Menachot 95a — the Talmud in English

They raise an objection from a source:

from a beraita—a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna—according to the opinion that the loaves were shaped like a dancing boat, as it was taught:

It had the form of a beehive in the oven.

That was the mold in the oven—as explained at the beginning of this chapter. It was perforated like a beehive made of reeds, so that the fire could reach most of it—

and

that mold

resembled a square table.

This indicates that the mold was like an open box, whose bottom was made like a square table. But according to the one who says that it was like a dancing boat, it did not have a bottom; it was only as thick as a finger!

And they answer:

say—

this is what the source should say:

and its mouth—

of the beehive—

resembled a square table.

Its opening was square and wide, so that the loaves could enter it easily, but below it was made like a dancing boat.

It was taught in accordance with the one who says that it was like a dancing boat, as it was taught: There were four golden supports there, split at their tops like forked prongs. They supported the loaves, which resembled a dancing boat.

a. When the Israelites camped in the wilderness, the Tabernacle was in their midst; this was the “camp of the Divine Presence.” The Levites camped around it, and the place where they camped was the “Levite camp.” The Israelites camped around them 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 through contact with the dead were sent away from there. Those with a flux were sent away from the Levite camp. In the Israelite camp, one ate offerings of lesser sanctity, and people afflicted with leprosy were sent outside it.

c. When the Israelites traveled, they dismantled the Tabernacle, and the Levites carried it; nevertheless, even during travel, the showbread remained on the table, as the verse says [Numbers 4:7], in the passage describing 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, the shelving tubes, and the libation vessels … and the regular bread shall be upon it.”

d. The beginning of our discussion deals with the sanctity of the camp of the Divine Presence during travel, when the Tabernacle was dismantled; later it deals with the sanctity of the other camps.

They raised a question before them: The showbread

which, as stated, remained arranged on the table even during travel—was it

rendered unfit

он

during travel

because of the prohibition against an offering that leaves its permitted area? For if the showbread left the camp of the Divine Presence, it was rendered unfit, like all offerings of the highest degree of sanctity, whose place is in that camp: if they left the camp of the Divine Presence, they became unfit. If so, during travel the sanctity of the camp of the Divine Presence was annulled, and the bread was thereby considered to have left that camp.

Or is it not rendered unfit during travel

because of leaving its permitted area?

They disagreed about this:

Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: One

of them

said: The bread is rendered unfit

by leaving its permitted area.

And the other

of them

said:

Since the bread was arranged on the table, it

is not rendered unfit

by leaving its permitted area.

And their reasons are:

The one who says: It is rendered unfit

bases his opinion on the fact

that it is written

in Numbers 2:

“As they encamp, so shall they travel.”

Just as, when they encamp,

if the bread is not in the camp of the Divine Presence, it is

rendered unfit by leaving its permitted area, so too during travel

if the bread is not in the camp of the Divine Presence, it is

rendered unfit by leaving its permitted area.

The one who says that it is not rendered unfit

bases his opinion on the fact

that it is written

in Numbers 4:7, in the passage describing the dismantling of the Tabernacle during travel: “And over the table of the Presence they shall spread a cloth of blue wool …”

“And the regular bread shall be upon it,”

indicating that it retains its sanctity and is still called “the regular bread.”

And

we challenge

the other—

the one who says that it is not rendered unfit—

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 they answer: According to the one who holds this opinion, we interpret the verse

in the opposite direction,

to validate the bread when it is on the table:

Just as when they encamp, since it has not left its place

on the table,

it is not rendered unfit—

so too during travel, since it has not left its place

on the table,

it is not rendered unfit.

к

And

we challenge

the other—

the one who says that it becomes unfit—

as well:

the following difficulty arises:

Is it not written “

And the regular bread shall be upon it”?

It follows that it does not become unfit by leaving its permitted area.

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—

does not disagree

that it does not become unfit by leaving its permitted area, since the verse says, “And the regular bread shall be upon it.”

Rather, they disagree about bread that has been removed,

that they had already removed from the table on Shabbat, and before they had managed to eat it, they were commanded to travel and carried it with them.

The one who says that it becomes unfit

bases his opinion on the fact

that it is written “

As they encamp, so shall they travel”:

Just as when they encamp it becomes unfit by leaving its permitted area, so too during travel it becomes unfit by leaving its permitted area.

The one who says that it does not become unfit

bases his opinion on the fact

that it is written

in the passage describing the travels of the Israelites [Numbers 2]: “

And the Tent of Meeting shall travel

in the midst of the camps of the Levites,” and we learn:

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

And

we challenge

the other—

the one who says that it does not become unfit—

as well: Is it not written “

As they encamp, so shall they travel”?

And they answer: He interprets it

in the opposite direction: Just as when they encamp, if he does not take it out

of the Temple courtyard,

it is not rendered unfit, so too during travel, if he does not take it out, it is not rendered unfit.

And

we challenge

the other as well—

the one who says that the bread

becomes unfit:

Is it not written “

And the Tent of Meeting shall travel”?

And we answer:

That one came for the banners:

That is, the verse came only to indicate the place of the Tent of Meeting among the banners, which is the principal subject of the passage there, and not to teach that the place has the status of the Tent of Meeting.

And the other one

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

from

the continuation of the verse,

“the camp of the Levites within the camps”

is derived,

and necessarily the verse added calling it the Tent of Meeting in order to say that it has the status of the Tent of Meeting.

It was objected to the one who says that the bread is not disqualified by going outside, from what we learned in a beraita:

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 setting out on the journeys

then the

sanctified offerings

are disqualified by going outside—

And

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 the three camps, even outside the camp of Israel]

are sent outside their boundary,

the boundary of each one: that is, those with a flux outside the Levite camp at the time of their traveling, and lepers outside the camp of Israel at the time of their traveling, because the sanctity of these camps was not nullified at the time of the journey.

What, is it not even the showbread

disqualified by going outside like the other sanctified offerings, and this is a difficulty according to the one who does not disqualify it by going outside!?

And we answer:

No,

not as you thought, to compare the showbread to the other sanctified offerings, but

other than the showbread,

which indeed is not disqualified by going outside.

And we raise an objection against this:

What is your position!?

If it is specifically the Tent of Meeting,

if, as you say, the place has the status of the Tent of Meeting at the time of their traveling, then

even the other

most holy

offerings as well

should not be 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 be disqualified!?

Rather, when Ravin came, he said:

It is certainly proven from the beraita that the bread is not disqualified by going outside—and

the one

who said that it is not disqualified

said

this only with regard to

when it was arranged

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

and the one

who said that it is disqualified

said with regard to when it was removed,

when the bread is disqualified like other most holy offerings, which are disqualified—

And they do not disagree [

there is no disagreement here].

Abaye said: Learn from it

from the beraita, in which it is explained that most holy offerings are disqualified by going outside:

There is setting out on journeys at night,

the Children of Israel would set out on the journey even at night—

For if it enters your mind that there is no setting out on journeys at night,

then

when are they removed in the morning [

when would they set out—at the beginning of the morning]? The most holy offerings had still not been slaughtered; rather, they were from the previous day. If so,

why specifically

that most holy offerings are disqualified

because of going outside?

For behold,

let it follow that they are disqualified by remaining overnight,

for the night had passed over them. Rather, certainly, the disqualification of most holy offerings by going outside is in a case where they went out at night, before most holy offerings slaughtered during the day become disqualified because of going outside.

And we raise an objection: Behold, it is

obvious

that there is setting out on journeys at night, for

“to go by day and by night”

is written!?

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

it might enter your mind to say:

This applies

that they went even at night

where they set out during the day [

when they uprooted themselves from their place during the day],

but where they did not set out during the day, they could not set out at night [

if they did not begin going during the day, they would no longer begin going at night]—

it teaches us

that they also began setting out on the journey at night.

And we raise an objection concerning the beraita, in which it was explained that even at the time of the journeys those with a flux and lepers are sent outside their boundary, because the sanctity of the Levite camp and the camp of Israel was not nullified at the time of the journeys;

And he contrasts it with

what was taught:

When the curtains were rolled up

at the time of setting out on the journeys,

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

into the camp of the Divine Presence], so it follows that the sanctity of the camps was nullified completely!?

Rav Ashi said: It is not difficult:

This—

that we learned: those with a flux and lepers were permitted to enter there—

is Rabbi Eliezer

who holds this view—

This—

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

is the Rabbis

who hold this view.

For it was taught:

Although an impure person does not perform the Passover offering, nevertheless, if the majority of the public are impure, the impurity is overridden, and they enter the Courtyard—which is forbidden to them in their impurity, for one impure through contact with a corpse is forbidden to enter the camp of the Divine Presence—and perform the Passover offering; but the impurity of a flux and leprosy was not permitted even when the majority of them were impure.

Rabbi Eliezer says: