Menachot 97a — the Talmud in English

2. Is it

with a coating

also

the ![](pamud.bmp "

exact position on the page")

rim [the border around the table] that they said: a coating nullifies it,

кромка вокруг стола] — так как сказали: покрытие аннулирует его],

or

even

when he did not coat the rim?

And Rabbi Yohanan said to him

Rabbi Yohanan said to Resh Lakish:

It makes no difference whether it is a standing coating or a non-standing coating; it makes no difference whether he coated the rim or whether he did not coat

the

rim,

in every case we follow the coating—

And if so, the question arises: let it emerge for him concerning a table that is not a wooden utensil, that it becomes impure even if it was made to remain stationary, because it was coated with gold!?

And if you would say: the acacia wood—

from which the table was made—

is significant and is not nullified

through its coating—

It still presents a difficulty:

this is satisfactory according to Resh Lakish,

who distinguished in this matter, and as he

said:

They taught—

that the coating nullifies the utensil—

only with a utensil of akselagus

[a place-name]

that come from overseas,

which are not significant and are nullified through their coating,

but utensils of Mismas are significant and are not nullified

through their coating.

But according to Rabbi Yohanan, who said: utensils of Mismas too are nullified

through their coating, even though they are significant,

what is there to say

concerning the table? Why should its designation not be nullified as a wooden utensil, and it acquire the status of a metal utensil through the coating!?

And we answer:

And we answer:

the table is different, for the Merciful One called it “

wood,” and therefore it has the law of a wooden utensil, even though it was coated with gold—

As it is stated

[Ezekiel 41:22]: “

The altar”—

that is, the table standing opposite the altar—

wood, three cubits high,

its length two cubits, and its corners belonged to it

[that is, it was square],

and its length and its walls were wood, and he said to me, ‘This is the table

that is before the Lord,’” and thus the table is called wood.

и, следовательно, стол назван деревом.

Since the verse was cited, the Gemara explains it; and it asks:

The verse began

And since the verse was brought, the Gemara interprets it; and it raises an objection:

It began with the altar, and ended with the table!?

Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Elazar both said,

they both explained the verse:

When the Temple is standing, the altar atones for a person; and now, when the Temple is not standing, a person’s table—

on which he places a portion for a poor person—

atones

for him.

We learned in the Mishna:

There were four golden branches there

and twenty-eight rods:

The Gemara asks:

From where are these matters

[what is the source for the branches and the rods]?

Rav Ketina said: The verse says

[Exodus 25:29], in the passage concerning the making of the table: “

And you shall make its bowls, its pans, its supports, and its pipes

that cover it; of pure gold you shall make them”: “

Its bowls”

these are molds

in which they arrange, knead, and bake them, as explained at the beginning of the chapter. “

Its pans”:

Its pans”:

these are the bowls

in which they place the frankincense. “

Its supports”:

these are the branches. “

And its shelves”:

And its pipes”:

these are rods, which cleanse the bread of mold. “

With which it shall be covered”:

Which cover them”:

they are the supports

that cover

with them—the rods upon which

the bread

is placed, for above the bread they would place the rods.

Rava raised an objection

from our Mishna against what we learned in the beraita, that the rods are vessels of the table by Torah law: We learned in our Mishna:

Neither arranging the rods nor removing them overrides Shabbat; and if it should enter your mind

that arranging the rods

by Torah law

is,

why does it not override Shabbat!?

Rava then said,

Rava retracted his difficulty and said:

It is not a matter that I said

[there is no substance in what I said],

for

the

we learned

in our Mishna:

Rabbi Akiva stated a general principle: Any labor that can be performed on the eve of Shabbat

[or after Shabbat],

does not override Shabbat; and

if so,

these—

arranging the rods and removing them—

also

do not override Shabbat, since

it is possible that one need not override

the

Shabbat for them

;

for what is the reason

did the Torah say to place rods between one bread and another? In order

that the bread not become moldy;

but

with such a measure it does not become moldy:

during this short interval—from the end of the first Shabbat and the beginning of the second Shabbat—the bread will not become moldy even if the rods are not arranged beneath it, and therefore removing and arranging the rods do not override Shabbat.

And

as it was taught in a beraita: How does he do it:

When removing the bread:

He enters on the eve of Shabbat and removes them

the rods

and places them along the length of the table.

And

when arranging the bread:

on Saturday night—

after he arranged the bread on Shabbat—

he enters

the Sanctuary,

and raises the ends of one loaf

one

and inserts a rod

beneath it, and again raises the ends of a loaf and inserts a rod beneath it, so that the bread would always stand in its arrangement on the table.

и все это для того, чтобы хлеб постоянно оставался разложенным на столе в надлежащем порядке.

The beraita further explains the division of the twenty-eight reeds, which are fourteen for each arrangement:

Four loaves—

the middle ones in each arrangement—

require three reeds each

under each loaf.

The loaf

at the top requires only two

beneath it,

because there is no load upon it,

and the reeds support only it.

The bottom one does not require

reeds

at all

beneath it,

because it is placed upon the surface of the table plated with gold, and it does not become moldy;

which is plated with gold and does not become moldy; thus there are fourteen reeds for each arrangement.

We learned there

in tractate Kelim 17:10:

Rabbi Meir says: All the cubits that were in the Temple,

that is, measurements of “a cubit” or “cubits” that were mentioned in relation to the Temple or the Tabernacle were cubits

of the intermediate measure,

namely, a cubit of six handbreadths;

except for the golden altar,

which was one cubit by one cubit, and its cubit was one of five handbreadths.

And the corner

of the outer altar—which are four stones, one cubit by one cubit and one cubit in height, for the corners of the altar of burnt-offering—and it will be explained later in the Gemara which cubit was of five handbreadths.

And the ledge and the base

of the outer altar, and this will be explained further in the Gemara later in the discussion.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

A building cubit—

such as the wall of the House and the outer altar — was a cubit of

six handbreadths.

And that of the vessels—

the Ark, the table, and the golden altar—was a cubit of

five

handbreadths.

Rabbi Yohanan said: And both of them—

Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda—

derived from one verse

in Ezekiel 43

and expounded it:

as it is stated: “

And these are the measurements of the altar

the outer altar

in cubits

as though each

cubit

of the intermediate measure contains

a cubit and a handbreadth

of these cubits; that is, according to a cubit of five handbreadths, for the intermediate cubit is one cubit and one handbreadth of this cubit”—