Chagigah 26b (כו:) — the Talmud in English

They say to the amei haaretz on the Festival:

so that they will not touch the table

and render it impure

.

All the vessels that were in the Temple had second and third replacements [

duplicate replacement vessels] in order

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

to use until they immersed the first ones and they became 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; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.

And the Sages say: Because they are coated.

The Gemara will explain the statement of Rabbi Eliezer and the statement of the Sages.

Gemara:

A tanna

taught in a beraita: This is what they would say to the amei haaretz on the Festivals:

Be careful lest you touch the table or the menorah

, since neither of them can be immersed, as the reason will be explained below.

And we explain:

And as for our tanna [

of our Mishna],

what is the reason that he did not teach the menorah

but only the table?

Because

with regard to the table

it is

written concerning it:

“the bread of the Presence before Me

always,”

and they cannot remove it from the table in order to immerse the table. But

with regard to the menorah it is not written [

with regard to the lighting of its lamps]

“always,”

but it need be lit only from evening until morning; therefore, in the morning they can immerse it.

And we explain:

And the other one [

the tanna of the beraita], who holds that even the menorah cannot be immersed, gives this reason:

Since it is written: “And the menorah

[you shall place]

opposite the table,” it is as though it were written concerning the menorah

with regard to the menorah

“always,”

it is considered

, for the Torah has stated that whenever the table is there, the menorah must be opposite it.

And the other one [

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

That

verse came in order

to establish for it

for the menorah

a place

, namely, that it should be placed opposite the table; but the Torah did not state that the menorah must always stand opposite the table, and one may take it from there and immerse it.

The Gemara raises a difficulty concerning the instruction to the amei haaretz not to touch the table—

But let it follow for me

that the table—which was made of acacia wood—does not contract impurity at all?

For

it is

a wooden vessel made to remain in one place [

to be placed] in one location,

it is

not made to be moved,

and any wooden vessel made to remain in one place does not contract impurity

, as the reason will be explained below. It follows that even if they touch it, they will not render it impure; why, then, must we warn them?

And we explain this law:

What is the reason

that a wooden vessel made to remain in one place does not contract impurity?

The Torah says: “Anything upon which any of them [of the creeping creatures], when dead, falls shall become impure, whether it is any vessel of wood or a garment or hide or sack.” Thus, the Torah likened a wooden vessel to a sack, in order to teach you:

A wooden vessel

must be similar to a sack: Just as a sack can be moved

whether it is

full or

whether it is

empty

, since it is intended to hold grain,

so too, every

of the items mentioned in that verse—and wooden vessels are included among them—contracts impurity only when it

can be moved both when full and when empty

, but not when it is made to remain in one place and not to be moved. Since this is so, the table does not contract impurity; why, then, must we warn them not to touch it?

And we answer:

This one too [

the table]

can be moved both when full and when empty, in accordance with the teaching of Reish Lakish.

For Reish Lakish said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Upon the table, the pure,”

and you can learn from this:

by inference, it is impure

, that is, it is possible for the table to become impure.

And why

is that so? After all, the table

is a wooden vessel made to remain in one place and does not contract impurity?

Rather, this teaches that they would lift the table

the table

and show it to the pilgrims

the

bread of the Presence

that was upon it,

and say to them: See how beloved you are before the Omnipresent

, for

the removal

of the bread of the Presence from the table on Shabbat

was like its arrangement

on the preceding Shabbat, as will be explained below.

And since they moved the table, it was no longer a wooden vessel made to remain in one place.

For Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: A great miracle was performed with the bread of the Presence: As it was arranged, so it was removed

, for the bread did not grow cold from the time it was arranged on Shabbat until the time it was removed on the following Shabbat.

As it is stated: “To place hot bread on the day it is taken”

, meaning that it should still be hot on the day when the bread is taken from the table.

The Gemara expresses surprise at what we have explained—that the table contracted 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 contracted impurity:

But let it follow for me on account of the coating

of the table, which was made of gold. If so, it is a metal vessel, and even when made to remain in one place it contracts impurity.

For we learned

that a stone coating removes a vessel from the category of a vessel that contracts impurity, since it makes it a stone vessel, which does not contract impurity; and if a coating is effective to make the law more lenient, certainly it is effective to make the law more stringent:

For this is what we learned in tractate Kelim:

The table and the dolfaki [

a folding chair covered with leather]

that became partially broken [

some part of them broke],

or that they covered with marble

and thereby made them stone vessels, which do not contract impurity,

but left in them

—that is, they did not break or cover—

a place for setting cups

, it remains

impure

, since it is still fit for its original function even after the breakage and despite the absence of the coating in that place.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

It is not sufficient that they leave a place for setting cups; 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 longer a wooden table present, and it is pure.

You have therefore learned that a stone coating removes it from the category of a wooden or leather vessel and makes it a stone vessel; likewise, a gold coating makes it a metal vessel.

And if you would say

that therefore the gold coating on the table in the Temple does not make it a metal vessel, because

acacia wood is different

from which the table was made,

as it is significant [

it is important]

and is not nullified

by the coating—

This works out well according to Reish Lakish

, who holds this way,

as he said

Reish Lakish:

They taught

the ruling that the coating nullifies it [Rashi]

only with regard to vessels made of axsalgin [

a place-name; Tosafot, Menahot 97a]

that come from overseas

and are not especially important,

but with regard to vessels made of mesamim

which are important,

they are not nullified

by the coating—

It is well

to explain likewise in our matter: Since the table was made of acacia wood, its status as a wooden vessel was not removed by the gold coating upon it.

But according to Rabbi Yohanan, who said: Even with regard to vessels made of mesamim, they too are nullified

by the coating, despite their importance—

What can be said

concerning the table? Why should its status not be nullified by the coating?

And if you would say

to resolve it:

Here—

where we say that its coating nullifies it—

the coating is permanent

and is fastened with nails to the body of the vessel.

Here—

with regard to the table, and therefore its coating does not nullify it—

the coating is not permanent

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

Reish Lakish asked Rabbi Yohanan:

a.

Was it only with a permanent coating

that they said, “Its coating nullifies it,”

or

also

with a coating that is not permanent?

b.

Was it when the coating covers its rims [

that is, the coating also covers its edge] that they said, “Its coating nullifies it,”

or

also

when it does not cover its rims?

And he said to him

Rabbi Yohanan to Reish Lakish:

There is no difference whether the coating is permanent or whether the coating is not permanent,

and

there is no difference whether it covers its rims or whether it does not cover its rims

; in either case, its coating nullifies it.

Rather

the Gemara explains the reason differently: The reason that the table retains the status of a wooden vessel rather than that of a metal vessel, despite being coated with gold, [and consequently we must say that the table was not a vessel made to remain in one place and was fit to contract impurity, which is why they warned the amei haaretz not to touch it,] is that: