Menachot 98b (צח:) — the Talmud in English

They would press through and protrude beyond the curtain, and they resembled the two breasts of a woman;

as it is stated [

Song of Songs 1:13]: “

My beloved is to me a bundle of myrrh, that lies between my breasts,”

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

It is still necessary to explain this 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 necessary that the staves of the Ark were positioned from east to west, since their ends protruded through the curtain; nevertheless:

And from where do we know that its staves—

which were from east to west, as we have demonstrated—

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 placed 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. Rabbi Yehuda

replied:

He said:

This works out well if the staves were placed across the width of the Ark. In that case, the length of the Ark—which was two and a half cubits—separated one stave from the other, leaving room for the bearers of the Ark to walk between them. But if the staves were placed along the length of the Ark, and the only separation between them was the width of the Ark, which was merely one and a half cubits, this would be impossible, because:

Two men—

the bearers of the Ark, who stood between the staves—

could not walk in a cubit and a half [

Two men cannot walk while crowded together in a narrow space of one and a half cubits].

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

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

!?

As it is written [

Numbers 10:21] in the order of the journeys: “And the Kohathites journeyed, the bearers of the Sanctuary [i.e., the Ark], and [the sons of Gershon and Merari, who preceded them] set up [the Tabernacle] until their arrival [that of the Kohathites

].” “

And the Kohathites journeyed”:

There are

two. “

The bearers of the Sanctuary”:

also two,

others; there are therefore four.

The Sages taught: King Solomon made ten tables

in addition to the table that Moses 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.”

The Gemara explains with reference to what the verse means when it says “five on the right and five on the left”:

And if you 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, because:

If so, we find a table in the south,

for the five tables that were on the left of the eastern entrance would have stood in the south,

and

if

the Torah said [

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

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

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

but:

His table,

Moses’,

was

in the middle

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

five on its right

of that table

and five on its left,

all of them standing in the north of the Sanctuary.

The Sages taught:

Solomon made ten menorot,

the king, in addition to the menorah that Moses made for the Tabernacle,

as it is stated [

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

And he made ten golden menorot according to their design [

in the form of Moses’ menorah],

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

The Gemara explains: Right and left with reference to whom?

And if you 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 [

south].”

Rather, the

menorah

of Moses

was

in the middle

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

five on its right and five on 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 [baraita] taught [

We learned in one baraita]:

Those tables and menorot

from the midpoint of the House—

the explanation proceeds—

and inward,

toward the Holy of Holies,

were

all

placed.

And one [baraita] taught [

whereas in another baraita we learned]:

Those tables and menorot

were placed from one-third of the House inward.

And there is no difficulty:

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

One master—

the tanna of the second baraita—

counts—when he says “the House

”—

the Holy of Holies together with the Sanctuary,

which together measured sixty cubits, so that one-third of the House was half the Sanctuary, namely, its inner twenty cubits.

Whereas

one master—

the tanna of the first baraita—

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

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

The Sages taught:

The tables that Solomon made

east and west [

their length was from east to west, meaning, their length was 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.

This is the statement 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.

The Gemara explains:

What is the reason of Rabbi,

who holds that the table stood from east to west?

Because he

derives the orientation of the

table

from the menorah:

Just as the menorah

stood

east and west, so too these [

these tables]

also [stood] east and west.

The Gemara continues to explain:

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,

meaning: Since Scripture says—Leviticus 24—concerning one lamp [for the verse speaks in the singular]: “Command the children of Israel that they bring you pure oil of beaten olives, to kindle a lamp continually. 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 the menorah

stood north and south, then

all of them too would be before the Lord

[would they be],

since all the lamps would be equally close to the Holy of Holies, which was in the west. Rather, it must be that the menorah stood from east to west, and the westernmost lamp was the lamp concerning which the Torah says: “To kindle a lamp continually … Aaron shall arrange it … before the Lord.” The Gemara continues to explain:

And Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon—

who holds that the table stood from north to south—

what is his reason?

For

he derives the orientation of the

table

from the Ark:

Just as the Ark was [placed] north and south,

as was explained on the first side, its length being across the width of the House,

so too these also [were placed] north and south

they were placed.

The Gemara raises an objection:

And Rabbi—

who holds that they were placed east and west—

should also derive [the table’s orientation] from the Ark,

which was placed from north to south!?

The Gemara answers:

One derives an object outside from another object outside, but one does not derive an object outside from an object inside;

the table should be compared with the menorah, both of which were outside the Holy of Holies, rather than 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 orientation of the

table

from the menorah,

which stood from east to west!?

The Gemara answers:

He could say to you,

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar:

The menorah itself was placed north and south,

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

The Gemara raises an objection:

But it is written, “To kindle a lamp continually …

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 the others were not. If so, it must be that it was placed east and west, as Rabbi demonstrated!?

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!?

The Gemara answers: In fact, it was placed north and south, and the lamp concerning which the verse says that it was “before the Lord” was the middle lamp, whose wick opening faced west—

and

he angled

the other lamps

toward one another

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

As 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 angled

the other lamps

their faces toward the middle lamp.

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

is the

most distinguished

of them all. And there is a practical consequence 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 verses for the middle one, and the other two receive three verses each.

a. It was already explained in the baraita 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, which was two cubits long and one cubit wide.

c. The tables stood in a staggered row, that is, the length of one table followed the length of the table before it; and the Gemara’s assumption in its question is that all the tables stood in a single row, in which case the tables occupied twenty cubits of length.

The Gemara raises an objection:

Granted, according to the one who says [that they were placed] east and west,

the tables were placed—

this is how it works out that there were [

it is understandable that there were positioned]

ten

tables—each two cubits long—

within twenty

cubits of the length of half the Sanctuary, from east to west. That is, although there certainly had to be a small amount of space between one table and the next, and the tables therefore occupied slightly more than twenty cubits, one can say that the entire length of the tables was not within the half of the Sanctuary that was twenty cubits long; rather, they protruded slightly into the outer half of the Sanctuary.

But according to the one who says: [They were placed] north and south,

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

Ten

tables in a row twenty cubits long,

within twenty

cubits of the width of the Sanctuary—

how could they have been positioned [

how could they have sat], when there necessarily had to be a small amount of space between one table and the next, causing the row to occupy slightly more than twenty cubits

!? Furthermore,

another difficulty may be raised: If the row occupied the entire width of the Sanctuary, then

the kohanim

the High Priests on Yom Kippur, who needed to enter through the Sanctuary into the Holy of Holies—

how could they enter [

how could they get there], when the entire width of the Sanctuary was occupied by the tables and no passage remained for the kohanim

!? And furthermore,

raise this difficulty: If so,

we find five tables in the south

of the Sanctuary, whereas the Torah says: “And you shall place the table on the side of the north”!?

And furthermore,

raise this difficulty: If the ten additional tables of Solomon occupied the entire width of the Sanctuary, if so,

where was Moses’ table

which was supposed to have been in the middle of the tables, as explained above

placed

[where was it placed]!?

The Gemara resolves the difficulty by raising an objection to the objection:

But

behold,

even according to the one who says that they were arranged from east to west

[behold, even according to the opinion that they were arranged from east to west], this latter difficulty should still 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 have been among them,

where was it placed

[where would Moses’ table stand]!?

Rather,

[necessarily],

do you think there was a single row? There were two rows

[Do you think that all ten tables were arranged in a single lengthwise row? No; rather, they were arranged in two lengthwise rows], with Moses’ table between the two rows. And according to the opinion that they were arranged from north to south as well, we can resolve the matter in this way. The difficulty concerning how the priests reached them is also readily resolved, since they would come from the southern section. All the other difficulties are likewise resolved according to this explanation, for:

The length of each row was only ten cubits. Although there necessarily had to be a slight projection toward the southern side of the Sanctuary, since it is impossible to measure with absolute precision so that there would not be a gap between the tables, nevertheless, we do not care if such a small projection—no more than a handbreadth—extended into the southern half of the Sanctuary.

And now we raise the difficulty in the opposite direction: