בחיים ובשחוטין ובדבר שיש בו רוח חיים ובדבר שאין בו רוח חיים מה שאין כן בסמיכה: and it is practiced both in the cases of offerings when they are alive, e.g., the guilt offering of a leper and the lambs of Shavuot, and in the cases of offerings after they are slaughtered, e.g., the breast and thigh. By contrast, placing hands is practiced with a live animal. A further stringency is that waving is practiced both in the case of an item in which there is a living spirit, i.e., an animal offering, and in the case of an item in which there is not a living spirit, e.g., the omer offering, the sota meal offering, and the loaves accompanying a thanks offering and the ram of the nazirite, whereas placing hands is only ever performed upon living beings.
גמ׳ תנו רבנן (ויקרא א, ג) קרבנו לרבות כל בעלי קרבן לסמיכה GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to placing hands: “And he shall place his hand on the head of his offering” (Leviticus 3:2). The term “his offering” serves to include all of the owners of an offering in the requirement of placing hands, i.e., each one must perform it.
שיכול והלא דין הוא ומה תנופה שנתרבתה בשחוטין נתמעטה בחוברין סמיכה שלא נתרבתה בשחוטין אינו דין שתתמעט בחוברין תלמוד לאמר קרבנו לרבות כל בעלי קרבן לסמיכה It is necessary for the verse to teach this, as one might have thought: Could it not be derived through an a fortiori inference that only one partner needs to place his hands on the offering? The inference is as follows: If the requirement of waving, which was amplified to apply also to slaughtered animals, nevertheless was limited with regard to an offering jointly owned by a number of partners, as only one of them waves on behalf of all of them, then with regard to the requirement of placing hands, which was not amplified to apply also to slaughtered animals, is it not logical that it was also limited with regard to an offering jointly owned by partners, and it is sufficient for one partner to place his hands on behalf of the others? To counter this inference, the verse states: “His offering,” to include each of the owners of an offering in the requirement of placing hands.
ותתרבה תנופה בחוברין מקל וחומר ומה סמיכה שלא נתרבתה בשחוטין נתרבתה בחוברין תנופה שנתרבתה בשחוטין אינו דין שנתרבתה בחוברין The Gemara asks: But one could suggest the opposite inference and conclude that the requirement of waving should be amplified with regard to partners, through the following a fortiori inference: If the requirement of placing hands, which was not amplified to apply also to slaughtered animals, was amplified with regard to an offering jointly owned by partners, requiring each partner to perform it himself, then with regard to the requirement of waving, which was amplified to apply also to slaughtered animals, is it not logical that it was also amplified with regard to an offering jointly owned by partners, requiring each partner to perform it himself?
משום דלא אפשר היכי ליעביד לינפו כולהו בהדי הדדי קא הויא חציצה ליניף וליהדר וליניף תנופה אמר רחמנא ולא תנופות The Gemara rejects this: This inference cannot be correct, because it is obvious that only one of the partners needs to perform the waving. It is not possible to have all of them perform it, as how would it be done? If one says: Let all of the partners wave together, with each one placing his hands under those of another, that is difficult: There would be an invalidating interposition between the offering and hands of the partners who are not directly holding onto the offering. And if one says: Let one partner wave, and then the next one will wave, and so on, that would also be invalid, as the Merciful One states in the Torah that one must perform a waving, using a singular noun, which indicates that one waving, but not multiple wavings, should be performed.
וסמיכה בשחוטין ליתא והתנן בזמן שכהן גדול רוצה להקטיר היה עולה בכבש והסגן בימינו הגיע למחצית הכבש אחז סגן בימינו והעלהו והושיט לו הראשון הראש והרגל סומך עליהם וזורקן § The mishna states that placing hands is not performed upon a slaughtered offering. The Gemara questions this: And is there no instance of placing hands performed on slaughtered animals? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Tamid 33b): When the High Priest would want to sacrifice the daily offering, as it is his right to be the one to sacrifice it whenever he wishes to, he would ascend the ramp to the top of the altar, and the deputy [segan] High Priest would also ascend to the right of the High Priest. If it occurred that the High Priest reached halfway up the ramp and grew tired, the deputy would hold him by his right hand to assist him and would bring him up to the top of the altar. And the first of the group of priests who had been selected to bring the limbs of the daily offering to the altar would hold out the head and the right hind leg of the offering to the High Priest, who would place his hands upon them, and then he would throw the limbs onto the fire of the altar.
הושיט השני לראשון שתי ידים נותנו לכהן גדול סומך עליהם וזורקן נשמט השני והלך לו וכך היו מושיטין לו שאר כל האברים סומך עליהם וזורקן Then the second priest would hold out the two forelegs to the first priest, and the first priest would give them to the High Priest, who would place his hands upon them and then throw them onto the fire. At this stage the second priest would slip away and leave, as he was no longer needed. The first priest remained where he was, as he was still needed to present the other limbs of the offering to the High Priest. And in this manner the other priests who had been selected would hold out the rest of all the limbs to the first priest, who would present them to the High Priest, who would then place his hands upon them and throw them onto the fire.
ובזמן שהוא רוצה הוא סומך ואחרים זורקין The mishna concludes: And when the High Priest wants, he may merely place his hands upon the limbs, and then the other priests throw the limbs onto the fire of the altar.
אמר אביי התם משום כבודו דכהן גדול: This mishna apparently demonstrates an instance of placing hands performed upon a slaughtered animal. In resolution of this difficulty, Abaye said: In the mishna there, the placing of hands is not in fulfillment of the requirement to do so to an offering; rather, it is done merely due to the eminence of the High Priest, so that his sacrifice of the limbs of an offering is more distinguished than when performed by ordinary priests.
הדרן עלך פרק שתי מידות
מתני׳ שתי הלחם נילושות אחת אחת ונאפות אחת אחת לחם הפנים נילושות אחת אחת ונאפות שתים שתים ובדפוס היה עושה אותן כשהוא רודן נותנן לדפוס כדי שלא יתקלקלו: MISHNA: The two loaves that are brought on the festival of Shavuot from the new wheat are each made from a tenth of an ephah of fine flour. They are kneaded one by one and they are baked one by one, i.e., each loaf is placed separately in the oven. The loaves of the shewbread are kneaded one by one and baked two by two, i.e., two loaves are placed in the oven at the same time. And the baker would prepare the shewbread in a mold [defus] when he made the dough. When he removes the shewbread from the oven he again places the loaves in a mold so that their shape will not be ruined.
גמ׳ מנא הני מילי דתנו רבנן (ויקרא כד, ה) שני עשרונים יהיה החלה האחת מלמד שנילושות אחת אחת GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the two loaves are kneaded one by one and baked one by one. The loaves of the shewbread are also kneaded one by one but are baked two at a time. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? They are derived from a verse, as the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And you shall take fine flour, and bake twelve cakes from it; two-tenths of an ephah shall be in one cake. And you shall set them in two arrangements, six in an arrangement, upon the pure Table before the Lord” (Leviticus 24:5–6). The phrase “Two-tenths of an ephah shall be in one cake” teaches that the loaves of the shewbread are kneaded one by one.
מנין שאף שתי הלחם כך תלמוד לומר יהיה ומנין שאפייתן שתים שתים תלמוד לומר (ויקרא כד, ו) ושמת אותם יכול אף שתי הלחם כן תלמוד לומר אותם The baraita continues: From where is it derived that this is also the halakha with regard to the two loaves, i.e., that they are kneaded one at a time? The verse states: “Shall be,” to include the two loaves. And from where is it derived that the baking of the loaves of the shewbread is performed two by two? The verse states: “And you shall set them [vesamta otam],” the plural form indicating that two loaves should be baked together. One might have thought that the two loaves brought on Shavuot should also be baked in this manner. The verse states: “Them [otam],” which is a term of exclusion, indicating that only the loaves of the shewbread are baked two at a time, but not the two loaves brought on Shavuot.
האי אותם הא אפיקתיה אם כן לימא קרא ושמתם מאי ושמת אותם שמעת מיניה תרתי: The Gemara asks: Didn’t you already derive from this term: “Them,” that the shewbread must be baked two loaves at a time? The Gemara answers: If so, i.e., if the term “them” teaches only that the shewbread is baked two loaves at a time, let the verse say: And you shall set them [vesamtam], using the shortened form. What is the verse teaching by using the longer form “vesamta otam”? You may learn from the verse two matters, both that the loaves of the shewbread should be baked two at a time and that this requirement does not apply to the two loaves brought on Shavuot.
תנו רבנן ושמת אותם בדפוס שלשה דפוסין הם נותנה לדפוס ועדיין היא בצק וכמין דפוס היה לה בתנור וכשהוא רודה נותנה בדפוס כדי שלא תתקלקל ולהדרה לדפוס קמא כיון דאפי לה נפחה: § The mishna teaches that the shewbread was placed in a mold, and with regard to this the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And you shall set them” (Leviticus 24:6), which means to set them in a mold. There are three molds that are used in the Temple in the preparation of the loaves. First, the baker places the shewbread in a mold while it is still dough. And second, there was a type of mold for the shewbread in the oven, in which the loaves were baked. And when he removes [rodah] the shewbread from the oven, he places it in a third mold so that its shape will not be ruined. The Gemara asks: But why is a third mold necessary? Let him return the shewbread to the first mold, in which the dough was kneaded. The Gemara answers: Once the dough is baked, it rises, and no longer fits into the first mold.
איתמר לחם הפנים כיצד עושין אותו § It was stated: How is the shewbread prepared, i.e., in what shape?
רבי חנינא אמר כמין תיבה פרוצה ר' יוחנן אמר כמין ספינה רוקדת Rabbi Ḥanina says: It was rectangular, with a wide base and two parallel walls with an open space between them, like a box that is open on two sides. Rabbi Yoḥanan says that the shewbread was like a rocking boat, i.e., a triangular-shaped boat with a narrow base from which two walls rise at angles. Since the boat does not have a wide base it rocks from side to side.
בשלמא למאן דאמר כמין תיבה פרוצה היינו דהוו יתבי בזיכין אלא למאן דאמר כמין ספינה רוקדת היכי הוו יתבי בזיכין מקום עביד להו The Gemara comments: Granted, according to the one who said the shewbread was like a box that is open on two sides, this is the reason that the bowls of frankincense could rest upon it. The Gemara asks: But according to the one who said the shewbread was like a rocking boat, how would the bowls rest upon it? The Gemara answers: The baker prepared a flat place for the bowls to rest, on the side of the shewbread.
בשלמא למאן דאמר כמין תיבה פרוצה היינו דהוו יתבי קנים אלא למאן דאמר כמין ספינה רוקדת קנים היכי הוו יתבי מורשא עביד להו The Gemara comments: Granted, according to the one who said the shewbread was like a box that is open on two sides, this is the reason that the rods could rest upon the it. The shewbread was placed on the Table in two arrangements. In each arrangement the lowest loaf was placed on the Table and the remaining loaves were set one above the other, with rods separating the loaves. There were fourteen rods for each arrangement, each loaf being placed upon three rods, except for the uppermost loaf, which was placed on only two rods. The Gemara asks: But according to the one who said the shewbread was like a rocking boat, how were the rods resting upon the shewbread? Since the loaves had a narrow base, they would rest on only one rod. The Gemara answers: The baker would make a protrusion in the base of the loaves, which would slightly widen their pointed base, enabling them to rest with stability upon the rods.
בשלמא למאן דאמר כמין תיבה פרוצה היינו דסמכי ליה סניפין ללחם אלא למאן דאמר כמין ספינה רוקדת היכי סמכי ליה סניפין ללחם דעגיל להו מיעגל The Gemara comments: Granted, according to the one who said the shewbread was like a box that is open on two sides, this is the reason that the panels would support the loaves. There were four gold panels that stood at the two sides of the Table and rose up above the height of the Table, and the rods rested on these panels. The loaves were placed lengthwise along the entire width of the Table, and the panels supported the two sides of the loaves, preventing them from falling to the ground. The Gemara asks: But according to the one who said the shewbread was like a rocking boat, how would the panels support the loaves? Since the sides of the shewbread rose at an angle, the panels would touch only the upper edges of the shewbread. The Gemara answers that the panels would be made to curve inward at an angle corresponding to the angle of the shewbread, so that the panels supported the loaves along their entire length.
בשלמא למאן דאמר כמין ספינה רוקדת היינו דבעינן סניפין אלא למאן דאמר כמין תיבה פרוצה סניפין למה לי אגב יוקרא דלחם תלח The Gemara comments: Granted, according to the one who said the shewbread was like a rocking boat, this is the reason that we require panels. Since the loaves do not have a wide base they cannot stand on their own without the support of the rods and panels. The Gemara asks: But according to the one who said the shewbread was like a box that is open on two sides, why do I need panels? The loaves could stand without the assistance of rods and panels. The Gemara answers: If there were no panels supporting the loaves from the sides and the loaves were placed on top of each other, due to the weight of the upper loaves the lower loaves would break [telaḥ].
בשלמא למאן דאמר כמין ספינה רוקדת סניפין על גבי שלחן מונחין אלא למאן דאמר כמין תיבה פרוצה סניפין היכא מנח להו אארעא מנח להו אין דאמר רבי אבא בר ממל לדברי האומר כמין ספינה רוקדת סניפין על גבי שלחן מונחין לדברי האומר כמין תיבה פרוצה סניפין על גבי קרקע מונחין The Gemara comments: Granted, according to the one who said the shewbread was like a rocking boat, it is evident that the panels are placed on the Table, in order to prevent the slanted loaves from falling to the ground. The Gemara asks: But according to the one who said the shewbread was like a box that is open on two sides, where would the priest place the panels? Since the wide base of the loaves reached the edge of the Table, there was no room for the panels there. Would the priest place them on the ground? The Gemara answers: Yes, the panels were placed on the ground, as Rabbi Abba bar Memel said: According to the statement of the one who says the shewbread was like a rocking boat, the panels are placed on the Table, whereas according to the statement of the one who says the shewbread was like a box that is open on two sides, the panels are placed on the ground.
כמאן אזלא הא דאמר ר' יהודה הלחם מעמיד את הסניפין והסניפין מעמידין את הלחם כמאן דאמר כמין ספינה רוקדת The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which Rabbi Yehuda said: The loaves support the panels and the panels support the loaves, i.e., they lean against one another? It is in accordance with the opinion of the one who said the shewbread was like a rocking boat, i.e., Rabbi Yoḥanan. According to the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina, the panels stood on the ground and did not require the support of the loaves.
מיתיבי כמין כוורת היה לה בתנור ודומה כמין טבלא מרובעת אימא ופיה דומה כמין טבלא מרובעת The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan from another baraita: There was a mold in the oven for the shewbread that was similar to a barrel made of reeds, as it was perforated to enable the bread to bake well, and in its shape it resembled a type of rectangular tablet [tavla]. This indicates that the shewbread was rectangular. The Gemara answers: Say that the opening, i.e., the upper section of the mold, resembled a type of rectangular tablet, and that the mold tapered down to a point.
תניא כמאן דאמר כמין ספינה רוקדת דתניא ארבעה סניפין של זהב היו שם מפוצלין מראשיהן כמין דקרנין היו שסומכין בהן את הלחם שהוא דומה כמין ספינה רוקדת It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the one who said the shewbread was like a rocking boat, as it is taught in a baraita: There were four gold panels there, on the Table, which split up at their upper ends so that they were like forked reed branches. The panels were forked because the bread, which resembled a type of rocking boat, was supported by them.
איבעיא להו לחם הפנים נפסל במסעות או אינו נפסל במסעות רבי יוחנן ורבי יהושע בן לוי חד אמר נפסל וחד אמר אינו נפסל § A dilemma was raised before the Sages: During the era of the Tabernacle, was the shewbread disqualified during the journeys of the Jewish people in the wilderness, or was it not disqualified during the journeys? When the Jewish people would travel from one place to another in the wilderness, the Tabernacle would be dismantled and the Table would be carried with the loaves upon it. The dilemma is about whether or not the loaves were disqualified, since they left the boundaries of the Sanctuary. This matter is the subject of a dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. One says the loaves were thereby disqualified, and one says they were not disqualified.
מאן דאמר נפסל דכתיב (במדבר ב, יז) כאשר יחנו כן יסעו מה בחנייתו נפסל ביוצא אף בנסיעתו נפסל ביוצא The Gemara explains their respective reasons: The one who says the shewbread was disqualified derives his opinion from a verse, as it is written with regard to the journeys: “Then the Tent of Meeting shall journey with the camp of the Levites in the midst of the camps; as they encamp, so shall they journey, every man in his place, by their banners” (Numbers 2:17). The verse juxtaposes the encampments with the journeys, indicating that just as when the Tabernacle is encamped the shewbread is disqualified when it leaves the Tabernacle courtyard, so too, when the Tabernacle journeys the shewbread is disqualified when it leaves the courtyard.
מאן דאמר אינו נפסל דכתיב (במדבר ד, ז) ולחם התמיד עליו יהיה The one who says the shewbread was not disqualified during the journeys derives his opinion from a verse, as it is written with regard to the journeys: “And upon the Table of shewbread they shall spread a cloth of blue…and the continual bread shall remain upon it” (Numbers 4:7). The verse refers to the shewbread as “the continual bread” even during the journeys, indicating that as long as the loaves are on the Table they retain their sacred status.
ואידך נמי הא כתיב (במדבר ב, יז) כאשר יחנו כן יסעו לאידך גיסא מה בחנייתו כי לא יצא ממקומו לא מיפסיל אף בנסיעתו כי לא יצא ממקומו לא מיפסיל The Gemara asks: But also according to the other amora, who maintains the shewbread was not disqualified during the journeys, isn’t it written: “As they encamp, so shall they journey,” indicating that the shewbread is disqualified when it leaves the Tabernacle during the journeys? The Gemara replies that according to this opinion, the juxtaposition of the encampments with the journeys is interpreted in the other direction: Just as when the Tabernacle is encamped, if the shewbread does not leave its place and remains on the Table it is not disqualified, so too, when the Tabernacle journeys, if it does not leave its place on the Table it is not disqualified.
ואידך נמי הא כתיב ולחם התמיד עליו יהיה אלא כי אתא רב דימי אמר במסודר דכולי עלמא לא פליגי אלא כי פליגי במסולק The Gemara asks: But also according to the other amora, who maintains the shewbread was disqualified during the journeys, isn’t it written: “And the continual bread shall remain upon it,” indicating that the shewbread retains its sanctity as long as it is on the Table? Rather, when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that the explanation of the dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is different. With regard to a case where the shewbread is arranged on the Table, everyone agrees the shewbread is not disqualified during the journey. Rather, when they disagree it is in a case where the shewbread is removed from the Table before the journey.
מאן דאמר נפסל דכתיב כאשר יחנו כן יסעו מה בחנייתו נפסל ביוצא אף בנסיעתו מיפסל ביוצא The Gemara explains their respective reasons: The one who says the shewbread is disqualified derives his opinion from a verse, as it is written: “Then the Tent of Meeting shall journey with the camp of the Levites in the midst of the camps; as they encamp, so shall they journey, every man in his place, by their banners” (Numbers 2:17). The verse juxtaposes the encampments with the journeys, indicating that just as when the Tabernacle is encamped the shewbread is disqualified when it leaves the Tabernacle courtyard, so too, when the Tabernacle journeys the shewbread is disqualified when it leaves the courtyard.
למאן דאמר אינו נפסל דכתיב (במדבר ב, יז) ונסע אהל מועד אף על פי שנסע אהל מועד הוא According to the one who says the shewbread is not disqualified during the journeys, this is derived from a verse, as it is written: “Then the Tent of Meeting shall journey,” indicating that even though it has journeyed it is still considered the Tent of Meeting, and therefore the shewbread is not disqualified.
ואידך נמי הכתיב כאשר יחנו כן יסעו לאידך גיסא מה בחנייתו כי לא מפיק ליה לא מיפסיל אף בנסיעתו כי לא מפיק ליה לא מיפסיל The Gemara asks: But also according to the other amora, who maintains the shewbread was not disqualified during the journeys, isn’t it written: “As they encamp, so shall they journey,” indicating that the shewbread is disqualified when it leaves the Tabernacle during the journeys? The Gemara replies that according to this opinion, the juxtaposition of the encampments with the journeys is interpreted in the other direction: Just as when the Tabernacle is encamped, if one does not take the shewbread out of the courtyard it is not disqualified, so too, when the Tabernacle journeys, if one does not take the shewbread out of the courtyard it is not disqualified.
ואידך נמי הא כתיב ונסע אהל מועד ההוא לדגלים הוא דאתא The Gemara asks: But also according to the other amora, who maintains the shewbread was disqualified during the journeys, isn’t it written: “Then the Tent of Meeting shall journey,” indicating that the Tent of Meeting retains its sanctity during the journeys and therefore the shewbread should not be disqualified? The Gemara answers: That verse is not referring to the sanctity of the Tent of Meeting during the journeys. Rather, it comes to teach the position of the Tent of Meeting between the banners of the different tribes during the journeys.
ואידך (במדבר ב, יז) ממחנה הלוים בתוך המחנות נפקא The Gemara asks: And according to the other amora, from where does he derive the position of the Tent of Meeting during the journeys? The Gemara replies: He derives this from the continuation of the verse: “With the camp of the Levites in the midst of the camps” (Numbers 2:17).
מיתיבי בשעת סילוק מסעות קדשים נפסלין ביוצא וזבין ומצורעין משתלחין חוץ למחיצתן מאי לאו אפילו לחם הפנים לא בר מלחם הפנים The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita to the opinion that the shewbread was not disqualified during the journeys: At the time of the dismantling of the Tabernacle in order to commence the journeys, when the curtains surrounding the Tabernacle courtyard are removed, the sacrificial food is disqualified from being consumed, as it is considered to have left the Tabernacle courtyard. And zavim and lepers are sent out of the partitions of their camps; the zavim are sent out of the Levite camp, while lepers are sent out of the Israelite camp. What, is it not referring even to the shewbread, indicating that it is disqualified during the journeys? The Gemara answers: No, the baraita means that most sacrificial food is disqualified, except for the shewbread.
מה נפשך אי אהל מועד דוקא הוא אפילו קדשים נמי אי אהל מועד לאו דוקא הוא אפילו לחם הפנים נמי The Gemara challenges: Whichever way you look at it, this explanation is difficult. If the phrase: “Then the Tent of Meeting shall journey,” is meant exactly, i.e., literally, and it still has the status of the Tent of Meeting even during the journeys, then even other sacrificial food should not be disqualified during the journeys. If “then the Tent of Meeting shall journey,” is not meant exactly, and it does not have the status of the Tent of Meeting during the journeys, then even the shewbread should be disqualified.
אלא כי אתא רבין אמר מר אמר במסודר ומר אמר במסולק ולא פליגי Rather, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that there is actually no dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. This Master, who stated that the shewbread is not disqualified during the journeys, stated his ruling with regard to loaves that are arranged on the Table; and that Master, who stated that the shewbread is disqualified during the journeys, stated his ruling with regard to loaves that were removed from the Table. And the two amora’im do not disagree, as each was referring to a different case.
אמר אביי שמע מינה יש סילוק מסעות בלילה דאי סלקא דעתך אין סילוק מסעות בלילה אימת מדלי לצפרא מאי איריא משום יוצא תיפוק לי דאיפסיל ליה בלינה § The aforementioned baraita states that when the Tabernacle was dismantled the sacrificial food was disqualified, as it was considered to have left the Tabernacle courtyard. Abaye said: One may conclude from the baraita that there could be a case where the dismantling of the Tabernacle in order to commence the journeys would take place at night. This is a necessary conclusion, as if it should enter your mind to say that there could not be a case where the dismantling of the Tabernacle in order to commence the journeys would take place at night, when would the curtains surrounding the Tabernacle be removed? If they were removed right away in the morning, why was the sacrificial food disqualified specifically due to the fact that it left the Tabernacle courtyard? I may derive that it was disqualified because of the fact that it was left overnight.
פשיטא (שמות יג, כא) ללכת יומם ולילה כתיב מהו דתימא הני מילי היכא דעקור ביממא אבל היכא דלא עקור ביממא בליליא לא מצו עקרי קא משמע לן The Gemara challenges: It is obvious that the Tabernacle could be dismantled at night, as it is written: “And the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; that they might go by day and by night” (Exodus 13:21). The Gemara answers that Abaye’s observation is necessary lest you say that this statement, that they would travel at night, applies only in a case where the Jewish people dismantled their camp and began to journey by day, in which case they would continue to travel at night. But in a case where they did not dismantle their camp by day they could not dismantle the camp and leave at night. Abaye therefore teaches us that they could set out even at night.
ורמינהי הוגללו הפרוכת הותרו הזבין ומצורעין ליכנס לשם אמר רב אשי לא קשיא הא ר' אליעזר הא רבנן דתניא § The aforementioned baraita teaches that even when the Tabernacle was dismantled, zavim and lepers were sent outside the camp, as the sanctity of both the Levite camp and the Israelite camp remained intact even while the Tabernacle was dismantled. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from another baraita: Once the curtain surrounding the Tabernacle courtyard was rolled up, the zavim and the lepers were permitted to enter into that area where the Tabernacle had stood. This indicates that the camps did not retain their sacred status once the Tabernacle was dismantled. Rav Ashi said: This is not difficult; this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer and that baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. As it is taught in a baraita:
מסוכן הוא ור' יהודה ור' שמעון בגמרא פליגי This is because he is, i.e., I am, dangerously ill, being utterly famished, and a non-priest may eat sacrificial food in a life-threatening situation. And with regard to Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, their dispute does not stem from the interpretation of the verses. Rather, they disagree with regard to a tradition, as they had divergent traditions as to whether or not the oven consecrates the shewbread.
דיקא נמי דקתני ר' שמעון אומר לעולם הוי רגיל לומר שתי הלחם ולחם הפנים כשרות בעזרה וכשרות אבית פאגי שמע מינה: The language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches that Rabbi Shimon says: One should always be accustomed to say that the two loaves and the shewbread are fit if they were prepared in the Temple courtyard and they are also fit if they were prepared in Beit Pagei. The term: One should always be accustomed to say, indicates that Rabbi Shimon’s opinion is based on an oral tradition and not on the interpretation of a verse. The Gemara concludes: One may conclude from the mishna that this is the case.
מתני׳ חביתי כהן גדול לישתן ועריכתן ואפייתן בפנים ודוחות את השבת טחינתן והרקדתן אינו דוחה את השבת כלל אמר רבי עקיבא כל מלאכה שאפשר לעשותה מערב שבת אינה דוחה את השבת ושאי אפשר לה לעשותה מערב שבת דוחה את השבת MISHNA: With regard to the twelve loaves of the High Priest’s griddle-cake offering, of which six are offered in the morning and six in the evening, their kneading, the forming of their loaves, and their baking take place inside the Temple courtyard, and all types of labor involved in those actions override Shabbat. These labors cannot be performed prior to Shabbat, as once the loaves are consecrated in a service vessel they are disqualified if they are left overnight. Grinding their flour and sifting their flour do not override Shabbat. Rabbi Akiva stated a principle: Any labor that can be performed on Shabbat eve does not override Shabbat, but one that cannot be performed on Shabbat eve overrides Shabbat.
כל המנחות יש בהן מעשה כלי בפנים ואין בהן מעשה כלי בחוץ All preparatory procedures of the meal offerings that take place inside the Temple courtyard, e.g., kneading and forming the High Priest’s griddle cakes, involve the use of a service vessel that consecrates the offerings. But any preparatory procedures that take place outside the Temple courtyard, e.g., kneading and forming the two loaves and the shewbread, do not involve the use of a service vessel.
שתי הלחם ארכן שבעה טפחים ורחבן ארבע טפחים וקרנותיה ארבע אצבעות לחם הפנים ארכן עשרה טפחים ורחבן חמישה טפחים וקרנותיו שבע אצבעות With regard to the two loaves, their length is seven handbreadths, their width is four handbreadths, and they have hornlike protrusions made of dough that is attached to each of their corners, which are four fingerbreadths high. With regard to the loaves of shewbread, their length is ten handbreadths, their width is five handbreadths, and each loaf’s hornlike protrusions is seven fingerbreadths high.
ר' יהודה אומר שלא תטעה זד"ד יה"ז בן זומא אומר (שמות כה, יב) ונתתה על השלחן לחם פנים לפני תמיד לחם פנים שיהו לו פנים Rabbi Yehuda says: The following letters are a mnemonic so that you will not err and forget the dimensions of the two loaves: Zayin, dalet, dalet. The numerical value of the letter zayin is seven and the numerical value of the letter dalet is four. The mnemonic therefore represents the length of seven handbreadths, the width of four handbreadths, and the height of four fingerbreadths, respectively. The following letters are a mnemonic for the dimensions of the shewbread: Yod, heh, zayin, which stand for the length of ten handbreadths, the width of five handbreadths, and the height of seven fingerbreadths, respectively. Ben Zoma says that it is written: “And you shall set upon the Table shewbread [leḥem panim] before Me always” (Exodus 25:30). The term leḥem panim indicates that it should have vertical sides [panim] rather than a rounded shape.
השולחן ארכו עשרה ורחבו חמשה לחם הפנים ארכו עשרה ורחבו חמשה As for the Table, its length is ten handbreadths and its width is five handbreadths, as the Torah states that the Table is two cubits long and one cubit wide (see Exodus 25:23), and Rabbi Yehuda holds that the cubit used as the unit of measurement for the construction of the Temple vessels was equal to five handbreadths. With regard to the shewbread, its length is ten handbreadths and its width is five handbreadths.
נותן ארכו כנגד רחבו של שולחן וכופל טפחיים ומחצה מכאן וטפחיים ומחצה מכאן נמצא ארכו ממלא רחבו של שולחן דברי רבי יהודה The priest places the length of the two shewbread arrangements across the width of the Table, which leaves five handbreadths of each loaf protruding from the Table. And he folds the protruding two and a half handbreadths upward on this side of the Table, and the protruding two and a half handbreadths upward on that side of the Table. One finds, therefore, that the length of the shewbread covers the width of the Table. Similarly, since the width of each loaf is five handbreadths, the width of the two loaves filled the entire length of the Table. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.
ר' מאיר אומר השלחן ארכו י"ב ורחבו ו' לחם הפנים ארכו י' ורחבו ה' Rabbi Meir says: With regard to the Table, its length is twelve handbreadths and its width is six handbreadths, as the measure of a cubit used in the construction of the Temple vessels was equal to six handbreadths. Concerning the shewbread, its length is ten handbreadths and its width is five handbreadths.
נותן ארכו כנגד רחבו של שולחן כופל טפחיים מכאן וטפחיים מכאן וטפחיים ריוח באמצע כדי שתהא הרוח מנשבת בהם Rabbi Meir continues: The priest places the length of the shewbread across the width of the Table, which leaves four handbreadths of each loaf protruding from the Table. He folds the protruding two handbreadths upward on this side of the Table, and the protruding two handbreadths upward on that side of the Table. The width of the two arrangements of shewbread occupies only ten of the twelve handbreadths of the length of the Table, and this leaves a space of two handbreadths in the middle, between the two arrangements, so that the wind will blow between them and prevent the loaves from becoming moldy.
אבא שאול אומר שם היו נותנין שני בזיכי לבונה של לחם הפנים אמרו לו והרי כבר נאמר (ויקרא כד, ז) ונתת על המערכת לבונה זכה אמר להם הרי כבר נאמר (במדבר ב, כ) ועליו מטה מנשה Abba Shaul says: There, in the space between the two arrangements, the priests would place the two bowls of frankincense that accompany the shewbread. The Sages said to him: But isn’t it already stated: “And you shall place pure frankincense upon [al] each arrangement, that it may be for the bread as a memorial part, an offering made by fire to the Lord” (Leviticus 24:7)? The verse indicates that the frankincense is placed upon the shewbread and not next to it. Abba Shaul said to the Sages in response: Isn’t it already stated: “And next to him [alav] shall be the tribe of Manasseh” (Numbers 2:20)? Just as the preposition “alav” in this verse means that the tribe of Manasseh pitched camp next to the tribe of Ephraim and not upon it, so too, the preposition “al” means that the frankincense was placed next to the arrangements of the shewbread.
וארבעה סניפין של זהב היו שם מפוצלין מראשיהן שהיו סומכין בהם שנים לסדר זה ושנים לסדר זה ועשרים ושמונה קנים כחצי קנה חלול ארבעה עשר לסדר זה וארבעה עשר לסדר זה The mishna continues to describe the shewbread Table: And there were four panels of gold there, which stood on the ground and rose above the height of the Table, and they split up at their upper ends, above the Table, so that the rods upon which the shewbread was placed could rest upon the panels. In this manner the panels would support the shewbread. There were two panels for this arrangement and two panels for that arrangement, and there were twenty-eight rods, each of which was shaped like half of a hollow reed. There were fourteen rods for this arrangement and fourteen rods for that arrangement.
לא סידור קנים ולא נטילתם דוחה את השבת אלא נכנס מערב שבת ושומטו ונותנו לארכו של שלחן Neither the arranging of the rods for the new shewbread, nor their removal from the arrangement of the old shewbread, overrides Shabbat. Rather, a priest enters the Sanctuary on Shabbat eve, i.e., Friday before sundown, and removes each of the rods from between the loaves. And according to Rabbi Meir he then places each rod in the space between the two arrangements, along the length of the Table. Then, on Shabbat, he places the new shewbread on the Table without the rods, and he inserts the rods between the loaves at the conclusion of Shabbat.
כל הכלים שהיו במקדש ארכן לארכו של בית: The mishna concludes: All the vessels that were in the Temple, including the Table, were placed so that their length was from east to west, along the length of the Temple.
גמ׳ כל המנחות יש בהן מעשה כלי מבפנים: שאלו את רבי זו מנין אמר להם הרי הוא אומר (יחזקאל מו, כ) ויאמר אלי זה המקום אשר יבשלו שם הכהנים (את החטאת ואת האשם) אשר יאפו את המנחה לבלתי הוציא אל החצר החיצונה GEMARA: The mishna teaches that all preparatory procedures of the meal offerings that take place inside the Temple courtyard involve the use of a service vessel that consecrates the offerings. The Sages asked Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: From where is this halakha derived? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to them: Doesn’t the verse state: “And he said to me: This is the place where the priests shall cook the guilt offering and the sin offering, where they shall bake the meal offering; that they do not bring them out to the outer courtyard, to sanctify the people” (Ezekiel 46:20)? Cooking the meat of the guilt offering and the sin offering requires the use of a vessel, and the verse indicates that this must be performed inside the Temple courtyard, as the meat may not be brought to the outer courtyard.
מנחה דומיא דאשם וחטאת מה אשם וחטאת טעונין כלי אף מנחה נמי טעונה כלי: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi explains: The verse compares the meal offering to the guilt offering and the sin offering, indicating that the halakha of the meal offering is similar to the halakha of the guilt offering and the sin offering. Just as the guilt offering and the sin offering require the use of a service vessel in order to cook the sacrificial meat, and this is performed inside the Temple courtyard, so too, the meal offering also requires a service vessel for its preparation, which is performed inside the Temple courtyard.
השולחן ארכו עשרה: § The mishna cites the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda: As for the Table, its length is ten handbreadths and its width is five handbreadths. Five handbreadths of each loaf of the shewbread, each of which is bent upward, protrude from the Table; two and a half handbreadths on each side. Rabbi Meir holds that the width of the Table is six handbreadths. Therefore, only four handbreadths of each loaf protrude from the Table and two handbreadths are bent upward on each side.
אמר ר' יוחנן לדברי האומר טפחיים ומחצה כופל נמצא שלחן מקדש חמשה עשר טפחים למעלה לדברי האומר טפחיים כופל נמצא שלחן מקדש שנים עשר טפחים למעלה Rabbi Yoḥanan says: According to the statement of the one who says that one folds up two and a half handbreadths from each side of the loaves, it emerges that the Table consecrates fifteen handbreadths above it, as there were six loaves on each side of the Table, which were each two and a half handbreadths high. And according to the statement of the one who says that one folds up two handbreadths from each side of the loaves, it emerges that the Table consecrates twelve handbreadths above it.
והאיכא קנים קנים שקועי משקע להו The Gemara asks: But aren’t there rods between the loaves? The total height of the arrangements should therefore be more than fifteen handbreadths according to Rabbi Yehuda, and more than twelve handbreadths according to Rabbi Meir. The Gemara answers that the rods did not add to the height of the arrangement, as the loaves were shaped with indentations so that the rods were embedded in them.
מאי טעמא משום איעפושי לחם סוף סוף קא מיעפש לחם דמגבה ליה פורתא The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the rods are required? They are required because the bread is apt to become moldy. The rods prevent this by enabling the air to circulate between the loaves. But if the rods are sunk into the loaves, ultimately the bread will become moldy. The Gemara answers that the priest would raise the rods slightly above the loaves. The rods were not completely embedded in the loaves, and there was a small gap between the loaves that enabled the air to circulate.
והאיכא ההוא פורתא כיון דלא הוי טפח לא חשיב ליה The Gemara asks: But if so, isn’t there that slight gap between each of the six loaves, causing the total height of each arrangement to be more than fifteen or twelve handbreadths? The Gemara answers: Since the gaps did not amount to a single handbreadth, Rabbi Yoḥanan did not count them.
והאיכא בזיכין בגוויה דלחם הוו יתבי ולבהדי לחם הוו קיימי והאיכא קרנות קרנות לגוויה דלחם כייף להו ולחם עלייהו נח ליה The Gemara asks: But aren’t there also the bowls of frankincense that are placed above the arrangements, adding to the total height of the items consecrated by the Table? The Gemara answers: The bowls of frankincense would rest inside the middle of the bread and consequently their height corresponded with that of the bread. The Gemara asks: But aren’t there the hornlike protrusions of the shewbread, which are seven fingerbreadths in height? These protrusions should be added to the total height of the arrangements. The Gemara answers: With regard to the protrusions, the priest would fold them into the bread, and the loaf of bread above rested upon them. The protrusions therefore did not increase the height of the arrangements.
וחיק האמה ואמה רוחב וגבולה אל שפתה סביב זרת האחד וזה גב המזבח חיק האמה זה יסוד אמה רוחב זה סובב וגבולה אל שפתה סביב זרת האחד אלו קרנות זה גב המזבח זה מזבח הזהב and the bottom shall be a cubit, and the breadth a cubit, and its border by its edge round about shall be the one span. And this shall be the higher part of the altar” (Ezekiel 43:13). The first section of this verse is referring to the outer altar: “The bottom shall be a cubit,” this is the base of the altar. “And the breadth a cubit,” this is the surrounding ledge of the altar. “And its border by its edge round about shall be the one span,” these are the protruding corners of the altar, which were one cubit wide and one cubit high. “And this shall be the higher part of the altar,” this is referring to the golden altar, which stood inside the Sanctuary and was also measured with small cubits.
ר' מאיר סבר זהו באמה בת חמשה הא כל אמות כלים באמה בת שש ורבי יהודה סבר כזה יהו כל אמות כלים Rabbi Yoḥanan explains that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagree with regard to the inference from the phrase “And this shall be the higher part of the altar.” Rabbi Meir maintains that one can infer that it is this, the golden altar, which is measured with a cubit of five handbreadths, but all the cubits of the other vessels in the Temple are measured with a cubit of six handbreadths. And Rabbi Yehuda maintains that one can infer that like this small cubit shall be all the cubits of the other vessels in the Temple.
קא סלקא דעתך מיסוד ועד סובב באמה בת חמישה בגובה ומאי חיק האמה ואמה רוחב הכי קא אמר מחיק האמה ועד רוחב באמה בת חמשה The Gemara discusses the interpretation of the verse: It might enter your mind to say that the verse is referring to the height of the sections of the altar, i.e., from the base of the altar until the surrounding ledge the height is measured with a cubit of five handbreadths. And what is the meaning of the phrase “The bottom shall be a cubit, and the breadth a cubit”? This is what the verse is saying: From the cubit at the bottom, i.e., the base of the altar, until the cubit of the breadth of the surrounding ledge shall be measured with a cubit of five handbreadths.
גובה המזבח כמה הוי עשר אמות שית בני חמשה חמשה וארבעי בני שיתא שיתא The Gemara explains the difficulty with this interpretation: According to this interpretation, how many cubits is the height of the altar? It is ten cubits. Six of these cubits, from the ground up to the surrounding ledge, are measured with a cubit of five handbreadths each, totaling thirty handbreadths. And the remaining four cubits, from the ledge up to the top of the corners of the altar, are measured with a cubit of six handbreadths each, totaling twenty-four handbreadths.
מזבח כמה הוי חמשין וארבעה פלגיה דמזבח כמה הוי עשרים ושבעה מקרנות ועד סובב כמה הוי עשרים וארבעה כמה בציר לפלגיה דמזבח תלתא ותנן חוט של סקרא חוגרו באמצע כדי להבדיל בין דמים העליונים לדמים התחתונים Accordingly, how many handbreadths is the height of the altar? It is fifty-four handbreadths. How many handbreadths is the height of half of the altar? It is twenty-seven handbreadths. How many handbreadths is the height from the top of the corners of the altar until the surrounding ledge? It is twenty-four handbreadths, four cubits of six handbreadths each. Therefore, how many handbreadths is the surrounding ledge short of half the height of the altar? It is three handbreadths above the halfway mark. And we learned in a mishna (Middot 3:1): A red line encircled the altar in the middle, in order to separate between the blood that must be presented on the upper part of the altar and the blood that must be presented on the lower part of the altar.
אלא הא דתניא גבי עולת העוף היה עולה בכבש ופנה לסובב ובא לו לקרן דרומית [מזרחית] ומולק את ראשה ממול ערפה ומבדיל ומוצה את דמה על קיר המזבח ואם עשאה למטה מרגליו אפילו אמה אחת כשירה But this interpretation is contradicted by that which is taught in a baraita with regard to the bird burnt offering, the blood of which must be presented on the upper part of the altar: The priest would ascend the ramp and turn to the surrounding ledge and arrive at the southeast corner. He would pinch off the bird’s head across its nape, and separate it from its body. He would then squeeze out its blood on the wall of the altar beside him. And if the priest performed the squeezing below his feet, i.e., below the surrounding ledge, even one cubit beneath the ledge, it is valid.
הא קא יהיב עליונה למטה משני טפחים The Gemara explains the difficulty: According to the previous calculation, the surrounding ledge was only three handbreadths above the halfway mark. Therefore, if one squeezes out the blood one cubit, of five handbreadths, below the ledge, isn’t he putting the blood of an offering that must be presented on the upper part of the altar, two handbreadths below the middle of the altar?
אלא חיק האמה כניסה אמה רוחב כניסה גבולה אל שפתה סביב כניסה Rather, the verse must be interpreted differently. It is not referring to the height of the altar but to the width of each of its levels, as follows: “The bottom shall be a cubit”: From the top of the external side of the base of the altar, the wall of the altar is inset by one cubit of five handbreadths. “And the breadth a cubit,” this is referring to the width of the surrounding ledge of the altar, as at this point the wall is again inset by one cubit of five handbreadths. “Its border by its edge round about shall be the one span,” this is referring to the width of the corners of the altar, which is also a cubit of five handbreadths, causing the area of the top of the altar to be inset by an additional cubit.
מזבח כמה הוה ליה שיתין פלגיה דמזבח כמה הוי תלתין מקרנות ועד סובב כמה הוי עשרים וארבעה כמה בציר לפלגיה דמזבח ששה ותנן אם עשאה למטה מרגליו אפילו אמה אחת כשרה The Gemara explains the halakha with regard to the bird burnt offering according to this interpretation: How many handbreadths is the height of the altar? It is sixty handbreadths, ten cubits of six handbreadths each. How many handbreadths is the height of half of the altar? It is thirty handbreadths. How many handbreadths is the height from the top of the corners of the altar until the surrounding ledge? It is twenty-four handbreadths, four cubits of six handbreadths each. Therefore, how many handbreadths is the surrounding ledge short of half the height of the altar? It is six handbreadths above the halfway mark. And we learned in the baraita: And if the priest performed the squeezing below his feet, even one cubit beneath the ledge, it is valid. According to this calculation, one cubit below the surrounding ledge is still part of the upper section of the altar.
במאי אוקימתא בכניסה ומי מצית מוקמת לה בכניסה והא תנן מזבח היה שלשים ושתים על שלשים ושתים עלה אמה וכנס אמה זהו יסוד נמצא שלשים על שלשים The Gemara asks: To what part of the altar did you interpret the verse to be referring? It is referring to the width by which each section of the altar is inset. And can you interpret the verse as referring to the width by which each section is inset? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Middot 3:1): The measurements of the base of the altar were thirty-two cubits by thirty-two cubits. Once the altar rose to the height of one cubit it was inset by one cubit on each side. This lower section was the base of the altar. One therefore finds that the second section of the altar measured thirty cubits by thirty cubits.
שלשים ושני טפחים הוי If the width of the base is measured with a cubit of five handbreadths, then the second section of the altar does not measure thirty cubits by thirty cubits. Since the rest of the altar is measured with a cubit of six handbreadths, the second section measures thirty cubits and two handbreadths.
ותו עלה חמש וכנס אמה זהו סובב נמצא עשרים ושמונה על עשרים ושמונה עשרים ושמונה וארבע טפחים הוי And furthermore, the aforementioned mishna continues: Once the altar rose to the height of six cubits, i.e., five cubits above the base, it was inset by one cubit on each side, forming a ledge. This is the surrounding ledge. One therefore finds that the third section of the altar measured twenty-eight cubits by twenty-eight cubits. If the width of the base and the surrounding ledge are measured with a cubit of five handbreadths, the third section measures twenty-eight cubits and four handbreadths.
וכי תימא כיון דלא הוי אמה לא חשיב ליה מקום קרנות אמה מזה ואמה מזה נמצא עשרים ושש על עשרים ושש And if you would say that since the additional area is not a full cubit the mishna did not count it, this explanation is difficult, as the mishna continues: The area taken up by each of the four corners of the altar was one cubit on this side, along the length of the altar, and one cubit on that side, along the width of the altar. One therefore finds that the area of the top of the altar, within the corners, is twenty-six cubits by twenty-six cubits.
עשרין ושבע הוו לא דק If the corners of the altar were also measured with a cubit of five handbreadths, then the top of the altar was a full cubit of six handbreadths wider, as the wall of the altar was inset three times on each side by a cubit of five handbreadths rather than six handbreadths. The area of the top of the altar was therefore twenty-seven cubits by twenty-seven cubits, which the mishna should not have referred to as twenty-six cubits. The Gemara answers that the tanna was not precise, as he should indeed have stated that the altar measured twenty-seven cubits by twenty-seven cubits.
מקום הילוך רגלי הכהנים אמה מזה ואמה מזה נמצא עשרים וארבע על עשרים וארבע מקום המערכה עשרים וחמשה הואי The Gemara rejects this explanation, as the mishna continues: Within the corners of the altar there was an area where the priests set their feet as they circuited the altar. This area was one cubit on this side, along the length of the altar, and one cubit on that side, along the width of the altar. One therefore finds that an area of twenty-four cubits by twenty-four cubits remained as the area for the arrangement of wood on the altar. If the total area of the top of the altar was twenty-seven cubits by twenty-seven cubits, the remaining area would be twenty-five cubits by twenty-five cubits, not twenty-four by twenty-four.
וכי תימא הכא נמי לא דק והא כתיב (יחזקאל מג, טז) והאריאל שתים עשרה אורך בשתים עשרה רוחב רבוע יכול שאינו אלא שתים עשרה על שתים עשרה כשהוא אומר אל ארבעת רבעיו מלמד שבאמצע הוא מודד שתים עשרה אמה לכל רוח ורוח And if you would say that here too, the tanna was not precise, that is difficult: But isn’t it written: “And the hearth shall be twelve cubits long by twelve wide, square on its four sides” (Ezekiel 43:16)? The hearth is the area for the arrangement of wood on the altar. One might have thought that the area for the arrangement of wood was only twelve cubits by twelve cubits. When the verse states: “On its four sides,” this teaches that one measures from the middle of the altar twelve cubits in each and every direction, i.e., the area for the arrangement of wood was twenty-four cubits by twenty-four cubits, not twenty-five by twenty-five.
וכי תימא שית מינייהו מעיקרא באמה בת חמשה מייתי להו אם כן רווחא לה עזרה The Gemara rejects an alternative explanation: And if you would say that when the mishna states that the base of the altar was thirty-two cubits by thirty-two cubits, with regard to six of those cubits the mishna initially counted them as cubits of five handbreadths, this explanation is difficult. If so, the base of the altar measures six handbreadths less, totaling only thirty-one cubits of six handbreadths, in which case the vacant area in the Temple courtyard would be one cubit wider than it actually was.
דתנן כל העזרה היתה אורך מאה ושמונים ושבע על רוחב מאה ושלשים וחמש ממזרח למערב מאה שמונים ושבע מקום דריסת רגלי ישראל אחת עשרה אמה ומקום דריסת רגלי הכהנים אחת עשרה אמה המזבח שלשים ושתים בין אולם ולמזבח עשרים ושתים אמה ההיכל מאה אמה אחת עשרה אמה אחורי בית הכפורת The Gemara elaborates: This is as we learned in a mishna (Middot 5:1): The dimensions of the entire Temple courtyard were a length of 187 cubits by a width of 135 cubits. The length of the courtyard from east to west was 187 cubits, divided as follows: The area of the Israelite courtyard, where it was permitted for Israelites to set their feet, was eleven cubits long, and the area where it was permitted only for the priests to set their feet was eleven cubits long. The altar was thirty-two cubits long. The area designated as: Between the Entrance Hall and the altar, was twenty-two cubits, and the Sanctuary was one hundred cubits long. There was an additional eleven cubits of space behind the Hall of the Ark Cover, i.e., behind the Holy of Holies, which was at the western end of the Sanctuary. If the altar was actually only thirty-one cubits long, the mishna accounts for the length of only 186 cubits.
אלא חיק האמה בגובהה אמה רוחב כניסה גבולה אל שפתה סביב Rather, the verse must be interpreted differently: “The bottom shall be a cubit,” this is referring to the height of the base. “The breadth a cubit,” this is referring to the width of the surrounding ledge, where the wall of the altar is inset by one cubit. “Its border by its edge round about shall be the one span,”
לא שנא הכי ולא שנא הכי this is referring to the measurements of the corners of the altar, concerning which there is no difference with regard to this, their height, and there is no difference with regard to that, their width, as both are measured with a cubit of five handbreadths.
מזבח כמה הוי חמשין ותמניא פלגיה דמזבח כמה הוי עשרין ותשעה מקרנות ועד סובב כמה הוו עשרין ותלתא Accordingly, how many handbreadths is the height of the altar? It is fifty-eight handbreadths high, as only eight of its cubits are of six handbreadths, while two cubits, those of the base and of the corners, are of five handbreadths. How many handbreadths is the height of half of the altar? It is twenty-nine handbreadths. How many handbreadths is the height from the top of the corners of the altar until the surrounding ledge? It is twenty-three handbreadths, as the corners of the altar are five handbreadths high, and the upper section of the altar is three cubits of six handbreadths.
כמה בציר לפלגיה דמזבח שיתא ותנן אם עשאה למטה מרגליו אפילו אמה אחת כשירה Therefore, how many handbreadths is the surrounding ledge short of half the height of the altar? It is six handbreadths above the halfway mark. And this correlates with that which we learned in the baraita: And if the priest performed the squeezing below his feet, even one cubit beneath the ledge, it is valid. According to this calculation, one cubit below the surrounding ledge is still part of the upper section of the altar.
דיקא נמי דכתיב חיק האמה ואמה רוחב שמע מינה The Gemara adds that the language of the verse is also precise. The verse indicates that although it is referring to the height of the base, it is referring to the width of the surrounding ledge, as it is written with regard to the base: “The bottom shall be a cubit,” whereas with regard to the ledge it is written: “And the breadth a cubit.” Since the verse mentions the breadth only with regard to the surrounding ledge one can infer that the previous term is referring not to the width but to the height. The Gemara concludes: One may conclude from the language of the verse that this is the correct interpretation.
וכמה אמה בינונית אמר ר' יוחנן ששה טפחים אמר רבי יוסי בר אבין אף אנן נמי תנינא רבי מאיר אומר השלחן ארכו שנים עשר ורחבו ששה § The Gemara (97a) cited a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda. According to Rabbi Meir all the cubits mentioned with regard to the Temple were medium cubits, except for the measurements of the golden altar, the corners of the external altar, its surrounding ledge, and its base. The Gemara asks: And how many handbreadths is a medium cubit? Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is six handbreadths. Rabbi Yosei bar Avin says: We learn in a mishna (96a), as well: Rabbi Meir says: The Table, its length is twelve handbreadths and its width is six handbreadths. Since the Torah states that the length of the Table was two cubits and its width one cubit (see Exodus 25:23), this indicates that the cubit is six handbreadths.
מכלל דהויא אמה דנפישא מינה אין והא תנן שתי אמות היו בשושן הבירה אחת על קרן מזרחית צפונית ואחת על קרן מזרחית דרומית שעל קרן מזרחית צפונית יתירה על של משה חצי אצבע שעל קרן מזרחית דרומית היתה יתירה עליה חצי אצבע נמצאת יתירה על של משה אצבע The Gemara asks: May one derive from the fact that the cubit of six handbreadths is referred to as a medium cubit that there is a cubit that is larger than the medium cubit? The Gemara answers: Yes, there is a larger cubit, and so we learned in a mishna (Kelim 17:9): There were two rods for measuring cubits in the chamber of Shushan the capital, which was located above the eastern gate of the Temple Mount, one in the northeast corner and one in the southeast corner. The one that was in the northeast corner was longer than the cubit used by Moses in the building of the Tabernacle, which was of six handbreadths, by half a fingerbreadth, and the one that was in the southeast corner was longer than the other one by another half a fingerbreadth. One therefore finds it longer than Moses’ cubit by a full fingerbreadth.
ולמה אמרו אחת גדולה ואחת קטנה כדי שיהו האומנין נוטלין בקטנה ומחזירין בגדולה כדי שלא יבואו לידי מעילה The mishna continues: And why did the Sages say that there should be two measures of a cubit, one large and one small? It was so that the artisans who were working in the Temple would take payment according the amount of work they did, as measured by the small cubit, and return it to the Temple through their work, as measured by the large cubit, so they would not come to misuse consecrated property. If they would accept any payment that they did not deserve, they would be misusing consecrated property.
ותרתי למה לי חדא לכספא ודהבא וחדא לבניינא The Gemara asks: And why do I need two large cubits? The Gemara answers: One, the shorter of the two, was used to measure silver and gold. Since silver and gold were valuable, the difference between the two measurements was set at only half a fingerbreadth, so that the artisans would not suffer too great a loss. And the other one, which was longer than Moses’ cubit by a full fingerbreadth, was used in the construction of wood and stone structures.
תנן התם שער המזרח עליו שושן הבירה צורה מאי טעמא § The Gemara discusses the depiction of Shushan the capital: We learned in a mishna there (Middot 1:3): One of the five gates of the Temple Mount was the eastern gate upon which Shushan the capital was depicted. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Shushan the capital was depicted on a gate of the Temple Mount?
רב חסדא ורב יצחק בר אבדימי חד אמר כדי שידעו מהיכן באו וחד אמר כדי שתהא אימת מלכות עליהן There is a dispute with regard to this matter between Rav Ḥisda and Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi. One said that Shushan was depicted so that those who passed through the gate would know from where it was that they had come back to Jerusalem. The Jews returned once Persia had conquered Babylonia, and therefore they should give thanks to the Persian Empire for releasing them from exile. And one said that it was depicted so that the fear of the Persian Empire would be upon them, to prevent them from rebelling.
אמר ר' ינאי לעולם תהא אימת מלכות עליך שנאמר (שמות יא, ח) וירדו כל עבדיך אלה אלי והשתחוו לי לאמר ואילו לדידיה לא קאמר ליה The Gemara continues to discuss giving a king his due: Rabbi Yannai says: The fear of kingship should always be upon you, even when the king does not deserve it, as it is stated that Moses said to Pharaoh, when he warned him about the forthcoming plague of the firstborn: “And all these, your servants, shall come down to me, and bow down to me, saying: Get out, you and all the people who follow you, and after that I will go out” (Exodus 11:8). Although ultimately Pharaoh would himself come to Moses, Moses mentioned only that Pharaoh’s servants would come to him, whereas he did not say this to Pharaoh about Pharaoh himself, because of giving a king his due.
ר' יוחנן אמר מהכא שנאמר (מלכים א יח, מו) ויד ה' היתה אל אליהו וישנס מתניו וירץ לפני אחאב עד באכה יזרעאלה: Rabbi Yoḥanan said this principle may be derived from here, as it is stated: “And the hand of the Lord was on Elijah, and he girded up his loins, and ran before Ahab to the entrance of Jezreel” (I Kings 18:46). Despite Ahab’s wickedness, Elijah acted in this manner out of respect for the king.
(יחזקאל מז, יב) ועלהו לתרופה רב חסדא ורב יצחק בר אבדימי § The Gemara cites another dispute between Rav Ḥisda and Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi: With regard to the fruit trees that in the future will grow on either side of a river that will emerge from the Temple, the verse states: “And by the river upon its bank, on this side and on that side, shall grow every tree for food, whose leaf shall not wither, neither shall its fruit fail. It shall bring forth new fruit every month, because its waters issue out of the Sanctuary, and its fruit shall be for food, and its leaf for healing [litrufa]” (Ezekiel 47:12). The Gemara interprets the term “litrufa” as a contraction of lehatir peh, meaning: To unlock the mouth, and there is a dispute between Rav Ḥisda and Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi with regard to the meaning of this term.
חד אמר להתיר פה שלמעלה וחד אמר להתיר פה שלמטה איתמר חזקיה אמר להתיר פה אלמים בר קפרא אמר להתיר פה עקרות One said the leaf shall serve to unlock the mouth that is above, i.e., in the person’s head. The leaves will unlock the mouths of the mute and they will be capable of speech. And one said the leaf shall serve to unlock the mouth that is below, i.e., the womb, enabling barren women to give birth. It was likewise stated that Ḥizkiyya says: The leaf shall serve to unlock the mouth of the mute, whereas bar Kappara says: It shall serve to unlock the mouth, i.e., the womb, of the barren women.
תנו רבנן אילו נאמר (ויקרא כד, ה) ולקחת סלת ואפית אותה שתים עשרה חלות ושמת אותם שתים מערכות ולא נאמר שש הייתי אומר אחת של ארבע ואחת של שמונה לכך נאמר שש § The Torah states with regard to the shewbread: “And you shall take fine flour, and bake twelve cakes from it; two-tenths of an ephah shall be in one cake. And you shall set them in two arrangements, six in an arrangement, upon the pure Table before the Lord” (Leviticus 24:5–6). The Sages taught: Had the Torah stated: “And you shall take fine flour, and bake twelve cakes from it…And you shall set them in two arrangements,” but had it not stated the continuation “six in an arrangement,” I would have said there may be one arrangement of four loaves and one of eight loaves, i.e., the arrangements do not have to be of equal size. Therefore, it is stated: “Six in an arrangement.”
ואילו נאמר שתים מערכות שש המערכת ולא נאמר שתים עשרה הייתי אומר שלש של שש שש לכך נאמר שתים עשרה The baraita continues: And had the Torah stated: “Two arrangements, six in an arrangement,” but had it not stated: “Twelve cakes,” I would have said that the total number of loaves may be more than twelve, and the phrase “six in an arrangement” teaches that one may bring another arrangement of six loaves in addition to the two mentioned in the verse, so that there are three arrangements of six loaves each. Therefore, it is stated: “Twelve cakes.”
ואילו נאמר שתים עשרה חלות ומערכות ולא נאמר שתים ושש הייתי אומר שלשה של ארבע ארבע לכך נאמר שתים ושש הא עד שלא יאמרו שלושה מקראות הללו לא למדנו And had the Torah stated: Twelve cakes…And you shall set them in arrangements, but had it not stated: “Two” and “Six,” I would have said that the twelve loaves should be divided into three arrangements of four loaves each. Therefore, it is stated: “Two arrangements,” and: “Six in an arrangement.” Therefore, until these three phrases in the verses were stated we could not learn how to set the shewbread on the Table.
הא כיצד נותן שתים מערכות של שש שש ואם נתן אחת של ארבע ואחת של שמונה לא יצא שתים של שבע שבע רבי אומר רואין את העליונה כאילו אינה והא בעינן (ויקרא כד, ז) ונתת על How are these arrangements actually set on the Table? The priest places on the Table two arrangements of six loaves each. And if he placed one arrangement of four loaves and one arrangement of eight loaves he has not fulfilled the obligation. If he added two loaves, so that there were two arrangements of seven loaves each, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: One views the upper loaf of each arrangement as though it is not there, and he has fulfilled the obligation. The Gemara asks: But don’t we require that the frankincense be placed upon the shewbread, as it is stated: “And you shall place pure frankincense upon [al] each arrangement, that it may be for the bread as a memorial part” (Leviticus 24:7)? If the priest places an additional, non-sacred loaf upon the arrangement, it interposes between the frankincense and the shewbread.
אמר ליה רב חסדא לרב המנונא ואמרי לה רב המנונא לרב חסדא רבי לטעמיה דאמר על בסמוך דתניא רבי אומר ונתת על המערכת לבונה זכה על בסמוך אתה אומר על בסמוך או אינו אלא על ממש כשהוא אומר (שמות מ, ג) וסכות על הארון את הפרוכת הוי אומר על בסמוך: Rav Ḥisda said to Rav Hamnuna, and some say that Rav Hamnuna said to Rav Ḥisda: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he said that the word “al” means that the frankincense is adjacent to the shewbread. This is as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The verse states: “And you shall place pure frankincense by [al] each arrangement” (Leviticus 24:7). The preposition “al” in this verse means that the frankincense is adjacent to the shewbread. Do you say that al means adjacent to the shewbread, or perhaps it means nothing other than that the frankincense was literally upon the shewbread? When it says: “And you shall place the Curtain as a screen next to [al] the Ark” (Exodus 40:3), it is evident that “al” does not mean upon the Ark, as the Curtain separating the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies was hung in front of the Ark and not placed on top of it. Therefore, you must say that the word al can also mean adjacent to.
כל הכלים שבמקדש וכו': תנו רבנן כל הכלים שבמקדש ארכן לארכו של בית חוץ מארון שארכו לרחבו של בית וכך היה מונח וכך היה בדיו מונחין § The mishna states: All the vessels that were in the Temple were placed so that their length was from east to west, along the length of the Temple. The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to all the vessels that were in the Temple, their length was placed along the length of the Temple, except for the Ark, whose length was placed along the width of the Temple, from north to south. And in this manner the Ark was placed, and in that manner its staves were placed.
מאי קאמר הכי קאמר כך היה מונח מדבדיו כך היה מונחין The Gemara asks: What is the tanna saying in the last clause of the baraita? The Gemara explains that this is what he is saying: One can infer that in this manner the Ark was placed, i.e., along the width of the Temple, from the fact that its staves were placed in that manner, along the length of the Temple. Since the staves were fixed along the width of the Ark, the Ark itself was necessarily placed along the width of the Temple
ובדיו מנלן דתניא (מלכים א ח, ח) ויאריכו הבדים יכול לא היו נוגעין בפרוכת תלמוד לומר ויראו אי ויראו יכול יהו מקרעין בפרוכת ויוצאין תלמוד לומר (מלכים א ח, ח) לא יראו החוצה הא כיצד The Gemara asks: And with regard to its staves, from where do we derive that they were placed along the length of the Temple, from east to west? This is derived as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And the staves were so long that the ends of the staves were seen from the holy place before the Sanctuary, but they could not be seen outside” (I Kings 8:8). One might have thought that the staves did not touch the Curtain separating the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies, and did not protrude at all. Therefore, the verse states: “The ends of the staves were seen.” If the verse had stated only: “The ends of the staves were seen,” one might have thought that the staves tear through the Curtain and emerge into the Sanctuary. Therefore, the verse states: “They could not be seen outside.” How can these texts be reconciled?
בשלמא למאן דאמר צפון ודרום שפיר The Gemara continues: Granted, according to the one who said the tables were positioned along the width of the Sanctuary, from north to south, it works out well. According to this opinion there was enough room on the east and the west of the Table for the two priests arranging the new loaves to stand on one side of the Table and for the two priests removing the old loaves to stand on the other side.
אלא למאן דאמר מזרח ומערב מכדי שלחן כמה משוך מן הכותל שתי אמות ומחצה ואמה דידיה ושתי אמות ומחצה דביני ביני But according to the one who said the tables were positioned along the length of the Sanctuary, from east to west, in which case the priests arranging and removing the shewbread would stand at the north and south of the Table, this is difficult. Now, consider how much space was taken up by the tables: How far was the Table removed from the northern wall of the Sanctuary? It was two and a half cubits away from the wall, as this is the space necessary for the two priests to pass. And to this one must add one cubit for the width of the northern row of tables itself, and another two and a half cubits that were between the northern row of five tables and Moses’ Table, as space for two priests to pass is required here as well.
ואמה ושתי אמות ומחצה דביני ביני ואמה דידיה אישתכח דקאכיל שולחן פלגא דאמתא בדרום The Gemara continues to calculate the area occupied by the tables: And then one must add one cubit for the width of the Table of Moses, and two and a half cubits that were between Moses’ Table and the southern row of tables, and another cubit for the width of the southern row itself. This totals ten and a half cubits, according to which it is found that the Table occupies half a cubit in the south of the Sanctuary, although the Table is supposed to be entirely in the north of the Sanctuary.
מי סברת שלחן דמשה בהדייהו הוה יתיב לא דמידלי ליה ומנח ליה ומיתתי להו לדידהו פורתא כתלמיד היושב לפני רבו The Gemara answers: Do you maintain that the Table of Moses resided together with the other ten tables, i.e., parallel to them? It was not so. The Table of Moses was situated to the west of the other tables, in the space corresponding to the space between the two rows of tables, and its width should not be added to the width of the two rows of Solomon’s tables. All the tables were therefore situated in the north of the Sanctuary. Since the Temple was built on terrain that sloped downward from west to east, this means that the Table of Moses was raised above the tables of Solomon. The Table of Moses was placed to the west and the tables of Solomon were lowered slightly toward the east. Solomon’s tables therefore appeared in relation to Moses’ Table as a student who sits on a lower level before his teacher.
תנו רבנן עשרה שלחנות עשה שלמה ולא היו מסדרין אלא על של משה שנאמר (מלכים א ז, מח) ואת השלחן אשר עליו לחם הפנים זהב § The Sages taught in a baraita: Solomon built ten tables that were situated in the Sanctuary, in addition to Moses’ Table, but the priests would arrange the shewbread only upon the Table of Moses. This is derived from a verse, 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 the shewbread was, of gold” (I Kings 7:48), indicating that the shewbread was placed on only one Table.
עשר מנורות עשה שלמה ולא היו מדליקין אלא בשל משה שנאמר (דברי הימים ב יג, יא) (את) מנורת הזהב ונרותיה לבער בערב Likewise, Solomon built ten candelabra, but the priests would kindle the lamps only on the Candelabrum of Moses. This is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “And they burn unto the Lord every morning and every evening burnt offerings and sweet incense; the shewbread also they arrange in order upon the pure Table, and the Candelabrum of gold with its lamps, to burn every evening” (II Chronicles 13:11). The singular form indicates that the lamps were kindled on only one Candelabrum.
רבי אלעזר בן שמוע אומר על כולם היו מסדרין שנאמר (דברי הימים ב ד, יט) את השולחנות ועליהם לחם הפנים ובכולן היו מדליקין שנאמר (דברי הימים ב ד, כ) את המנורות ונרותיהם לבערם כמשפט לפני הדביר זהב סגור Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua says: They would arrange the shewbread upon all the tables, as it is stated: “And Solomon made all the vessels that were in the House of God, the golden altar as well, and the tables upon which was the shewbread” (II Chronicles 4:19). The plural form indicates that the shewbread was arranged on all the tables. And they would kindle the lamps on all the candelabra, as it is stated in the subsequent verse: “And the candelabra with their lamps, which they should burn according to the ordinance before the Sanctuary, of pure gold” (II Chronicles 4:20).
ר' יוסי בר' יהודה אומר לא היו מסדרין אלא על של משה אלא מה אני מקיים ואת השלחנות אשר עליהם לחם הפנים זהב אלו שלשה שלחנות שהיו במקדש שנים שהיו באולם מבפנים לפתח הבית אחד של כסף ואחד של זהב Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: They would arrange the shewbread only upon the Table of Moses. Rather, how do I realize the meaning of the verse: “And the tables upon which was the shewbread…of pure gold” (II Chronicles 4:19–20)? These are the three tables that were in the Temple, of which there were two that were situated in the Entrance Hall to the Sanctuary, on the inside near to the entrance to the Temple, i.e., near the entrance to the Sanctuary. One of these tables was made of silver, and the other one was made of gold.
על של כסף נותן לחם הפנים בכניסתו ועל של זהב ביציאתו שמעלין בקודש ולא מורידין אחד של זהב בפנים שעליו לחם הפנים תמיד On the table of silver the priest places the new shewbread that has been baked, before its entrance into the Sanctuary, so that the loaves may cool a little from the heat of the oven. And when the old shewbread is removed from the shewbread Table it is placed on the table of gold upon its exit from the Sanctuary, until the frankincense is burned on the altar. The reason the shewbread is placed on a silver table before it is brought into the Sanctuary and on a gold one when it is removed is that one elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity and one does not downgrade. Since it is set on the gold shewbread Table all week, it cannot be downgraded to a silver table upon its removal. The Gemara concludes: The third of the three tables is the one Table of gold inside the Sanctuary upon which the shewbread is always found.
ומנא לן דאין מורידין אמר רבי דאמר קרא (שמות מ, יח) ויקם משה את המשכן ויתן את אדניו וישם את קרשיו ויתן את בריחיו ויקם את עמודיו The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that one does not downgrade in matters of sanctity? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: This is derived from a verse, as the verse states: “And Moses erected the Tabernacle, and he laid its sockets, and set up its boards, and put in its bars, and erected its pillars” (Exodus 40:18). This teaches that once Moses, who was at a greater level of sanctity than the rest of the people, began the work of erecting the Tabernacle, he alone completed it.
ומנלן דמעלין אמר רבי אחא בר יעקב דאמר קרא (במדבר יז, ג) את מחתות החטאים האלה בנפשותם ועשו אותם רקועי פחים ציפוי למזבח כי הקריבום לפני ה' ויקדשו ויהיו לאות לבני ישראל בתחילה תשמישי מזבח ועכשיו גופו של מזבח The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that one elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity? Rabbi Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: This is derived from a verse, as the verse states with regard to the coal pans of the men of Korah’s assembly, in which they burned incense before they were consumed by a fire: “The coal pans of these men who have sinned at the cost of their lives, and let them be made beaten plates for a covering of the altar, for they have become sacred because they were brought before the Lord, that they may be a sign to the children of Israel” (Numbers 17:3). Initially the coal pans had the status of articles used in the service of the altar, as they contained the incense, and now that they have been made into a covering for the altar their status has been elevated to that of the altar itself.
(דברים י, ב) אשר שברת ושמתם בארון תני רב יוסף מלמד שהלוחות ושברי לוחות מונחין בארון מכאן לתלמיד חכם ששכח תלמודו מחמת אונסו שאין נוהגין בו מנהג בזיון § Having mentioned the principle that one does not downgrade in matters of sanctity, the Gemara cites a related issue. The verse states: “At that time the Lord said to me: Hew for yourself two tablets of stone like the first…And I will write on the tablets the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke, and you shall put them in the Ark” (Deuteronomy 10:1–2). Rav Yosef teaches a baraita: This verse teaches that both the tablets of the Covenant and the pieces of the broken tablets are placed in the Ark. One should learn from here that with regard to a Torah scholar who has forgotten his Torah knowledge due to circumstances beyond his control, e.g., illness, one may not behave toward him in a degrading manner. Although the first tablets were broken it is prohibited to treat them with disrespect, due to their sanctity. A Torah scholar who forgot the Torah knowledge he once possessed is likened to these broken tablets.
(סימ"ן ביט"ל סר"ח ושכ"ח) The Gemara notes a mnemonic for the following three statements of Reish Lakish, which are all related to the concept stated by Rav Yosef: One who caused dereliction of the study of Torah for the sake of a mitzva, a Torah scholar who sinned, and a Torah scholar who forgot his studies.
שביטולה של תורה זהו יסודה דכתיב (שמות לד, א) אשר שברת אמר לו הקב"ה למשה יישר כחך ששברת the apparent dereliction of the study of Torah is its foundation, e.g., if one breaks off his studies in order to participate in a funeral or a wedding procession. This is derived from a verse, as it is written: “And the Lord said to Moses: Hew for yourself two tablets of stone like the first, and I will write upon the tablets the words that were on the first tablets, which [asher] you broke” (Exodus 34:1). The word “asher” is an allusion to the fact that that the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Moses: Your strength is true [yishar koḥakha] in that you broke the tablets, as the breaking of the first tablets led to the foundation of the Torah through the giving of the second tablets.
ואמר ריש לקיש תלמיד חכם שסרח אין מבזין אותו בפרהסיא שנאמר (הושע ד, ה) וכשלת היום וכשל גם נביא עמך לילה כסהו כלילה And Reish Lakish says: With regard to a Torah scholar who sinned, he is not disgraced in public, as it is stated: “Therefore, you shall stumble in the day, and the prophet also shall stumble with you in the night” (Hosea 4:5). One can derive from the verse that if a prophet or any other Torah scholar stumbles and sins, one should conceal his offense like the night and not punish him in public.
ואמר ריש לקיש כל המשכח דבר אחד מתלמודו עובר בלאו שנאמר (דברים ד, ט) השמר לך ושמור נפשך מאד פן תשכח את הדברים וכדר' אבין אמר ר' אילעא דאמר רבי אבין אמר ר' אילעא כל מקום שנאמר השמר פן ואל אינו אלא לא תעשה And Reish Lakish says: Anyone who causes himself to forget even one matter from his studies violates a prohibition, as it is stated with regard to the receiving of the Torah on Mount Sinai: “Only observe for yourself, and guard your soul diligently, lest you forget the matters that your eyes saw, and lest they depart from your heart all the days of your life, but you should make them known to your children and to your children’s children” (Deuteronomy 4:9). And this is in accordance with the principle that Rabbi Avin says that Rabbi Ile’a says, as Rabbi Avin says that Rabbi Ile’a says: Wherever it is stated: Observe, or: Lest, or: Do not, it is nothing other than a prohibition.
רבינא אמר השמר ופן שני לאוין נינהו רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר בשלשה לאוין שנאמר השמר לך ושמור נפשך מאוד פן תשכח את הדברים Ravina says: One who forgets his studies violates two prohibitions, as the verse uses both the term “observe” and the term “lest,” and these are two prohibitions. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: He violates three prohibitions, as it is stated: “Only observe for yourself, and guard your soul diligently, lest you forget the matters that your eyes saw.” The term “Guard your soul” is derived from the same root as “observe” and is considered an additional prohibition.
יכול אפילו מחמת אונסו תלמוד לומר (דברים ד, ט) ופן יסורו מלבבך במסירם מלבו הכתוב מדבר רבי דוסתאי בר' ינאי אמר יכול אפילו תקפה עליו משנתו תלמוד לומר רק The Gemara qualifies this statement: One might have thought this applies even to one who forgot his Torah knowledge due to circumstances beyond his control. Therefore, the verse states: “And lest they depart from your heart.” This indicates that the verse is speaking of one who willingly causes them to depart from his heart. Rabbi Dostai, son of Rabbi Yannai, says: One might have thought that this applies even if his studies were too hard for him to remember. Therefore, the verse states: “Only,” which excludes one who is unable to recall his studies.
ר' יוחנן ור' אלעזר דאמרי תרוייהו תורה ניתנה בארבעים ונשמה נוצרה בארבעים כל המשמר תורתו נשמתו משתמרת וכל שאינו משמר את התורה אין נשמתו משתמרת Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar both say: The Torah was given in forty days, when Moses ascended to Mount Sinai to receive it, and similarly the soul of man is formed in forty days, as the formation of the fetus in the womb takes forty days from the time of conception. This teaches that anyone who preserves his Torah studies, his soul is likewise preserved, and anyone who does not preserve his Torah studies, his soul is not preserved either.
תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל משל לאדם שמסר צפור דרור לעבדו אמר כמדומה אתה שאם אתה מאבדה שאני נוטל ממך איסר בדמיה נשמתך אני נוטל ממך: The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: This can be illustrated by a parable, as it is comparable to a person who delivered a sparrow to his slave for safekeeping, and said to him: Are you under the impression that if you lose it I will take from you an issar, a small coin, which is the value of the bird? It is not so; I will take your soul from you as punishment, meaning I will kill you. Similarly, one who fails to preserve the Torah entrusted to him will be severely punished.
מתני׳ שני שולחנות היו באולם מבפנים על פתח הבית אחד של שייש ואחד של זהב על של שייש נותנים לחם הפנים בכניסתו ועל של זהב ביציאתו MISHNA: There were two tables in the Entrance Hall, on the inside of the Entrance Hall, next to the entrance to the Temple, i.e., next to the entrance to the Sanctuary. One was of marble and one was of gold. On the table of marble, the priests place the new shewbread that has been baked, before its entrance into the Sanctuary, so that the loaves may cool a little from the heat of the oven and not spoil. And when the old shewbread is removed from the shewbread Table it is placed on the table of gold upon its exit from the Sanctuary, where it remains until the frankincense is burned on the altar.
שמעלין בקודש ולא מורידין ואחד של זהב מבפנים שעליו לחם הפנים תמיד The reason the shewbread is placed on a gold table when it is removed, rather than on a marble or silver table, is that one elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity and one does not downgrade. Since it is set on the gold shewbread Table all week, it cannot be downgraded to a marble or silver table upon its removal. And there was one Table of gold within the Sanctuary, upon which the shewbread is always found.
וארבעה כהנים נכנסין שנים בידם שני סדרים ושנים בידם שני בזיכין וארבעה מקדימין לפניהם שנים ליטול שני סדרים ושנים ליטול שני בזיכין The mishna describes the manner in which it is ensured that the shewbread is constantly on the Table: And four priests enter, two with the two arrangements of the new shewbread in their hands and two with the two bowls of frankincense in their hands. And four priests precede them, entering the Sanctuary before them, two to take the two arrangements of the old shewbread from the Table, and two to take the two bowls of frankincense.
המכניסים עומדים בצפון ופניהם לדרום והמוציאין עומדים בדרום ופניהם בצפון אלו מושכין ואלו מניחין וטפחו של זה כנגד טפחו של זה שנאמר (שמות כה, ל) לפני תמיד Those bringing the new shewbread into the Sanctuary stand in the north and their faces are to the south, and those removing the old shewbread stand in the south and their faces are to the north. These priests draw the old shewbread from the Table and those priests place the new shewbread on the Table, and for each handbreadth of this old shewbread that is removed from the Table a handbreadth of that new shewbread is placed upon the Table, so that the Table is never without loaves upon it, as it is stated: “And you shall set upon the Table shewbread before Me always” (Exodus 25:30).
ר' יוסי אומר אפילו אלו נוטלין ואלו מניחין אף היא היתה תמיד Rabbi Yosei says: Even if these priests were to remove the shewbread from the Table entirely, and only afterward those priests were to place the new shewbread upon the Table, this too would fulfill the requirement that the shewbread always be on the Table. It is unnecessary to ensure the uninterrupted presence of the shewbread upon the Table, as long as it does not remain a single night without shewbread upon it.
יצאו ונתנום על שלחן הזהב שהיה באולם הקטירו הבזיכין והחלות מתחלקות לכהנים The mishna describes the manner in which the shewbread is distributed: The priests who carried the old shewbread loaves came out of the Sanctuary and placed them on the table of gold that was in the Entrance Hall. The priests then burned on the altar the frankincense that was in the bowls. And the loaves were subsequently distributed to the priests. This occurred on Shabbat, the day that the priestly watch that served in the Temple during the preceding week was replaced by the priestly watch that would serve during the following week. The shewbread was distributed to the priests of both watches.
חל יום כיפורים להיות בשבת החלות מתחלקות לערב חל להיות בערב שבת שעיר של יום הכפורים נאכל לערב והבבליים אוכלין אותו כשהוא חי מפני שדעתן יפה: If Yom Kippur occurs on Shabbat, the loaves are distributed at night, at the conclusion of the fast, since they may not be eaten during the day. If Yom Kippur occurs on Friday, i.e., when the holy day begins on Thursday evening, the goat sin offering of Yom Kippur is eaten by the priests at night, i.e., on Friday night, as it may be eaten only on the day that it is sacrificed or during the following night, until midnight. And since there is no possibility of cooking the meat, as one may not cook on Yom Kippur or Shabbat, the Babylonians, i.e., priests who had emigrated from Babylonia, eat it when it is raw, due to the fact that they are broad-minded with regard to their food, i.e., they are not particular and will eat meat even when it is not cooked.
גמ׳ תניא רבי יוסי אומר אפילו סילק את הישנה שחרית וסידר את החדשה ערבית אין בכך כלום אלא מה אני מקיים לפני תמיד שלא ילין שלחן בלא לחם GEMARA: The mishna teaches that according to Rabbi Yosei, even if the priest first removes the old shewbread entirely, and only then places the new shewbread upon the Table, this fulfills the requirement that the shewbread always be on the Table. Moreover, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: Even if the priest removed the old shewbread on the morning of Shabbat, and arranged the new shewbread toward evening, there is nothing wrong with that. Rather, how do I realize the meaning of the verse: “And you shall set upon the Table shewbread before Me always” (Exodus 25:30)? This means that the Table should not be left overnight without bread upon it.
אמר ר' אמי מדבריו של ר' יוסי נלמוד אפילו לא שנה אדם אלא פרק אחד שחרית ופרק אחד ערבית קיים מצות (יהושע א, ח) לא ימוש (את) ספר התורה הזה מפיך The baraita teaches that according to Rabbi Yosei, even if the old shewbread remained on the Table for a short while in the morning, and the new shewbread was placed on the Table toward evening, and even though it did not reside constantly on the Table, this fulfills the requirement that the shewbread should always be on the Table. Rabbi Ami says: From Rabbi Yosei’s statement we may learn that even if a person learned only one chapter of the Mishna in the morning and one chapter of the Mishna in the evening, he has thereby fulfilled the mitzva of: “This Torah scroll shall not depart from your mouth, and you shall contemplate in it day and night, that you may take heed to do according to all that is written in it, for then you shall make your ways prosperous, and then you shall have good success” (Joshua 1:8).
אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי שמעון בן יוחי אפילו לא קרא אדם אלא קרית שמע שחרית וערבית קיים לא ימוש ודבר זה אסור לאומרו בפני עמי הארץ ורבא אמר מצוה לאומרו בפני עמי הארץ Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: Even if a person recited only the recitation of Shema in the morning and in the evening, he has fulfilled the mitzva of: “This Torah scroll shall not depart from your mouth.” And it is prohibited to state this matter in the presence of ignoramuses [amei ha’aretz], as they are likely to get the impression that there is no need to study Torah beyond this. And Rava says: On the contrary, it is a mitzva to state this matter in the presence of ignoramuses, as they will realize that if merely reciting the Shema leads to such a great reward, all the more so how great is the reward of those who study Torah all day and night.
שאל בן דמה בן אחותו של ר' ישמעאל את ר' ישמעאל כגון אני שלמדתי כל התורה כולה מהו ללמוד חכמת יונית קרא עליו המקרא הזה לא ימוש ספר התורה הזה מפיך והגית בו יומם ולילה צא ובדוק שעה שאינה לא מן היום ולא מן הלילה ולמוד בה חכמת יונית Ben Dama, son of Rabbi Yishmael’s sister, asked Rabbi Yishmael: In the case of one such as I, who has learned the entire Torah, what is the halakha with regard to studying Greek wisdom? Rabbi Yishmael recited this verse about him: “This Torah scroll shall not depart from your mouth, and you shall contemplate in it day and night.” Go and search for an hour that is neither part of the day nor part of the night, and learn Greek wisdom in it.
ופליגא דר' שמואל בר נחמני דאמר ר' שמואל בר נחמני אמר ר' יונתן פסוק זה אינו לא חובה ולא מצוה אלא ברכה ראה הקב"ה את יהושע שדברי תורה חביבים עליו ביותר שנאמר (שמות לג, יא) ומשרתו יהושע בן נון נער לא ימיש מתוך האהל אמר לו הקדוש ברוך הוא יהושע כל כך חביבין עליך דברי תורה לא ימוש ספר התורה הזה מפיך The Gemara notes: And this statement of Rabbi Yishmael’s disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani, as Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: This verse is neither an obligation nor a mitzva, but a blessing. Rabbi Yonatan explains: The Holy One, Blessed be He, saw Joshua and observed that the words of Torah were very precious to him, as it is stated: “And the Lord spoke to Moses face-to-face…and his servant Joshua, son of Nun, a young man, did not depart from the Tent” (Exodus 33:11). The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Joshua: Joshua, are the words of Torah so precious to you? I bless you that “this Torah scroll shall not depart from your mouth.”
תנא דבי ר' ישמעאל דברי תורה לא יהו עליך חובה ואי אתה רשאי לפטור עצמך מהן The tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael teaches: The words of Torah should not be considered as an obligation upon you, i.e., one should not treat Torah study as a burden, but at the same time you are not permitted to exempt yourself from them.
אמר חזקיה מאי דכתיב (איוב לו, טז) ואף הסיתך מפי צר רחב לא מוצק תחתיה בוא וראה שלא כמדת הקדוש ברוך הוא מדת בשר ודם מדת בשר ודם אדם מסית את חבירו מדרכי חיים לדרכי מיתה והקדוש ברוך הוא מסית את האדם מדרכי מיתה לדרכי חיים שנאמר ואף הסיתך מפי צר מגיהנם שפיה צר שעשנה צבור Ḥizkiyya said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “He delivers the afflicted due to His affliction, and opens their ear by tribulation; and also He has allured you out of a narrow opening to a broad place without confines below it, and that which is set on your table is full of fatness” (Job 36:15–16)? Come and see that the attribute of flesh and blood is unlike the attribute of the Holy One, Blessed be He. The attribute of flesh and blood is that a person allures another from the paths of life to the paths of death, but the Holy One, Blessed be He, allures the person from the paths of death to the paths of life, as it is stated: “And also He has allured you out of a narrow opening,” i.e., from Gehenna, the opening of which is narrow so that its smoke is collected