Menachot 95a (צה.) — the Talmud in English

Meitive:

from a beraita according to the opinion that the loaves were shaped like a dancing ship, as it was taught:

It had the form of a beehive in the oven,

that is, the mold in the oven—as explained at the beginning of the chapter, it was perforated like a reed beehive so that the fire could reach most of it—

and

that mold

resembled a square tablet.

This indicates the opinion that it was like an open-ended box, whose bottom was made like a square tablet. But according to the opinion that it was like a dancing ship, it did not have a bottom; it was only as thick as a finger!?

And we answer:

Say—

interpret the teaching as follows:

and its opening

of the beehive

resembled a square tablet,

for its opening was square and spacious, so that the loaves could enter it easily, whereas below it was made like a dancing ship.

A beraita was taught in accordance with the opinion that it was like a dancing ship, as it was taught: There were four golden supports there, split at their upper ends like forked branches; they supported the loaves, which resembled a dancing ship.

In its straightforward sense, we should have ruled in accordance with this opinion, since the beraita supports it, and the words of Rabbi Yehuda above can also be understood according to this opinion ;

a. When the Israelites encamped in the wilderness, the Tabernacle was in their midst, and it constituted the “Camp of the Divine Presence.” Around it the Levites encamped, and the place of their encampment was the “Levite Camp.” Around them the Israelites encamped according to their standards, and this was the “Israelite Camp.”

b. In the Camp of the Divine Presence, one ate offerings of the highest degree of sanctity, and those impure with impurity imparted by a corpse were sent out from there. Those with a flux were sent out from the Levite Camp. In the Israelite Camp, one ate offerings of lesser sanctity, and lepers were sent outside it.

c. When they traveled, they dismantled the Tabernacle, and the Levites carried it ; nevertheless, even during travel, the showbread remained on the Table, as the verse states [Numbers 4:7] concerning the dismantling of the Tabernacle during travel: “And over the Table of the Presence they shall spread a cloth of blue wool, and place upon it the bowls, the pans... and the continual bread shall be upon it.”

d. The beginning of our discussion concerns the sanctity of the Camp of the Divine Presence during travel, when the Tabernacle was dismantled; later it discusses the sanctity of the other camps.

They raised a dilemma: The showbread

, which—as stated—is arranged on the Table even during travel: Does it

become disqualified

it is

during travel

because of the prohibition of yotzei, “that which has gone out,” since showbread that leaves the Camp of the Divine Presence becomes disqualified, like all offerings of the highest degree of sanctity, whose proper place is in the Camp of the Divine Presence? If they leave the Camp of the Divine Presence, they become disqualified; and if so, during travel the sanctity of the Camp of the Divine Presence has lapsed, and it follows that the bread has left the Camp of the Divine Presence.

Or does it not become disqualified during travel

because of yotzei?

And they disagreed about this matter:

Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: One

of them

said: It becomes disqualified

through yotzei.

And the other

of them

said:

Since the bread is arranged on the Table,

it does not become disqualified

through yotzei.

And their reasons are as follows:

The one who says: It becomes disqualified,

his reason is

because it is written

in Numbers 2:

“As they encamp, so shall they travel.”

Just as during its encampment,

when the bread is not in the Camp of the Divine Presence, it

becomes disqualified through yotzei, so too during its travel

when the bread is not in the Camp of the Divine Presence, it

becomes disqualified through yotzei.

The one who says that it does not become disqualified,

his reason is

because it is written

in Numbers 4:7, concerning the dismantling of the Tabernacle during travel: “And over the Table of the Presence they shall spread a cloth of blue wool”...

“and the continual bread shall be upon it,”

indicating that it remains in its sanctity and that the designation “continual bread” remains upon it.

And

we challenge

the other one—

the one who holds that it does not become disqualified—

as well: Is it not written “

As they encamp, so shall they travel”!?

b. Now, Rashi’s position in several places [including on the following page, s.v. “were sanctified”] is that just as the sanctification performed by a vessel enables an item to become sanctified and thereby become unfit through other forms of disqualification, so too it sanctifies it so that it can become unfit by leaving its permitted area. Tosafot disagree in several places [including on the following page, s.v. “its kneading”], maintaining that a vessel does not sanctify an item so that it becomes unfit by leaving its permitted area; therefore, every meal-offering becomes unfit by leaving its permitted area only after its handful has been removed, except for the meal-offering of priests and the like, which have no handful removed, and become unfit by leaving once they have been sanctified in a vessel; According to Tosafot, the following difficulty arises: How could they say here that showbread on the table becomes unfit by leaving its permitted area? It was not sanctified so as to become unfit until the bowls of frankincense were burned, which serves the function of removing a handful from a meal-offering; as Tosafot wrote there, showbread does not become unfit by leaving after it is baked, even though the oven sanctifies it; the same should apply once the showbread is sanctified by the table! They answer in the Shita Mekubetzet in the omissions there, section 23: Indeed, the bread does not become unfit, but the frankincense placed on the bread has the status of the meal-offering of priests and of libations, which become unfit by leaving when sanctified in a vessel, since they have no permitting act consisting of removing a handful. The same applies to the bowls of frankincense: they themselves are the permitting elements and have no other permitting element; they become unfit once sanctified in a vessel; but in Mikdash David section 22, paragraph 3, he challenges this, saying that the matter does not depend on the permitting element, but on there being no service performed after sanctification. In the case of frankincense, however, there is the service of removal after sanctification; see there, and in the novellae of Rabbi Aryeh Leib [Malin], section 37. c. The Mikdash David raised the following difficulty [there, s.v. “And principally,” at the end]: Why is the reason attributed to leaving its permitted area? It could be derived from the fact that the required time had not arrived: the bread must remain on the table from one Shabbat to the next, and if it was removed from the table in the meantime, it would be lacking the required time, since it had not remained on the table from one Shabbat to the next; [one might add: although it was explained in note 7 that the verse “And the regular bread shall be upon it” includes the requirement that the bread remain on the table, so it should not be considered lacking the required time, since it did remain on the table; nevertheless, the question is well founded, because according to the one who says that it becomes unfit by leaving, he must hold that the requirement of arranging the bread is not fulfilled during travel, since it becomes unfit by leaving; therefore, it should instead be considered lacking the required time]. He refers to what is explained there in paragraph 1.

And we answer: According to this opinion, we interpret the verse

in the opposite direction,

to validate the bread when it is on the Table:

Just as during its encampment, when it did not leave its place

on the Table,

it does not become disqualified—

so too during its travel, when it did not leave its place

on the Table,

it does not become disqualified.

a. [It should be examined: If so, why do we need the verse “and the continual bread shall be upon it”? Let us derive it from this exposition!? One may answer that the Gemara means that from this verse alone one cannot derive either position, because it can be interpreted as indicating disqualification, and it can be interpreted as indicating validity [This requires examination: If so, why is the verse “And the regular bread shall be upon it” necessary? This could be derived from this interpretation! One can answer that the Gemara means that this verse cannot be used to derive either position, because it can be interpreted as rendering the bread unfit or as validating it; ;

And

we challenge

the other one—

the one who holds that it becomes disqualified—

as well:

the difficulty is:

Is it not written “

and the continual bread shall be upon it”?

It is therefore unavoidable that it does not become disqualified through yotzei.

Rather, when Rav Dimi came, he said:

When the bread is arranged on the Table

and they traveled,

everyone

agrees—

Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi—

do not disagree

that it does not become disqualified through yotzei, since the verse states, “and the continual bread shall be upon it.”

Rather, they disagree concerning bread that has been removed,

which they had already removed from the Table on Shabbat, and before they had managed to eat it they were instructed to travel, so they took it with them.

The one who says that it becomes disqualified,

his reason is

because it is written, “

As they encamp, so shall they travel”:

Just as during its encampment it becomes disqualified through yotzei, so too during its travel it becomes disqualified through yotzei.

The one who says that it does not become disqualified,

his reason is

because it is written

in the section concerning the journeys of the Israelites [Numbers 2]:

“And the Tent of Meeting shall travel

within the camps of the Levites,” and we learn from this:

Even though the Tent of Meeting has traveled, it is.

[Apparently, this interpretation works only according to the initial assumption that their disagreement concerns bread arranged on the table, because everyone agrees that the sanctity of the camp of the Divine Presence was annulled; just as during encampment the bread becomes unfit when it leaves the camp of the Divine Presence, so during travel it should become unfit once it leaves the camp of the Divine Presence; ;

And

we challenge

the other one—

the one who holds that the bread does not become disqualified—

as well: Is it not written “

As they encamp, so shall they travel”!?

And we answer: He interprets it

in the opposite direction: Just as during its encampment, when it did not take it out

of the Temple courtyard,

it did not become disqualified, so too during its travel, when he did not take it out, it does not become disqualified.

And

we challenge

the other one as well—

the one who holds that the bread becomes disqualified—

as it is written “

And the Tent of Meeting shall travel”!?

And the Tent of Meeting shall travel”?

And we answer:

That verse comes for the banners;

that is, the verse was stated only to indicate the location of the Tent of Meeting among the banners, which is the principal subject of that passage, and not to teach that the site possessed the status of the Tent of Meeting.

