Shekalim 17b — the Talmud in English

When all the ![](pamud.bmp "

exact location of page")

nobles of

Judah saw this,

so,

that the Omnipresent had no desire for their service, and that the king’s heart melted within him —

they went up to the tops of their roofs, fell, and died.

This is what is written: “The burden of the valley of vision

[It is Jerusalem, at which everyone looks — Rashi, Ta’anit 29a]:

What is it with you, then, that you have gone up, all of you, to the roofs? Full of shouting, turbulent city,

a joyous town. “Her slain” — not slain by the sword, and not dead in battle, but rather they killed themselves.

Halakha 3 — Mishna:

There were thirteen tables in the Temple:

Eight

tables

of marble

were

in the slaughterhouse,

which was located beside the altar,

on which

there were

washing the innards

of the offerings. And they made them of marble and not of silver so that they would not spoil, for silver by its nature heats, whereas marble cools.

And two

tables were

to the west of the ramp

of the outer altar.

One

of them was

of marble, and one

of them

of silver.

On the marble one —

there were

placing the limbs

of the burnt offering after their dissection, until the priests would burn them.

And on

the table

of silver —

there were placing

the service vessels

needed for the offering service every day, as explained in tractate Tamid [3:4].

The priests were commanded in the Temple to arrange the showbread on the table in the Sanctuary.

And the arrangement of its mitzva is as follows:

Every Shabbat they would arrange twelve loaves upon this golden table in the Sanctuary, together with two bowls of frankincense, and everything remained placed there until the following Shabbat.

On the following Shabbat, they would remove the bread from the table and place new bread upon it, while the removed bread they would place on this golden table outside the Sanctuary, in the hall, until they would burn the bowls.

With the burning of the bowls, the bread became permitted for eating, because their burning is considered like the burning of the handful in a meal-offering, which through its burning permits the remainder of the meal-offering to the priests for eating.

And afterward the bread would be divided among the priests.

And two

tables were

in the hall

before the Sanctuary,

inside, at the entrance of the House —

close to the entrance of the hall.

One of marble and one of gold.

On

the table

of marble —

they would place

upon it

the showbread upon its entry

into the Sanctuary, to rest there from the time it was baked until they arranged it on the golden table in the Sanctuary.

And on

the table

of gold —

they would place the showbread

upon its exit

[and it would remain placed there until the bread was divided among the priests].

And this table was not made of marble, since the bread had already stood on the golden table in the Sanctuary, and they no longer place it, upon its removal, on marble, because

one ascends in sanctity and does not descend.

And one table

of gold

was

inside,

in the north of the Sanctuary,

on which

there stood

the showbread always,

before the Lord.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna: Two in the hall, inside at the entrance of the House, one of marble and one of gold. On the marble one they place the showbread upon its entry,

whereas in a beraita

it was taught: On

a table

of silver

they would place the bread upon its entry, and not on one of marble, as we learned in our Mishna.

Rabbi

Yosei said in the name of Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzhak, and Rabbi Hananya would cite it in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: There is no silver here

[do not read “of silver”] in the beraita,

because it heats,

and the bread becomes hot and liable to spoil. Therefore they would place it on marble, which does not heat.

And we object: Is it not so that

it was taught

in Yoma:

This is one of the miracles that were performed in the Temple: Just as they would place it

[the showbread]

hot —

so would they remove it

on the following Shabbat

hot.

As it is stated: “To place hot bread on the day it is taken.”

And since we find that the heat of the bread was preserved until the time of its removal on the following Shabbat, then it would not spoil even if they placed it on a silver table.

And we answer:

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: One does not mention miracles!

For one does not rely on a miracle; rather, one does everything by natural means and is concerned that it not spoil. Therefore they would place it on marble and not on silver.

When they arose,

[they had a doubt before]

Rabbi Ila:

If they placed the showbread on Shabbat, and it remained until the following Shabbat as prescribed, and

there was not

on the second Shabbat

bread

of another kind in order to arrange it on the table —

what is the ruling about placing it

with the bread that had been placed upon it from the previous Shabbat until

the following Shabbat?

And the foundation of the question is: Is the bread disqualified by the disqualification of “overnight”?

On the one hand, it may be said that since the bread was sanctified in a service vessel through its being placed on the table, and its time passed, it is disqualified by overnight; therefore the bread must be removed and the table left empty.

Or perhaps the bread is not disqualified by overnight while it is upon the table, even if its time passed.

And if so, the existing bread must be left for an additional week, so that the table should not remain without bread.

He said to them

Rabbi Ila:

It is written: “And you shall place on

the table showbread before Me always.”

And from the fact that “always” is written, we derive that

even if it is several days

on the table, one may place it, and it is not disqualified.

[The version of the Vilna Gaon].

Solomon made ten tables in the Temple, as it is written

in Chronicles:

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

And the Gemara explains that which is written, “five on the right and five on the left”:

The intention is not that five tables were on the right of the Sanctuary, in the south, and five on its left, in the north. For

if you say

[if you say]

so, that

there were

five

in the south and five in the north, but surely

the table is fit only in the north.

As it is stated: “And you shall place the table on the northern side.”

If so,

what does “five on the right and five on the left” teach?

Rather,

the intention of the verse is that

five

tables were

to the right of Moses’ table

[which he was commanded to make in the work of the Tabernacle],

and five to its left.

And all of them were in the north.

And even though,

there were ten tables besides the table that Moses made,

he did not arrange

the bread

except on

the

table of Moses alone.

As it is stated: “And Solomon made all the vessels that were in the House of the Lord: the golden altar, and

the table on which was the showbread

of gold.” And it implies that the showbread was arranged on only one table.

of gold.” This implies that the shewbread was arranged on only one table.

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Judah says: He would arrange the bread on all of them,

sometimes on this one and sometimes on that one, and they were not particular to arrange it specifically on the table that Moses made. For

it is stated

in the Book of Chronicles: “And Solomon made all the vessels that were in the House of God, and the golden altar,

and the tables, and upon them the showbread.”

And it implies that he could arrange the showbread on all of them.

And the first tanna, who holds that he arranged it on one table, interprets this verse, “the tables, and upon them the showbread,” as speaking of the two tables that were at the entrance of the Sanctuary, upon which they placed the bread upon its entry and upon its exit [Menahot 99a].

The Gemara now discusses how the tables in the Sanctuary were arranged:

Were their length placed along the length of the Sanctuary, so that one end was to the west and the other end to the east, and all of them were placed with the end of one beside the end of the other, along the northern wall of the Sanctuary?

Or were the length of the tables placed across the width of the Sanctuary, between the south and the north?

It was taught

in a beraita: These tables that were in the Sanctuary

were placed between east and west,

their length along the length of the Sanctuary,

the words of Rabbi.

Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon says:

Between

north and south they were placed,

their length across the width of the Sanctuary.

And we say:

The one who says

that they were placed between

east and west

—

it is satisfactory.

Nothing is difficult for him. For although Solomon made tables, he made

all of them

[all of them]

fit for service,

to arrange showbread upon them, since all of them were arranged in their place — in the north, each one with its end beside that of its fellow, along the northern direction.

But as for

the one who says

that the tables were placed between

north and south,

it is difficult: Surely the width of the Sanctuary from north to south was twenty cubits, while the table was two cubits long and one cubit wide; and when we calculate the length of the ten tables standing one after the other, their measure comes to twenty cubits.

It follows

that the tables occupied the width of the Sanctuary, from the northern wall to the southern wall.

And it follows, then, that the

table

was not in its proper place in the north, but

in the south,

since half of the tables were in the south and half of them in the north, and not all of them were fit for arranging the table.