Menachot 96b — the Talmud in English

It follows that its length of the bread fills the width of the table, and the width of the two arrangements—which together are eleven handbreadths—fills the length of the table. These are the words of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: The table was twelve in length handbreadths, which are two cubits with a cubit of six handbreadths, and six in width handbreadths, which are one cubit with a cubit of six handbreadths, whereas the lechem ha-panim: its length was ten and its width five— Thus he places its length of the bread opposite the width of the table, and four handbreadths remain: He folds two handbreadths from here and two handbreadths from here, so its length fills the width of the table; whereas the width of the two arrangements—which is ten handbreadths—does not fill the length of the table, which is twelve handbreadths, but rather: And there is a space of two handbreadths that is in the middle of the table, along its length, between one arrangement and the other, so that the wind may blow among them [among the loaves], so that they would not become moldy. Abba Shaul says according to the view of Rabbi Meir, except that he disagrees with him concerning the purpose of those two handbreadths remaining along the length of the table: There— in the two handbreadths of space— they would place the two bowls of the frankincense of the lechem ha-panim. They said to him: But it has already been stated: “ And you shall place pure frankincense upon each arrangement,” and not adjacent to them!? He said to them: “Upon the arrangement” is understood as adjacent to the arrangement, for it has already been stated [Numbers 2:20], similarly: “The banner of the camp of Ephraim according to their hosts, westward, and upon it the tribe of Manasseh,” which means adjacent to it. And four golden split supports [supports] were there, split into many splits at their tops, in order to place upon the splits the ends of the reeds between one loaf and another, with which they supported the walls of the bread: Two for this arrangement, one on this side and one on that, and two for this arrangement, one on this side and one on that. And twenty-eight reeds - each like half a hollow reed, that is, like a reed cut along its length - were there, to place them between the loaves: Fourteen reeds for this arrangement, three reeds above each loaf, and above the fifth loaf only two reeds, and fourteen reeds for this arrangement. Neither the arranging of the reeds in the new arrangement, arranged on Shabbat, nor their removal from above the old arrangement, removed on Shabbat, overrides Shabbat, rather: He enters on the eve of Shabbat and removes them - he removes the reeds that are between the loaves - and places them along the length of the Table; and on Shabbat he removes the bread and arranges other bread without reeds, and at the conclusion of Shabbat he places the reeds between the loaves. All the vessels that were in the Temple and in the Tabernacle, had their length along the length of the House, from east to west. Gemara: We learned in the Mishna: All the meal offerings have the preparation of a vessel inside: They asked Rabbi: From where is this that the meal offerings require a vessel? He said to them: For it says [ Ezekiel 46 ]: “ And he said to me: This is the place where the kohanim 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 Holy of Holies offerings become invalid through being taken outside],” thus the meal offering was compared to the guilt offering and the sin offering, to teach: A meal offering is analogous to a guilt offering and a sin offering: Just as a guilt offering and a sin offering require a vessel, for it is impossible without a vessel, so too a meal offering requires a vessel. We learned in the Mishna: The Table was ten [handbreadths] in length ... and he folds two and a half handbreadths and a half from here, and two and a half handbreadths from here ... the words of Rabbi Judah; Rabbi Meir says ... he folds two handbreadths from here and two handbreadths from here: Rabbi Yohanan said: According to the one who says: He folds two and a half handbreadths, it follows that the Table sanctifies what was placed upon it, so as to become invalid through overnight lodging - up to fifteen handbreadths [ which are two and a half handbreadths multiplied by six ] above, at the height of the Table, up to 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 - two handbreadths multiplied by six - above. And we raise an objection to it: But there are reeds between loaf and loaf, and it follows that the height of the arrangement was greater than the height of the loaves within it!? And we answer: The reeds were not on the bread, but rather reeds were sunk; he would sink them, making grooves in the bread while it was dough, and in those grooves he placed the reeds; it follows that the reeds did not raise the arrangement above the height of the loaves themselves. And we raise an objection to it: But what is the reason that he would place reeds between loaf and loaf? Because of the molding of the bread, and if it is as you say, in the end, the bread will mold in any case!? And we answer: He raises them - the reeds - a little above the bread, for he did not sink all of them into the bread, but they protruded from it slightly, so that the bread would not mold. And we raise an objection to it: But there is that little bit, for in the end the Table would sanctify also opposite that small amount by which the reeds raise the arrangement!? And we answer: Since it is not a handbreadth - the raising of the reeds does not reach the measure of a handbreadth - it is not significant for this height. And we raise an objection: But there are the bowls, which, according to the Sages, were placed on the arrangement, and the Table sanctifies also the frankincense in them!? And we answer: The bowls were seated within the bread and stood alongside the bread [ they were seated within the bread ], and they did not protrude from the bread ]. We raise another objection: But there are the horns, which raise the arrangement!? And we answer: They were bent inward into the bread [ the horns were bent into the bread ], and bread rested upon them. We raise a further objection:

but there is its frame

of the table, which was one handbreadth high [as the verse says in the passage of Teruma: “And you shall make for it a frame a handbreadth all around”], and it was above, at the edge of the table. Necessarily, the bread stood upon it, and the entire arrangement was raised an additional handbreadth

It was explained according to Rashi who wrote: “But there is its frame, whose height was one handbreadth, for when one arranged bread upon it, it was sixteen handbreadths” ; and according to the method of Tosafot above, page 96b, that the walls—after their sloping—rose upright according to the measure explained in the Mishna, and that slope is not included in Rabbi Yohanan’s calculation, since it was only slight, the Gemara’s difficulty is resolved, because on account of the frame the walls had to slope by one handbreadth ; but according to the method of the “Sefat Emet” , that the walls—according to the one who says that it was like a dancing ship—were sloping and narrowed, it is possible to explain the Gemara’s difficulty as follows: the bread was one handbreadth thick, and this thickness was included in the measure by which the bread rose above the table, as explained in Tosafot above, page 96b, s.v. “like,” and if so, according to Rabbi Meir, who folded only two handbreadths, there was again no room for narrowing the bread ; this is forced, and there is also no necessity that the narrowing reached the width of the frame, nor does this appear so in Rashi’s words. And we answer: Rabbi Yohanan stated his words

in accordance with the one

who says: Its frame

of the table

was below

the tabletop

was

, and the tabletop rested upon the frame.