And the other

holds that there is no need to call the place the Tent of Meeting for this purpose, but

from

the continuation of the verse,

“the camp of the Levites in the midst of the camps,”

it is derived;

and it is necessarily the case that the verse added the designation Tent of Meeting in order to state that the place possessed the status of the Tent of Meeting.

The following objection

is raised against the one who says that the bread does not become disqualified by being taken outside, from what we learned in a beraita:

At the time of the dismantling of the camps

then the

sacrificial offerings

become disqualified by being taken outside—

But

in any event,

those with a flux [

who are sent outside the two camps—the Camp of the Divine Presence and the Levite camp]

and lepers [

who are sent outside all three camps, even outside the Camp of Israel]

are sent outside their boundaries,

outside the boundary of each one respectively: those with a flux outside the Levite camp when it was traveling, and lepers outside the Camp of Israel when it was traveling, because the sanctity of these camps was not nullified during the journey.

Does this not mean even the showbread

becomes disqualified by being taken outside, like other sacrificial offerings? If so, this presents a difficulty to the view of the one who does not disqualify it by being taken outside!?

And we answer:

No;

not as you thought, that the showbread should be compared to other sacrificial offerings, but

it refers to something other than the showbread,

which indeed does not become disqualified by being taken outside.

And we raise a difficulty against this:

Whichever way you look at it!?

If it is specifically the Tent of Meeting,

if, as you say, the place has the status of the Tent of Meeting when they travel, then

even

other kodshei

kodashim as well

should not become disqualified—

If it is not specifically the Tent of Meeting,

meaning that the place does not have the status of the Tent of Meeting, then

even the showbread as well

should become disqualified!?

Rather, when Ravin came, he said:

It is certainly demonstrated by the beraita that the bread does not become disqualified by being taken outside—and

the master—

the one who said that it does not become disqualified—

said

this only with regard to the bread

when it was arranged

on the Table, because it is stated: “And the continual bread shall be upon it,”

while the master—

the one who said that it does become disqualified—

said it with regard to when it was removed,

when the bread becomes disqualified like other kodshei kodashim, which become disqualified—

And they do not disagree [

there is no disagreement here].

Abaye said: Infer from this

from the beraita, which indicates that kodshei kodashim become disqualified by being taken outside:

There is dismantling of the camps at night;

the Israelites would set out on their journey even at night—

For if it should enter your mind that there is no dismantling of the camps at night,

then

when would they set out in the morning [

when would they depart—at the beginning of the morning]? The kodshei kodashim had not yet been slaughtered; rather, they were from the previous day. If so,

why specifically

do kodshei kodashim become disqualified

because they were taken outside?

After all,

it could be inferred that they had become disqualified because of remaining overnight, since the night had passed over them. Rather, it is certainly the case that the disqualification of kodshei kodashim by being taken outside applies when they went outside at night, before the kodshei kodashim slaughtered during the day became disqualified because they were taken outside.

since the night passed over them. Rather, it is certain that the disqualification of most-sacred offerings taken outside refers to a case in which they left at night, before most-sacred offerings slaughtered during the day would become disqualified because they were taken outside.

And we raise a difficulty: It is

obvious

that there is dismantling of the camps at night, because

“to travel day and night”

is written!?

And we answer: It was necessary to teach us that they began traveling at night, because

it might have been thought:

This applies

only when they traveled at night after having traveled

during the day [

when they had set out from their place during the day],

but when they had not set out during the day, they could not set out at night [

if they had not begun traveling during the day, they could no longer begin traveling at night]—

it teaches us

that they could also begin setting out on their journey at night.

And we raise a difficulty against the beraita, in which it was explained that even during the journeys those with a flux and lepers are sent outside their boundaries, because the sanctity of the Levite camp and the Camp of Israel was not nullified during the journeys;

And we juxtapose

against this that which was taught:

The curtains were rolled up

at the time of the dismantling of the camps,

those with a flux and lepers were permitted to enter there [

the Camp of the Divine Presence], indicating that the sanctity of the camps was entirely nullified!?

Rav Ashi said: This is not difficult:

This—

the statement that we learned, that those with a flux and lepers were permitted to enter there—

is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer

.

That—

the beraita in which we learned that those with a flux and lepers are sent outside their boundaries—

is the opinion of the Rabbis

.

As it was taught:

Although one who is impure may not bring the Paschal offering, nevertheless, if the majority of the public is impure, the impurity is overridden: they enter the Courtyard—which is forbidden to them in their state of impurity, as one impure due to contact with the dead is forbidden to enter the Camp of the Divine Presence—and they offer the Paschal offering. But impurity due to a flux and leprosy are not permitted even when the majority of the people are impure.

Rabbi Eliezer says: