORD our God, seven
.‫ יוֹם‬,‫ַא ְרָבָּﬠה ָﬠָשׂר‬--‫ְוִשְׁבַﬠת ָיִמים‬ days, and seven days, even fourteen days.
I Kings 8:65

4
 “So Solomon held the feast at that time, and all Israel with him, a great congregation, from the
entrance of Hamath to the Brook of Egypt, before the Lord our God, seven days and seven days,
fourteen days”

And if it is so that one may in fact mix one joy with another joy, he should have waited until
the festival of Sukkot, which was the second set of seven days, and made a feast of seven days
for this and for that, i.e., for the dedication of the Temple and for the festival of Sukkot together.
The fact that he did not do so indicates that one must not mix one joy with another.

The Gemara raises a question: Perhaps, however, it may be derived from here only that we may
not delay a wedding to be on a Festival, just as King Solomon did not delay the Temple dedication
to be on the Festival, but nevertheless, where it happens to occur that way, we may indeed
prepare a feast to celebrate both occasions together. The Gemara answers: If this were permitted,
Solomon should have left a small part of the Temple unfinished until the Festival, and thereby
arranged for a joint celebration of the dedication of the Temple and the festival of Sukkot.

§ Apropos the discussion of the celebration at Solomon’s dedication of the Temple, the Gemara
relates that Rabbi Parnakh said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: That year, the Jewish people did
not observe Yom Kippur, as the seven-day celebration of the dedication of the Temple coincided
with Yom Kippur and all seven days were celebrated with feasting. And the people were worried
and said: Perhaps the enemies of the Jewish people, a euphemism for the Jewish people
themselves, have become liable to be destroyed for the transgression of eating on Yom Kippur,
which is punishable by karet. A Divine Voice issued forth and said to them: All of you are
designated for life in the World-to-Come.

5
The Gemara asks: What derivation led them to conclude that it was permitted for them to eat on
Yom Kippur? The Gemara explains that they based their ruling on an a fortiori inference: If at the
dedication of the Tabernacle, whose sanctity is not a permanent sanctity, an individual’s
offering, i.e., an offering of one of the tribal princes, overrides the prohibition of Shabbat, as the
princes’ offerings were brought every day including Shabbat despite the attendant transgression of
a prohibition that is punishable by stoning; then with regard to the dedication of the Temple,
whose sanctity is a permanent sanctity and the offerings brought there were communal
offerings, is it not all the more so clear that the dedication of the Temple overrides the prohibition
of Yom Kippur, a violation that is punishable by the less severe punishment of karet?

The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that the feasting at the time of the dedication
of the Temple overrides Yom Kippur, so that the people did not have to fast? If we say it is
derived from that which is written: Fourteen days, perhaps this is referring to days that are
fit for feasting, to the exclusion of Yom Kippur. The Gemara answers: This is derived by means
of a verbal analogy between the word “day” mentioned in this context and the word “day”
mentioned there, with regard to the dedication of the Tabernacle. Just as there the days were
consecutive, without a break for Shabbat, so too here, the days were consecutive, without a break
for Yom Kippur.

It was stated above that a Divine Voice issued forth and said to them: All of you are
designated for life in the World-to-Come. The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive
that God pardoned them for this sin? The Gemara answers: The Sage Taḥlifa taught in a
baraita that the verse states:

‫ ַו ְיָב ְרכוּ‬,‫ָהָﬠם‬-‫סו ַבּיּוֹם ַהְשִּׁמי ִני ִשַׁלּח ֶאת‬ 66 On the eighth day he sent the people away, and they
‫ ְשֵׂמִחים‬,‫ַהֶמֶּל•; ַוֵיְּלכוּ ְלָאֳהֵליֶהם‬-‫ֶאת‬ blessed the king, and went unto their tents joyful and glad
‫ַהטּוָֹבה ֲאֶשׁר ָﬠָשׂה ְיהָוה‬-‫ ַﬠל ָכּל‬,‫ְוטוֵֹבי ֵלב‬ of heart for all the goodness that the LORD had shown
.‫ וְּל ִיְשָׂרֵאל ַﬠמּוֹ‬,‫ְלָד ִוד ַﬠְבדּוֹ‬ unto David His servant, and to Israel His people.
I Kings 8:66

6
 “On the eighth day he sent the people away, and they blessed the king, and went to their tents
joyful and glad of heart for all the goodness that the Lord had done for David His servant and
for Israel His people”

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: When Solomon sought to bring the Ark into the Temple the
gates clung together and could not be opened. Solomon uttered twenty-four songs of praise,
and his prayer was not answered. He began and said:

,‫ְוִהָנְּשׂאוּ‬ ,‫שׁיֶכם‬
ֵ ‫ ָרא‬,‫ז ְשׂאוּ ְשָׁﬠ ִרים‬ 7 Lift up your heads, O ye gates, and be ye lifted up,
;‫עוָֹלם‬ ‫ִפְּתֵחי‬ ye everlasting doors;
.‫ ֶמֶל‡ ַהָכּבוֹד‬,‫ְוָיבוֹא‬
Ps 24:7

“Lift up your heads, O you gate, and be lifted up, you everlasting doors; and the King of glory
shall come in” but once again his prayer was not answered, and the Temple gates remained
closed.

Once he said:

--^‫ קוָּמה ְיהָוה ֱא•ִהים ְלנוֶּח‬,‫מא ְוַﬠָתּה‬ 41 Now therefore arise, O LORD God, into Thy
,‫ ַוֲארוֹן ֻﬠֶזּ^; ֹכֲּהֶני^ ְיהָוה ֱא•ִהים‬,‫ַאָתּה‬ resting-place, Thou, and the ark of Thy strength; let
.‫ ִיְשְׂמחוּ ַבטּוֹב‬,^‫ ַוֲחִסיֶדי‬,‫ִיְלְבּשׁוּ ְתשׁוָּﬠה‬ Thy priests, O LORD God, be clothed with salvation,
and let Thy saints rejoice in good.

‫ְפֵּני‬ ‫שׁב‬ ֵ ‫ָתּ‬-‫ַאל‬ ,‫ֱא•ִהים‬ ‫מב ְיהָוה‬ 42 O LORD God, turn not away the face of Thine
{‫ }פ‬.^‫ ְלַחְסֵדי ָדּ ִויד ַﬠְבֶדּ‬,‫ ָזְכ ָרה‬:^‫ְמִשׁיֶח‬ anointed; remember the good deeds of David Thy
servant.' {P}
II Chron 6:41-42

7
“Now therefore arise, O Lord God, into your resting place, You, and the Ark of Your strength;
Let your priests, O Lord God, be clothed with victory and let Your pious ones rejoice in goodness.
O Lord God do not turn away the face of Your anointed; remember the faithful love of David
Your servant” he was immediately answered.

At that moment the faces of David’s enemies turned dark like the charred bottom of a pot,
and all knew that the Holy One, Blessed be He, forgave him for that sin involving Bathsheba,
as they saw that it was only in his merit that the gates of the Temple opened.

Midrash Tanchuma, Vaera 7

Lift up your heads, O ye gates, and be ye lifted up, ye everlasting doors (Ps. 24:7).

Solomon spoke this verse when he brought the Ark into the Holy of Holies. He had constructed an
Ark ten cubits wide which he desired to bring into the Temple. He carried it there, but when he
reached the entrance of the Temple, the entrance was only ten cubits wide. It is, of course,
impossible to carry an object of ten cubits through an opening of ten cubits.

Moreover, those who were carrying it were unable to enter with it. Solomon arose in dismay, not
knowing what to do. He began to plead with the Holy One, blessed be He: O Lord God, turn not
away the face of Thine anointed (II Chron. 6:42).

8
What did Solomon do? Our sages of blessed memory said: He raised the coffin of his father, David,
and prostrated himself before it, praying: O Lord God, turn not away the face of Thine anointed.
R. Berechiah declared in the name of R. Helbo: At that time David came to life, as you may
understand for yourself from David’s own words: O Lord, Thou broughtest up my soul from the
netherworld; Thou didst keep me alive, that I should not go down to the pit (Ps. 30:4). Solomon
said: Master of the Universe, make it go in for his sake: Remember the good deeds of David Thy
servant (II Chron. 6:42).

And his prayers were answered immediately, as it is said: O Lord God, turn not away the face of
Thine anointed. What is written after that? Now when Solomon had made an end of praying, the
fire came down from heaven, etc. (ibid. 7:1). The Holy Spirit then cried out, saying: Wherefore I
praise the dead that are already dead (Eccles. 4:2).

Thereupon Solomon began to pray: Lift up your heads, O ye gates, and be ye lifted up, ye
everlasting doors; that the King of glory may come in (Ps. 24:7). The gates wanted to crush his
head, for they thought that he had called himself the King of glory. They said to him: Who is this
King of glory? (ibid., v. 10), and he replied: The Lord of hosts, He is the King of glory. When he

9
responded in this way, they were appeased. If they had not been, they would have fallen on his
head and crushed him.

Bamidbar Rabbah 14:3

“On the seventh day…” (Bamidbar 7:48) This is what is written “Your gates, lift your heads…”
(Tehillim 24:7)

You find that at the time when Shlomo built the Holy Temple he sought to bring the ark into the
Holy of Holies, and at that moment the gates cleaved to one another. Shlomo said twenty-four
songs of joy from the verse “But will God indeed dwell with man on the earth?” (Divre HaYamim
II 6:18) to “And now, arise, O Lord God to Your resting place, You and the Ark of You might…”
(Divre HaYamim II 6:41)

Twenty-four verses and he was not answered. He tried again and said, “Your gates, lift your heads
and be uplifted…” (Tehillim 24:7) and was not answered. He tried again and said, “Your gates,

10
lift your heads and lift up…” (Tehillim 24:9) and was not answered. Once he said, “O Lord God,
do not turn back the face of Your anointed one; remember the kind deeds of David Your servant,”
(Divre HaYamim II 6:42) he was answered immediately.

The gates lifted up their heads, the ark entered, the Divine Presence dwelled in the House and the
fire descended from heaven, as is written afterwards “And when Solomon finished praying, and
the fire descended from heaven and consumed the burnt offerings and the sacrifices, and the glory
of the Lord filled the House.” (Divre HaYamim II 7:1) And why did Shlomo suffer all this?
Because he was filled with pride and said, “I have surely built You a house to dwell in…”
(Melachim I 8:13)

Summary

Introduction2

This mishnah prohibits marriage during the festival. It seems that the central idea is that one should
use the festival to celebrate the festival and not as an opportunity to celebrate something else. The
rabbis did not want people to say, “Since I can’t work on the festival anyway, I might as well use
it for a wedding celebration.” Rather, both the week of the festival and the week of the wedding
celebration should have their own separate times.

One may not marry a woman during the festival, whether a virgin or a widow,
nor may one perform levirate marriage, because this is a joy for him. But one
may remarry his divorced wife.

As stated in the introduction, one may not get married during a festival. The mishnah emphasizes
that this is true even if the woman is a widow, for whom a wedding celebration was not as
expansive. It is forbidden even to have levirate marriage with one’s dead brother’s widow. Even
though this was probably not as celebratory occasion as a more typical marriage, it is still a joy
and therefore it is prohibited. There is only one type of marriage remarrying one’s divorcee which
one can have on a festival. Since the couple has already been married, this is not as joyous of
occasion and therefore it is permitted. This clause sheds some light on the first clause.

Marriages are prohibited when they are the first time that a couple will have a chance to be married.
It is partly, at least, the anticipation of the new that makes a marriage a joyous occasion and
therefore prohibited during the festival. When the novelty is gone, the joy is diminished. [I realize
that many will disagree with this assessment, thinking that remarriage is a great joy. While this
point is debatable, the rabbis thought otherwise.]

2
https://www.sefaria.org/Moed_Katan.8b.7?lang=bi&p2=Mishnah_Moed_Katan.1.7&lang2=bi&w2=English%20Explanation%2
0of%20Mishnah&lang3=en

11
And a woman may make the adornments [for her wedding] during the festival.
Rabbi Judah says: she may not put on lime, as that is a [temporary]
disfigurement to her.

Although marriage is prohibited on the festival, a woman uses that week to make the adornments
(the perfumes and makeup) that she will need on her wedding day. Although she is using the
festival to prepare for something that she will not need during the festival, since it is not a lot of
work she is allowed to do so.

Rabbi Judah places one limitation on this. She cannot put lime on her body to remove hair and to
make her skin look better because while the lime is on she is disfigured. Rabbi Judah holds that
she should not do anything that will make her look ugly on the festival, even if it is only temporary.

Weddings and Delays: balancing celebration on the Moed

Usually we are encouraged to celebrate on the Intermediate Festival Days. However, we are not
permitted to mix one joyous occasion with another joyous occasion. We have learned that people
are not to marry during the Moed, even though a wedding is a happy event. The Gemara helps us
understand some of the possible origins of this halacha.

King Solomon ruled that the completed Temple was to be consecrated over a two-week
period. The celebration was required to end by the start of Sukkot. Thus some rabbis believe that
two celebrations should not be combined.

But if the celebrations lasted for two weeks, they interrupted Yom Kippur. We learn that the
Jewish people may have eaten and drunk on Yom Kippur, for they were taking part in a
consecration of the Temple which must have involved animal sacrifice. Somehow they are
forgiven for this transgression, and they even go home happy - in accordance with the halacha to
be joyful on celebrations.

The rabbis wonder whether we should be permitted to delay a celebration at all. They consider
whether a part of a beit hamikdash might be left incomplete. However, that too is discouraged -
we are to run to perform mitzvot and thus we should never delay the completion of such a building.

We are reminded that the only celebration that should be delayed for the sake of joy during a
Festival is a wedding. Ritva suggests that this is due to the inordinate amount of work that it takes
to serve food at a wedding celebration. Certainly some people are not able to joyfully celebrate
the day.

12
Rav Avrohom Adler writes:3

The Gemora seeks to find a Scriptural source that one should not intermingle one joyous occasion
with another. The Gemora cites a verse in Melachim I [8:65]: At that time, Shlomo instituted the
celebration, and all Israel was with him, a huge congregation, from the approach to Chamas until
the Brook of Egypt, before Hashem our G-d, for seven days and seven more days, fourteen days.
They celebrated the completion and dedication of the Beis Hamikdosh for seven days before
Sukkos and then they celebrated the festival of Sukkos for seven days.

The Gemora posits: If we would be permitted to intermingle one joyous occasion with another,
they should have waited and combined the seven-day celebration for the dedication of the Beis
Hamikdosh together with the seven days of Sukkos. By the fact that they didn’t combine the two,
it can be proven that we cannot intermingle two joyous occasions.

The Gemora rejects the proof: Perhaps we can intermingle two joyous occasions, but we cannot
intentionally delay the celebration once the Beis Hamikdosh was complete. The Gemora answers:
Shlomo could have left out a small portion of the building and finish it immediately prior to
Sukkos. By the fact that he didn’t leave over any part, this indicates that we cannot intermingle
two joyous occasions.

The Gemora persists in its questioning: They would not have left over any part of the building of
the Beis Hamikdosh because it would be a disgrace to leave the Beis Hamikdosh incomplete and
besides, everyone would realize that it was just a ploy to result in the dedication occurring on
Sukkos. The Gemora responds: They could have left over the over the building of the Kalyah Orev.
(The Beis Hamikdosh roof was one amah wide at its tip. They covered that amah with iron plates
that had spikes there to prevent ravens from resting on the roof.

The Aruch states that it is a scarecrow.) The Gemora rejects this by saying that the Kalyah Orev
was regarded as a necessity for the building of the Beis Hamikdosh and therefore it could not be
left out. In conclusion: We do not have conclusive proof from Shlomo that it is forbidden to
intermingle one joyous occasion with another because Shlomo concluded the building of the Beis
Hamikdosh earlier and could not postpone the dedication until Sukkos. The Gemora concludes
that the source that two joyous occasions cannot be intermingled with each other is from the extra
words in the verse. It is written: “fourteen days,” why was it necessary to write “seven days and
seven more days?” It is to teach us that two joyous occasions cannot be intermingled with each
other.

Rabbi Parnach said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: The Jewish people did not observe the fast of
Yom Kippur that year, but they ate on that day as part of the celebration of the inauguration of the
Beis Hamikdosh. The Gemora mentions that the Jewish people were worried that they may have
acted wrongly by eating on Yom Kippur and would deserve extermination. Hashem was pleased
with their decision, as He demonstrated at the end of the celebrations by sending forth a Heavenly
voice to proclaim that they were all destined to eternal life in the World to Come. They derived
the allowance to eat on Yom Kippur from the Torah's description of the inauguration of the
Tabernacle in the Wilderness.
3
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Moed_Katan_9.pdf

13
When the Tabernacle was dedicated, the Nesi'im (leaders of the tribes) brought sacrifices as part
of the celebration, even on Shabbos. The Jewish people derived from there that when the Beis
Hamikdosh is dedicated, the celebration overrides the obligation to fast on Yom Kippur. The
Gemora asks: Why were they worried? The Gemora answers: There is a distinction between the
dedication of the Tabernacle and the dedication of the Beis Hamikdosh. The sacrifices could
override Shabbos because it was necessary for Hashem (the korbanos), but the eating by the
dedication of the Beis Hamikdosh was for the ordinary people. The Gemora asks: Why was it
necessary by the dedication of the Beis Hamikdosh to eat and drink; wouldn’t it be sufficient with
offering sacrifices? The Gemora answers: There is no joy without eating and drinking.

The Gemora cites Scriptural sources demonstrating that the sacrifices offered by the dedication of
the Tabernacle overrode Shabbos and that the dedication of the Beis Hamikdosh overrode Yom
Kippur.

The Gemora seeks the source which indicates that Hashem forgave the Jewish people for eating
on Yom Kippur. Tachlifa taught a braisa: It is written in Melachim I[8:66]: And they went to their
tents joyful and glad of heart. This teaches us that the people returned to their homes to find their
wives in a state of marital purity, and that they rejoiced in the radiance of the Divine presence, and
that each wife became pregnant and gave birth to a boy, and a Heavenly Voice went out and said
to them: You are all prepared for a life in the World to Come.

Rav Yehudah in the name of Rav explains the part of the verse dealing with Dovid: Dovid had a
relationship with Bathsheva, the wife of Uriah Hachiti, who was on the battlefield. Although
Hashem told Dovid that his sin was forgiven, Dovid desired a sign in his lifetime that would clearly
demonstrate that he had repented. Hashem responded that the sign would occur only after Dovid
died, in the lifetime of Dovid’s son Shlomo.

When Shlomo sought to bring the Aron (Ark) inside the Holy of Holies, the gates of the Holy of
Holies would not open. He recited twenty-four songs of prayer, but he was not answered. He then
recited the verse: until Shlomo invoked the merits of his father Dovid. Upon witnessing this
phenomenon, the enemies of Dovid were humiliated, and the Jewish People knew that Hashem
had forgiven Dovid.

Rabbi Yonason ben Amsai and Rabbi Yehudah ben Gerim learned the portion related to vows in
the Beis Medrash of Rabban Shimon bar Yochai. In the evening, he granted them permission to
leave. They stayed overnight and returned again in the morning to receive permission. Rabban
Shimon bar Yochai asked them: Didn’t you receive permission last night? They responded: You
have taught us that a student who receives permission to leave in the evening, but ends up staying
overnight, must receive permission again the following morning. (The Gemora cites a Scriptural
source for this.)

Rabban Shimon bar Yochai told his son: These people are men of stature; go to them so they will
give you a blessing. When he arrived, they were discussing the following halachah (which was
derived based on a contradiction in two verses): When there are two mitzvos in front of a person,
one can weigh the mitzvos and perform the greater one, providing that the smaller mitzvah can be

14
performed by others; however, one must perform the smaller mitzvah if it cannot be performed by
others. Similarly, they stated that a mitzvah that can be performed by others does not compare to
Torah study, and one who is studying Torah should allow others to perform the mitzvah; however,
one must interrupt his learning and perform a mitzvah that cannot be performed by others.

Rabban Shimon bar Yochai’s son asked them for a blessing. They said to him: "May it be the will
of Hashem that you sow your field but not harvest. You should take out but not bring in. Let your
house be destroyed, and your inn be occupied. May your table be turned over, and may you not
see a new year." When he returned to his father, he reported that he was disappointed with what
seemed to be a series of curses rather than blessings.

Rabban Shimon bar Yochai, however, understood the true intent of the cryptic words. "Sowing the
field and not harvesting" refers to having children who will survive and not die in his lifetime. "To
take in and not bring out" means that his sons should bring daughters-in-law into his house, and
that they should never have to leave, which would be the case if, Heaven forbid, his sons might
die. They also wished that he marries off his daughters and never have to bring them back to his
own home. In context, they wished that his grave (house) remains empty and that he succeeds in
building his portion in the World to Come (the inn). Finally, they prayed that his table be
surrounded with children, and that he enjoys a long life with his wife, and she should not die, never
having to experience another "first-year" of marriage.

The Mishna had stated: And a woman may make her adornments during Chol Hamoed.
The Gemora cites a braisa: These are the women's adornments. She paints her eyes, parts her hair,
and puts rouge on her face; some say she may use a razor for her “lower face.” Rav Chisda's wife
was adorning herself in front of her daughter-in-law (on Chol Hamoed). Rav Huna bar Chinena
sat before Rav Chisda, and as he sat there he said that the permission mentioned in the Mishna
applied only to a young woman, but not to an elderly woman. Rav Chisda said to him: By God!
Even to your mother, and even to your mother's mother, and even if she would be standing by her
grave, as the saying goes: At sixty as at six; the sound of the bells (of a wedding) makes them run.
Rabbi Yehudah was quoted in the Mishna as saying: She may not plaster her face (with lime)
because it is a defacement to her (even though, it will improve her appearance when the lime is
removed; presently it causes her grief).

Rabbi Yehudah is cited in a braisa: She may not plaster her face (with lime) because it is a
defacement to her. He does admit that she may plaster her face with lime that can be peeled during
Chol Hamoed because although presently (while it’s on), it causes her grief, it will result in joy
later on (after it’s removed).

The Gemora asks: Does Rabbi Yehudah really maintain that something which presently causes
grief is permitted because it will result in joy later on? We have learned in a Mishna (Avodah
Zorah 2a): It is permitted to accept repayment of a loan from an idolater on his holiday (certain
transactions are forbidden with idolaters during their holiday season out of concern that they will
thank their idol for their good fate) because it (the repayment) causes him grief.

The Chachamim disagreed because they will be happy after time (since they are not obligated to
pay any longer). It emerges that Rabbi Yehudah does not hold that something which presently

15
causes grief is permitted because it will result in joy later on, so how can he rule that a woman is
permitted to use the lime? Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak answers: Chol Hamoed is different since
there are many activities that are permitted even though they presently cause grief; nevertheless
they are allowed because they will result in joy. Ravina answers: Rabbi Yehudah maintains that
an idolater never rejoices after repaying a loan (since he is always seeking ways to keep the money
illegally).

DELAYING THE PERFORMANCE OF A MITZVAH (SIYUM DURING

THE NINE DAYS)

The Gemora seeks to find a Scriptural source that one should not intermingle one joyous occasion
with another. The Gemora cites a verse in Melachim I [8:65]: At that time, Shlomo instituted the
celebration, and all Israel was with him, a huge congregation, from the approach to Chamas until
the Brook of Egypt, before Hashem our G-d, for seven days and seven more days, fourteen days.
They celebrated the completion and dedication of the Beis Hamikdosh for seven days before
Sukkos and then they celebrated the festival of Sukkos for seven days.

The Gemora posits: If we would be permitted to intermingle one joyous occasion with another,
they should have waited and combined the seven-day celebration for the dedication of the Beis
Hamikdosh together with the seven days of Sukkos. By the fact that they didn’t combine the two,
it can be proven that we cannot intermingle two joyous occasions. The Gemora rejects the proof:
Perhaps we can intermingle two joyous occasions, but we cannot intentionally delay the
celebration once the Beis Hamikdosh was complete.

The Gemora answers: Shlomo could have left out a small portion of the building and finish it
immediately prior to Sukkos. By the fact that he didn’t leave over any part, this indicates that we
cannot intermingle two joyous occasions.

The Avnei Neizer (O”C 459:9) asks: How could they have delayed the building of the Beis
Hamikdosh? Isn’t there a principle that one cannot push off the performance of a mitzvah? He
answers by citing the Chacham Tzvi (106), who maintains that it is permitted to delay the
performance of a mitzvah when the mitzvah can be performed with a greater degree of sanctity
later, and since here, the mitzvah of completing the Beis Hamikdosh on Sukkos would be of greater
sanctity and it would enhance the mitzvah, there would be no concern for the procrastination of
the mitzvah.

The Shach (Y”D 246:27) rules that when one is close to finishing a Mesechta, he may leave a little
left at the conclusion of the Mesechta in order to make the siyum on a day that is fit to have a
siyum feast. It is brought in some seforim that the source for this halacha is our Gemora, which
stated that they could have left over a small portion of the building of the Beis Hamikdosh in order
to celebrate the dedication on Sukkos. (They didn’t do this by the Beis Hamikdosh because we
cannot intermingle two joyous occasions or because it would be disgraceful to leave over a portion
of the Beis Hamikdosh.)

16
The Elya Rabbah (551:27) states: While it is permitted to eat meat during the Nine Days at a
siyum feast, one should not hurry or delay the finishing of a Mesechta in order to conclude it
during the Nine Days. The question is asked: Why not? Our Gemora prohibits this only by the
building of the Beis Hamikdosh; it can be inferred that this would be permitted by all other mitzvos.

Rabbi Ezriel Hildesheimer (O”C 90) answers: Regarding the building of the Beis Hamikdosh, if
we can intermingle two joyous occasions, there would be no prohibition at all to dedicate the Beis
Hamikdosh on Sukkos.

However, to hurry or delay the finishing of a Mesechta in order to conclude it during the Nine
Days and make a siyum then would be inconsistent with the custom of not eating meat during the
Nine Days. It is on account of this that the Elya Rabbah rules that this is forbidden to do.

EATING ON YOM KIPPUR

Rabbi Yoseph Dov Karr writes:

The Gemora says that the Jewish people did not observe the fast of Yom Kippur that year, but they
ate on that day as part of the celebration of the Chanukas ha'Mikdash. The Gemora says that they
derived the allowance to eat on Yom Kippur from the Torah's description of the Chanukas
ha'Mishkan in the Midbar. When the Mishkan was dedicated, the Nesi'im brought Korbanos as
part of the celebration, even on Shabbos. The Jewish people derived from there that when the
Mikdash is dedicated, the celebration overrides the obligation to fast on Yom Kippur. Hashem was
pleased with their decision, as He demonstrated at the end of the celebrations by sending forth a
Bas Kol to proclaim that they were all destined to eternal life in Olam ha'Ba.

The Gemora mentions that before they heard the Bas Kol, the Jewish people were worried that
they may have acted wrongly by eating on Yom Kippur and would be liable for the severe
punishment of Kares. Why were the people concerned that they would be liable for punishment?
Even if their ruling was incorrect, at worst their act was an inadvertent transgression, an act of
Shogeg, for which there is no punishment of Kares.

Moreover, the people certainly followed the ruling of Beis Din in this matter, and thus there was
no reason for them to be held accountable. Even if the ruling was wrong, the people would be
liable only to bring a Par he'Elem Davar (the Korban offered when the entire nation acts upon an
erroneous ruling of Beis Din which permits an act that is actually forbidden with a punishment of
Kares).

Why were they afraid that they would be punished with Kares? Perhaps the answer may be
dependent upon whether or not the permission of eat on Yom Kipper was D'chuya or Hutra.
Apparently it was D'chuya and therefore they were concerned that even though it was mutar to eat
there was still a partial sin and needed to be forgiven and they were worried perhaps they made a
mistake.

The Bas Kol came and told them not to worry, as Hashem decided it was the right thing to do and
was completely Hutra.

17
 THE YEAR THE JEWISH PEOPLE DID NOT FAST ON YOM KIPPUR

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:4

The Jewish people experienced great joy in the times of Shlomo ha'Melech when the building of the
Beis ha'Mikdash was completed. They celebrated for seven days prior to Sukos as the verse relates
(Melachim I 8:65). The Gemara says that the Jewish people did not observe the fast of Yom Kippur
that year, but they ate on that day as part of the celebration of the Chanukas ha'Mikdash.

The Gemara says that they derived the allowance to eat on Yom Kippur from the Torah's description
of the Chanukas ha'Mishkan in the Midbar. When the Mishkan was dedicated, the Nesi'im brought
Korbanos as part of the celebration, even on Shabbos. The Jewish people derived from there that when
the Mikdash is dedicated, the celebration overrides the obligation to fast on Yom Kippur. Hash-m was
pleased with their decision, as He demonstrated at the end of the celebrations by sending forth a Bas
Kol to proclaim that they were all destined to eternal life in Olam ha'Ba.

The Gemara mentions that before they heard the Bas Kol, the Jewish people were worried that they
may have acted wrongly by eating on Yom Kippur and would be liable for the severe punishment of
Kares.

Why were the people concerned that they would be liable for punishment? Even if their ruling was
incorrect, at worst their act was an inadvertent transgression, an act of Shogeg, for which there is no
punishment of Kares. Moreover, the people certainly followed the ruling of Beis Din in this matter,
and thus there was no reason for them to be held accountable. Even if the ruling was wrong, the people
would be liable only to bring a Par he'Elem Davar (the Korban offered when the entire nation acts upon
an erroneous ruling of Beis Din which permits an act that is actually forbidden with a punishment of
Kares). Why were they afraid that they would be punished with Kares?

In addition, the Gemara implies that their exposition of the verse was correct, and that Hash-m was
pleased with the Simchah that they experienced and expressed on Yom Kippur of that year. Why, then,
does the Gemara ask, "How do we know that Hash-m forgave them," and why does it refer to their
eating on Yom Kippur as "the sin of Yom Kippur"? If their action was based on a valid Kal v'Chomer,
why does the Gemara call it a "sin," and why did they need forgiveness? (CHIDUSHIM U'VI'URIM)

It must be that at the time of the Chanukas ha'Mikdash, the Beis Din did not actually issue a ruling to
permit (or require) the people to eat on Yom Kippur. In fact, the Beis Din did not even convene at all
to discuss the question. Rather, the people themselves, and the members of the Beis Din together with
them, were so euphoric about the inauguration of the Beis ha'Mikdash, the dwelling place for the
Shechinah in this world, that they spontaneously assumed that they were permitted to celebrate even
on Yom Kippur, based on the Kal v'Chomer. They assumed that there was no need to convene Beis
Din to issue a Heter in the matter.

Their joy was so great and their longing to express it so intense that by common consent they decided
to express their joy through eating despite the Torah's prohibition against eating on Yom Kippur. After
they celebrated, they feared that they may have erred in the Derashah even though they based their

4
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/mkatan/insites/mo-dt-009.htm

18
ruling on a Kal v'Chomer and did not intentionally transgress the laws of Yom Kippur. They feared
that their error would be counted against them as an intentional act of transgression, for "Shigegas
Talmud Oleh Zadon" (Pirkei Avos 4:13) -- a mistake in learning is considered a willful transgression.

What mistake did they fear they had made in their Kal v'Chomer? The Gemara explains that their Kal
v'Chomer was derived from the Korbanos of the Nesi'im, from which they learned that the laws of
Shabbos and Yom Kippur may be suspended for the sake of celebrating the Chanukas ha'Mikdash. The
Gemara asks that the verse proves only that the Korbanos of the dedication ceremony override the laws
of Shabbos, but not that physical expressions of joy such as eating override the obligation to fast on
Yom Kippur. Why, then, did the people permit eating and drinking on Yom Kippur based on that
verse? The Gemara answers that "there is no Simchah without eating and drinking."

The TOSFOS HA'ROSH asks that the Gemara's answer is valid only if the people had a source in the
Torah for a Mitzvah to express Simchah upon the completion of the Mikdash. However, the only
requirement that can be derived from the Korbanos of the Nesi'im is that Korbanos must be offered
when the Mikdash is consecrated. What source did the people have for an obligation to express joy
through eating and drinking when the Mikdash is consecrated?

The Tosfos ha'Rosh answers that they considered the obligation to rejoice an obvious corollary of the
obligation to offer Korbanos, because whenever Korbanos are offered there is Simchah as the verse
says, "You shall offer sacrifices and eat them and rejoice before Hash-m" (Devarim 27:7).

This answer needs elucidation. The verse in Devarim teaches only that one must rejoice when a Korban
is offered, but not when the Mikdash is built. There is no source that the joy of offering a
Korban overrides Yom Kippur. The verses of the Nesi'im teach only that offering a Korban for
the celebration of the building of the Mikdash overrides Shabbos. Why did the Jewish people think that
their joy should override Yom Kippur?

Apparently their logic was as follows. They reasoned: why did Hash-m instruct the Nesi'im to offer
their Korbanos even on Shabbos? It must be that the proper way to express joy (in the times of the
Mikdash) is only with the consumption of meat of Korbanos (Pesachim 109a, based on the
aforementioned verse in Devarim). Hash-m allowed the Korbanos to be offered on Shabbos so that the
people would experience Simchah that day through the offering and eating of the Korbanos.

This explains the people's mistake. They attempted to read their own reasoning into the commandments
of the Torah ("Doresh Ta'ama d'Kra") and derive Halachos with a method which was not one of the
accepted thirteen principles of Halachic derivation. For that reason their act was called a sin and
required atonement. Nevertheless, a Bas Kol issued forth and informed them that since they acted
purely for the sake of honoring Hash-m, they would not be punished. They were even rewarded for
their pure intentions.

(See also Sanhedrin 21b: "Why were the reasons for the Mitzvos not revealed? Because in the two
instances in which they were revealed, the greatest person in the world (Shlomo ha'Melech) erred...
[and said,] 'I will marry, and I will not be affected...'." It is interesting to note that it was Shlomo
ha'Melech who erred in this regard, and that during his reign the people made the same type of mistake
when they permitted eating on Yom Kippur.)

19
 CHOOSING TO DO THE GREATER MITZVAH
Rebbi Yonasan ben Asamai and Rebbi Yehudah ben Gerim resolved a contradiction between two
verses. One verse implies that one is permitted to "measure" two Mitzvos and choose to do the greater
one (Mishlei 4:26), while another verses says that one may not measure the Mitzvos in order to do the
greater one (Mishlei 5:6).

They answered that one verse refers to when the Mitzvah can be done by someone else ("Mitzvah
she'Efshar la'Asos Al Yedei Acherim"), and the other verse refers to when the Mitzvah cannot be done
by someone else ("Mitzvah she'Iy Efshar la'Asos Al Yedei Acherim").

There are several ways to understand this answer and the logic behind it.

(a) RASHI writes that both verses refer to a situation in which a person is presented with the
opportunity to perform two Mitzvos. The verse which implies that one should choose the greater
Mitzvah (Mishlei 4:26) refers to when one of the two Mitzvos can be done by someone else ("Efshar
la'Asos Al Yedei Acherim"). Since someone else can do one of the Mitzvos, one should choose to do
the greater Mitzvah himself. In contrast, when no one else can do the other Mitzvah and the person
will have to do both of them himself, he should do the Mitzvah which presents itself first, whether it
is the lesser or greater Mitzvah.

The CHACHAM TZVI (#106) writes that the Gemara here is the source for the ruling of
the RADVAZ (Teshuvah 13), who was asked whether an imprisoned Jew who receives permission to
leave for one day of the year should leave right away in order to do a small Mitzvah or wait until a
later day on which he can do a great Mitzvah. The Radvaz ruled that he should leave at the earliest
opportunity in order to do even a small Mitzvah because of the principle, "Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah l'Yadcha
Al Tachmitzenah."

However, this principle states only that when a Mitzvah presents itself one should not let it pass. How,
though, does this principle teach that one should give up a greater Mitzvah later in order to do a smaller
Mitzvah now? The Chacham Tzvi says that the source for the ruling of the Radvaz is the Gemara here
which says that one should not take into account a greater Mitzvah that will present itself later when
there is a smaller Mitzvah to do now.

(b) The TOSFOS HA'ROSH explains the Gemara differently. He relates this Gemara to the following
Gemara which asks that there is an apparent contradiction between two other verses. The Gemara
resolves that contradiction by saying that the only time one may stop learning Torah to do a Mitzvah
is when that Mitzvah cannot be done by someone else. If the Mitzvah can be done by someone else,
one may not interrupt his learning to do that Mitzvah.

This is also the intent of the Gemara here. When the Gemara says that one verse refers to a Mitzvah
which cannot be done by someone else, it means that the verse permits a person to interrupt his learning
in order to do such a Mitzvah. The other verse, which implies that one may not measure the Mitzvos
and choose one over the other, refers to a Mitzvah which can be done by someone else. Since it can be
done by someone else, one may not interrupt his learning in order to do it. Learning Torah itself is a
"Mitzvah she'Iy Efshar la'Asos Al Yedei Acherim," a Mitzvah which cannot be done by someone else,
and therefore it overrides any Mitzvah which can be done by someone else. (See also SEFAS EMES.)

20
(c) The MAHARSHA says that the verse refers to a situation in which two Mitzvos present
themselves to a person at one time and he can do only one of them. Which one should he do? The
Gemara teaches that it depends on whether one of the Mitzvos can be done by someone else. If one of
the Mitzvos can be done by someone else, then one may do the smaller Mitzvah (unlike Rashi's
explanation), since both Mitzvos eventually will be fulfilled (by him and by someone else). If, however,
neither Mitzvah can be done by someone else and he can do only one of them himself, he should choose
the greater Mitzvah. (This is consistent with the Gemara's discussion in a number of places with regard
to one who is faced with two Mitzvos and can perform only one, such as the Mitzvah to bury a Mes
Mitzvah and the Mitzvah to offer the Korban Pesach.)

The Maharsha's approach and Rashi's approach are not necessarily exclusive of each other. According
to the Maharsha, the Gemara teaches when a person is obligated to choose the greater Mitzvah. A
person is not obligated to choose the greater Mitzvah when another person can do it. According to
Rashi, the Gemara teaches when a person is permitted to choose the greater Mitzvah. When another
person will do one of the two Mitzvos which present themselves, one is permitted to perform the greater
Mitzvah himself (and he is even encouraged to do so), and he may leave the other Mitzvah for his
friend.

Weddings on Hol HaMoed

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:5

One activity that is forbidden on Hol HaMoed is a happy one. People are not allowed to get married
on Hol HaMoed, because, as the Mishna teaches on 8b, ein me’arvin simha be-simha – we are not
supposed to mix one celebratory event with another.

The source for this concept that is suggested by the Gemara is the story of King Solomon’s
consecration of the Temple, which took two weeks and ended prior to the Sukkot holiday (see
I Melakhim 8:65). This is understood by the Gemara to indicate that Shlomo felt that he could not
allow the festivities connected with the Temple to impinge on the festivities of Sukkot.

It is interesting to note that although King Solomon was not willing to celebrate on Sukkot, the
celebrations did take place on Yom Kippur. The Gemara records that these celebrations included
food and drink, because ein simha b’lo akhila u’shetiya (there is no joy without eating and
drinking). This conclusion may be based on the fact that we find that establishing an altar includes
the bringing of sacrifices and eating them (see Devarim 12:7, 27:7).

Rabbi Parnakh quotes Rabbi Yohanan as teaching that the Jewish people feared for their lives,
given that they did not fast as required on Yom Kippur. Nevertheless, the Gemara concludes, a
heavenly voice came from the heavens promising all of the participants that they would have a

5
https://steinsaltz.org/daf/moed9/

21
place in the World-to-Come. This is based on I Kings 8:66, which teaches how the people all
returned home joyous and happy.

The Gemara adds an explanation to the rule forbidding marriages on Yom Tov – that the
preparations for the event are so involved that they will detract from the participants’ ability to
fully enjoy the holiday. Thus, while Tosafot ask whether other types of celebrations should be
forbidden on the holiday because ein me’arvin simha be-simha, the Ritva argues that only
weddings, whose meals are so involved as to keep someone from being able to properly celebrate,
cannot take place on Hol HaMoed; other festivities, however, would be permitted.

After Yaakov Avinu delivered a personalized message of blessing to each of his sons, he then
pronounced a general blessing for all of them together.6

Rashi to Bereshis 49:28 notes that the words of Yaakov to Reuven and Shimon seem to be
relatively critical, not typical of a blessing. Yet the concluding message of Yaakov to the entire
group shows us that Yaakov's intent was only constructive and to be understood for benefit.
Kuntras Otzros Chaim explains that we can best illustrate this with a story brought in our Gemara.
Rabban Shimon bar Yochai sent his son to receive blessings from Rabbi Yonason ben Amsai and
Rabbi Yehuda ben Gerim, as he informed his son that these people were worthy men of stature.