And

even

according to the one who says: Its frame was above, it was bent backward, and the bread sat inside the table

[the frame was inclined backward, so that he could seat the bread on the table and not on the frame]

as it was taught

—for the tannaim disagreed about this matter—

Rabbi Yosei says: There were no branches there; rather, the frame of the table supports the bread

, and it is explained according to his view that its frame was above.

They said to him

, the Sages to Rabbi Yosei:

Its frame was below

, and it is impossible for it to support the bread.

Rabbi Yohanan said

: Even though flat wooden vessels [wooden vessels that have no receptacle] do not contract impurity, nevertheless:

According to the words of the one who says: Its frame

of the table

was below

, we have learned from the table that it is made of acacia wood and contracts impurity, as we derive below from the verse “the pure table”:

A wide board

that is

that can be turned over

—one can use this side like that side, because it is smooth on both sides, but it has no receptacle—

is impure

, since it is wide and fit for use on both sides, it is considered as one that has a receptacle.

But

according to the words of the one who says: Its frame was above, concerning a board that can be turned over, you must inquire

: one must be uncertain concerning it whether it contracts impurity, because one may say: the reason the table contracts impurity is that it has a receptacle, for the frame is an edge for the board; but we still have not known whether a board that can be turned over is impure among wooden vessels. And we object:

Does it follow, then, that the table

of the Temple

is capable of contracting impurity

, for otherwise, how can we derive from it the law of a board that can be turned over

? But the table is

a wooden vessel made to remain in place

[to remain placed] in one location

; and every wooden vessel made to remain in place does not contract impurity

—

and what is the reason?

Because it is stated [Leviticus 11:32]: “And anything upon which any of them [of the creeping creatures] falls when they are dead shall be impure, of every wooden vessel or garment or skin or sack,” thus Scripture compared a wooden vessel to a sack, to teach: a wooden vessel that contracts impurity

in the manner of “

a sack”

we require:

Just as a sack can be carried

whether it is

full and

whether it is

empty

, for it is intended for grain,

so too every

one of those mentioned in that verse—and a wooden vessel is included among them—contracts impurity only when it is a vessel intended to be

carried

when

full and

when

empty

, but not a wooden vessel made to stand in one place and not to be carried ; and since the table was not made to be carried, it does not contract impurity at all !

And we answer:

As Resh Lakish expounded! For Resh Lakish said: What is the meaning of that which is written

[Leviticus 24:6], in the passage of the showbread: “And you shall place them, two stacks, six in each stack,

upon the pure table

before the Lord”? And behold, “

pure”

means that Scripture was particular that it should be pure

; it follows that it

can be

impure

; yet it is

a wooden vessel made to remain in place

! Rather, it teaches that they would lift

it

for those who came for the Festival pilgrimage

and show them the bread, saying to them: See your affection before the Omnipresent!

And if so, the table was made to be carried, and therefore it contracts impurity, and the Torah said that the table should be pure. And what affection is evident from the table

? As the words of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi! For Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said:

A great miracle was performed with the showbread: its removal

from the table was

like its arrangement

upon it: the bread did not grow cold from the time of its arrangement on Shabbat until the time of its removal on the following Shabbat,

as it is stated

[I Samuel 21:7]: “For there was no bread there, but the showbread that was removed from before the Lord,

to place hot bread on the day it was taken

”—that is, the showbread was still hot on the day it was taken from the table.

And we object:

Why should you derive it

—that even if the table were not carried, the table would be capable of contracting impurity—

because of the plating

of gold with which the table was plated, and because of its plating it should be given the status of a metal vessel, which contracts impurity even when it is made to remain in place

? Stone vessels do not contract impurity.

Did we not learn,

in tractate Kelim 22a, that one follows the overlay even to be lenient:

The table and the dolbeki

[a leather surface, and one eats upon it]

that became partially broken -

[that part of them was broken]—

Or

a table and a dolbeki

that they overlaid with marble,

and the overlay—which is of stone—cancels the entire vessel from contracting impurity -

and left in them—

in the table and the dolbeki that became partially broken, or that he left without overlaying—

a place for placing cups

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

impure,

they are fit to contract impurity.

Rabbi Judah 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 not a table.

We have learned: if he

left—

there is no,

indeed they still have the law of wooden vessels; but if he

did not leave,

since they are overlaid with stone, they

do not

contract impurity. It follows that one follows the overlay even to be lenient; and all the more so, we should have grounds to be stringent with this wooden table overlaid with gold, that it should have the status of a metal vessel for contracting impurity, even when it is made for stationary use!?

And if you would say,

to reconcile:

Here—

in the Mishna of Kelim—

with a standing overlay,

that is, fixed with nails.

Whereas

here—

with the table—

with an overlay that does not stand,

and since it is not fixed, it does not remove from the vessel the status of a wooden vessel.

And did Reish Lakish not ask Rabbi Yohanan

two doubts:

A. Whether

with a standing overlay

alone is what they said: the overlay cancels it,

or

even

with an overlay that does not stand

the overlay cancels it?