Talmud su Aggeo 2:25

Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Also for the kings of the peoples of the world one only counts from Nisan²⁵He holds that Jewish documents, in particular biblical reports, always start regnal years in Nisan, irrespective of the official calendar of the kingdom to which it refers. The Babli 3b admits this only for good kings.. In the sixth, in year two of Darius²⁶Ḥaggai1:15. He reports that they started to build the Second Temple on 6/24 of year 2 of Darius.. In the eighth, [in year] two of Darius²⁷Sach. 1:1. If the regnal year of Darius were counted from the start of the 7th Month, Tishre, the eighth month would have to be in year three.. Should we not say, “in the eighth in year three”? Heipha said, the eighth was said first but there is no earlier and later in the Torah²⁸Since Sacharia scolds the people for not building the Temple in the eighth Month of year 2 of Darius, this must precede the date given by Haggai. Therefore the regnal year cannot be counted from Nisan, but it runs from the 1st of Tishre to the end of the following sixth month, against R. Ḥanina. That Sacharia is written after Haggai in the minor prophets has no chronological relevance. “Torah” here includes the entire Hebrew Bible (and Mishnah, Note 318) and is not restricted to the Pentateuch. Cf. Megillah1:2 (70d l.59); also Sheqalim6:1 (49d l. 70) and Sotah8:3 (Note 127) as minority opinion of R. Meïr. Babli Pesaḥim6b (Num. rabba9(44)).. Rebbi Jonah said, it is written: and now take notice, starting with this day, before a stone is set upon stone in the Temple of the Eternal²⁹Haggai2:15. The prophecy is dated 9/2 of year 2 of Darius.. How is this? In the sixth the foundation stone was laid. In the eighth³⁰This must read: “ninth”. this verse was said. If you are saying, they already laid, Heipha is correct. If you are saying, they did not lay, Heipha did not say anything³¹If the prophet says that while they are building the Temple they already notice that God’s blessing of Judean agriculture started before they actually started building, the statement cannot be used to determine the start of regnal years.. Rebbi Isaac objected: Is it not written³²Gen. 9:13., it was in the 601-st year, in the first, on the first day of the month? And it was stated on this, the year of the Flood is not counted³³This argument presupposes that Noe’s years are treated as regnal years. This is not the position of Seder Olam(of Babylonian redaction) which asserts that the numbers given in Gen. may be added, which means that overlapping parts of years have been eliminated. If the year started in Tishre, in the middle of the Flood, the statement is acceptable, but not if it started in Nisan, since the flood started only on 2/17 of that year. This problem is treated in detail by the 16th Cent. Rabbi Moses Almosnino (published in Moriah30, part 5–7, pp. 19–21, 2010.). Explain it following Rebbi Eliezer, as Rebbi Eliezer said, in Tishre was the world created³⁴And therefore Noe’s years are not treated as regnal years; all years mentioned in the early history in Gen. start in Tishre. Babli 10b.. But is it not written, it was in the month of Nisan of year twenty³⁵Neh.2:1.; it was in the month of Kislew of year twenty³⁶Neh. 1:1. Nehemiah was informed in Kislew of year 20 of Artaxerxes of the sorry state of Jerusalem; in Nisan of the same year he asked permission to leave Susa and go to Jerusalem. The regnal year must have started in the fall.? Explain it following Rebbi Eliezer, as Rebbi Eliezer said, any year of which 30 days have not elapsed is not counted as a full year. But is it not written³⁷Ex. 40:17., It was in the first month of the second year, on the first of the month, when the Sanctuary was erected? If you are saying that it was the third year and because 30 days had not elapsed it is not counted as a full year, is it not written³⁸Num. 10:11 (misquoted). Since this verse refers to the service in the Tabernacle, it must refer to a time posterior to that quoted in the preceding verse; the statement in the name of R. Eliezer must be rejected. (In the Babli 10b the statement is formulated in a way which makes it not relevant to the case discussed here.), it was in the second year in the second month, on the twentieth of the month? There are 50 days in the year, and it would not be counted as a whole year? That is one of Rebbi Isaac’s answers which are difficult³⁹And the statement of R. Eleazar in the name of R. Ḥanina has to be rejected. The entire text of R. Isaac is copied by Tosaphot 3b, s. v. מניינא..

What was the fence that Job made around his words? It says (Job 1:5), “A pure and righteous man, who fears God and turns away from evil.” This teaches us that Job distanced himself from anything that would bring him to sin, from any ugliness, and from anything even resembling ugliness. If that is so, then why do we have to also learn that he was “a pure and righteous man”? But instead, this is here to teach us that Job emerged [from the womb] already circumcised. Adam also emerged already circumcised, as it says (Genesis 1:24), “And God created the person in His image.” Seth also emerged already circumcised, as it says (Genesis 5:2), “He had a child in his likeness and image.” Noah also emerged already circumcised, as it says (Genesis 6:9), “A just and pure man in his generation.” Shem also emerged already circumcised, as it says (Genesis 14:18), “Malkitzedek, king of Shalem.”²Malkitzedek is understood in rabbinic tradition to be Shem. The Hebrew word shalem means “complete.” Jacob also emerged already circumcised, as it says (Genesis 25:27), “Jacob was a pure man, who sat in tents.” Joseph also emerged already circumcised, as it says (Genesis 37:2), “This is the progeny of Jacob: Joseph.” But shouldn’t it say [instead]: This is the progeny of Jacob: Reuben? What do we learn from [the fact that it says] Joseph? [We learn] that just as Jacob emerged already circumcised, (so, too,) Joseph emerged already circumcised. Moses also emerged already circumcised, as it says (Exodus 2:2), “She saw that he was good.” And what did his mother see in him that was lovelier and more praiseworthy than any other person? That he emerged circumcised. Bil’am the wicked also came out circumcised, as it says (Numbers 24:4), “The word of him who hears God’s speech.” (Samuel also emerged circumcised, as it says [I Samuel 2:26], “Young Samuel continued to grow and was good.”) David also emerged circumcised – as it says (Psalms 16:1), “A mikhtam³A ketem (which has the same Hebrew letters as mikhtam) can mean a type of spot or marking. of David. (Protect me, for I seek refuge in You).” Jeremiah also emerged already circumcised, as it says (Jeremiah 1:5), “Before I formed you in the belly, I knew you; and before you came out of the womb I consecrated you.” Zerubbabel also emerged already circumcised, as it says (Haggai 2:23), “On that day (I will take,) [declares the Eternal of Hosts, I will take] Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel, declares the Eternal.” And it says (Job 31:1), “I have made a covenant with my eyes, so how can I gaze at a maiden [i.e., an unmarried woman]?” This teaches that Job was strict with himself and would not even look at a maiden. And if with a maiden – whom he could marry if he wished (to his son, to his daughter, or to [another] family member) – he was strict with himself and would not look at her, then all the more so [would he never look at] a married woman! And why was he so strict with himself not to look even at a maiden? Because Job said to himself: Perhaps I will look today, and tomorrow another man will come along and marry her, and then I will have looked at a married woman.

There⁸³In Babylonia. However, in the Babli, Pesaḥim 17a, only one verse is discussed and Rav thinks that the question was about fourth degree impurity and the Cohen’s answer was wrong but Samuel thinks that the question was about fifth degree and the answer was correct. Modern commentaries on Ḥaggai 2:12–13 do not contribute to the understanding of the verses., they say: The prophet Haggai asked two questions; one they answered correctly and one incorrectly. ⁸⁴Ḥag. 2:12. In the verse, the question is הֲיִקְדָּשׁ “is it going to be forbidden as sanctified food?”; cf. Introduction to Tractate Kilaim. Sanctified food can be forbidden only if it is either impure or out of its proper place or time. Since the second type of prohibition is not applicable here, the question must be one of impurity.“Assume a man carries holy meat in the corner of his garment.” The corner is of primary impurity, the holy meat of second degree, bread and soup of third degree, wine, oil, and food of the fourth. Does there exist a fourth degree of impurity for sanctified food? “The Cohanim answered, and said: No.” They did not answer correctly, since there is a fourth degree of impurity for sanctified food⁸⁵This argument gives biblical status to impurity of the fourth degree but rabbinical to the primary impurity of all impure fluids. Therefore, it belongs to the tradition of R. Aqiba.. “Ḥaggai said, if a person impure by the impurity of the dead would touch all of these, would they be impure?” If the corner would be impure by the impurity of the dead⁸⁶In that case, the garment of the mourner would have original impurity and the sacrificial meat would be impure in the first degree. and touched these. Would it be impure? “The Cohanim answered and said, it would be impure.” They answered correctly. But Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He asked them before they decided about fourth degree [impurity] for sanctified food⁸⁷In that case, both answers were correct.. Then why did he curse them⁸⁸He really did not curse them but needed the answer “impure” as a starting point of his sermon.? As a person who looks for a pretext against his neighbor. What difference does it make for the House? Is that not what he said: “What they are sacrificing there is impure⁸⁹Ḥag. 2:14.”? That is what Rebbi Simon bar Zavdi said, they found the skull of Oman the Jebusite⁹⁰A person with gonorrhea imparts impurity to anything he moves, even if he never touched it and it was lying on a platform that could never become impure (such as a flat wooden plank.) Cf. Demay Chapter 2, Note 163. under the altar.

There⁸³In Babylonia. However, in the Babli, Pesaḥim 17a, only one verse is discussed and Rav thinks that the question was about fourth degree impurity and the Cohen’s answer was wrong but Samuel thinks that the question was about fifth degree and the answer was correct. Modern commentaries on Ḥaggai 2:12–13 do not contribute to the understanding of the verses., they say: The prophet Haggai asked two questions; one they answered correctly and one incorrectly. ⁸⁴Ḥag. 2:12. In the verse, the question is הֲיִקְדָּשׁ “is it going to be forbidden as sanctified food?”; cf. Introduction to Tractate Kilaim. Sanctified food can be forbidden only if it is either impure or out of its proper place or time. Since the second type of prohibition is not applicable here, the question must be one of impurity.“Assume a man carries holy meat in the corner of his garment.” The corner is of primary impurity, the holy meat of second degree, bread and soup of third degree, wine, oil, and food of the fourth. Does there exist a fourth degree of impurity for sanctified food? “The Cohanim answered, and said: No.” They did not answer correctly, since there is a fourth degree of impurity for sanctified food⁸⁵This argument gives biblical status to impurity of the fourth degree but rabbinical to the primary impurity of all impure fluids. Therefore, it belongs to the tradition of R. Aqiba.. “Ḥaggai said, if a person impure by the impurity of the dead would touch all of these, would they be impure?” If the corner would be impure by the impurity of the dead⁸⁶In that case, the garment of the mourner would have original impurity and the sacrificial meat would be impure in the first degree. and touched these. Would it be impure? “The Cohanim answered and said, it would be impure.” They answered correctly. But Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He asked them before they decided about fourth degree [impurity] for sanctified food⁸⁷In that case, both answers were correct.. Then why did he curse them⁸⁸He really did not curse them but needed the answer “impure” as a starting point of his sermon.? As a person who looks for a pretext against his neighbor. What difference does it make for the House? Is that not what he said: “What they are sacrificing there is impure⁸⁹Ḥag. 2:14.”? That is what Rebbi Simon bar Zavdi said, they found the skull of Oman the Jebusite⁹⁰A person with gonorrhea imparts impurity to anything he moves, even if he never touched it and it was lying on a platform that could never become impure (such as a flat wooden plank.) Cf. Demay Chapter 2, Note 163. under the altar.

Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Cahana: They were expert in pushings⁹⁰A person with gonorrhea imparts impurity to anything he moves, even if he never touched it and it was lying on a platform that could never become impure (such as a flat wooden plank.) Cf. Demay Chapter 2, Note 163. but not expert in slight impurities. ⁸⁴Ḥag. 2:12. In the verse, the question is הֲיִקְדָּשׁ “is it going to be forbidden as sanctified food?”; cf. Introduction to Tractate Kilaim. Sanctified food can be forbidden only if it is either impure or out of its proper place or time. Since the second type of prohibition is not applicable here, the question must be one of impurity.“Assume a man carries holy meat,” he asked them whether someone impure by the impurity of the dead imparts impurity by pushing. “The Cohanim answered, and said: No;” they answered him correctly. He asked them whether someone impure by the impurity of the dead imparts slight impurity⁹¹A person with gonorrhea imparts original impurity to anything he sits on (Lev. 15:10) directly or indirectly. Anything which is above the person becomes impure rabbinically in a “slight impurity”; cf. Mishnah Zavim 4:6, Demay Chapter 2, Note 162 and J. Levy’s long explanation in his Dictionary, vol. 3, s. v. מדף, with H. L. Fleischer’s long etymological note, p. 305.. “The Cohanim answered and said: It will be impure.” They did not answer correctly, for the impurity of the dead does not impart slight impurity⁹²Both kinds of impurity are restricted to persons whose own body is the source of the impurity..

