Menachot 98b — the Talmud in English

They press against and protrude through the curtain, and resemble the two breasts of a woman;

as it is stated [ [A0004]Song of Songs 1:13]: "

Song of Songs 1:13]: "

A bundle of myrrh is my beloved to me; between my breasts he shall lie,"

the Divine Presence rests between the two staves, which are like the breasts of a woman.

And it still needs to be explained, in order to uphold the proof, that the Ark was placed along the length of the House, from north to south; for it is indeed compelled that the staves of the Ark were placed from east to west, since their ends protruded through the curtain, but nevertheless:

And from where do we know that its staves—

which were from east to west, as we proved—

were placed across the width of the Ark; perhaps they were placed along the length of the Ark [

From where do you know that the staves were placed across the width of the Ark—so that you prove from this that the width of the Ark was from east to west, and consequently its length was across the width of the House, from north to south? Perhaps the staves were along the length of the Ark, in which case the length of the Ark was from east to west, along the length of the House]!

The length of the Ark was two and a half cubits, and its width was one and a half cubits.

Said

he answered

Rabbi Judah:

This works out well if the staves were across the width of the Ark: the length of the Ark—which was two and a half cubits—would then separate one stave from the other, and there would be room for the bearers of the Ark to walk between them. But if the staves were along the length of the Ark, and only the width of the Ark, which was one and a half cubits, separated them, this is impossible, for:

Two men—

the bearers of the Ark who stood between the staves—

could not walk in one and a half cubits [

Two men cannot walk when crowded into a narrow space of one and a half cubits].

And from where do we know that four carried it, [

and from where do you know that four men—two men on each side of the Ark—carried the Ark? Perhaps on each side there was only one man, who walked between the staves, held both of its staves, and carried it; one and a half cubits would suffice for him]!?

And we explain: because

it is written [

Numbers 10:21] in the order of the journey: “And the Kohathites, the bearers of the Sanctuary [that is, the Ark], journeyed, and they [the sons of Gershon and Merari, who preceded them] set up the Tabernacle until they [the Kohathites] arrived”: "

].” “

And the Kohathites journeyed":

there are

two. "

The bearers of the Sanctuary":

also two,

others; there are four.

The Sages taught: King Solomon made ten tables

in addition to the table of Moses, which he made for the Tabernacle,

as it is stated [

II Chronicles 4] concerning the details of the Temple’s construction: "

And he made ten tables and placed them in the Sanctuary, five on the right and five on the left."

And we explain with respect to what the verse speaks when it says “five on the right and five on the left”:

And if you will say: five on the right of the entrance

which was in the middle of the eastern side of the Sanctuary,

and five on the left of the entrance,

this cannot be said, for:

If so, we find a table in the south,

for the five tables that were to the left of the eastern entrance stood in the south,

and

if

the Torah said [

Exodus 26:35] concerning the order of erecting the Tabernacle: “

And the table you shall place on the northern side.”

Rather, certainly all the tables were placed in the north of the Sanctuary, and right and left does not refer to the entrance,

but:

His table

of Moses

was

in the middle

of those ten tables, and with reference to Moses’ table the verse said that there were:

five to its right

of that table

and five to its left,

and all stood in the north of the Sanctuary.

The Sages taught:

Solomon made ten menorahs

the king, in addition to the menorah of Moses, which he made for the Tabernacle,

as it is stated [

II Chronicles 4] concerning the details of the Temple’s construction: "

And he made the ten golden menorahs according to their manner [

in the form of Moses’ menorah],

and placed them in the Sanctuary, five on the right and five on the left."

And we explain: right and left with reference to whom?

And if you will say: five on the right [

of the north]

of the entrance, and five on the left [

of the south]

of the entrance, then we find a menorah in the north,

for five stood in the north,

and

if

the Torah said [

Exodus 26:35] concerning the order of erecting the Tabernacle: "

And you shall place the table outside the curtain,

and the menorah opposite the table, on the southern side of the Tabernacle [

southward]."

Rather, the

menorah

of Moses

was

in the middle

of the ten tables, and with reference to it the verse said that the ten menorahs were:

five to its right and five to its left.

The Sanctuary was forty cubits long—from east to west—and twenty cubits wide—from north to south; and the Holy of Holies was twenty cubits long and twenty cubits wide.

One taught [

we learned in one beraita]:

Those tables and menorahs were

from the midpoint of the House—

he proceeds to explain it—

and inward,

toward the Holy of Holies,

were

all

placed.

And one taught [

whereas in another beraita we learned]:

Those tables and menorahs were

placed from one-third of the House inward.

And this is not difficult:

According to everyone, they were placed within the inner twenty cubits of the Sanctuary, but:

One master—

the tanna of the second beraita—

counts—

when he said “the House”—

the Holy of Holies together with the Sanctuary,

which together were sixty cubits, and one-third of the House is half the Sanctuary, namely, within the inner twenty cubits of the Sanctuary.

Whereas

one master—

the tanna of the first beraita—

does not count the Holy of Holies together with the Sanctuary,

and with reference to the Sanctuary alone they indeed stood from the midpoint of the Sanctuary inward.

The Sages taught:

The tables that Solomon made

east and west [

their length from east to west, that is, their length along the length of the House]

were placed,

and so too the table that Moses made was placed, both in the Tabernacle and in the Temple.

These are the words of Rabbi.

Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon says: north and south

they were placed; that is, their length was across the width of the House.

And we explain:

What is Rabbi’s reason

who holds that the table stood from east to west?

Because

he derives

the table

from the menorah:

Just as the menorah

stood

east and west, so too these

these tables

also east and west.

The Gemara further explains:

And from where do we know concerning the menorah itself

that it stood from east to west?

From what is written concerning the western lamp,

that is, since Scripture says concerning one lamp [for Scripture speaks in the singular]: “Command the children of Israel, and they shall take for you oil… to kindle a perpetual lamp. Outside the curtain of the Testimony

Aaron shall arrange it

from evening until morning

before the Lord” [

adjacent to the Holy of Holies, which was in the west of the Temple],

by implication, all of them

the other lamps

were not before the Lord,

but only one western lamp was there—

And if it enters your mind that it was north and south

that the menorah stood, then

all of them too are before the Lord

[for they are], since all the lamps were equally close to the Holy of Holies, which was in the west; rather, it is necessarily the case that the menorah stood from east to west, and the westernmost lamp is the lamp concerning which the Torah says, “to kindle a perpetual lamp… Aaron shall arrange it… before the Lord.”

The Gemara further explains:

And Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon—

who holds that the table stood from north to south—

what is his reason?

Because

he derives

the table

from the Ark:

Just as the Ark was north and south

placed, and as was explained on page 98a, its length was across the width of the House,

so too these also were north and south

placed.

And we challenge:

And Rabbi—

who holds that they were placed east and west—

should also derive it from the Ark

which was placed from north to south!?

And we answer:

One derives outside from outside, but one does not derive outside from inside:

The table should be compared with the menorah, both of which were outside the Holy of Holies, and not the table, which was outside, with the Ark, which was inside the Holy of Holies.

And Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon—

who holds that they were placed north and south—

should also derive

the table

from the menorah,

which stood from east to west!?

And we answer:

He could say to you,

Rabbi Shimon son of Elazar:

The menorah itself was placed north and south,

the menorah too was placed from north to south, and not like Rabbi, who says that it was placed from east to west.

And we challenge:

But it is written, “to kindle a perpetual lamp…

Aaron shall arrange it... before the Lord." This means that one lamp was before the Lord, but not the others. If so, it must have been placed east-west, as Rabbi proved!?

Aaron shall arrange it…

before the Lord,” meaning that one lamp was before the Lord and not the others; if so, it is necessarily the case that it was placed east and west, as Rabbi’s proof!?

And we answer: Actually, it was placed north and south, and that lamp concerning which Scripture says that it was “before the Lord” was the middle lamp, whose wick-mouth faced west—

And

he turns them

the other lamps

to the side,

toward the middle lamp [the mouths of the wicks of the lamps on the right and left were inclined toward the middle lamp].

For it was taught:

It is written [

Numbers 8:2]: “

Toward the face of the menorah”— meaning: the lamp that stood on the body of the menorah and not on the branches at its sides—“

shall the seven lamps give light”;

this teaches that they turned

the other lamps

their faces toward the middle lamp.

Rabbi Natan said: From here [we learn] that the middle one

is the

most distinguished

of them all; and the practical consequence is for the three people called to the Torah on Mondays and Thursdays, who read ten verses: since the middle one is the most distinguished, the verses are divided as follows: four for the middle one, and the other two, three verses each.

a. It was already explained in the beraita above that the tables were in the inner half—from east to west—of the Sanctuary; this half was twenty cubits long from east to west, and twenty cubits wide, which was the width of the Sanctuary.

b. Each table was the same length as Moses’ table, whose length was two cubits and whose width was one cubit.

c. The tables stood in a rear-to-front row, that is: the length of one table after the length of the table before it; and the Gemara’s reasoning in its question is that all the tables stood in a single row, with the result that the tables occupied twenty cubits of length.

And we challenge:

Granted, according to the one who says east and west

the tables were placed—

this is why they were able to sit [

it is satisfactory that they were situated]

ten

tables—each one two cubits long—

in twenty

cubits, the length of the half of the Sanctuary from east to west. That is, although there certainly had to be a little space between one table and another, and the tables “occupied” slightly more than twenty cubits, one may say that the entire length of the tables was not within the half of the Sanctuary, which was twenty cubits long, but that they protruded slightly into the outer half of the Sanctuary.

But according to the one who says: north and south

the tables were placed, and the entire width of the Sanctuary from north to south was precisely only twenty cubits, if so:

Ten

tables in a row whose length was twenty cubits,

in twenty

cubits of the width of the Sanctuary—

how could they be situated [

how could they be situated], since there had to be some space between one table and another, and the row occupied slightly more than twenty cubits!?

Furthermore,

let this be difficult: If the row occupied the entire width of the Sanctuary, then

the priests

of the High Priest’s service on Yom Kippur, who had to enter through the Sanctuary into the Holy of Holies—

how could they enter [

how could they come there], for the entire width of the Sanctuary was occupied by the tables, and no passage remained for the priests!?

Furthermore

raise an objection: if so,

we find five tables in the south

of the Sanctuary, whereas the Torah said, “And you shall place the table on the northern side”!?

Furthermore

raise an objection: if the ten additional tables of Solomon occupied the entire width of the Sanctuary, if so,

Moses’ table—

which was supposed to be in the middle of the tables, as explained above—

where was he to place it

where was it placed!?

And the Gemara resolves the difficulty by raising an astonished objection to the objection:

but

indeed,

even according to the one who says east and west

indeed, even according to the view that they were placed from east to west, this latter difficulty should be raised:

The tables of Solomon occupied the entire inner half of the Sanctuary, which was twenty cubits long, and

Moses’ table

which was supposed to be between them,

where was it placed

where would Moses’ table stand!?

Rather

necessarily,

do you think there was one row? There were two rows

Do you think that all ten tables were placed in a single transverse row? No; rather, they were placed in two transverse rows, and Moses’ table was between the two rows. And we will likewise resolve the matter according to the view that they were placed north and south. The difficulty concerning how the priests reached them is also readily resolved, for they would come from its southern section. And the other difficulties too are resolved according to this, for:

The length of each row was only ten cubits, and although there was necessarily a slight projection toward the southern side of the Sanctuary, for it is impossible to make the measurements exact so that there would not be a space between the tables, nevertheless, we have no concern that such a small projection—which is no more than a handbreadth—would be in the southern half of the Sanctuary.

And now we raise the objection in reverse: