Menachot 95b (צה:) — the Talmud in English

Could one say that if they forced

even

men with gonorrhea and lepers [who had not been permitted to remain in their state of ritual impurity]

and they entered the Temple courtyard during the following Pesaḥ while in a state of ritual impurity, perhaps they would be liable

for entering the Temple in a state of ritual impurity—

The verse states [Numbers 5]: “

You shall send out from the camp every leper, and everyone with a gonorrhea-like discharge, and everyone impure through contact with the dead,” and we learn from the juxtaposition:

we learn from an analogy:

When those impure through contact with the dead are sent out, men with gonorrhea and lepers are sent out

outside their respective boundaries; but when

those impure through contact with the dead are not sent out, men with gonorrhea and lepers are not sent out. The same law applies when the camps are dismantled for travel: Since there is then no Camp of the Divine Presence, and those impure through contact with the dead are not prohibited from entering while impure, this case is subject to the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis. According to Rabbi Eliezer, since those impure through contact with the dead are not sent out—for there is no Camp of the Divine Presence there—men with gonorrhea and lepers likewise are not sent outside their boundaries, even though their boundaries—that is, the Camp of the Levites and the Camp of Israel—remain in existence. And this is what we learned in the Mishna: Once the curtains have been rolled up, men with gonorrhea and lepers are permitted to enter there.

The same law applies when the camps were dismantled for travel: since there was then no camp of the Divine Presence, and those impure due to contact with the dead were not forbidden to enter while impure, this case is subject to the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis. According to Rabbi Eliezer, since those impure due to contact with the dead were not sent out, because there was no camp of the Divine Presence there, men with a flux and lepers likewise were not sent outside their boundaries, even though their boundaries—that is, the Levite camp and the Israelite camp—remained in existence. This is what we learned: Once the curtain was rolled up, men with a flux and lepers were permitted to enter there.

Mishna:

Both the two loaves and the shewbread:

Their kneading and shaping are performed outside [

outside the Temple courtyard],

and

these

are baked inside

the courtyard.

And they do not override [

in their kneading, shaping, and baking]

Shabbat, because it is possible to prepare them on the eve of Shabbat, and his position will be explained in the Gemara.

because it is possible to make them on the eve of Shabbat; and his position will be explained in the Gemara.

Rabbi Yehuda says: All their procedures are performed inside,

and they override Shabbat.

Rabbi Shimon says: Always be accustomed to say:

The two loaves and the shewbread are valid

to prepare and bake them

in the courtyard, and they are valid

also

at Beit Pagi,

a place that was attached to the inner side of Jerusalem’s wall, that is, throughout Jerusalem.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: Both the two loaves and the shewbread are kneaded and shaped outside, and baked inside:

And we challenge this:

This itself is difficult:

For, on the one hand,

you said: Their kneading and shaping are performed outside, evidently,

necessarily, that

the dry measure was not sanctified,

since, had it been sanctified, the fine flour would already have been sanctified when they measured it in that measure and would have become disqualified because it was taken outside, for a service vessel sanctifies whatever enters it, rendering it liable to become disqualified if taken outside—

And, on the other hand, you said:

And their baking is performed inside, evidently,

necessarily, that the reason is that

the dry measure was sanctified,

and it is therefore necessary to bake them inside!?

Rava said:

The difficulty was posed by

in resolving this difficulty

a difficult man, who was as hard as iron [

a scholar, sharp enough to cut through halakhic analysis like iron],

and who was he? Rav Sheshet.

And we challenge this answer:

But what is the difficulty!?

Perhaps

the tanna of our Mishna maintains:

The tenth-part measure—

with which they measured the fine flour—

does not sanctify,

because the dry measure was not sanctified—

but

the oven sanctifies,

and therefore it is necessary to bake it inside, so that it will not become disqualified because it was taken outside after being sanctified in the oven.

Rather, if there is a difficulty, this is the difficulty:

On the one hand, you said:

And their baking is performed inside, evidently, the oven sanctifies—

and on the other hand, you said:

And they do not override

the

Shabbat;

yet if the oven sanctifies, and he bakes them on the eve of Shabbat, then

they would become disqualified through overnight delay,

since all meal offerings, once they have been sanctified in a service vessel, become disqualified through overnight delay!?

Rava said:

The difficulty was posed by a difficult man, who was as hard as iron; and who was he? Rav Sheshet.

Rav Ashi said: What is the difficulty:

Perhaps

the tanna of our Mishna maintains that the oven does not sanctify, and therefore the bread will not become disqualified through overnight delay. And as for what is difficult for you—if so, why is their baking performed inside?—I can tell you:

What does “

inside” mean? It means

in a place where the diligent are present;

that is, they do not actually bake them in the courtyard, but outside, where diligent priests bake them so that the dough will not become leavened.

The Gemara rejects Rav Ashi’s answer:

But Rav Ashi’s statement is an external opinion

that [

it is an external view]; for

in either case: If baking requires the diligent, kneading and shaping likewise require the diligent; and if kneading and shaping do not require the diligent, baking likewise does not require the diligent,

and what reason is there to distinguish between shaping and kneading on the one hand and baking on the other?

Rather, Rav Ashi’s statement is an external opinion.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda says: All

their procedures are performed inside—

Rabbi Shimon says: Always be accustomed to say: The two loaves and the shewbread are valid in the courtyard and valid at Beit Pagi:

Rabbi Abbahu bar Kahana said: And both of them—

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, who disputed whether the oven sanctifies, as according to Rabbi Yehuda the oven sanctifies and the baking must be performed inside, whereas according to Rabbi Shimon it does not sanctify and therefore the baking may be performed outside—

derived their views from one verse:

as it is written [I Samuel 21]: “David came [when he was fleeing from Saul] to Nob, to Ahimelech the priest, and David said to Ahimelech the priest: ‘Now, what do you have on hand? Five loaves of bread, give them into my hand, or whatever can be found [or as much as you have].’ And the priest answered David and said: ‘There is no ordinary bread on hand, but there is consecrated bread [the showbread], if the youths have kept themselves from women [so that they may eat the bread], but only from a woman [who is ritually pure].’ And David answered the priest and said to him: ‘Indeed, women have been kept from us, as yesterday and the day before, when I set out, and the vessels of the youths are consecrated [that is, they are pure]]

and it is an ordinary manner, even though today it will become consecrated in a vessel”\?

Rabbi Yehuda holds: It was a weekday, and he found them baking it

on a weekday, and David found the priests baking the showbread], and thus

he said to them

in astonishment:

Are you baking it in an ordinary manner

how are you baking the showbread on a weekday]]!?

Even though today it will become consecrated in a vessel

for the bread becomes consecrated in the oven, and

it will become disqualified through overnight stay,

it will become disqualified through overnight stay until the next day; rather, you should bake it on Shabbat.

And from here Rabbi Yehuda learned that the oven consecrates it and that it overrides Shabbat.

Rabbi Shimon holds: It was Shabbat, and he found them baking it

it was Shabbat, and he found them baking the showbread on that very day], and thus

he said to them

David said to them in astonishment:

No! You ought to make it in an ordinary manner

you should bake the showbread on a weekday], lest you say: How can it be baked on a weekday, for the bread will become consecrated in the oven and become disqualified through overnight stay? This is not so,

at all,

for is it the

oven

in which it was baked on a weekday

that consecrates it,

so that it would become disqualified through overnight stay!? Surely it is the

Table that consecrates it,

and until it is arranged on the Table it does not become disqualified through overnight stay.

Therefore Rabbi Shimon holds that if one wishes, he makes it inside, and if one wishes, he makes it outside, since a dry measure does not consecrate and the oven does not consecrate.

And

we challenge this:

Can you really say that he found them at the time of baking

can you interpret the matter as meaning that David found the priests at the time of baking]]!?

But it is written

there: “

And the priest gave him consecrated bread, for there was no bread there, but the showbread that had been removed from before Hashem,”

which indicates that the bread had already been removed from the Table; it was not at the time of baking.

As a result of this difficulty, the Gemara retracts its statement that Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon learned their rulings from here; the verses are not dealing with this matter at all—

Rather, what is the meaning of “

and it is

an ordinary manner

even though today it will become consecrated in a vessel,”

which David said to them

to the priests?

This is what they said to him

the priests said to David:

There is no bread, but the showbread that has been removed from before Me

Hashem; however, it is forbidden to non-priests.

He said to them

David said to them:

It is not necessary to say this one, since once it has exited the status of misuse of consecrated property, it is like ordinary bread for you [

not only am I permitted to eat from this bread, since it has already exited the status of misuse of consecrated property through the burning of the frankincense in the bowls, which removes it from that status, once it has already become permitted to the priests, and therefore it is like ordinary bread with regard to you]]—

but even this one—

that

only

today will become consecrated in a vessel—

give it to him so that he may eat

even if you have only bread that was arranged on the Table and consecrated upon it only today, you may give it to me to eat; for: