Menachot 87b (פז:) — the Talmud in English

The level measure, with which they measured

a complete issaron

for the chavitei of the High Priest,

and afterward divided it with the half-issaron measure.

And the Sages say:

There was only

one measure of

one issaron, as it is stated [

Numbers 29:4 ]:

“And one issaron for each lamb.”

If so—

according to the Sages—

what is the meaning of

“an issaron, an issaron,”

to include

the measure of

half an issaron

for the minchat chavitin.

The Gemara asks:

And Rabbi Meir—

who derives from the superfluous wording that there were two issaron measures—how

does he derive the half-issaron measure?

The Gemara answers:

He derives it from

“and an issaron,”

the superfluous vav, which teaches about the half-issaron measure.

And

if

the Sages

do not

expound

the

vav in “and an issaron,”

what do they expound,

and therefore need to derive the half-issaron measure from “an issaron, an issaron”?

And Rabbi Meir, this

“and one issaron for each lamb”—

from which the Sages learn that there were not two types of issaron—

what does he do with it?

And we explain:

That verse teaches that one should not measure with a measure of three

issarons

for a bull, nor with one of two for a ram.

And the Sages derive

this law

from its vocalization,

from the dots placed over the word “and an issaron,” written in chapter 29, verse 15, concerning the additional offerings of the first day of Sukkot

; as it was taught:

Rabbi Yosei said: Why is the vav

in the middle of the word

“and”

issaron

of

the

issaron

first

of the first day of Sukkot

?

The verse there states, “and an issaron, an issaron for each lamb,” and the vav of the first “and an issaron” is dotted:

To teach

that one should not measure with a measure of three for a bull, nor with one of two for a ram.

And Rabbi Meir does not expound the dots.

We learned in the Mishna:

“Half an issaron—what was it used for? With it they measured for the chavitei of the High Priest”:

And we ask: Was he indeed

measuring,

which implies that he brought the meal-offering from his home as half an issaron at a time!?

And we raise a contradiction

from the earlier Mishna, which says:

The chavitei of the High Priest did not come in halves;

he did not bring two half-issarons from his home,

but he brought a complete issaron and divided it.

Rabbi

answered,

Rav Sheshet:

What does

“measuring”

also mean, as it is taught in our Mishna?

It means:

dividing.

A mnemonic

for the questions of Rami bar Hama below:

half; chavitei; Table.

Rami bar Hama asked Rav Hisda:

Half: The

measure of

half an issaron—

which was intended for dividing the chavitin—

according to Rabbi Meir,

who holds that there were two issaron measures, one heaped for all the meal-offerings and one level for the chavitin:

Was it

heaped [

holding half an issaron with its heap ],

or perhaps

was it level?

Rav Hisda was astonished:

You should have asked this according to the Sages; this uncertainty applies to the Sages just as it does to Rabbi Meir!?

Rami bar Hama said to Rav Hisda:

According to the Sages,

even

the issaron itself is a question for me

[according to the view of the Sages, who hold that there was only one issaron, I am also uncertain about it]: Was it

heaped, or was it level?

Only according to Rabbi Meir, who holds that there were two issaron measures, one heaped and one level, am I uncertain only about the half-issaron measure.

He said to him, Rav Hisda said to Rami bar Hama, resolving all his uncertainties:

From Rabbi Meir

himself, with regard to the issaron,

we may infer Rabbi Meir’s view

with regard to the half-issaron

; and from Rabbi Meir

with regard to the half-issaron,

we may infer the Sages’ view

with regard to the half-issaron—

Since Rabbi Meir said that the issaron—

which was intended for the chavitin—

was level,

then

the half-issaron—

which was intended for dividing the chavitin—

was likewise level.

If

Rabbi Meir’s

measure for the chavitin was level,

the measure intended for the chavitin,

according to the Sages was likewise level, since according to the Sages both the issaron and the half-issaron were also intended for the chavitin.

that the measure intended for the griddle-cakes was; for according to the Sages, both the issaron and the half-issaron were intended also for the griddle-cakes.

Chavitei:

Rami bar Hama asked Rav Hisda:

The dough of

the chavitei of the High Priest—

with what did he divide it into

six

loaves

that he made from the dough in the morning, and into the six loaves that he made from the dough in the afternoon? Did he divide them

by hand,

without a measuring vessel,

or with a vessel,

did he divide them with a measuring vessel? Rav Hisda said to Rami bar Hama:

Obviously, it was by hand

that he divided them.

For if it were with a vessel

he had divided them, would he bring

a tartani

[scales for dividing the dough]

into the Temple courtyard

and bring it into the azarah!? And he explains it as he proceeds.

And we challenge this:

And bring

scales into the azarah—what of it!?

And we explain:

Since

dividing bread by weight

is associated with a curse

as

is written,

as stated by the verse in the rebuke in the portion of Bechukotai, “And they shall return your bread by weight,” therefore,

it is not proper

[it is not a respectful and dignified way] to do so in the azarah.

Table:

Rami bar Hama asked Rav Hisda: The Table

of the lechem ha-panim,

what is the status of its sanctifying handfuls

of frankincense

when they are placed on its heap?

That is to say, the essential law of the frankincense was that two bowls containing frankincense were arranged on the Table, and through burning the frankincense afterward on the altar, the bread became permitted for eating. The frankincense was sanctified through the bowls. But the Gemara raises the following uncertainty: If he placed the handfuls of frankincense on the Table itself, and not in the bowls, does the Table sanctify them? The Gemara’s uncertainty is because the Table has no interior, and the frankincense rests on the Table as on the heap of a kli sharet; the two sides of the uncertainty are:

Shall we say:

Since it sanctifies

the Table

the bread

on its heap, if so,

it likewise sanctifies the handfuls

on its heap?

Or perhaps:

The lechem ha-panim

that is fit for it

[that is fit for the Table] indeed

is sanctified

by the Table, but that

which is not fit for it,

such as frankincense, which is fit for the bowls but not for the Table itself—

the Table does not sanctify

it.

He said to him,

Rav Hisda to Rami bar Hama:

It does not

sanctify

the handfuls placed upon it without bowls.

And we challenge this:

Is that so

—is the matter not so!?

But Rabbi Yohanan said:

a. Every loaf of the lechem ha-panim was ten tefahim long and was placed across the width of the Table, which was one ammah wide [some say: an ammah of five tefahim, and some say: an ammah of six tefahim], with the excess standing upright on either side.

b. Six loaves, one above the other, were placed on each side of the Table.

According to the one who says two and a half tefahim

the excess of the lechem ha-panim on each side of the Table

was folded

—he folded the sides of the bread upward—because, according to his view, the Table’s width was an ammah of five tefahim, and the excess of each loaf was five tefahim, namely, two and a half tefahim on each side—

It follows that the Table sanctifies

—as a kli sharet—

fifteen tefahim upward

as the height of the bread upon it, for six loaves were placed one above the other, each two and a half tefahim high, making fifteen tefahim.

Whereas

according to the one who says two tefahim

the excess

was folded

because the Table’s width was an ammah of six tefahim, and there was an excess of only two tefahim on each side—

It follows that the Table sanctifies twelve tefahim upward,

which is the height of six loaves, each two tefahim high.

It is thus explained that the Table sanctifies up to this height, and not as was explained—that the Table sanctifies only the bread and nothing else.

He said to him

The Table

does not sanctify

the frankincense

for offering, but it does sanctify

the frankincense

to render it disqualified,

that is, to sanctify it with the sanctity of the body, so that it becomes disqualified through contact with one who has immersed that day and through being taken outside, as though it had been placed in the bowls.

Mishna:

There were seven measures

of

liquid

[for wine and oil]

in the Temple,

according to the measure required for wine or oil:

a.

A hin

[which is twelve log; the Gemara will explain what it was used for].

b.

And half a hin

for the libations of a bull, wine for the basins, and oil for the meal offering.

c.

And one-third of a hin

for the libations of a ram, wine and oil.

d.

And one-quarter of a hin

for the libations of a lamb, wine and oil.

e.

A log

for all the meal offerings; this will be explained further in the following Mishna.

f.

And half a log

for the water of a sota and for the oil of the loaves of the thanksgiving offering.

g.

And one-quarter of a log

for the spring water of a leper and for the oil of the loaves of the nazirite offering, as all this is explained in the following Mishna.

Rabbi Eliezer bar Rabbi Tzadok says:

There were not seven measures there; rather,

markings

[indicators, nails, or notches]

were on the

measure of the

hin,

to indicate:

Up to here for a bull, up to here for a ram, and up to here for a lamb.

Rabbi Shimon says:

There were always seven measures there, but

there was no “

hin,”

for

what use was the hin!?

Rather,

what measure could be brought to complete the seven measures:

There was an additional measure of a log and a half, with which they measured for the loaves of the High Priest’s offering

[which were brought every day]:

a log and a half

of oil

in the morning

to mix with the six loaves,

and a log and a half

of oil

in the evening

to mix with six additional loaves.

Gemara:

The Sages taught in a beraita:

There were seven measures of liquid in the Temple: one-quarter

of a log,

half a log, a log, one-quarter of a hin, one-third of a hin, half a hin, and a hin.

The statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Meir says,

he counted the seven measures mentioned from the largest to the smallest, unlike Rabbi Yehuda, who counted them from the smallest to the largest:

A hin, half a hin, one-third of a hin, one-quarter of a hin, a log, half a log, and one-quarter

of a log.

Rabbi Shimon says:

There was no hin

for

what use was the hin!?