Rebbi Tanḥuma, Rebbi Phineas, in the name of Rebbi Levi: He asked them about the fifth degree of sanctified food. ⁸⁴Ḥag. 2:12. In the verse, the question is הֲיִקְדָּשׁ “is it going to be forbidden as sanctified food?”; cf. Introduction to Tractate Kilaim. Sanctified food can be forbidden only if it is either impure or out of its proper place or time. Since the second type of prohibition is not applicable here, the question must be one of impurity.“Assume a man carries holy meat in the corner of his garment.” The corner is of primary impurity, the holy meat of second degree, bread and soup third, wine and oil fourth, and the food of the fifth degree. Does there exist fifth degree impurity for sanctified food? “The Cohanim answered, and said: No.” They did answer correctly, since there is no fifth degree impurity for sanctified food⁸⁵This argument gives biblical status to impurity of the fourth degree but rabbinical to the primary impurity of all impure fluids. Therefore, it belongs to the tradition of R. Aqiba.. Then why did he curse them⁸⁸He really did not curse them but needed the answer “impure” as a starting point of his sermon.? As a person who looks for a pretext against his neighbor. What difference does it make for the House? Is that not what Rebbi Simon bar Zavdi said, they found the skull of Ornan the Jebusite⁹⁰A person with gonorrhea imparts impurity to anything he moves, even if he never touched it and it was lying on a platform that could never become impure (such as a flat wooden plank.) Cf. Demay Chapter 2, Note 163. under the altar.

Do your [teaching of] Torah gratuitously and accept no remuneration for it; because the Omnipresent gave it gratuitously⁴Cf. Ned. 36b-37a (Sonc. ed., p. 113). As Moses taught the Elders gratuitously so must they pass their teaching on to others without pay. According to the Talmud, loc. cit., this does not apply to Scripture, for the teaching of which a fee is allowed. and one may not take a fee for the [teaching of] words of Torah. If you should accept remuneration for the [teaching of] words of Torah, you will consequently destroy [the moral constitution of] the entire world. Say not, ‘I have no money’, since all money is His,⁵He will provide you with sustenance without having to take payment for teaching. as it is stated, Mine is the silver, and Mine the gold, saith the Lord of hosts.⁶Hag. 2, 8.
If you practise charity you will merit wealth; and if you merited wealth practise charity with it. While you still possess it [live in such a manner that you] gain through it this world and also inherit the World to Come; for if you do not practise charity with it, it will suddenly disappear, as it is stated, Wilt thou set thine eyes upon it? It is gone.⁷Prov. 23, 5.

On the Temple service. How so? While the Holy Temple was still standing, the land was blessed for its inhabitants and rains fell at the proper time, as it says (Deuteronomy 11:13–14), “To love the Eternal your God and to serve Him with all your heart and all your soul, and I will give you rain in your land in season, the early rain and the late…and I will give grass to your fields for your animals.” And when the Temple is not standing, the land is not blessed for its inhabitants and the rains do not come in season, as it says (Deuteronomy 11:16–17), “Guard yourselves from your heart’s temptation…and He will shut up the heavens and there will be no rain.” And so it says (Haggai 2:15–16), “Take note, from this day and beforehand, before any stone had been placed on a stone in the House of the Eternal, if one came to a heap of wheat of twenty measures, it would yield only ten; and if one came to the wine barrel to skim off fifty measures, the press would yield only twenty.” Why doesn’t it say also for the wine barrel, twenty and then ten, just as it does for the wheat, twenty and then ten? Because the wine barrel is a more exalted symbol than the wheat. This teaches you that when the wine is cursed, there is a bad sign upon the whole year. Israel said before the Holy Blessed One: Master of the World! Why do you do this to us? A holy spirit answered them (Haggai 1:9), “You came for a lot, but there is only a little…because My House is destroyed, but you all run to your own houses.” And if you would perform the Temple services, I would bless you as I once did, as it says (Haggai 2:18–19), “Take note…from the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month, from the day the foundation was laid for the House of the Eternal…is the seed yet in the granary? And have the grape, and the fig, and the pomegranate, and the olive tree yet borne fruit? From that day I will send blessing.” This teaches you that there is no service dearer to the Holy Blessed One than the service of the Holy Temple.

On the Temple service. How so? While the Holy Temple was still standing, the land was blessed for its inhabitants and rains fell at the proper time, as it says (Deuteronomy 11:13–14), “To love the Eternal your God and to serve Him with all your heart and all your soul, and I will give you rain in your land in season, the early rain and the late…and I will give grass to your fields for your animals.” And when the Temple is not standing, the land is not blessed for its inhabitants and the rains do not come in season, as it says (Deuteronomy 11:16–17), “Guard yourselves from your heart’s temptation…and He will shut up the heavens and there will be no rain.” And so it says (Haggai 2:15–16), “Take note, from this day and beforehand, before any stone had been placed on a stone in the House of the Eternal, if one came to a heap of wheat of twenty measures, it would yield only ten; and if one came to the wine barrel to skim off fifty measures, the press would yield only twenty.” Why doesn’t it say also for the wine barrel, twenty and then ten, just as it does for the wheat, twenty and then ten? Because the wine barrel is a more exalted symbol than the wheat. This teaches you that when the wine is cursed, there is a bad sign upon the whole year. Israel said before the Holy Blessed One: Master of the World! Why do you do this to us? A holy spirit answered them (Haggai 1:9), “You came for a lot, but there is only a little…because My House is destroyed, but you all run to your own houses.” And if you would perform the Temple services, I would bless you as I once did, as it says (Haggai 2:18–19), “Take note…from the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month, from the day the foundation was laid for the House of the Eternal…is the seed yet in the granary? And have the grape, and the fig, and the pomegranate, and the olive tree yet borne fruit? From that day I will send blessing.” This teaches you that there is no service dearer to the Holy Blessed One than the service of the Holy Temple.

Great is the Torah for it gives life to those who keep it, both in this world and in the World to Come, as it is stated, For they are life unto those that find them, and health to all their flesh;³⁷Prov. 4, 22. and it states, It shall be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones;³⁸ibid. III, 8. [and it states,] Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace;³⁹ibid. 17. and it states, She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her, and happy is every one that holdeth her fast;⁴⁰ibid. 18. and it states, She will give to thy head a chaplet of grace; a crown of glory will she bestow on thee;⁴¹ibid. IV, 9. and it states, For they shall be a chaplet of grace unto thy head, and a necklace about thy neck;⁴²ibid. I, 9. and it states, Length of days is in her right hand; in her left are riches and honour;⁴³ibid. III, 16. and it states, For length of days, and years of life, and peace, will they add to thee.⁴⁴ibid. III, 2.
R. Simeon b. Judah said in the name of R. Simeon [b. Yoḥai]: Beauty, strength, riches, wisdom, old age, hoariness, honour and children are becoming to the righteous and becoming to the world; as it is stated, The hoary head is a crown of glory, it is found in the way of righteousness;⁴⁵ibid. XVI, 31. and it states, Children’s children are the crown of old men; and the glory of the children are their fathers;⁴⁶ibid. XVII, 6. and it states, The glory of young men is their strength; and the beauty of old men is the hoary head;⁴⁷ibid. XX, 29. and it states, And before His elders shall be glory.⁴⁸Isa. 24, 23. R. Simeon b. Menasia said: The seven qualifications which the Sages associated with the righteous were all realized in Rabbi [Judah the Prince] and his sons.
⁴⁹This paragraph is not in the text, but is inserted because it is referred to in the Gemara. The translation follows the text of H. [R. Jose b. Ḳisma said: Once I went on a journey when a man met me and greeted me.⁵⁰R. Jose did not return the man’s salutation. Cf. the Gemara. He asked me, ‘Rabbi, from which place do you come?’ I replied, ‘From a great city of scholars and scribes’. He said to me, ‘Rabbi, if you agreed to dwell with us in our place, I would give you a thousand thousand golden dinars and precious stones and pearls’. I replied, ‘My son, were you to give me all the silver and gold and precious stones and pearls in the world, I would not dwell in any place but in a place of Torah. Because in the hour of a man’s departure [from the world], neither silver nor gold nor precious stones and pearls accompany him but only Torah and good deeds; as it is stated, When thou walkest, it shall lead thee, when thou liest down, it shall watch over thee; and when thou awakest, it shall talk with thee.⁵¹Prov. 6, 22. When thou walkest, it shall lead thee—in this world; when thou liest down, it shall watch over thee—in the grave; and when thou awakest, it shall talk with thee—in the World to Come. And so it is written in the Book of Psalms of David, king of Israel, The law of Thy mouth is better unto me than thousands of gold and silver;⁵²Ps. 119, 72. and it states, Mine is the silver, and Mine is the gold, saith the Lord of hosts.]⁵³Hag. 2, 8.

‘R. Jose b. Ḳisma said: Once, etc.’ Why did he not return his salutation?¹⁹³Cf. §9 of the Baraitha. He discerned in him the signs of an ‘am ha-’areẓ. But it is permissible to greet even the heathen in the street!¹⁹⁴Cf. Ber. 17a (Sonc. ed., p. 102) where it is related that Rabban Joḥanan b. Zakkai was the first to greet all men, even the heathen, in the street. He was undecided about a halakah and was pondering over it, and would not speak until he solved the difficulties; but when he realized that the man was an Israelite he thought to himself, ‘Now I will return [his salutation]’. What is the meaning of the additional verse?¹⁹⁵From Hag. 2, 8, cited in the Baraitha. If you say that a man who gives [charity which is dispensed] after his death benefits by it¹⁹⁶i.e. it is accounted to him as merit. although he gave nothing in his lifetime, come and hear: Mine is the silver, and Mine is the gold.¹⁹⁷Hag. 2, 8. That is, you should have done [good with it] while it was still yours. Raba said: Infer from this that when a man dies his money is lost to him.

There are Tannaim who state, rest is Shilo, inheritance is Jerusalem. There are Tannaim who state, rest is Jerusalem, inheritance is Shilo⁵⁹¹Since in the verse quoted next the times when private altars are forbidden is called rest and inheritance. Babli 10a, Zevaḥim 119a.. He who says that rest is Shilo, because up to now you did not come to the rest⁵⁹²Deut. 12:9.. Inheritance is Jerusalem, My inheritance is a vulture, a hyena for Me⁵⁹³Jer. 12:9.. He who said, inheritance is Shilo, My inheritance like a lion in the forest⁵⁹⁴Jer. 12:8.; rest is Jerusalem, this is My rest forever⁵⁹⁵Ps. 132:14., etc.; like one who made a bundle and rested with it⁵⁹⁶Even if he has to work on the bundle, once he has assembled it he feels like being able to rest. So it is with Jerusalem, even though it was repeatedly destroyed, it is not to be replaced.. At the Tent of Meeting private altars were forbidden. At Gilgal private altars were permitted. At Shilo private altars were forbidden. At Nob and Gibeon private altars were permitted. At Jerusalem private altars were forbidden. {A parable of} a king who said to his slave, drink wine neither from Tiberias, nor from Caesarea⁵⁹⁷Caesarea Philippi, as always., nor from Sepphoris. Therefore from in-between is permitted. So at the Tent of Meeting they spent 39 years. At Gilgal they spent fourteen years, seven when they conquered and seven when they distributed⁵⁹⁸As inferred from verses in Seder Olam 11 (in the author’s edition, pp. 116–119); Babli Zevaḥim 118b.. At Shilo they spent 369 years⁵⁹⁹Seder Olam 11 (p. 117)., at Nob and Gibeon they spent 57, thirteen at Nob⁶⁰⁰Seder Olam 13 (p. 131. and 44 at Gibeon⁶⁰¹Since Solomon started building the Temple in year 480 after the Exodus (1K. 6:1), the time at Gibeon was 480 - (40+14+369+13). This is not quite correct since the altar at Gibeon was closed only at the inauguration of the Temple, after a building period of 7 years.. But in Jerusalem they spent 410 years at the first Temple and 420 at the last Temple⁶⁰²Babli Yoma 9a. The computation which gives too few years for the Second Temple is analyzed by the author in Seder Olam, pp. 248–250., to confirm what has been said, the glory of this last Temple will be greater than that of the first⁶⁰³Hag.2:9..

It was stated²³⁹Text of the Babylonian Mishnah. In Tosephta 15:2: “tithes took away oils and grain.”: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, purity²³⁰Meaning: lack of purity, the fact that people eat their profane food not under the rules of ritual purity applying to sanctified food, the original distinguishing feature of the old pharisaic sect. took away taste and smell, tithes²³¹The fact that people did not tithe but mostly only gave heave; cf. Tractate Demay. took away the fat of grain.” From what was taken most? Rebbi Levi ben Ḥaita said, let us hear from the following²⁴⁰Ḥag. 2:16. Grain shrank from 1 to .5 but wine from 1 to .4, which is 20% less.: “One thought to come to a heap of twenty and it was ten. He came to the winepress to draw 50 pitchers,” it does not say ‘and there were 25’ but “and there were 20.” “²⁴¹This is the version of the Babylonian Mishnah. But the Sages say, immorality and sorcery killed everything²³²Moral, not ritual, defects account for all other troubles. The Babylonian Mishnah essentially is the Tosephta, cf. Note 236..”