Menachot 98a — the Talmud in English

It makes no difference whether this or whether this:

whether in height or in width, its cubit was a cubit of five handbreadths.

And the Gemara explains how, according to the explanation given of the verse, the beraita concerning the arrangement of the bird burnt-offering is reconciled:

The height of the

altar—

which was ten cubits—

how much is it

in handbreadths?

Fifty-eight [

fifty-eight handbreadths], since all its cubits were in a cubit of six handbreadths, apart from the cubit of the height of the foundation and the cubit of the height of the corner, which were in cubits of five handbreadths.

And

half of the altar—

which is the line distinguishing between the upper blood and the lower blood—

how much is it?

Twenty-nine

handbreadths, half of the fifty-eight handbreadths of the height of the altar.

And

from the edge of the

the edge of the

corners until the sovev, how much are they?

Twenty-three

handbreadths: that is, the cubit of the height of the corner, five handbreadths, and the three cubits from the bottom of the corners until the sovev, which were in cubits of six handbreadths; thus, twenty-three handbreadths.

And

how much is lacking from half of the altar [

how much is lacking from the sovev downward until the middle of the altar]? Behold,

six

handbreadths

; and

this is what

we learned: If he performed it—

if the priest pressed out the blood while standing on the sovev—

below his feet, even

until

one cubit

of five handbreadths,

it is valid, since with this measure he is sprinkling one handbreadth above the middle of the altar.

Это также точно следует из различия, которое мы провели: в отношении основания стих говорит о мере высоты, а в отношении обходной площадки — о мере ширины,

This is also precise: when we explained the verse concerning the foundation as referring to the cubit of the height, whereas concerning the sovev the verse refers to the cubit of the width,

from

as it is written: “

The bosom a cubit, and a cubit the width,”

and the verse changed its wording in order to teach us: this refers to height, and this to width—

And we conclude: indeed,

we can infer it!

Here the Gemara returns to explain the Mishna in Kelim, in which Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagreed concerning what they measured with intermediate cubits; and it explains:

And how many

handbreadths is

an intermediate cubit?

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Six handbreadths.

Rabbi Yosei bar Avin said: We too

in our Mishna

also learned

that an intermediate cubit is six handbreadths, for we learned:

Rabbi Meir says: The table was twelve

handbreadths long [“two cubits” in a cubit of six],

and its width

six

handbreadths [“one cubit” in a cubit of six]. Thus Rabbi Meir, who measured the cubit of the vessels with an intermediate cubit, calculated six handbreadths for every cubit of the table.

And the Gemara infers from the wording “intermediate”:

By implication, there is a cubit larger than it [

and is there a cubit that is larger than this cubit]? Therefore it is called intermediate, because there is a cubit smaller than it, namely a cubit of five handbreadths, and there is one larger than it!?

No,

indeed there is a cubit larger than it.

And we learned [

and as we learned] in tractate Kelim 17:9:

There were two cubits [

measuring rods of a cubit’s length]

in

the Second Temple

in Shushan the Citadel [

a structure built above the height of the eastern gate of the Temple Mount, with Shushan the Citadel depicted upon it],

one on the northeastern corner, and one on the southeastern corner.

This one

that was on the northeastern corner

was

larger

in its length

by

a cubit

of Moses,

which is six handbreadths, by

half a finger [

one-eighth of a handbreadth].

And this one

that was on the southeastern corner was larger than it [

than its fellow] by

half a finger; it follows

that this second one

was larger than Moses’

by

a finger

complete.

And why did they say:

one large and one small,

that is, why did they have those two cubits at all, one large and one small? Was Moses’ cubit—which is the precise cubit—not sufficient for us!?

And it explains:

so that the craftsmen

who undertook to make such-and-such cubits for the Temple

would take according to the small one [

according to Moses’ cubit]; that is, the treasurer would stipulate with the craftsmen: “Build such-and-such cubits for the repair of the Temple for such-and-such money per cubit,” according to Moses’ cubit—

and return according to the large one,

that is, at the completion of the work, when they came to calculate the payment, they would calculate for them the price of a large cubit that they had made at the price established for a small cubit. Thus they were relinquishing from their own, since they gave the sacred treasury a larger work while taking payment only for a smaller work.

And the reason is:

so that they would not come to misuse

the wages they received from the sacred treasury, since it is impossible to make the measure exact; perhaps they would take wages greater than what was due to them, and it would result that they came to misuse.

And the Gemara explains the Mishna in Kelim:

And

two

large ones—

why do I need them,

when one of Moses’ and one of the large cubits would have been sufficient for us!?

And we answer:

one—

this one on the northeastern corner, which was larger than Moses’ by only half a finger—

for silver and gold [

for silver and gold], since it is expensive craftsmanship, and it is not good to cause them such a great loss.

And one—

this one on the southeastern corner, which was larger than Moses’ by a finger—

for building [

for construction].

We learned there

in tractate Middot 1:3:

The eastern gate

of the Temple Mount—

upon it was the form of Shushan the Citadel [

Shushan the Citadel was depicted upon it].

And we explain:

what is the reason

that this city was depicted there?

And they disagreed concerning this,

Rav Ḥisda and Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi:

One

of them

said: So that they would know

and see

from where they came,

and would give acknowledgment to the Persian monarchy, from which they had emerged.

And one

of them

said: So that the fear of the monarchy would be

of Persia

upon them,

and they would not rebel against them.

Rabbi Yannai said: The fear of the monarchy should always be

upon you—

as it is stated [

Exodus 11:8], concerning Moses when he warned Pharaoh about the plague of the firstborn: “

And all these servants of yours shall come down to me, and bow down to me, saying

‘Go out, you and all the people who are at your feet,’”

but concerning him personally he did not say it to him [

Moses did not mention Pharaoh himself among those who would come down to him].

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: From here

it may be learned that the fear of the monarchy should be upon you:

As it is stated [

I Kings 18]: “

And the hand of the

Lord was upon Elijah, and he girded his loins and ran before Ahab”—

who was riding upon his horse—

until you come to Jezreel,”

and he did this because of the honor of King Ahab, since it is not the way of kings to walk alone.

Since the Gemara brought the disagreement of Rav Ḥisda and Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi, the Gemara brings another disagreement in which they disagreed:

It is written [Ezekiel 47:12], concerning the stream that is destined to emerge from the Holy of Holies: “And beside the stream, upon its bank, on this side and on that side, every tree for food; its leaf shall not wither and its fruit shall not fail, and its fruit shall be for food

and its leaf for healing”;

and

Rav Ḥisda and Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi

disagreed in the interpretation of “for healing,” and expounded it by way of a notarikon:

One

of them

said: To open the upper mouth,

that is, a mute person—when he eats from it, he will speak.

And one

of them

said: To open the lower mouth,

that is, a barren woman—when she eats from it, she will conceive.

It was stated

that other amoraim also disagreed concerning this, and explained their words further:

Ḥizkiyya said: To open the mouths of the mute.

Bar Kappara said: To open the mouths of barren women.

The Sages taught:

It is written [Leviticus 24:5], in the passage concerning arranging the showbread: “And you shall take fine flour and bake it, twelve loaves; two-tenths shall be in each loaf. And you shall place them in two rows, six in a row, upon the pure table before the Lord”; and the beraita explains the lengthy detail of the verse:

If it had said

only: “

And you shall take fine flour and bake it, twelve loaves, and you shall place them in two rows,”

and it had not said “

six

in a row,” then:

I would have said:

They may place—if they wish—two rows,

one of four and one of eight.

For this reason it is stated: "

six

the arrangement."

But if it had been stated

only: "

two arrangements of six, the arrangement,"

and the verse had not said

the written text should bake, in total, "

twelve

loaves," then

I would say: "

the arrangement" does not come only to explain how many there shall be in each arrangement, but it is an additional arrangement of six loaves, and they would place

three

arrangements

of six each

loaves—

For this reason it is stated: "

And you shall bake it

twelve

loaves," to teach that you should place only twelve loaves.

But if it had been stated

only: "

twelve loaves

and

arrangements,"

and it had not been stated "

two

and

six,"

that is, if the verse had said: "And you shall take fine flour and bake it twelve loaves ... and you shall place them as arrangements upon the pure table," then

I would say:

from the twelve loaves he should make

three

arrangements

of four each

loaves—

For this reason it is stated: "

two

arrangements"

and "

six

the arrangement."

Now, before these three verses were stated, we had not learned,

behold, you have seen with your own eyes that if these three verses had not been written, we would not have known how to arrange the table.

How, then,

do they arrange the table?

He places two arrangements of six each

loaves.

The beraita adds:

And if he placed

an arrangement

of four

loaves,

and

an arrangement

of eight

loaves—

he has not fulfilled.

And if he placed

two

arrangements

of seven each

loaves in each:

Rabbi says: We regard the

loaf

above

as though it is not there,

and he has fulfilled.

And we raise a difficulty against it:

But we require "

And you shall place upon

the arrangement pure frankincense," and if there is one extra one there, then the frankincense is not placed upon the arrangement, because the upper loaf interposes.

He said

he answered

to Rav Hisda to Rav Hamnuna, and some say

there are those who say

Rav Hamnuna

is the one who answered

Rav Hisda:

Rabbi follows his own reasoning, for he says:

When the Torah said, "And you shall place upon the arrangement pure frankincense," this

"upon"

means

adjacent

to the arrangement, and not upon it.

For it was taught: Rabbi says: "

And you shall place upon the arrangement

pure frankincense,"

"upon"

means

adjacent.

You say "

upon"

means

adjacent, or perhaps it is only "

upon

the arrangement"

literally?

When it says [Exodus 40]: "

And you shall spread over the Ark the curtain,"

and was it not above the Ark, but separating between the Holy and the Holy of Holies,

you must say: "

upon"

means

adjacent.

We learned in the Mishna:

All the vessels that

were

in

the Temple

had their length along the length of the House:

The Sages taught: All the vessels in the Temple,

their

length

was placed

along the length of the House, except for

the

Ark, whose length

was placed

along the width of the House, and so it was placed, and so its staves were placed,

he proceeds to explain it.

The Gemara asks:

What is it saying "

and so it was placed, and so its staves were placed"?

And we explain that

this is what it is saying:

necessarily,

so it was placed [

its length along the width of the House, from north to south],

from the fact that

from east to west

were its staves,

which were along the width of the Ark—as the Gemara proves all this later in the discussion—

placed,

that is, necessarily the length of the Ark was placed from north to south, since its staves, which were along its width, stood from east to west.

The Gemara asks:

And its staves—

which stood from east to west—

from where do we know this?

And we explain: from this

as it was taught:

In the Tabernacle that Moses made, there was a curtain separating between the Holy and the Holy of Holies; whereas in the First Temple there was a wall called the "cubit of partition" separating between them; nevertheless, at the entrance to the Holy of Holies there was a curtain placed there for modesty.

It is written [I Kings 8]: "And the priests [in the days of Solomon] brought the Ark of the covenant of the Lord to its place, to the inner chamber of the House, to the Holy of Holies, and they lengthened the staves, and the ends of the staves were seen from the Holy upon the face of the inner chamber, but they were not seen outside": "

And they lengthened the staves,"

one might think the staves would not touch

the

curtain

that was opposite them at the entrance to the House of the Holy of Holies—

The verse says "

and the ends of the staves were seen."

If "

and they were seen,"

one might think they would be

seen

literally, and they would be

making

holes

in the curtain and protruding outside?

The verse says: "

but they were not seen outside"—

How,

do these two verses coexist?