But when his son arrived, he was surprised when they pronounced words he did not expect to hear.
“May it be the will of Hashem that you sow your field but not harvest. You should take in but not
bring out, bring out but not take in. Let your house be destroyed, and your inn be occupied. May
your table be turned over, and may you not see a new year.”

When he returned to his father, he reported that he was disappointed with what seemed to be a
series of curses rather than blessings. Rabban Shimon bar Yochai, however, understood the true
intent of the cryptic words. “Sowing the field and not harvesting” refers to having children who
will survive and not die in his lifetime. “To take in and not bring out” means that his sons should
bring daughters-in-law into his house, and that they should never have to leave, which would be
the case if, chas v'shalom, his sons might die.

They also wished that he marries off his daughters and never have to bring them back to his own
home. In context, they wished that his grave (house) remains empty and that he succeeds in
building his portion in the World-to-Come (the inn).

Finally, they prayed that his table be surrounded with children, and that he enjoys a long life with
his wife, never having to experience another “first-year” of marriage. Maharsha explains that
Rabban Shimon's son himself also understood that these men did not mean to curse him. He

6
https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/MoedKatan%20009.pdf

22
realized that there was a deeper meaning in their message, and when he could not understand it,
he was distressed.

The sons of Yaakov stood by his bedside during his final moments in this world. They were all
recipients of a blessing, both in a personal as well as in a general sense. Even the harsh words he
spoke to some of them were meant to encourage and challenge each in his own way. The reason
Yaakov spoke in a varying style as he addressed each son was specifically in order to communicate
and relate to each on his own level, and to effectively deliver the appropriate blessing each needed
to hear.

Here it refers to a mitzvah that could be fulfilled by others and here it refers to a mitzvah that
cannot be fulfilled by others.

Rambam (1) writes that it is permitted to delay marriage if one is engaged in Torah study and is
fearful that marriage will be a distraction from learning. The rationale behind this ruling is that
involvement in one mitzvah exempts one from other mitzvos
and this certainly applies to the mitzvah of Torah study i.e. that involvement in Torah
study exempts one from other mitzvos.

Rav Elchonon Wasserman (2) challenges this ruling of Rambam from our Gemara which states
that one must set aside Torah study to perform a mitzvah that cannot be performed by others, and
the mitzvah of procreation is a mitzvah that cannot be fulfilled by others. Rav Wasserman answers
that the ruling of Rambam only allows a person to delay marriage but it does not exempt a person
from marriage altogether and a mitzvah whose fulfillment could be delayed is categorized as a
mitzvah that could be performed by others and thus may be delayed in order to fulfill the mitzvah
of Torah study.

Rav Moshe Shik (3), the Maharam Shik, offers an alternative explanation. He maintains that the
mitzvah to procreate is a mitzvah that could be performed by others because it is not a mitzvah
that is incumbent on individuals; rather it is a mitzvah that rests upon the community
because the primary rationale behind the mitzvah is to inhabit the world.

A practical difference between these approaches is whether the pursuit of Torah study can push
aside the mitzvah of marriage altogether or it merely allows one to delay marriage until some point
in the future when it must be fulfilled. According to Rav Wasserman it is only permitted to delay
the fulfillment of the mitzvah whereas according to Maharam Shik one may push off the mitzvah
entirely (4).

23
Someone once asked Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt”l, “Can one fulfill the mitzvah of bikur cholim by
telephone? This would still enable a person to fulfill the main reason for the mitzvah, to inspire
one to pray for the sick person, even if the rest of the benefits of the mitzvah would not be achieved.
I think the Shulchan Aruch itself provides a proof when it states that one can discharge his
obligation to visit a person too sick to speak by visiting the outer chamber and asking after his
welfare.”

Rav Moshe responded, “But how can you see how the patient is doing and help him over the
telephone? Sometimes a visitor needs to straighten up the sickroom or help in some other way.

He continued, “Your proof is no proof at all! In the case where the patient is forbidden to speak,
the act of asking others how he is constitutes a visit because entering the sickroom can actually
cause the patient harm. But if the patient can receive visitors, one must make the effort to visit
personally. How else will the patient feel cared for?

Also, one prays with more intensity after making an actual visit. It could also be that one’s prayers
in the sickroom are received more readily because the Shechinah is above the patient’s bed.
“Although you are wrong to say that the main ‘reason’ for the mitzvah is to inspire the visitor to
pray, this aspect of the mitzvah is distinguished in one respect.

We find in Moed Katan 9a that Rav Yonasan ben Amsai and Rav Yehuda ben Geirim were
analyzing verses when the son of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai approached them for a blessing. The
Gemara explains there that if there is a mitzvah that needs to be done and it can be performed by
someone else, one should not interrupt his learning.

If there is no one else to do it, however, one should interrupt one’s learning. In the case of bikur
cholim, even if all the needs of the sick person will be taken care of by others one should still visit;
the more people who pray for the patient, the better! And if one really cannot visit—he should at
least pick up the phone and call!”

24
R. Julie Hilton Danan writes:7

Our daf focuses on the importance of joy — and especially on giving each joyful occasion the
attention it deserves.

Yesterday, we began to consider why weddings should not be performed on hol hamoed, the
intermediate days of a festival. The guiding principle is that one shouldn’t mix one joy with
another. Various reasons were offered for this, but on today’s daf we learn that each of those
practical concerns can be summarily dismissed. Instead, the key reason we don’t mix joyous
occasions is to emulate King Solomon at the dedication of the Temple in Jerusalem:

One may not mix joy with joy; from where do we derive it? As it is written: “So Solomon held
the feast at that time, and all Israel with him, a great congregation, from the entrance of
Hamath to the Brook of Egypt, before the Lord our God, seven days and seven days, fourteen
days” (I Kings 8:65). And if it is so one may mix joy with joy, he should have waited until the
festival of Sukkot and made a feast of seven days for this and for that.

According to the verse in I Kings, Solomon made a feast to mark the dedication of the Temple,
and then a second feast a week later for the festival of Sukkot — seven days and seven days, for a
total of 14 days of feasting. Solomon’s choice to make the two celebrations distinct demonstrates
to the rabbis that one should not mix one joy with another. The medieval Tosafot commentary
explains the reason for this in a comment on yesterday’s daf: “In order that one’s heart should be
open to one mitzvah and one will not turn away from it.” In other words, it is important to give
each joyful mitzvah the focus it deserves.

The Jerusalem Talmud (Moed Katan 1:7) offers another precedent for not mixing joyous
occasions, especially when it comes to weddings: According to Genesis 29:27, the
patriarch Jacob celebrated his marriage to Leah for seven days before marrying Rachel. According
to this version, the custom of not mixing the joy of one celebration with another predates even
King Solomon.

Rabbi Jay Kelman notes that we do quite the opposite when it comes to sad commemorations,
which we readily lump together. As we saw back on Taanit 26, the rabbis attach many tragic
historical occasions to the fasts of the 17th of Tammuz and Tisha B’Av. Later persecutions and
mournful events would continue to be added to Tisha B’Av through the ages, even though they
didn’t necessarily occur on that day. But when it comes to happy times, we spread the occasions
out in order to savor each one and give it our full attention.

In later Jewish legal tradition, the principle of not mixing joys has focused on weddings more than
other life cycle occasions. Not only are Jewish weddings not generally celebrated on a festival, but
two wedding celebrations should ideally not be combined together. One exception to this is
inviting a poor couple to celebrate their wedding with a wealthy one so that they too can enjoy a

7
Myjewishlearning.com

25
dignified celebration (Shulchan Aruch, Even Haezer 62:2). In such a case, combining the
celebrations would add to the joy.

Nuptials and the Temple were poetically linked in Taanit (26b), which compared both the giving
of the Torah and the dedication of Solomon’s Temple to a kind of cosmic wedding celebration.
But there’s a more direct reason that a wedding is like the Temple’s dedication. As we learned in
Megillah (29a), weddings mark the establishment of a new home with the potential to be a mikdash
me'at,” a “small temple” in its own right. Like the dedication of Solomon’s sanctuary of old, every
such dedication deserves to be celebrated with our full attention and with our hearts open to joy.

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:8

It happens twice in our daf (Moed Katan 9b). A son is encouraged by his father to receive a bracha
from one, or more, great Rabbis. The son goes and receives the bracha, but he thinks that the words
of the Rabbi/s is meaningless, and in one of the two cases, even offensive. But afterwards, the
father explains to the son the true meaning of the bracha he has received.

In the first case, the son of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai is sent by his father to Rabbi Yonatan ben
Asmai and Rabbi Yehuda ben Gerim to receive a bracha, who bless him with the words: ‘May it
be the will [of G-d] that you sow and not reap, that you take in and not bring out [and] bring out
and not take in. Let your house be destroyed and let your inn be inhabited. Let your table be
disturbed. And may you not see a new year.’

Upon returning to his father, the son complains, ‘it was not enough that they did not bless me, but
they caused me pain with what they said.’ However, Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai then explains the
words of the bracha that his son had just received.

In the second case, the son of Rav is sent by his father to Rabbi Shimon ben Chalafta to receive a
bracha, who bless him with the words: ‘May it be the [the will of G-d] that you do not embarrass
[others] and that you not be embarrassed [by others].’

Upon returning to his father, the son complains, ‘[Rabbi Shimon ben Chalafta] simply said
mundane words to me’. However, Rav then explains the words of the bracha that his son had just
received.

We wonder, in both cases though especially in the second where the bracha was far less cryptic,
what the issue was with these two young men? Of course, it is hard to know what they were
thinking. However, it is possible to suggest that their expectation was that these great Rabbis would
give them a blessing that G-d would provide them with material success (eg. money), or perhaps
professional success (eg. knowledge).

However, the first blessing spoke of the having a healthy family, while the second blessing spoke
of living a dignified life and treating others with dignity.

8
www.rabbijohnnyosolomon.com

26
At times, people – and especially (although not exclusively) young people – think that the blessing
of a healthy family and the ability to live a dignified life while treating others with dignity is
something somewhat mundane, and perhaps even a little boring. Instead, when they pray and
dream and seek blessings, they often wish for fame, fortune, and success.

Admittedly, professional success has its place. At the same time, we often unfortunately confuse
financial and professional success with personal happiness and with living a meaningful and moral
life.

When Rav’s son complained to his father that ‘[Rabbi Shimon ben Chalafta] simply said mundane
words to me’, Rav responded, ‘[on the contrary], he blessed you with the ultimate blessing’. And
just as it was true then, so too it is true now.

Rabbi Mendel Weinbach writes:9

If a Jew in a foreign prison is granted one day in the year to be free to fulfill his religious
obligations, which day should he choose?

One of the early commentaries, Rabbi David ben Zimra (RaDvaZ) raises this question in one of
his Responsa and suggests some possibilities of very important mitzvot.

A later commentary, Rabbi Zvi Ashkenazi in his Responsa Chacham Zvi (106), suggests that the
answer can be found in our gemara. In resolving an apparent conflict between two passages
in Mishlei (4:26 and 5:6) regarding the need to weigh the comparative value of mitzvot, the Sages
thus conclude: If the less important mitzvah can be done by someone else, you should choose to
do the more important one.

But if both are incumbent on you then you must fulfill the first mitzvah that comes your way even
if it is the less important one. Based on this resolution the fellow who has one day of freedom
should ask for the very first day so that he can fulfill mitzvot which he cannot achieve in prison
even though they are less important than others which could be fulfilled on a later day.

Another source for the same conclusion is offered by Rabbi Zvi Hirsh Chayes in his commentary
on our gemara. In Mesechta Succah (25b) Rashi thus explains a point made in the gemara: "We
thus see that when a mitzvah comes your way it should not be put aside in favor of a more important
mitzvah due to come later."

9
https://ohr.edu/explore_judaism/daf_yomi/talmudigest/3054

27
RABBI MORDECHAI BECHER writes:10

The Talmud maintains that one should avoid making promises and oaths, in order to avoid the very
serious consequences of transgression (Nedarim 9a). The verse in Ecclesiastes (Kohelet 5:3-4)
quoted by the Talmud implies this: “When you vow a vow to G-d, defer not to pay it; for He has
no pleasure in fools; pay what you have vowed. It is better that you should not vow, than that you
should vow and not pay.”

In their commentary on the Talmud (Tosafot Chullin 2b), the authors of Tosafot ask how Jacob
could have made an oath: “And Jacob vowed an oath, saying, ‘If G-d will be with me, and will
keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and garments to put on, so that I come
back to my father’s house in peace; then shall the L-rd be my G-d’ ” (Bereishit 28:20-
21).” Tosafot answer (based on the Medrash) that one is permitted to make an oath at times of
stress and danger, the prohibition being applicable only during normal times. Since Jacob was
escaping from his brother Esau who had vowed to kill him, this was certainly a time of stress and
danger, and it was appropriate for Jacob to make an oath.

Is it permitted to hold the weddings of two sisters at the same time?

The Mordechai (Moed Katan 8) maintains that a verse in the Torah portion this week requires one
to wait for the end of the sheva brachot (the week-long celebration after a wedding) of one
daughter until making the wedding for the next daughter. After Laban agrees to let Jacob marry
Rachel, he says, “Complete this week” (Bereishit 29:26), which is understood by the Jerusalem
Talmud to mean the week of celebration, because one should not “mix one joy with another”
(Moed Katan).

Rabbi Moshe Feinstein however points out that this would only be true in the case of one man,
like Jacob, who is marrying two sisters, in which case his personal obligation to rejoice with one
bride will interfere with his obligation to rejoice with his other bride. Nevertheless, Rabbi Moshe
Isserless (Code of Jewish Law, Even Haezer 62:2) does forbid holding the weddings of two sisters
simultaneously, but for a different reason.

Thus Rabbi Feinstein concludes that holding the wedding ceremonies one after the other, providing
the crowd disperses in between, or holding one before sundown and the other after nightfall, is
permitted (Igrot Moshe, Even Haezer 4:89).

10
https://www.partnersintorah.org/parsha-partner/vayeitzei/

28
Rabbi Jay Kelman writes:11

The Gemara (Megillah 5b) relates that Rebbe wanted to abolish Tisha B'Av. Interestingly, no
reason is given for this idea of Rebbe's[1]. And while this might be a popular move, "his colleagues
would not consent". So much so, that Rabbi Abba the son of Zavda could not fathom that Rebbe
truly meant to abolish Tisha B'Av. As much as we might prefer to get rid of it, it is a crucial day
in our calendar. "Whoever eats and drinks on Tisha B'Av will not see the comfort of
Jerusalem" (Ta'anit 30b).

Only one who appreciates what was lost can truly celebrate what is gained. Rather, Rav Zavda
claims, Rebbe was dealing with a case when Tisha B'Av fell on Shabbat, so that the fast was to be
observed on Sunday, the 10th of Av. Rebbe said, "Since it was pushed off, let it be pushed off".
With fasting on Shabbat, the 9th of Av, forbidden--and with little or no significance to a fast on
the tenth of Av--Rebbe argued, Let's just forget about Tisha B'Av this year, and wait until next
year to fast.

It is one thing to cancel Tisha B'Av--something that may technically only have the status of a
custom, albeit a most important one--but it is quite another to cancel Yom Kippur, the most special
day of the year[2]. Yet this is precisely what the Jewish people did when the first Temple was
built (Moed Katan 9a). The dedication of the Temple took place on Sukkot; and as "we may not
mix one joyous occasion with another", the celebration of such took place in the preceding seven
days, which included Yom Kippur. As "there is no joy without eating or drinking", the celebrations
required that the Jewish people eat on Yom Kippur.

While they had no Biblical support for such a radical decision, they did not need one, relying on
the following logical argument: If the Jewish people were allowed to bring private sacrifices in the
Mishkan on Shabbat, surely they could bring public sacrifices to the Temple on Yom Kippur. The
Mishkan was only a temporary dwelling, whereas the Temple was a permanent structure; Yom

11
https://torahinmotion.org/discussions-and-blogs/moed-katan-9-to-fast-or-not-to-fast

29
Kippur has less sanctity than Shabbat; and public sacrifices, unlike private ones, must be brought
at a specific time, giving three arguments in favour of such celebrations.

Yet the Jewish people were nervous, fearing that "they were worthy of destruction". One does not
just cancel Yom Kippur lightly, no matter how persuasive the arguments. "A heavenly voice
descended and said to them: You are all destined for the world to come", allaying their fears[3].
Rebbe's view on cancelling Tisha B'Av was not accepted, and the cancelling of Yom Kippur was
a historical anomaly.

Yet, for the Sages of the Talmud, it was clear that these days, crucial as they are, were not an end
in themselves. It was the message that they conveyed that was most important, and it is possible
that other messages are, at times, to take precedence[4]. Fasting is never more than a means to an
end. This is a message worth contemplating.

[1] Perhaps Rebbe--the one who made the historic decision to commit the Oral Law to paper--felt that, with the writing of Mishnah,
the Beit Hamikdash lost its overarching importance.

As we read in this week's parsha, and to quote the Rambam, "The great court in Jerusalem [situated in the Temple] are the mainstays
of the Oral Law...and from them, law and statute go out to all Israel" (Mamrim 1:1). With the Temple destroyed and the people
dispersed, there was fear the Oral Law would be forgotten. When Rebbe published the Mishnah, in effect he saved the Torah,
creating a new source for "law and statute [to] go out to all Israel", much like Rav Yochanan ben Zackai had done 150 years earlier
by not even requesting that the Temple be spared (Gittin 56b). Instead, Rav Yochanan ben Zackai focused on building "Yavne and
its scholars"--teachers of Torah being of far greater significance than any building could ever be. In effect, the Temple was rebuilt
with the publication of the Mishnah, which became the new teacher of Torah.

These visionary leaders wanted to ensure that Jewish life could fully function even without the Temple--greatly minimizing the
loss suffered on Tisha B'Av. A similar notion can be seen when Rabbi Akiva laughed upon seeing foxes running around the Temple
Mount (Makkot 24a). Instead of focusing on what was, he focused on what will be--the redemption of the Jewish people. While
this is pure speculation on my part, it does seem like something worth thinking about, especially in light of the comment of Tosafot
that all Rebbe really wanted to do was to have Tisha B'Av treated like the other "minor" fast days, minus the extra restrictions of
the day.

[2] While, from a technical point of view, the penalty for violating Shabbat is more severe--and there are seven aliyot on Shabbat
as opposed to only six on Yom Kippur--the latter offers a much greater opportunity for atonement, making it the day with the
greatest potential of the year.

[3] Most strikingly, this fear did not actually prevent them from cancelling Yom Kippur. They did what they felt needed to be done
despite the risks, and that decision was later validated by a heavenly voice.

[4] Similarly, the writing of the Mishnah was in clear defiance of the prohibition to record the Oral Law in writing. Yet there is
little point to preserve an Oral Law only to see it disappear. There is "a time to act for G-d--they nullified your Torah" (Gittin 60a).

30
 Sometimes You Gotta Decide What’s Right (1 Kings 8:54-66)

Mordechai Silverstein writes:12

Even more than seven hundred years after the destruction of the Temple, the sages could report
the following teaching and mean it: “Said Rabbi Shmuel bar Nahman: Before the Temple was
built, the world stood on a throne with only two legs; when the Temple was built, the world stood
firm.” (Tanhuma Terumah 9)

It was Solomon who built the First Temple, and who proclaimed in God’s name at its inauguration:
“Since the day that I brought forth My people, Israel out of Egypt, I have not chosen a town from
all the tribes of Israel to build a house for My name to be there… ‘[but now I (Solomon)] have set
a place for the Ark, in which is the covenant of the Lord, that He made with our fathers, when He
brought them out of the land of Egypt.” (8:16; 21) It is clear to see from Solomon’s words that the
dedication of the Temple was second in religious significance only to the giving of the Torah at
Mount Sinai. (Y. Keil, Melakhim, Daat Mikra, p. 193)

When did this monumental event occur? At the beginning of 1 Kings chapter 8, we were told this
ceremony coincided with the “feast – (hag)” in the seventh month (Tishrei), then known as the

12
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/sometimes-you-gotta-decide-whats-right-1-kings-854-66/

31
month of Etanim. (8:2) At the end of this chapter, which serves as the special haftarah for Shmini
Atzeret, the grand nature of the festivities is described: “So Solomon and all of Israel with him –
a great assemblage, from Lebo-hamat to the Wadi of Egypt – observed the Feast (hag) at that time
before the Lord our God, seven days and again seven days, fourteen days in all. On the eighth, he
let the people go….” (65-66) It is obvious from the context of this verse that the “hag” being talked
about here is Sukkot and the eighth day when Solomon sent the people off, Shmini Atzeret. (This
explains the assignment of this haftarah to Shmini Atzeret.) The association of the second seven
days with Sukkot is strengthened by a parallel tradition found in the book of Chronicles: “they
observed the dedication of the altar for seven days and the Feast seven days” (2 Chronicles 7:9)

This posed a problem for the rabbinic tradition. If the second seven days of celebration coincided
with Sukkot, then the first seven days included Yom Kippur. (See Rashi and Rabbi David Kimche)
In other words, the dedication of the Temple was apparently so monumental that it offset the
observance of Yom Kippur.

The Talmud sought to clarify the implications of this “happening”: “Said Rabbi Parnah said Rabbi
Yohanan: ‘That year Israel did not observe Yom Kippur, and the people were worried and said:
[perhaps because we have transgressed and not observed Yom Kippur,] we are deserving of
destruction? A heavenly voice pronounced: All of you merit life in the world to come. How do we
know this? They argued: If in the Sanctuary [in the desert] which was not permanent, an
individual’s sacrifices offered at its inauguration were permitted, even on Shabbat even though it
meant doing things on Shabbat which normally have warranted death, how much more so would
it be permitted to make communal offerings for the Temple, whose sanctity is forever, when the
punishment for transgressing Yom Kippur is only karet (premature death)! So, what were the
people so worried about? They thought this understanding referred only to offerings to God, but
what about their eating and drinking on Yom Kippur? Shouldn’t they have made their offerings
without partaking of food and drink? [The Talmud replied:] There is no joyous celebration without
eating and drinking. (adapted from Moed Katan 9a)

This rather complicated discussion serves as an example of a situation where two important values
conflict. How is one to determine what to do? In such situations, the conflict must be assessed, and
a determination must be made over which value takes precedent. In Solomon’s day, the dedication
of the Temple, the nation’s sacred center, took precedent even over the fast of Yom Kippur. In our
day, we are also faced with such a dilemma. During these “Corona” days, when we are faced by a
plague of global proportions, we, too, must decide whether “Pikuah nefesh – the saving of lives”
takes precedent over our normal routines, both sacred and profane. The Jewish tradition has already
answered this question for us. We must side with preserving life. Anything less, would be not only
foolhardy but a transgression as well.

32
 Temple model 224.88
King Solomon observed Succot, but not Kippur

Could it be that Solomon was not a model king but rather an autocrat who ruled with an iron
fist and maintained his power by building monumental structures at the expense of his
subjects...?

STEPHEN ROSENBERG writes:13

King Solomon is best known for building the Temple of Jerusalem. The description of it is
elaborate and lists many costly materials, such as gold, copper, and cedar wood. It took seven years
to build, and then he went on to build his palace, which took another 13 years (1 Kings 7:1). The
Temple and the palace shared courtyards (7:7), so Solomon could not hold the great celebration of
completion until both were furnished and finished.

That was in the month of Ethanim, which today is called Tishrei, and "All Israel celebrated for
seven days and seven days, even fourteen days" (8:65), which suggests that they celebrated from
the first to the fifteenth of Tishrei, the date of the festival of Succot, or Tabernacles. The account
in Second Chronicles is more precise. They dedicated the altar for seven days, had a solemn
assembly on the eighth, and then celebrated for another seven days, finishing on the 23rd of the
month, after which the people went home "joyful and glad of heart" (7:10).

This makes it clear that the celebrations covered the festival of Succot, from the 15th to the 22nd
of Tishrei, but also the eight days beforehand, which included Yom Kippur on the 10th. Did
Solomon and his celebrators enjoy Succot but ignore the fast, which is today considered to be the
most solemn date of the year?

13
https://www.jpost.com/jewish-world/jewish-features/king-solomon-observed-succot-but-not-kippur

33
The Talmud takes the view that the Day of Atonement was abrogated that year, as the overriding
joy at the completion of the Temple had to take precedence over all other considerations. So that
year "Israel did not observe Yom Kippur...as there is no joy without eating and drinking" (Moed
Katan 9A). To have held the fast in the middle of the celebrations would have spoiled the spirit of
pure unadulterated joy and achievement that the completion of the Temple engendered. But was
that joy so pure and unadulterated? When Solomon built the Temple, he employed forced labor to
procure the timber from Lebanon.

The people were organized to work in three shifts of 10,000, working one month in Lebanon and
two months at home. In addition, there were 70,000 laborers, 3,000 officers and 80,000 quarry
workers; and the whole workforce was under the command of one Adoniram (5:27-30). It was not
a popular mode of work. He must have been a cruel taskmaster for, some years later, when this
same minister of works resurfaces under Rehoboam, Solomon's son, to quell the rebellious
workers, Adoniram is stoned to death by the people (12:18).

Solomon reorganized the tribal boundaries into 12 districts, each of which had to supply his court
with their luxuries and essentials for one month of the year (4:7). The new boundaries were
changes from the old tribal areas, which had not been effaced by Saul or David. What Solomon
did was probably highly efficient for his own taxing purposes, and he set up his sons-in-law as
governors over two of the districts.

But the changes must have been anathema to the old tribal loyalists, and their very efficiency
would have ensured that the tax collection was oppressive and highly unpopular. The gold that
flowed into the treasury was impressive.

As Hiram of Tyre paid only 120 talents for the 20 cities of Cabul that Solomon ceded to him in the
northwest (9:14), the 666 talents that flowed into Solomon's treasury every year (10:14) must have
been an enormous sum. In addition, Solomon received gold from the taxes of the merchants,
presumably the foreign merchants and their caravans.

The amount of gold is recorded; but when it came to copper, the weight was so great that the
scribes lost count of it (7:47). Both the gold and the copper were used extensively in the Temple
and in Solomon's palace, built alongside the Temple. The Temple was in fact a royal temple, built
as part of the palace, as in Assyria, and not immediately accessible to the people. To reach it they
had to traverse the palace, and it was probably only on state occasions that they would have had
access. Zadok and his priests administered the Temple, but it was Solomon himself who brought
the sacrifices, at least three times a year (9:25) and on other special occasions, when perhaps the
whole population was invited to attend.

There is no mention of the people bringing their own personal sacrifices to the Temple. Rather, it
would have been the custom to continue bringing them to the local shrines (bamot) as was the
practice before the Temple was built. Solomon initiated great building enterprises which must have
absorbed much of his wealth. He is also credited with maintaining 40,000 stalls for horses, many
of them coming from Egypt (10:28), and a cavalry force of 12,000 horsemen (10:26).

34
Solomon had enemies in Edom and Aram (Syria), but no single war is mentioned during his reign.
As for territory, it is clear that Solomon made love rather than war. He brought into his harem all
the women of the surrounding territories and, by marrying the daughters of prominent local sheikhs
and petty kings, he was able to annex their lands to his own personal possessions. Political marriage
was something he had learned from his father.
Not only did David marry local princesses, but it seems that he induced Solomon to take as his
first wife Na'ama, the Ammonite princess, for political reasons. It was her son, Rehoboam,
Solomon's firstborn (14:21), who stepped onto the throne after his father's death. It is indeed
curious that the dynasty of David was perpetuated by the son of what looks like a forbidden
marriage, to one of the people of Ammon.

Nevertheless, Solomon continued the process and is credited with a harem of 700 wives and 300
concubines (11:3). These extraordinary figures are unbelievable, and one wonders on what basis
they are given. But then the receipt of 666 talents of gold annually, and 12,000 horsemen at the
ready are also difficult to believe.

Can we just dismiss them as attempts to increase admiration for this wisest of kings, who spoke
great proverbs and praise of all the wonders of nature and to whom God Himself had given
wisdom? There must be more to it than pure exaggeration, especially as these three matters - the
wives, the horses from Egypt and the vast quantities of gold - are exactly the three indulgences
that Moses had prohibited to any Israelite king that the people might appoint (Deut.17:16-17).
Solomon must have been a deeply unpopular monarch.

He forced the people into labor corvaces, he taxed heavily all the districts except his own tribe of
Judah, and he married foreign wives and built pagan altars to their gods alongside the Temple
(11:7-8). It is no wonder that on his death, his empire collapsed, and the nine or 10 northern tribes
split off from his rule and his Temple for the next 200 years, never to return.

It is therefore quite possible that one of the royal scribes, whose official reports form the basis of
the Book of Kings, gave an overblown account of the number of his wives, the count of his horses
and his vast quantities of gold.

On the face of it, these numbers serve to aggrandize the king; but on closer examination they are
seen to be gross exaggerations, which put Solomon in direct opposition to the Law laid down by
Moses. In that sense, the royal scribe is telling us, in an indirect way - for, of course, no official
scribe could record direct criticism - that Solomon was not the perfect model king that he was
portrayed to be, the builder of God's Temple, the wise and wonderful poet and lover. In reality he
was an autocrat who "chastised the people with whips," who ruled with a fist of iron and held on
to power by means of conspicuous monumental construction built at the expense of the peasants
and the products of their land.

And in that sense, Solomon ignored the Law of Moses, not only in indulging his wives in their
idol-worshiping practices but also indulging himself in the amassing of women, horses, and gold,
in direct defiance of the Torah.

35
And for him the festival of Succot suited his celebrations but the observance of the Day of
Atonement was not of supreme importance when it ran counter to his own matters of state.

"Yom Kippur" by Jacob Weinles. Publisher: Levanon, Warsaw

Eating by Example on Yom Kippur, an Epidemic Story

When cholera ran rampant, saving lives superseded all else

Zack Rothbart writes:14

It once appeared in an Israeli newspaper and had the elements of a good story.
An epidemic. A famous rabbi. Public eating on Yom Kippur to prove a point.
The epidemic took place somewhere in Europe, sometime in the 19th century.

14
https://blog.nli.org.il/en/lbh-yom-kippur-epidemic/

36
The protagonist was Rabbi Meir Leibush ben Yehiel Michel Wisser, better known as “The
Malbim”, the scholar, biblical commentator and crusader against non-traditional Judaism who was
once imprisoned and exiled from Romania following particularly heated ideological disagreements
with his co-religionists. Formerly chief rabbi of Bucharest, the aged scholar spent much of the end
of his life on the road, including stops in Istanbul, Paris, Prussia, and the Russian Empire.

Sketch of the Malbim, possibly drawn by the noted Polish Jewish artist,
photographer, and writer Haim Goldberg (also known as “Haggai”)

According to the story, this staunch advocate of Orthodoxy commanded the normally forbidden
act of eating on the holiest day of the year due to the dangers posed by an epidemic. The
preservation of life, after all, supersedes virtually all other considerations and rules according to
Jewish law.
When he realized that those attending synagogue had not listened to his instructions and were
clearly fasting in any event, he had a bowl of grits and peas brought up to him. He made a blessing
over his food and finished off the portion in front of his congregation, declaring:

37
“I said there is no obligation to fast at this time. ‘Preserving your lives’ overrides many
commandments in the Torah, but I was nonetheless concerned that you would close your hearts
and put your lives at risk, and so I had to serve as an example so that you would see me and do so
yourselves…”

The problem?
The story doesn’t seem to have been about the Malbim at all.
While a number of epidemics plagued Europe during his lifetime, a survey of works ranging from
children’s stories about him to doctoral theses and scholarly books revealed no clear mention of
this perhaps apocryphal story.
A nearly identical – and better documented – tale is told of another famous rabbi of the period,
Yisrael ben Ze’ev Wolf Lipkin, better known as Israel Salanter, the father of the modern Mussar
Movement, which emphasizes the centrality of ethics and personal morality and growth to Jewish
practice.
Accounts of the Rabbi Salanter story, which took place in Vilna in 1848, differ
Some closely mirror the very public display recounted above, with an additional element of the
rabbi making blessings over wine and cake before partaking of both on the dais. Though he doesn’t
mention Rabbi Salanter by name, the well-known Hebrew author David Frischmann dramatized
this version decades later in his short story “Three Who Ate“. Other accounts over the years, some
first-hand, offer a more nuanced take on events where the rabbi encourages the infirmed to eat
virtuously, but does not command everyone to eat, nor make a spectacle of it himself.
Cholera ran rampant in those years, killing someone million people throughout the Russian Empire
in 1848 alone. In addition to the Yom Kippur ruling, Rabbi Salanter physically and practically
helped those in need, instructing his many students to do the same.

38
 Outside the Old Synagogue of Vilna

While his story may be the most well-known and provocative, Rabbi Salanter was certainly not
the only major rabbinic figure of the period to condone and even encourage eating on Yom Kippur
by those at risk during the seemingly constant cholera epidemics of the 19th century.
They were, of course, not arbitrary decisions, but ones often made after intensive consultations
with leading physicians and based on thousands of years of Jewish legal precedent emphasizing
the preservation of life over pretty much everything else.
That precedent is clearly laid down in the Talmud – the seminal work of Jewish law, philosophy,
and lore – which also includes many cases of stories for which the sages themselves debate the
protagonist’s identity.
Ultimately, some would argue, it often doesn’t really matter who did what, as the story itself and
the accompanying lesson are what’s truly important.
It is possible that, like Rabbi Salanter, the Malbim once ate in front of his congregation on Yom
Kippur.
Perhaps he did it in a less provocative and less memorable way.
Perhaps it never happened at all and perhaps that doesn’t really matter.

Designed by Thomas Newberry (England, Birmingham 1811-

1901). Nineteenth-Century Architectural Model of King Solomon’s Temple in
Jerusalem, 1883.

39
 A small shrine model, found in an archaeological excavation of the
10 century B.C.E. city at Khirbet Qeiyafa, together with a 9th century B.C.E.
th

Temple excavated at Motza, help us better understand the Temple of

Solomon, known only from the biblical text.

40
 The Puzzling Doorways of Solomon’s Temple
Madeleine Mumcuoglu15 and Yosef Garfinkel write:16

As no archaeological excavations can be performed on the Temple Mount, the biblical text
describing Solomon’s Temple is our only source about that building. Three long chapters in the
book of Kings provide varied information about the form of the Temple, the size of the different
rooms, its construction materials, its decoration, its major cultic paraphernalia, and its dedication
ceremony.

Many of the passages’ architectural details describing the Temple are difficult to understand. Until
recently, these questions could only be debated theoretically, as no empirical finds could be
brought to bear on the question. All this changed in 2011, with the excavations at Khirbet
Qeiyafa.[1]

The Bible tells us that the doors of the inner shrine of Solomon’s Temple had
five mezuzot (singular mezuzah) (1 Kings 6:31). Whatever they were, the Bible is not referring to
the little parchment texts in a case posted on the doorposts of Jewish houses that are
called mezuzot. The word mezuzah is often defined as doorpost. Did this gate in the Temple have
five doorposts? Hardly. But whatever mezuzot are in this Biblical text, the door to the inner
sanctuary of Solomon’s Temple had five of them. The next outer gate of Solomon’s Temple had
four of them (1 Kings 6:33). And the gate to Solomon palace had three of them: “And all the
entrances and doorposts had squared frames, and opposite, facing each other, three times” (1
Kings 7:5, Anchor Bible).

Both the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible and the Jewish Publication Society translation
drop the same footnote to the sentence describing the gate to the inner shrine with its five mezuzot:
“Meaning of Hebrew uncertain.”

Just to show how difficult the Biblical passage is, we included various translations of the same
verse from five different English translations of 1 Kings 6:31 (see box, “Mystery Meaning
of Mezuzot”). Recently, however, our excavation at the Judahite site of Qeiyafa has unlocked the
mystery.

15
https://www.thetorah.com/article/reconstructing-the-features-of-solomons-temple
16
https://www.baslibrary.org/biblical-archaeology-review/41/4/2

41
 Qeiyafa and the Stone Temple Model

The ancient city of Khirbet Qeiyafa is located in the Judean lowlands on a ridge that encloses the
Elah Valley from the north.

Map of the kingdom of Judah and its main sites during the first Temple
period.

Close by in the valley are other archaeological sites, such as Tel Socoh to the east and Tel Azekah
to the west. The famous battle between David and Goliath of Gath is also set in the Elah Valley
near Khirbet Qeiyafa, at Ephes-dammim between Socoh and Azekah (1 Samuel 17:1).

42
Khirbet Qeiyafa (the Qeiyafa Ruin) is located on the northern border of the Elah Valley, about 20
miles southwest of Jerusalem. Some of the extraordinary discoveries made there have already been
discussed in Biblical Archeological Review. The site contains the remains of a fortified Iron Age
city, radiometrically dated by 27 olive pits to about 1020–980 B.C.E., the period generally
attributed to King David.

During seven excavation seasons, from 2007 to 2013, the Qeiyafa expedition uncovered a massive
city wall, two city gates, two gate piazzas, ten Iron Age buildings, a large storage building and a
central palace. Several buildings included evidence of cultic activity. In one of them (Building
C10) located in the southern part of the city, a limestone shrine model was found (in Room G)
smashed into dozens of pieces, together with other cultic artifacts suggesting that this room was a
sacred space.

43
At first, the importance of this find eluded us, but after restoration—to our astonishment—there
appeared a unique rare stone model of a shrine. Building models of the Bronze and Iron Ages have
been discovered in the ancient Near East—more specifically Canaanite shrines, mostly made of
clay.

Their function was apparently to host some divine representation, and they were often decorated
with figurines or animals.

During seven seasons of excavations, we uncovered a fortified city that was built in the early
10th century B.C.E. i.e., which according to the biblical chronology is the time of King David.

44
 The façade of the stone building model from Khirbet Qeiyafa
While excavating a cultic room near the southern city gate, we uncovered a unique shrine model
made of stone. Such models are miniature buildings to contain cultic artifacts. The very fact that
this object was carved in stone is unusual, because such objects found so far had been fashioned
out of clay by potters. (In fact, nearby, another shrine model was found, made from clay.)

The stone model is a carved box, 21 cm wide, 26 cm long, and 35 cm high.

The figure above shows the object’s façade after reconstruction. The sides and back are simple flat
walls, while the façade is elegantly profiled. In the center of the façade is a large rectangular
doorway, 10 cm wide and 20 cm high. Chiseled upon the structure’s ornate façade are a number
of architectural elements: a triple recessed doorway and triglyphs. As we studied the architectural
style represented in the model, it emerged to our surprise that these components appear in the
biblical description of Solomon’s Temple.

45
It is noteworthy that the main door of the Second Temple was 20 cubits wide and 40 cubits high,
while other openings were 10 cubits wide and 20 cubits high1—in other words, with similar
proportions as our shrine model. The door opening of the Qeiyafa stone model has precisely the
same proportions. While this might be a coincidence, it may reflect an architectural concept of
entrances to temples and palaces in the ancient Near East.

The shrine model from Qeiyafa is unusual, however. Unlike other models from the same period
and region, the Qeiyafa example is not made of clay but is carefully carved from a single block of
soft limestone painted in red without figurines or animal decoration. To our knowledge no such
stone shrine model has ever been found before. It immediately reminded us of the entrance of the
well-known Second Temple model at the Israel Museum and of Solomon’s Temple model in the
Semitic Museum at Harvard University. Both models have similar gates with interlocking
doorframes, that is, mezuzot.

The relationship to the Biblical text is evident. The Temple is composed of three parts: the
forecourt, the outer sanctum and the most sacred part of the Temple, the shrine or devir. There is
a gradual increase in the number of recessed doorframes from the entrance to the forecourt (three)
to the outer sanctum (four) and finally to the entrance from the outer sanctum to the devir (five).
It is as if the devir had the highest number of mezuzot because it was the most sacred part of the
Temple.

To the best of our knowledge, entrances of temples in the ancient Near East, as well as from the
Roman period, were usually adorned with one to three recessed doorframes, but not more. The
one exception, with six, comes from a temple from the second millennium B.C.E. at Basmusian in
Mesopotamia. The four and five doorframes (mezuzot) in Solomon’s Temple are exceptional and
may mark a difference between the Israelite cult and religions with multiple divinities.

The Qeiyafa model shrine was found at a Judahite site—a day’s walk from Jerusalem—and dates
to the time of King David, not long before the construction of the Jerusalem Temple by David’s
son Solomon. The presence of a recessed doorway in the Qeiyafa model in accordance with the
Biblical description of Solomon’s Temple is more than a striking coincidence. It reinforces the
precision of the Temple’s description or at least shows that this architectural feature was already
known in Judah just prior to the construction of the Solomonic Temple.\

Triple Recessed Doorway

The model’s entrance has three interlocking frames: the outer frame is the largest, the middle
frame is smaller and recessed from the first toward the interior of the model, and the inner frame
is the smallest, again recessed from the first two. This triple-recessed doorway forms three rows
of lintels above the entrance and three rows of doorposts on either side. A fourth frame, which

46
extends to the top of the structure, apparently represents the edge of the building, but may
indicate a fourth outer doorframe.

This recessed doorway casts light on the description of the entrance from the forecourt (ulam) to
the outer sanctum or great hall (hechal) in the book of Kings:

The Hebrew ‫ ֵמֵאת ְרִבִﬠית‬is difficult and means something like “in a fourfold way”; it is often
emended to read ‫ ְרֻבעוֹת‬. The Greek LXX interprets the phrase (or an alternative Hebrew text) as
στοαὶ τετραπλῶς, meaning “four-sided porticos.” Looking at the model, we suggest the meaning
is that the entrance had four mezuzot (doorposts).

According to Kings, the entrance between the outer sanctum and the inner sanctum/shrine or holy
of holies (devir) had five mezuzot (doorposts) of olive wood:

The elaborate stone shine model from Khirbet Qeiyafa, which includes a doorway ornamented
with recessed frames, clearly shows that temple entrances could indeed be decorated with multiple
recessed doorframes, i.e., mezuzot.

Recessed Doorframes in the Ancient Near East

This design is known from many structures in the ancient Near East. The earliest example of such
recessed openings is from Tepe Gawra in Mesopotamia, dated to around 4500 B.C.E., in three
temples that stood in the city square.

47
 Plan of Tepe Gawra temple in Iraq

Dozens of doorways like this are known from excavations in Mesopotamia, dated to the fourth,
third, second, and first millennia B.C.E., mainly in temples.

In fact, they were so typical of temple entrances that eventually they became a symbol of a temple
and of the presence of the deity in his temple. In our study on recessed doorways in temples, and
other buildings of worship, we followed this motif from 4,500 B.C.E. till today.[2]

The only examples known to us of this motif in Israel are from Khirbet Qeiyafa. Both are unique
cult objects. The first is the stone model discussed here at length. The second is a basalt altar
decorated on its narrow side like the façade of a structure including a doorway around which a
number of frames were carved, representing recessed frames.

48
 Basalt altar from Khirbet Qeiyafa.

Thus, it would appear that this construction style reached the Land of Israel only in the Iron Age,
and that Canaanite culture of the Middle and Late Bronze Age did not commonly decorate temple
doorways with recessed frames; certainly none of the great Canaanite temples found in various
places in the country, such as Hazor, Megiddo, Shechem, and Lachish, used this motif. These
Canaanite Bronze age temples agree with most Assyrians and Egyptian temples, which also lacked
this motif.

Triglyphs

A row of protruding rectangular elements can be found between the doorframe and the roof of the
model. Each is divided by deep incisions into three smaller parallel rectangles. Four such
protruding rectangles were fully preserved, and remains of three others are visible, together
creating seven such elements. This element depicts the wooden beams that support the roof and is
called a “triglyph”; it is a common feature of classical architecture of Greek temples.

The triglyph decoration in the temple model from Khirbet Qeiyafa predates the Greek temples by
several centuries; for example, it is about half a millennium earlier than the Acropolis temples of
Athens. The evidence from Khirbet Qeiyafa suggests that the triglyph motif began no later than
the early tenth century B.C.E., much earlier than previously supposed.

49
This too sheds light on the biblical text, which uses the expression tzelaot (‫ )צלעות‬in various
contexts in the description of the Temple. In general, the term refers to wooden planks, for example
in “planks of cedar” and “planks of cypress.”

1 Kings suggests that such planks were used to panel the interior walls of the outer sanctum and
the holy of holies. 1 Kings 6:5 also describes planks surrounding the outer sanctum and the holy
of holies near the roof:

Many translations, such as NJPS, NRSV, KJV, have interpreted the term tzelaot to mean “side
chambers.” Nevertheless, we suggest that this is a mistaken translation, and that this is describing
the use of wooden planks that support the roof.

Support for this translation comes from Ezekiel, which describes the Temple with tzelaot, in
groups of three, thirty times, surrounding the Outer Sanctum and the Holy of Holies:

Again, the preferred translation here has been “side-chambers,” but we suggest that Ezekiel
presents the tzelaot as wooden planks organized in groups of three, like the triglyphs in the Khirbet
Qeiyafa temple model. The same accounting relating to the tzlaot in the description of Solomon
palace:

50
In short, the biblical tzelaot near the roof of monumental buildings, like a palace or a temple, are
organized in groups of three together. This is the contribution of the Khirbet Qeiyafa shrine model
to a better understanding of the text.[3]

According to the ratio of spacing beams in the Solomon’s palace, we reconstruct that the beams
were placed 4 cubits apart. We reconstructed 10 groups of beams on each side of the structure and
5 on the front and 5 in the back. Thus, there were 30 groups of beams around the entire building.
Precisely the number mentioned in the book of Ezekiel (41:6).

Double- and triple-recessed doorframes appear as early as the fifth millennium B.C.E. in the
temple at Tepe Gawra (Ubaid Culture).

Many examples are also known from the fourth to first millennia B.C.E., mainly from the ancient
Near East but also in Greece and the Roman Empire. These include well-known sites such as
Khafajah, Tell Asmar, Tell Brak, Ur, Mari, Alalakh and Tell Tayinat. Royal tombs from Cyprus
(Tamassos) and Persepolis also feature them. In keeping with its significance, this type of
doorframe was depicted on cylinder seals and on ivories representing a woman in the window.

These ivories were used to adorn luxury furniture and are found in the royal city of Samaria, in
the northern kingdom of Israel and in three royal capitals of Mesopotamia (Khorsabad, Nimrud
and Arslan Tash). Although double- and triple-recessed doorframes are well known in the ancient
Near East, they are almost entirely absent in Canaanite culture.

51
Interestingly enough, this tradition of multiple recessed doorframes continued in both Galilean
and Judean synagogues after the Roman destruction of the Second Temple.

Of special importance is a surviving example from Jerusalem on the Temple compound itself. The
imposing wall enclosing the Herodian Temple compound includes two sets of sealed-up gates on
its southern side, the so-called Double Gate (a double-arched gate) and, farther east, the Triple
Gate (a triple-arched gate). A surviving stone doorsill of the Triple Gate’s westernmost arch has
three mezuzot or doorframe panels.

52
In our view, enhancing doorframes with recesses was meant to signify the sanctity of important
buildings—to convey the message that this is God’s house; do not trespass. How did this
architectural feature get from Mesopotamia and the northern Levant in the Middle and Late
Bronze Ages to the southern Levant and the Qeiyafa model shrine in the Iron Age—and then to
Solomon’s Temple as described in the Bible, to the compound wall of Herod’s Temple (the Second
Temple) and to post-destruction synagogues?

The Bible refers to architects; Hiram of Tyre sent professionals to assist with the construction of
David’s palace (2 Samuel 5:11) and, a generation later, to build the Solomonic Temple (1 Kings

53
5:15—24, JPS; 1 Kings 5:1—10, English). Is this explanation reasonable? It is quite possible that
the Phoenician city-states of the Lebanese coast constitute the “missing link,” geographically and
chronologically, between the Bronze Age building tradition of Mesopotamia/northern Levant and
Iron Age Israel. Sending specialized craftsmen from one royal court to another is well documented
in the ancient Near East.2

We do not know when the Biblical text describing the period of David and Solomon was
composed—contemporaneously or hundreds of years later. From the Qeiyafa stone model,
however, we can conclude that recessed doorframes, or mezuzot, were known in that region at that
time, thus strengthening the Bible’s claim to historicity in this detail of the Biblical tradition. It
seems that after about 3,000 years, the Qeiyafa model shrine has definitely solved the mystery of
the Biblical mezuzot.

Built in the Tenth Century B.C.E.?

For the past few decades, scholars have long debated whether the Temple was really built in the
late tenth century, when King Solomon ostensibly ruled in Jerusalem. The findings in Qeiyafa and
Motza shed some light on this question.

The description of the Temple built by King Solomon in 1 Kings 6 reflects some of the main
characteristics of royal architecture in the Levant in the 10th – 7th centuries B.C.E. Enigmatic
passages suddenly make sense when interpreted through the prism of these archaeological
examples. This, in turn, demonstrates that the writer of 1 Kings 6 was aware of this particular type
of architecture, unknown in the Levant before the era of David and Solomon. The Khirbet Qeiyafa
shrine model is a direct evidence that this building style was known in Judah in the
10th century B.C.E.

One of the main functions of the historian is to compare and cross-reference sources. If different
sources attest independently to the same phenomenon, the historical reliability of that phenomenon
is greatly enhanced.

Thus, the discovery of the stone temple model at Khirbet Qeiyafa and the temple at Motza make
it more plausible that a similar temple could have been built in Jerusalem in the same period.

54
1. This article is based on our previous publications: Yosef Garfinkel and Madeleine Mumcuoglu, Solomon’s Temple and
Palace: New Archaeological Discoveries (Jerusalem: Bible Lands Museum Jerusalem & Biblical Archaeology Society,
2016); Yosef Garfinkel, Igor Kreimerman, and Peter Zilberg, Debating Khirbet Qeiyafa: A Fortified City in Judah from
the Time of King David (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2016); Yosef Garfinkel and Madeleine Mumcuoglu, “The
Temple of Solomon in Iron Age Context,” Religions 10.3 (2019), #198.
2. See, Madeleine Mumcuoglu and Yosef Garfinkel, Crossing the Threshold: Architecture, Iconography, and the Sacred
Entrance (Oxford: Oxbow, 2018).
3. Yosef Garfinkel and Madeleine Mumcuoglu, “Triglyphs and Recessed Doorposts on a Building Model from Khirbet
Qeiyafa: New Light on Two Technical Terms in the Biblical Descriptions of Solomon’s Palace and Temple,” Israel
Exploration Journal 63 (2013): 135–163.
4. Yigal Yadin, “‫[ ”הבית הראשון‬The First Temple], in‫ תנאי הטבע ותולדות העיר מראשיתה ועד חורבן הבית השני‬:‫[ ספר ירושלים‬Sepher
Yerushalayim: Jerusalem, its Natural Conditions, History and Development from the Origins to the Present Day], 2 vols.,
ed. Michael Avi-Yonah (Jerusalem: Bialik/Dvir, 1956), 1:176–190.
5. Editor’s note: For more on such windows, see Aaron Demsky, “Looking Through the Window: A Gendered
Motif,” TheTorah.com (2017).
6. For more on this structure, see Shua Kisilevitz, “The Iron IIA Judahite Temple at Tel Moza,” Tel Aviv 42 (2015): 147–
164.

55
 THE DOORWAYS OF SOLOMON'S TEMPLE / ‫שלמה מקדש שערי‬

Alan Millard writes:17

17
, ‫ תשמ"ט‬/ 1989 ,‫ מחקרים בידיעת הארץ ועתיקותיה‬Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23621936?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

56
57
58
59
60
 Rav Kook Torah18

‘Solomon Dedicates the Temple at Jerusalem’ (James Tissot, 1836-1902)

Psalm 24: Opening the Temple Gates

In this chapter, the psalmist pleads with the gates to open up:

Psalm 24:7-10

18
http://www.ravkooktorah.org/PSAL24B.htm

61
What exactly are these gates that refuse to open? Why does the psalm describe God first as a
mighty Warrior in battle and later as the “Lord of Hosts”?
The Talmud writes that these were the prayers of King Solomon as he pleaded with the Temple
gates. After completing the construction of the Temple in Jerusalem, the final step was to bring
the Holy Ark into the Holy of Holies. But the gates refused to open!
Why did the Temple gates disobey Solomon?

Disconnect Between Mind and Heart

According to Rav Kook, Solomon’s difficulty placing the Ark inside the Temple was a sign that
the Jewish nation was not ready for the Temple and its spiritual influence on the entire world.
Divine service is based on those human faculties through which the human soul receives the Divine
light. The Temple service — like prayer — primarily engages our faculties of emotions and
imagination.
But these faculties must be governed by the intellect. Thus, completing the Temple meant placing
the Ark — which contained the luchot and the scrolls of the Torah, the source of enlightenment
for the world — in the innermost chamber.
Those who have not refined their character traits suffer from a dissonance between their intellectual
recognition and their desires. While they know the correct path, their hearts and desires are not
under the intellect’s control. This disparity, if not corrected, will eventually lead to a spiritual lapse
of great magnitude.
This phenomenon of dissonance can also exist on the national level. The people in the time of
Solomon were not on a sufficiently high spiritual and moral level. Their spiritual attainments were
temporary. In the depths of their souls, the seeds of corruption that would later bring about the
Temple’s destruction were already planted.

62
The Temple gates’ refusal to accept the Ark is a metaphor for this lack of spiritual readiness. The
people’s inner emotions were not pure, and they had failed to fully establish their intellectual level.
They had not clarified the path that could guide their hearts and desires.

King Solomon’s Solution

When King Solomon sought to bring the Ark and the Temple together, he was searching for a
method to unite the minds and hearts of the nation.
Generally speaking, the intellect seeks to benefit all peoples, without differentiating between
nationalities. It is the heart that feels an attachment to one’s people and seeks to promote its success
in particular.
With regard to the Jewish people, however, there is no conflict between these two aspirations.
Respect accorded to the Jewish people leads to universal recognition of monotheism and the ideals
of the Torah; the entire world benefits from this enlightenment.
Solomon turned to the Temple gates, guarding over the national interests of the Jewish people:
“Lift up your heads!” Open up, and let God enter!
When the gates of Jerusalem open up, the “entrances of the entire world” will also open. The heart,
full of love and concern for the Jewish people, will then complement the intellect, which aspires
to elevate the entire world.

Two Paths to Elevate the Nations

The Temple is a source of universal enlightenment, a “house of prayer for all the nations” (Isaiah
56:7). There are two paths in which Israel can influence the world; King Solomon alluded to both
in his prayer.
At a time when there are many forces in the world opposing the Jewish people and the Torah, we
can nonetheless identify an overall progress towards the ultimate goal. One factor in this advance
is recognition of God’s protection of His people over the millennia. The unique story of a people
surviving (and outlasting) many powerful empires who sought to subjugate and destroy it
demonstrates formidable Divine providence in the history of the world.
Not only did Israel survive, but often vanquished other nations, enabling other nations to recognize
the nobility of its Torah and holy ideals. The survival of the Jewish people throughout centuries of
persecution reflects the Divine attribute of gevurah, strength and might. Solomon referred to this
aspect when he described God as “mighty in battle.”
There exists a second, gentler method by which Israel influences the world. Not in the loud blaring
of battle, but in the “still, small voice.” Gradually, without fanfare, holiness spreads from the
enlightened source of Israel. The “entrances of the world” are not forcibly opened by the gates of
Jerusalem. They lift themselves up: “Let the entrances of the world be uplifted.”
Each nation will rise to the higher goal, but its truth will correspond to its own predisposition. The
ethical hues will be numerous and varied, as each nation accepts the imprint of Godly ideals based
on its natural tendencies.

63
In this second path, God is revealed as “the Lord of Hosts,” the God of many diverse peoples. Each
nation strives towards its own particular goal, and together they unite towards the one universal
goal, in accordance with their Creator’s will.19

Physicist Isaac Newton

The little-known fascination Newton had with the Jewish Temple

A brilliant scientist as well as a prophet of doom counting down to the End of Days. A
gifted physicist and a messianic mystic. Isaac Newton was a man of many contradictions.

SHARON COHEN writes:20

Physicist Isaac Newton did not pull any punches when it came to his criticism of the church, which
was perhaps not surprising considering he was one of the most famous scientists to have walked
the earth. What many are unaware of, is that Newton devoted much of his time to the study of
ancient history, alchemy and biblical interpretation.

19
Adapted from Ein Eyah vol. III, pp. 83-85, on Shabbat 30 Chanan Morrison
20
https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/newtons-temple-596350

64
He wrote essays on the structure of the Jewish Temple and the Tabernacle, and even attempted to
calculate when the End of Days would occur. As part of these pursuits, Newton studied the Hebrew
language and applied it in his theological writings.

When Newton's estate was donated to the University of Cambridge, university representatives
were not interested in his theological writings and refused to accept them.

These papers remained with his beneficiaries and, in 1936, they decided to put them up for auction.
Abraham Shalom Yahuda, a biblical scholar who was born in Jerusalem, managed to purchase a
majority of the manuscripts. Following his death, Yahuda's archives, including the Newton
manuscripts, were donated to the National Library of Israel in accordance with his wishes. They
finally arrived in 1967.

So how are Isaac Newton's theological writings resolved in light of his monumental scientific
contributions? Albert Einstein, who understood the significance of these manuscripts, sent a letter
to Avraham Shalom Yahuda which answers this very question:

"My Dear Yahuda,

Newton’s writings on biblical subjects seem to me especially interesting because they provide
deep insight into the characteristic intellectual features and working methods of this important
man. The divine origin of the Bible is for Newton absolutely certain, a conviction that stands in
curious contrast to the critical skepticism that characterizes his attitude toward the churches.
From this confidence stems the firm conviction that the seemingly obscure parts of the Bible
must contain important revelations, to illuminate which one need only decipher its symbolic
language. Newton seeks this decipherment, or interpretation, by means of his sharp systematic
thinking grounded on the careful use of all the sources at his disposal.

While the formative development of Newton’s lasting physics works must remain shrouded in
darkness, because Newton apparently destroyed his preparatory works, we do have in this
domain of his works on the Bible drafts and their repeated modification; these mostly
unpublished writings therefore allow a highly interesting insight into the mental workshop of
this unique thinker.
Einstein. September 1940, Saranac Lake

P.S. I think that it is wonderful that the writings will all be kept together and made available for
research.”

And so, without any further delay, let’s examine some of these documents…

The text below dates back to 1710 and, like other writings from this collection, contains content
from two seemingly unrelated fields. At the top of the page are calculations for Queen Anne's
currency tax. Newton was appointed Master of the Royal Mint in 1700, a post he held until his
death in 1727. The lower part of the page contains commentary on the concept of the Trinity.
Newton first discusses Sabellianism - a doctrine that argues that divinity is embodied in one entity,

65
alternating between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Newton believed that the Hebrew
Scriptures and the New Testament present God as one entity (the Father).

He was of the opinion that men and women do not possess souls and that eternal life could only
be achieved with the resurrection of the dead. Newton believed that Jesus was the son of God in
the literal sense, not an embodiment of God himself. In his eyes, Jesus was not mortal, as he was
not born to a human father.

The denial of the Holy Trinity and the existence of the eternal soul were considered heresy by the
Catholic Church and the Church of England, under whose auspices Newton lived and worked.
Therefore, he was forced to keep his views secret, managing to evade the watchful eye of the
Church.

Formula for calculating currency tax alongside notes on the Trinity, 1710

This is a page from an essay of Newton's, which contains rules for interpreting the language and
words of the Bible:

66
 Rules for interpreting words & language in Scripture
The document, part of the collection at the National Library, dates to the period of 1670 to 1680.
On this page, Newton presents a systematic approach for interpreting symbols appearing in biblical
prophecy. Having identified the significance of the symbol by comparing various scriptures, its
significance could, theoretically, be applied to the entire Bible.

The first rule, for example, deals with the symbol of "The Beast" which, according to 17th-century
commentators, relates to political entities:

To observe diligently the consent of Scriptures & analogy of the prophetic style, and to reject those
interpretations where this is not duly observed. Thus if any man interpret a Beast to signify some
great vice, this is to be rejected as his private imagination because according to the style and tenor
of the Apocalypse & of all other Prophetic scriptures a Beast signifies a body politic & sometimes
a single person which heads that body, & there is no ground in scripture for any other
interpretation.

This is a manuscript written by Newton titled "Notes on the Temple," which contains observations
on what he believed to be the sacred architecture and geometry incorporated in the structure of the
Temple of Solomon, as well as customs that were practiced during religious rituals.

67
 Notes on the Temple

The manuscript was written between 1675 and 1685, and includes text in Latin, Hebrew, Aramaic,
and Greek.

Throughout the manuscript we can clearly see several instances in which Newton uses Hebrew
script. For example, he analyzes the use of the Hebrew root ‫( רצף‬rezef) and its modifications ‫רצפה‬
and ‫( רצפת‬rizpah, rizpat), which can mean "sequence", "floor" or "flooring".

The Aramaic words ‫( תא חזי‬ta hezi) and ‫( תא שמע‬ta shema) also appear in Hebrew script. These
Talmudic phrases mean "come and see" and "come and hear", respectively. All of the Hebrew
script appears alongside Latin translations and explanations.

In the left column, near the top of the page, we can see a Hebrew biblical verse, complete with
vowel notations: Baruch shem kvod malchuto l’olam va’ed ("Blessed be the name of the glory of
His kingdom forever and ever"). According to Midrash, when Moses ascended Mount Sinai to
receive the Ten Commandments, he heard the angels speak this verse to God.

Also in the left column of the page, we see commentaries from a Spanish Jesuit on the descriptions
of the Temple that appear in the Book of Ezekiel.

To Newton, The Temple held significance for three main reasons. First, Newton saw the Jewish
Temple as a model of the universe. He believed that the Temple in Jerusalem, and the courtyard
surrounding it, was a model of the heliocentric solar system, with the raised altar (located in the
center) representing the sun. Second, Newton's interest in the architecture of the temple was fueled
by his belief that the Temple would serve as the "site of revelation" for the apocalypse.

68
In addition, he believed that the Temple would be rebuilt in Jerusalem (with even greater
magnificence than the original) at the onset of the Millennial Kingdom - that is, Christ’s reign on
earth.

The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended - The Temple of Solomon

Like many European scholars of the Renaissance and early modern periods, Newton invested
enormous effort in deciphering writings which, in his opinion, contained the secrets of the
universe. He believed these secrets were encoded in the sacred texts of ancient civilizations.
Guided by this belief, he came to be interested in Jewish thought.

He even possessed a Latin translation copy of Sefer Avodah, (also known as the Book of Temple
Service) part of Maimonides' Mishneh Torah. Newton’s copy of the book features his own
handwritten notes.

69
 Moshe Ben Maimon (Maimonides) - Mishneh Torah, Sefer Avodah, 1678

In his essay from the late 1680s, The Philosophical Origins of Gentile Theology, Newton discusses
the belief systems of ancient peoples which, he postulates, gradually degenerated into idolatry. He
was convinced that early theology included philosophical research in astronomy and physics, with
no separation between religion and science. It was this very marriage between the scientific and
the theological that he aspired to reconstruct in his own writings.

In the opening section of the essay, he wrote:

"That the theology of the Gentiles was philosophical and pertains to the knowledge of astronomy
and the physics of the world system; how the twelve major gentile gods are the seven planets, the
four elements and the earthly quintessence."

70
 The Philosophical Origins of Gentile Theology

Newton's attempts to derive information from the biblical and Talmudic descriptions of the
Mishkan and the Mikdash are rare examples of historical, philosophical documents that attempt to
balance religion and science. This unusual combination is reflected in the writings of one of the
greatest and most influential scientists of all time.

71
 Isaac Newton and the Architectural Models of Solomon's Temple

Tessa Morrison writes:21

21
file:///Users/julian/iCloud%20Drive%20(Archive)/Isaac_Newton_and_the_Architectural_Model.pdf

72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
A statue of Robert Morris, George Washington and Haym Salomon sits
on East Wacker Drive in Chicago

George Washington and the Real History Behind a Yom Kippur

Legend

90
 OLIVIA B. WAXMAN WRITES: 22

In many ways, Yom Kippur — the Jewish day of atonement that begins Friday evening
— is a time to start anew. So it was an apt backdrop for one of the most sensational
legends about an important turning point in the birth of a nation.

As the story goes, during the American Revolution, in either 1779 or 1781 depending on
whom you ask, General George Washington (or a messenger sent by him) burst into a Yom
Kippur service at Philadelphia’s first synagogue to beg for money to feed a starving,
bankrupt Continental Army. One of the synagogue’s founders, Haym Salomon, interrupted
the holiest service of the year to write him a check for hundreds of thousands of dollars,
throwing in the contents of the collection box on top of that. That’s how he became known
as the “The Financier of the Revolution” in children’s books, textbooks and the 1939
film The Sons of Liberty, starring Claude Rains as Haym Salomon.

Experts say that, while exact sequence of events almost certainly didn’t happen, there are
some kernels of truth in there.

The little that’s known about Salomon’s early life leaves much to the imagination. Born in
Poland around 1740, to Jewish parents who had fled religious persecution in Portugal, he
may have immigrated to colonial America in the early 1770s, around the time of the first
partition of Poland. He may have gotten involved with the war effort first as a merchant
selling provisions to soldiers on the Canadian frontier, but when he moved to the British-
occupied New York, he got kidnapped by Hessians, German mercenaries working for the
British forces during the American Revolution. “During this time, he remained loyal to the
Patriots and reportedly spied for the Americans and helped prisoners to escape,” according
to historian Beth Wenger‘s History Lessons: The Creation of American Jewish Heritage.

22
https://time.com/4958652/yom-kippur-george-washington-history/

91
Wenger writes that, despite “very little documentation on Salomon’s early life,” he did help
finance the Revolution.

The colonies had trouble raising money in the era before income tax, which is why they
took out big loans from the French and the Dutch, a decision that would prove
consequential as the young nation later came to terms with the need to repay those loans.
Another source of funding for the Revolution came from Robert Morris, founder of the
Bank of North America, who used his personal credit to fund troops through the Battle of
Yorktown. Morris “relied on public-spirited financiers like Salomon to subscribe to the
bank, find purchasers for government bills of exchange, and lend their own money to the
government,” according to the National Park Service.

Overall, by the count of a think tank in his name, Salomon is thought to have contributed
$650,000 (more than $9.4 billion in 2017 dollars) to the Revolutionary War effort. It wasn’t
easy for him to do. He died “penniless” in 1785, presumably because his loans to the cause
had not been repaid yet.

His sacrifice would be recognized more than a century and a half later during another period
when the nation was in crisis, as the Chicago Patriotic Foundation campaigned for the
monument that can still be seen in the Windy City today, which features Salomon front and
center, flanked by Washington and Morris. The dedication ceremony ended up taking place
about a week after Pearl Harbor, on Dec. 15, 1941. The monument is “a statement about
American democracy in the face of intolerance at home and abroad in the 1930s and 1940s,”
Wenger writes. “The monument’s supporters, which included President Franklin Delano
Roosevelt, and many other leading politicians, considered the project an ideal public tribute
at a time when racial and ethnic tensions were running high in the United States and when
Europe was gripped by Nazism and World War.”

Because of his sacrifice, “Haym Salomon emerged as the first and perhaps most enduring
heroic figure of American Jewery,” according to Wenger. “Accurately portrayed as a

92
devout and practicing Jew, Salomon emerged as a model to inspire Jewish self-respect and
loyalty, even as his patriotic contributions provided ‘proof’ that Jews belonged in America,
and were devoted to it, from the start.”

93