Yoma 21b — the Talmud in English

But the table

is a wooden vessel made to remain in one place,

for it is not used by moving it from its place; rather, it remains fixed in its place.

And every

wooden vessel

that is made to remain in one place cannot contract ritual impurity,

for the verse compared the ritual impurity of a wooden vessel to that of a sack. They interpreted this to mean: just as a sack is used when it is moved, whether full or empty, so too a wooden object is considered a vessel capable of contracting ritual impurity only if it is meant to be moved, whether full or empty.

And

And

because it does not contract ritual impurity, it also blocks ritual impurity

if it seals an opening so that impurity cannot pass through it. If so, how could the table become impure?

Rather, this teaches

that the table could be moved because

when

the pilgrims came for the Festival, they

the priests would lift it with its legs

in order to show the leḥem ha-panim, the Bread of the Presence,

And

they

to the pilgrims, and they would say to them: “See how beloved you are before the Omnipresent,”

for He performs a miracle for you

that

the bread remained hot at the time of

its removal, just

as it had been at the time of

its arrangement.

in that the bread remained hot when it was removed, just as it had been when it was arranged, as it is stated: “To place hot bread on the day it is taken away.”

Therefore, this miracle was counted among the ten miracles, since this miracle too could be seen from outside.

And we raise another question:

Are there no more

miracles in the Temple?

But Rav Oshaya said: When Solomon built

the

Temple, he planted in it all kinds of

trees

of gold, and

these golden trees

the Temple, he planted there all kinds of golden fruit trees, and these golden trees produced their fruit at its proper time,

as though they were actual fruit trees.

And when

the wind

blew through them,

the fruits

would fall, as it is stated

in Psalms 72:16:

And when the wind blew through them, the fruit would fall, as it is stated: “Its fruit shall rustle like Lebanon.”

“Lebanon” refers to the Temple, whose fruit rustled when the wind blew through it.

And when gentiles entered the Sanctuary

to destroy it,

the tree withered,

And when gentiles entered the Sanctuary

to destroy it, the tree dried up, as it is stated: “The blossom of Lebanon languishes.”

And in the future, the Holy One, blessed be He, will restore them

to their blossoming,

as it is stated

in Isaiah 35:2:

And in the future, the Holy One, blessed be He, will restore them to their blossoming, as it is stated: “It shall blossom abundantly and rejoice, even with joy and singing; the glory of Lebanon shall be given to it.”

And we answer:

Miracles that are permanent,

remaining in their place and not produced by events and actions that occurred in the Temple,

the tanna did not count

among his list.

And we conclude:

Now that you have arrived at this,

—that the tanna did not count miracles that were permanently established in the Temple—it is also understandable why he did not count the miracles of the place of the

Ark and

the

since the tanna did not count miracles that permanently existed in the Temple, this also resolves why he did not count the miracles of the place of the

Ark and the cherubim, for these

too were permanent miracles.

The Master said: “And the smoke of the altar fire”

even if all the winds in the world came and blew against it, they would not move it from its place.

And we wonder:

Was there smoke

rising from the fire of

the pyre? But isn’t it taught in a beraita: Five things were stated concerning the fire of

the

rising from the fire of the altar? But it was taught in a beraita, a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna: Five statements were made about the altar fire:

: он был виден

it appeared crouching like a lion,

—

like the sun; and it possessed

in its flame

substance,

and it was clear like the sun, and its flame had substance, unlike every other flame in the world, which has no substance,

and it consumed

things

that were moist

just as it consumed things

that were dry; and

также

and it consumed wet things as it consumed dry things, and it did not produce smoke.

And we answer: When we said that smoke rose from the altar fire, we were referring to

the

portion of the fire

the ordinary humanly supplied portion of the fire, and not to the fire that descended from Heaven, concerning which we learned in the beraita that it did not produce smoke.

, а не об огне, спустившемся с небес, о котором мы учили в барайте, что он не поднимает дыма.

For it was taught:

Aaron

The Torah states: “The sons of Aaron the kohein, the priest with Temple service status, shall place fire on the altar.”

And we learn from this that

even though

the

fire

of the altar

From this we learn that

although the altar fire descended from Heaven,

it is a mitzva to bring

fire also

it is nevertheless a mitzva to bring fire also from an ordinary source,

and place it beside the fire that descended from Heaven; and this fire produced smoke.

We learned in the beraita that the fire of the pyre appeared

We learned in the beraita that the altar fire appeared

crouching like a lion.

And we challenge this:

But it was taught: Rabbi Ḥanina, deputy of the kohanim, said: “I saw it,”

the fire of the pyre, and it appeared

crouching like

the form of a

dog

the altar fire, and it appeared

crouching like the form of a crouching dog. And we answer:

This is not difficult: Here,

where they said that it appeared crouching like a lion,

it was in the First Temple,

where it appeared so;

and here,

where Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, saw it crouching like a dog,

This is not difficult: Here, where it was said that it appeared crouching like a lion, it was seen that way in the First Temple; and , where Rabbi Ḥanina, deputy of the kohanim, saw it crouching like a dog,

.

And we challenge this:

But

if so,

in the Second Temple, was there

But in the Second Temple, was there fire from Heaven?

But didn’t Rav Shmuel bar Inya say: What is the meaning of that which is written

in the verse, when the prophet said to those who built the Second Temple: “Go up to the mountain and bring wood and build the House,

and I will take pleasure in it and be honored,” says the Lord? Yet we read

, сказал Господь», — ведь мы читаем

But Rav Shmuel bar Inya said: What is the meaning of that which is written in the verse, when the prophet said to those who built the Second Temple: “Go up to the mountain, bring wood, and build the House, and I will take pleasure in it and be honored, says the Lord”? Yet we read the word as “and I will be honored,”

с буквой «хей», а почему

that it

is written

so why is it written without the letter heh?

Rather, the omission of the letter comes to allude to

these five things that existed between the First Temple and

the

Second Temple,

Rather, the missing heh comes to allude to these five things that existed between the First Temple and

the Second Temple, and these are they:

which were not in the Second Temple after King Josiah concealed them at the end of the First Temple period; and likewise,

fire

from Heaven, which descended upon the First Temple but not upon the Second;

and

the

Divine Presence

did not rest in the Second Temple;

and

also

the Divine Spirit

was not present among the prophets from the beginning of the Second Temple period; and

the Urim and Thummim

The Ark, its cover, and the cherubim, which were not in the Second Temple after King Josiah concealed them at the end of the First Temple period; and

fire from Heaven, which descended in the First Temple but not in the Second; the Divine Presence, which did not rest in the Second Temple; the divine spirit, which was not present among the prophets from the beginning of the Second Temple period; and the Urim and Thummim that were inside the breastplate. And we answer:

They say: Yes,

indeed, the fire itself

indeed, the fire itself did exist.

However, its

assistance

in consuming the sacrifices

But it did not assist

in consuming the offerings; only the fire added from an ordinary source consumed the offerings.

The Sages taught: There are six

types of

The Sages taught: There are six types of fire:

There is

a fire that

There is a fire that

consumes but does not drink.

And there is

a fire that

And there is one that drinks but does not consume.

And there is a fire that

consumes and drinks, and there is

a fire that

consumes

even things

that are moist, as though they were dry; and there is a fire

that

repels

another fire,

and there is a fire

that

There is one that consumes and drinks; there is one that consumes even wet things as though they were dry; there is a fire that repels another fire; and there is a fire that consumes fire.

And we explain:

There is a fire

that

consumes but does not drink; this is

the fire

There is a fire that consumes but does not drink: this is our ordinary fire,

which burns only solid things.

A fire that

,

this is the fire that burns within the bodies of

ordinary people with the fever, causing their bodies to dry out and making them need to drink water, without any desire to eat.

A fire that

drinks but does not consume is the fire of fever that burns within the bodies of ill people, causing their bodies to dry out and making them need to drink water, without any desire to eat.

,

of Elijah

the prophet, which fell from Heaven upon the altar he built on Mount Carmel and consumed the offering, the wood, the earth, and the stones; and it also drank,

as

it is written

there:

A fire that

consumes and drinks is the fire of Elijah, the prophet, which fell from Heaven onto the altar he built on Mount Carmel and consumed the offering, the wood, the earth, and the stones; it also drank, as it is written there: “And it licked up the water that was in the trench.”

A fire that

consumes

things

that are moist, just as

it consumes things

,

this is the same fire

of the pyre

A fire that

consumes wet things as it consumes dry things is the fire of the altar fire, which consumed even raw meat, turning it into coals. ,

this is the fire

of Gabriel,

There is a fire that repels fire: this is the fire

of the angel Gabriel, who is prince over fire. He descended to save Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah when Nebuchadnezzar threw them into the fiery furnace. With his fire he repelled the furnace’s fire from within and cooled it, while making the furnace hot from outside so that it burned those who threw them in. ,

this is the fire

of the Divine Presence, as the Master said:

,

the Holy One, blessed be He, extended

His

finger between them

And there is a fire that consumes fire: this is the fire

of the Divine Presence, as the Master said: When the Holy One, blessed be He, wished to create the human being, the angels said before Him: “What is man that You should remember him, and the son of man that You should attend to him?” the Holy One, blessed be He, extended His finger among them and burned them. We learned in a beraita:

And the smoke of the pyre—even if all the winds in the world

came and blew against it,

“And the smoke of the altar fire: even if all the winds in the world come and blow against it, they do not move it from its place.”

And we challenge this:

But Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said:

Since on the festival of Sukkot people are judged concerning water, and the final Festival day is the day on which the decree concerning the rains that will fall that year is sealed, therefore

on the evening following the final Festival day of Sukkot,

the people

on the night following the final Festival day of Sukkot, everyone would watch the smoke of the altar fire,

because the wind blowing through it provided a sign of how the judgment had been decreed.

If the smoke

leaned toward the north,

because a wind coming from the south was blowing against it,

the

poor would rejoice,

and the

landowners

would

be distressed, because

a southern wind causes

the

будут

rains of

the

year to be plentiful,

excessively so;

and

as a result,

their produce

of the landowners

would rot,

If the smoke

tilted toward the north, because a wind coming from the south was blowing through it, the poor would rejoice, while the householders would be distressed, because a southern wind causes the rains of the year to be excessive, and as a result the householders’ produce would rot. It would not be worthwhile for them to keep it in storage, so they would sell it cheaply and the poor would benefit.

it leaned

the smoke

toward the south,

because a northern wind was blowing against it,

the poor would be distressed and the

landowners

would

rejoice, because

a northern wind causes

the

будут

rains of

the

year to be scant, and

therefore

their produce

of the landowners

would be preserved

And when the smoke

tilted toward the south, because a northern wind was blowing through it, the poor would be distressed, while the householders would rejoice, because a northern wind causes the rains of the year to be scarce, and therefore the householders’ produce would be preserved well in storage, and they would not sell the produce until prices rose.

it leaned

the smoke

toward the east,

because a western wind was blowing against it,

everyone would rejoice,

And if

the smoke tilted toward the east, because a western wind was blowing through it, everyone would rejoice, since a western wind is balanced and causes rain to fall as appropriate: there would be an adequate quantity of grain, and the produce would be properly preserved. As a result, the produce would be sold at an average price, benefiting both the householders and the poor.

it leaned

the smoke

toward the west,

because an eastern wind was blowing against it,

everyone would be distressed,

And if

the smoke tilted toward the west, because an eastern wind was blowing through it, everyone would be distressed, since an eastern wind dries the seeds, prevents rain, and causes a year of drought. Thus, from the words of Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Avdimi, it follows that the smoke of the altar fire tilted to the sides because of the winds. This conflicts with the beraita we learned, which says that the winds do not move it from its place.

And we answer:

It would go

the smoke

,

like palm trees that sway in the wind,

but it would not be scattered—

The smoke moved back and forth like a palm tree,

like palm trees swaying in the wind, but it did not disperse; the wind did not scatter the smoke.

The smoke leaned

toward the east, and everyone would rejoice;

and if it leaned

toward the west, everyone would be distressed. This indicates that a western wind is always beneficial, whereas an eastern wind is harmful.

The Master said: “If the smoke tilted toward the east, everyone rejoiced; and if it tilted toward the west, everyone was distressed.” This indicates that a western wind is always beneficial, whereas an eastern wind is harmful.

And we raise a contradiction: A

wind

from the east is always

beneficial,

,

But we raise a contradiction: An

eastern wind is always beneficial, while a western wind is always harmful.

A northern wind is beneficial

для

to wheat when

it has already

reached one-third

of its growth, since it no longer requires abundant rain,

and it is harmful

to olives when they are budding,

A northern wind is beneficial

for wheat when it has already reached one-third of its growth, since it no longer needs much rain; but it is harmful for olives when they are forming, because at that time they need abundant rain.

southern wind,

which causes abundant rain,

is harmful

to wheat when it has reached one-third of its growth, and beneficial

In contrast,

a southern wind, which causes abundant rain, is harmful for wheat when it has reached one-third of its growth, but beneficial for olives when they are forming.

And Rav Yosef said, and some say Mar Zutra:

And your mnemonic for knowing which wind is beneficial for wheat and which for olives is:

the Table

in the Temple, upon which was the showbread made of wheat, was

on

the

northern side,

and

the

Menorah, which was kindled with olive oil, was

in the south. This

northern wind

increases

And Rav Yosef said, and some say Mar Zutra said: Your sign for knowing which wind benefits wheat and which benefits olives is the following: The table

that stood in the Temple and held the Bread of the Presence made from wheat was on the north, while the menorah, which was lit with olive oil, was in the south. Thus, this northern wind increases and grows the wheat suitable for the table, which stood on its side. We have returned to you, chapter “Seven Days.”