Chagigah 26b — the Talmud in English

They say to them

to the amei ha-aretz on the Festival:

Be careful not to touch the Table

and render it impure.

All the vessels that were in the Temple had duplicates and triplicates [

replacement vessels in pairs] so that

if the first ones became impure, they would bring others in their place

to use them until they immerse the first ones and they become pure.

All the vessels that were in the Temple require immersion

after the Festival,

except for the golden Altar and the copper Altar, because they are like the ground; these are the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

And the Sages say: because they are plated.

And in the Gemara the words of Rabbi Eliezer and the words of the Sages will be explained.

Gemara:

A tannay

in a beraita: Thus they would say to the amei ha-aretz on the Festivals:

Be careful, lest you touch the Table and the Menora

for they are both unable to be immersed, as it explains the reason and proceeds.

And we explain:

And our tannay [

of our Mishna]

what is the reason that he did not teach the Menora

but only the Table?

Because

the Table

indeed

it is written concerning it:

the showbread before it

“always”;

and they cannot remove it from it and immerse the Table. But

concerning the Menora it is not written [

with regard to the lighting of its lamps]

“always”,

and it is necessary to light it only from evening until morning; it follows that in the morning they can immerse it.

And we explain:

And the other one [

the tannay of the beraita], who maintains that even the Menora cannot be immersed—his reason is:

since it is written: “And the Menora

[you shall place]

opposite the Table,” it is as though it is written concerning it

in the Menora

“always,”

it is considered

for the Torah said that whenever the Table is there, the Menora shall be opposite it.

And the other one [

the tannay of our Mishna], who does not take this into consideration, says:

that

verse came

to establish for it

for the Menora

a place,

that he should set it opposite the Table; but the Torah did not say that the Menora must always stand opposite the Table, and he can take it from there and immerse it.

The Gemara raises an objection concerning the instruction that they say to the amei ha-aretz not to touch the Table—

But let it emerge for me

that the Table—which was made of acacia wood—does not become susceptible to impurity at all?

For

it is

a wooden vessel made to remain in one place [

to be placed] in one place

it is

and it was not made to be moved,

and every wooden vessel made to remain in one place does not become impure,

as it explains the reason and proceeds. It follows that even if they touch it, they will not render it impure; why, then, do we need to warn them?

And we explain this law:

What is the reason

that a wooden vessel made to remain in one place does not become impure?

For the Torah said: “Whatever falls upon them [from the creeping creatures] in their death shall become impure, of every wooden vessel or garment or hide or sack.” Thus the Torah compared a wooden vessel to a sack, in order to teach you:

A wooden vessel

we require it to be similar to a sack: just as a sack is movable

both when it is

full and

when it is

empty,

for it is designated for grain,

so too every—

the items mentioned in that verse, and a wooden vessel is among them—

becomes impure only when it is movable, full and empty,

but not when it is made to remain in one place and not to be moved. And since this is so: the Table does not become impure; why, then, do we need to warn them about touching it?

And we answer:

This one too [

the Table]

is movable when full and empty, as Reish Lakish expounded.

For Reish Lakish said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “upon the Table, the pure”?

And you have to learn:

by implication, it is impure

that is to say: it is possible for the Table to be impure.

And why

indeed, the Table

is a wooden vessel made to remain in one place, and it does not become susceptible to impurity?

Rather, this teaches that they would lift it

the Table

and show with it to those who came up for the Festival

the

showbread

that was upon it,

and they would say to them: See your belovedness before the Omnipresent,

for

its removal

of the showbread from the Table on Shabbat

was like its arrangement

on the preceding Shabbat, as it explains and proceeds.

And since they move the Table, it is no longer a wooden vessel made to remain in one place.

For Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: A great miracle was performed with the showbread: as its arrangement, so was its removal

for the bread did not grow cold from the time of its arrangement on Shabbat until the time of its removal on the Shabbat following,

as it is stated: “to place hot bread on the day it is taken”,

so that it would still be hot on the day when they took the bread from upon the Table.

And the Gemara is astonished at what we explained: that the Table became susceptible to impurity only because it was not made to remain in one place, whereas had it been made to remain in one place it indeed would not have become impure:

But let it emerge for me because of the plating

of the Table, which was of gold; and if so, it is a metal vessel, and even when it is made to remain in one place it becomes impure.

For we learned

that plating of stone removes a vessel from susceptibility to impurity, since it becomes a stone vessel, which does not become susceptible to impurity; and if plating is effective to be lenient, all the more so is it effective to be stringent:

Thus we learned in tractate Kelim:

The Table and the dolpaki [

a folding chair covered with leather]

that became chipped [

some of them broke],

or that they plated with marble

and they became stone vessels that do not become susceptible to impurity,

and they left in them—

that they did not chip and did not plate—

a place for setting cups,

it is still

impure,

since it is still fit for its original function even after the chipping and without the place of the plating.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

It is not sufficient that they leave a place for setting cups; rather, they must also leave

a place for setting pieces

of bread and meat. But if they did not leave a place for the pieces, there is no wooden Table upon it, and it is pure.

You have learned that stone plating removes it from the status of a wooden or leather vessel and makes it a stone vessel; and likewise gold plating makes it a metal vessel.

And if you should say

that therefore the gold plating upon the Table in the Temple does not make it a metal vessel, because

acacia wood is different,

from which the Table was made,

for it is significant [

it is important]

and is not nullified

by the plating—

This works well according to Reish Lakish

who maintains this,

for

Reish Lakish

said:

They taught

only with vessels of akselagin [

a place-name, Tosafot Menahot 97a]

that come from overseas,

which are not so significant,

but with vessels of mesamim,

which are significant,

they are not nullified

by the plating—

It is well

to explain likewise in our matter: since the Table was made of acacia wood, the status of a wooden vessel was not removed from it by the gold plating upon it.

But according to Rabbi Yohanan, who said: Even with vessels of mesamim as well they are nullified

by the plating, even though they are significant—

What is there to say

regarding the Table? Why should its name not be nullified by the plating?

And if you should say

to answer:

Here—

where we say that its plating nullifies it—

it is with permanent plating,

which is fixed with nails to the body of the vessel.

Here—

with the Table, and therefore its plating does not nullify it—

it is with non-permanent plating,

that is to say: perhaps you will say that its plating was not permanent and fixed with nails [Rashi], and therefore, had it been made to remain in one place, it would not become susceptible to impurity. This too cannot be said, for

Reish Lakish asked Rabbi Yohanan:

a.

With permanent plating

alone did they say, “its plating nullifies it,”

or

even

with non-permanent plating?

b.

When it covers its rims [

the plating also covers its edge], did they say, “its plating nullifies it,”

or

even

when it does not cover its rims?

And he said to him

Rabbi Yohanan to Reish Lakish:

It makes no difference whether with permanent plating or whether with non-permanent plating,

and

it makes no difference whether when it covers its rims or whether when it does not cover its rims;

in either case its plating nullifies it.

Rather

the Gemara explains in another manner the reason that the Table has the status of a wooden vessel and not of a metal vessel, even though it was plated with gold, [and therefore we must say that the Table was not a vessel made to remain in one place and was fit to become susceptible to impurity, and consequently they warned the amei ha-aretz not to touch it], because: