Menachot 96b (צו:) — the Talmud in English

It follows that its length of the bread filled the width of the table, while the widths of the two arrangements—which together were eleven handbreadths—filled the length of the table. These are the words of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: The table was twelve handbreadths long, namely, two cubits using a cubit of six handbreadths, and six handbreadths wide, namely, one cubit using a cubit of six handbreadths, whereas the shewbread was ten handbreadths long and five handbreadths wide— Thus, he placed its length of the bread opposite the width of the table, leaving four handbreadths: He folded two handbreadths here and two handbreadths there, so that its length filled the width of the table. But the width of the two arrangements—which was ten handbreadths—did not fill the length of the table, which was twelve handbreadths; rather: There was a space of two handbreadths in the middle of the table, along its length, between one arrangement and the other, so that the wind could blow between them [between the loaves], so that they would not become moldy. Abba Shaul says in accordance with Rabbi Meir’s view, except that he disagrees with him concerning the purpose of those two remaining handbreadths along the length of the table: There— in the two-handbreadth space— they would place the two bowls of frankincense for the shewbread. They said to him: But it has already been stated: “And you shall place pure frankincense upon each arrangement”, and not beside them!? He said to them: The phrase “upon the arrangement” is understood as meaning adjacent to the arrangement, for it has already been stated [Numbers 2:20], similarly: “The banner of the camp of Ephraim according to their legions westward, and next to it the tribe of Manasseh,” meaning adjacent to it. And there were four golden forked supports [supports] there, forked with many forks at their tops so that the ends of the rods between one loaf and another could be placed on the forks, with which they supported the walls of the bread: Two for this arrangement, one on this side and one on that, and two for that arrangement, one on this side and one on that. and twenty-eight rods - like half a hollow rod, that is, like a rod split lengthwise - were there, to place them between the loaves: Fourteen rods for this arrangement, three rods above each loaf, and above the fifth loaf only two rods, and fourteen rods for this arrangement. Neither the arranging of the rods in the new arrangement set out on Shabbat, nor their removal from above the old arrangement that is removed on Shabbat, overrides Shabbat, rather: He enters on the eve of Shabbat and removes them - he removes the rods between the loaves - and places them lengthwise along the Table; on Shabbat he removes the bread and arranges other bread without rods, and at the conclusion of Shabbat he places the rods between the loaves. All the vessels that were in the Temple and in the Tabernacle were placed with their length along the length of the House, from east to west. Gemara: We learned in the Mishna: All the meal-offerings involve an act performed with a vessel inside: They asked Rabbi: From where is this that the meal-offerings require a vessel? He said to them: It says [Ezekiel 46]: “ And he said to me: This is the place where the priests shall cook the guilt-offering and the sin-offering, where they shall bake the meal-offering, so as not to bring it out into the outer court ” [for sacrificial meat of the most sacred order is disqualified if taken outside], thus the meal-offering is juxtaposed to the guilt-offering and the sin-offering, to teach: The meal-offering is analogous to the guilt-offering and the sin-offering: Just as a guilt-offering and a sin-offering require a vessel, for it is impossible to perform them without a vessel, so too a meal-offering requires a vessel. We learned in the Mishna: The Table was ten [cubits] in length... and he folded one and a half handbreadths from here and one and a half handbreadths from here... these are the words of Rabbi Yehuda; Rabbi Meir says... he folded two handbreadths from here and two handbreadths from here: Rabbi Yohanan said: According to the one who says: He folds one and a half handbreadths, it follows that the Table sanctifies whatever is placed upon it, so that it becomes disqualified through remaining overnight - up to fifteen handbreadths [which are six times one and a half handbreadths] above, in the height of the Table, up to the level opposite the upper edge of the loaf. According to the one who says: He folds two handbreadths, it follows that the Table sanctifies twelve handbreadths - six times two handbreadths - above. And we raise an objection to this: But there are rods between one loaf and the next, and it follows that the height of the arrangement was greater than the height of the loaves composing it!? And we answer: The rods were not on top of the bread; rather, they had indentations made for them, he made grooves in the bread while it was dough, and placed the rods in those grooves. It follows that the rods did not raise the arrangement above the height of the loaves themselves. And we raise an objection to this: But for what reason did he place rods between one loaf and the next? Because of the bread becoming moldy, and if it is as you say, in the end, the bread will become moldy in any event!? And we answer: He raised them - the rods - slightly above the bread. They were not entirely embedded in the bread, but protruded from it a little, so that the bread would not become moldy. And we raise an objection to this: But there is that small amount, for in the end the Table sanctified the area corresponding to the slight elevation by which the rods raised the arrangement!? And we answer: Since it was not a handbreadth - the elevation of the rods did not reach the measure of a handbreadth - it is not significant as a height. And we raise an objection: But there are the bazikhin that, according to the Sages, were placed upon the arrangement, and the Table also sanctifies the frankincense in them!? And we answer: The bazikhin were situated within the bread and stood together with the bread [they were situated inside the bread, and did not protrude from the bread]. We raise another objection: But there are the corners that raise the arrangement!? And we answer: They were bent inward into the bread [the corners were bent into the bread], and bread rested upon them. И еще спрашиваем:

!?

It was as stated by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi! For Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said:

!? Stone vessels do not contract ritual impurity.

Did we not learn that

we follow the coating even to be lenient—in tractate Kelim 22a:

The table and the dolbeki

a leather surface on which one eats

that were damaged

partially broken—

Or

a table and dolbeki

that they covered with marble,

and the coating—which is made of stone—nullifies the entire vessel’s status as susceptible to ritual impurity—

And if he left in them—

in the table and dolbeki that were damaged, or if he left an area uncoated—

a place for placing cups

on them, so that they are still fit for their original function—then they are

impure,

as they remain fit to contract ritual impurity.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

Only if he left in them also

a place for placing pieces

of bread and meat are they impure; but if not, it is no longer a table.

We have therefore learned: If he

left a remnant—

they do not—

indeed, they still retain the status of wooden vessels, but if he

did not leave a remnant,

since they are coated with stone,

they do not

contract ritual impurity. Thus, we see that we follow the coating even to be lenient; and all the more so, we should be stringent with this wooden table coated with gold, so that it should have the status of a metal vessel and be susceptible to ritual impurity even when it is made for stationary use!?

And if you would say

to reconcile them:

Here—

in the Mishna of

with a permanent coating,

that is, one fixed with nails.

Whereas

here—

with regard to the table—

with a nonpermanent coating,

and since it is not fixed, it does not remove the vessel’s status as a wooden vessel.

But Reish Lakish asked Rabbi Yohanan

two questions:

a. Whether

it is only with a permanent coating

that they said: the coating nullifies it,

or

even

with a nonpermanent coating

the coating nullifies it?