Shekalim 17b (יז:) — the Talmud in English

When all the

nobles

of

Judah saw this,

that the Omnipresent did not desire 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 the vision

[This is Jerusalem, where everyone gazes—Rashi, Ta’anit 29a]:

What is the matter with you, then, that you have all gone up to the roofs, a tumultuous city, a noisy city—

a joyous city. “Her slain”—not those slain by the sword, nor those killed in battle; 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

they

washed the innards

of the sacrifices. They made them of marble rather than silver so that they would not spoil, since silver has the nature of heating, 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 was

of silver.

On the marble one—

they

placed the limbs

of the burnt offering after dissecting them, until the priests burned them on the altar.

And on the

table

of silver—

they placed the

vessels used in the Temple service

that were needed for the sacrificial service each day, as explained in tractate Tamid [3:4].

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

And this is the order of its mitzva:

Every Shabbat, they would arrange twelve loaves on the golden table in the Sanctuary, together with two bowls of frankincense, and everything would remain 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 bread that had been removed was placed on this table of gold outside the Sanctuary, in the Hall, until the bowls were burned.

When the bowls were burned, the bread became permitted for eating, since their burning is considered like the burning of the handful of a meal offering, whose burning permits the remainder of the meal offering to be eaten by the priests.

Afterward, the bread was divided among the priests.

And two

tables were

in the Hall

in front of the Sanctuary,

inside, by the entrance of the House—

close to the entrance of the Hall.

One was of marble and one was of gold.

On the

table

of marble—

they placed

upon it

the shewbread upon its entry,

when it was brought 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 shewbread

upon its departure

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

This table was not made of marble, since the bread had already stood on the golden table in the Sanctuary, and it could not then be placed upon its removal on a marble table, because

one ascends in sanctity and does not descend.

And one

golden table

was

inside,

in the northern part of the Sanctuary,

upon which

it would stand

the shewbread continually,

before the Lord.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna: There were two in the Hall, inside by the entrance of the House; one was of marble and one was of gold. On the marble one they placed the shewbread upon its entry,

whereas in a

beraita

it

teaches: On a table of silver

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

Rabbi

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

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

because it heats

and the bread becomes warm and liable to spoil. Therefore, they placed it on marble, which does not heat.

And we objected: Is that so?

Did they not teach

in Yoma:

This was one of the miracles that occurred in the Temple: Just as they would place it

[the shewbread]

hot,

so would they take it out

on the following Shabbat

hot.

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

Since we find that the heat of the bread was preserved until the time it was removed on the following Shabbat, it would not spoil even if they placed it on a silver table.

And we answer:

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One does not invoke miracles!

One may not rely on a miracle; rather, everything is done by natural means, and one must be concerned that the bread might spoil. Therefore, they placed it on marble and not on silver.

They raised the following question

[they were uncertain before]

Rabbi Ila:

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

there was no

on the second Shabbat

bread

to arrange on the table—

what is the ruling regarding placing it

the bread that had remained there from the previous Shabbat until

the following Shabbat?

The basis of the question is whether the bread becomes disqualified through the disqualification of “remaining overnight.”

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

Or perhaps the bread is not disqualified through remaining overnight while it is on the table, even if its appointed time has passed.

If so, the existing bread must be left there for an additional week, so that the table will not remain without bread.

Rabbi Ila said to them

Rabbi Ila:

It is written: “And you shall place on

the table shewbread before Me continually.”

And from the word “continually” we derive that

even if it has been there for several days,

it may remain on the table and does not become disqualified.

[The reading 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 the phrase “five on the right and five on the left”:

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

If you say

[if you were to say]

so, that

five

tables

were

in the south and five in the north, surely the table is fit only when it is in the north.

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

If so,

what does the verse mean by saying, “five on the right and five on the left”?

Rather,

the meaning of the verse is that

five

tables were

to the right of Moses’ table

[the one that he was commanded to make for the work of the Tabernacle],

and five to its left.

All of them were in the north.

And nevertheless,

although there were ten tables in addition to the table that Moses had 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 upon which was the shewbread

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

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda says: He arranged 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 had made.

As 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 on them the shewbread.”

This implies that he could arrange the shewbread on all of them.

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

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

Were their lengthwise dimensions aligned with the length of the Sanctuary, so that one end faced west and the other east, and all of them were placed with the end of one beside the end of the next along the northern wall of the Sanctuary?

Or were the tables positioned across the width of the Sanctuary, from south to north?

The beraita teaches: These tables that were in the Sanctuary

were positioned between

east and west,

their length aligned with the length of the Sanctuary,

the words of Rabbi.

Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon says: They were positioned between

the

north and south,

their length aligned with the width of the Sanctuary.

And we say:

The one who says

that they were positioned between

east and west

is

satisfactory.

There is no difficulty for him at all. For although Solomon made ten tables,

all of them

[all of them]

are fit for the service,

to arrange the shewbread upon them, since all of them were arranged in their proper place—in the north, each with its end beside the next along the northern side.

But

the one who says

that the tables were positioned between

north and south—a difficulty arises: The width of the Sanctuary from north to south was twenty cubits, while the table was two cubits long and one cubit wide. When we calculate the total length of the ten tables standing one after another, their measure comes to twenty cubits.

It follows

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

It follows, then, that the

table

was not in its proper place in the north, but

in the south,

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