The Eli B. Sitt Edition and Audio Series of the Talmud Bavli Gemara Menachot, Daft Sadi Zayin, is dedicated to the memory of Abraham Ben Ester and Rabbi Moshe Ben Luna. May their souls rest in peace.
We begin today's discussion on Sadi Vav Amud Bet, eight lines from the bottom, in the middle of a sugya concerning the halachic status of the Shulchan (Table) that was in the Beit HaMikdash (Holy Temple). The Gemara previously stated that the Shulchan was susceptible to ritual impurity (mekabel tum'ah), even though it was made of wood. This presents a challenge, as the general rule is that a stationary wooden vessel is not susceptible to ritual impurity. The Gemara resolved this by explaining that the Shulchan was not always stationary; during the three pilgrimage festivals (regalim), it was lifted to display the miracle of the showbread (lechem hapanim) to the pilgrims. Therefore, it was considered a movable vessel and thus susceptible to ritual impurity.
The Gemara then asks: Why is it necessary to classify the Shulchan as a movable wooden vessel? Why not simply consider it a metal vessel? After all, the Shulchan was plated with gold, and a gold vessel is susceptible to ritual impurity regardless of whether it is movable or stationary. Since the Shulchan was gold-plated, we should follow the status of its plating. The Gemara cites a Mishnah: "Didn't we learn in the Mishnah that the status of a vessel follows its plating or covering?" The Mishnah describes a folding chair covered in leather, used for eating rather than sitting. If such a chair breaks or is covered with marble, but an area of leather remains exposed where vessels can still be placed, it remains susceptible to ritual impurity, as it retains the status of a leather vessel. Rabbi Yehuda states that for it to remain susceptible, the exposed leather area must be large enough to hold pieces of meat, not just cups. From this Mishnah, we infer that if the entire item were covered with marble, it would no longer be susceptible to ritual impurity, because marble itself is not susceptible. Thus, the status follows the covering. Just as the marble covering can remove the item's susceptibility to ritual impurity, so too, regarding the Shulchan, since its covering is metal (gold), we should follow the covering, and it should therefore be susceptible to ritual impurity as a metal vessel.
The Gemara challenges this: Perhaps there's a distinction. In the case of the marble covering, the marble was nailed onto the vessel, making it an integral part of the item, and thus the status follows the covering. However, in the case of the Shulchan, the gold was merely plated on top, not nailed in. Therefore, we might not follow its status. Rabbi Yochanan responds: When we say the status follows the covering or plating, does it matter whether it's nailed on or not? Does it matter if the plating covers only the main body or also the sides and rim? He answers: "It makes no difference whether the plating is fixed or not fixed, or whether it covers the sides or not; in all these cases, the status follows the plating." So, the original question returns: Why did the Gemara need to introduce the novel idea that the Shulchan is a wooden vessel that is movable? It should simply be a metal vessel because of its gold plating, and Rabbi Yochanan confirms that nailing is not a prerequisite for the plating's halachic effect.
The Gemara offers an alternative explanation: Perhaps the rule that we follow the plating applies only to cheap wood. However, the Shulchan was made of expensive acacia wood (etz shittim), which is considered significant (hashuv) in itself. Therefore, we do not follow the gold plating but rather the wood, which is hashuv. The Gemara challenges this: Even an expensive vessel, when plated, still follows the plating. For example, a "kli mismas," an expensive vessel, still follows its plating. So, even though the Shulchan was made of acacia wood, once plated, it should follow the plating. The Gemara then offers a definitive answer: The Shulchan is exceptional. The Torah itself refers to it as a "vessel of wood." While the verse explicitly mentions the Altar (Mizbeach), it concludes by referring to the Shulchan. The verse states: "The altar was of wood, three cubits high, and its length two cubits, and its corners and its walls of wood. And He spoke to me, 'This is the table that is before Hashem.'" The phrase "the altar was of wood" (ha-mizbeach etz) refers to the Shulchan that stood beside the Mizbeach. Since the verse refers to the Shulchan as "wood," we have a direct scriptural decree (gezerat ketuv) that it retains its wooden status, regardless of plating.
The Gemara questions the interpretation of this verse: "It opens with the Mizbeach and ends with the Shulchan." This seems contradictory. Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar explain that during the time the Beit HaMikdash stood, the Mizbeach atoned for a person's sins through sacrifices. However, today, without the Beit HaMikdash, a person's table, where they fulfill the mitzvah of hospitality (hachnasat orchim) by feeding the poor, is considered like the Mizbeach. Thus, the verse begins with the Mizbeach and concludes with the Shulchan to teach us that today, a person's table has the status of a Mizbeach. But the main point is that the verse referring to the Mizbeach is understood to be referring to the Shulchan, and it explicitly calls it "wood." Therefore, even though it was plated, it retains its status as a wooden vessel.
The Gemara continues, turning to the structure of the Shulchan. We learned in the Mishnah that there were four borders (sinipim) around the Shulchan, two on each side, to prevent the bread from breaking. There were also 28 rods (kanim) that went through the bread to separate the loaves from one another. The Gemara asks: How do we know that the Shulchan required these sinipim and kanim? The Gemara explains that "kapotav" (its spoons) refers to the molds used to make the showbread, and "kesotav" (its covers) refers to the sinipim placed around the Shulchan. The word "kesotav" is understood to imply strengthening the bread, like "kashotav" (from the root "kashet," to strengthen). "Menakiyotav" (its purifiers) refers to the kanim, the poles placed between the loaves to prevent them from spoiling. The verse concludes, "you shall place them between the loaves like a roof over the bread so they do not spoil."
Rava raises a question: We learned in a Mishnah that the rods (kanim) are not removed or inserted on Shabbat, as these actions do not override Shabbat. However, if these rods are a Torah requirement, as implied by the verse "Menakiyotav," why are their placement and removal not permitted on Shabbat? Rabbi Akiva established a rule: "Even things that are a Torah requirement, if you can do it before Shabbat, you do it before Shabbat. But anything you cannot do before Shabbat, you are allowed to do on Shabbat." The purpose of the rods is to prevent the bread from spoiling. However, the bread would not spoil in the short time between Friday afternoon (Erev Shabbat) and Saturday night (Motzei Shabbat). Therefore, on Erev Shabbat, they would remove the rods from the table, place the new loaves without the rods separating them, and the bread would not spoil. On Motzei Shabbat, they would reinsert the rods. A Baraita describes this process: On Erev Shabbat, the Kohen would remove the rods, place them east to west next to the Shulchan, lift the loaves, and on Motzei Shabbat, he would stick the rods in between and underneath them.
The Gemara details the placement of the rods: The four middle loaves in each row had three rods underneath them to support the weight from above. The top loaf, having no weight above it, required only two rods. The bottom loaf, resting directly on the cool table, needed no rods, as there was no concern of spoilage. This accounts for 24 rods for the middle loaves (four loaves per row, three rods each, two rows = 24) and four rods for the top loaves (two loaves, two rods each = 4), totaling 28 rods.
We now return to a Mishnah in Masechet Kelim, which discusses a famous dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda regarding the measurement of the Shulchan. The Torah states the Shulchan was two cubits (amot) in length. According to Rabbi Meir, two amot equals twelve handbreadths (tifachim), so the Shulchan was twelve by six tifachim, as he holds each amah is six tifachim. Rabbi Yehuda, however, says it was ten by five tifachim, holding each amah is five tifachim. The Gemara will now analyze this dispute.
We learned in the Mishnah in Kelim: Rabbi Meir says, "All amot in the Mikdash were 'benonit' (mediocre), meaning six tifachim, except for the Mizbeach HaZahav (Golden Altar), its corners (keranot), its ledge (sovev), and the foundation (yesod) of the Mizbeach HaOlah (Outer Altar), which were measured in five-tifachim amot." Rabbi Yehuda says, "Only the 'amat binyan' (building cubit), used for the walls of the Beit HaMikdash and the Mizbeach HaOlah, was six tifachim. All other vessels (kelim), such as the Aron (Ark), the Shulchan, and the movable Mizbeach HaZahav, were measured with five-tifachim amot."
Rabbi Yochanan explains their dispute: Both derive their opinions from a verse in Ezekiel that describes the measurements of the Mizbeach HaOlah. The verse states that the Mizbeach was measured "ba'amot amah," meaning a mediocre amah, which is an amah plus a tefach, effectively a six-tifachim measurement. This refers to the main body of the Mizbeach HaOlah. The verse then lists exceptions measured with a five-tifachim amah: "Heka amah... ve'amah rohav... u'gvulah el sefata saviv... zeh gav ha'mizbeach." The Gemara interprets these phrases: "Heka amah" refers to the Yesod (base) of the Mizbeach; "amah rohav" refers to the Sovev (ledge); "u'gvulah el sefata saviv" refers to the Keranot (corners); and "zeh gav ha'mizbeach" refers to the Mizbeach HaZahav. So, the Torah lists the Mizbeach generally as six tifachim, with specific exceptions measured at five tifachim.
Now the dispute: Rabbi Meir interprets this to mean that only the Mizbeach HaZahav was measured with a five-tifachim amah, but all other vessels (kelim) were measured with a six-tifachim amah. Rabbi Yehuda, however, believes the verse gives an example: just as the Mizbeach HaZahav (which is a vessel) was measured with a five-tifachim amah, so too all other vessels were measured with a five-tifachim amah. The Gemara continues, initially understanding that the height from the Yesod of the Mizbeach to the Sovev was measured in five-tifachim amot. This implies that the height of the Yesod itself, and the five amot between the Yesod and the Sovev, were all five-tifachim amot. The verse "amah rohav" refers to the space between the Yesod and the Sovev, measured in a five-tifachim amah.
The Gemara then calculates the total height of the Mizbeach. It was ten amot high. If the six amot from the floor to the Sovev were five-tifachim amot, that's 30 tifachim. The remaining four amot from the Sovev to the top of the Keranot were six-tifachim amot, totaling 24 tifachim. The total height would be 30 + 24 = 54 tifachim. The midpoint of the Mizbeach would be 27 tifachim. From the Keranot to the Sovev is 24 tifachim. To reach the midpoint (27 tifachim), one would need to go three more tifachim down. We learned in a Mishnah that a red line (chuta sikra) was drawn at the midpoint of the Mizbeach to distinguish between blood sprinkled above and below the line. For example, the blood of a sin-offering (dam chatat) from an animal and a burnt-offering (olah) from a bird was sprinkled above the line, while other bloods were sprinkled below.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: A Baraita states that for a bird olah, which is sprinkled on top of the Mizbeach, the Kohen would ascend the ramp (kevesh), turn onto the Sovev, and come to the southeastern corner. He would then separate the bird's head and press the bird against the wall of the Mizbeach to squeeze out the blood. The Baraita states that even if he sprinkled the blood "below his legs by a cubit (amah achat)" on the wall, it is still valid (kasher). If the red line is three tifachim below the Sovev (as calculated above), and the Kohen is standing on the Sovev, then sprinkling blood "an amah below his legs" (an amah is five tifachim) would place the blood two tifachim below the red line. This would invalidate the offering, as blood meant for above the line cannot be placed below it. This contradicts the Baraita, which says it's valid. Therefore, this initial interpretation of the verse's measurements must be incorrect.
The Gemara now offers an alternative interpretation of the verse in Ezekiel to resolve the contradiction. When the verse says "Heka amah," it refers to the width (kenisah) of the Yesod. When it says "Amah rohav," it refers to the width of the Sovev. "G'vulaha shel sefataim saveev" refers to the width of the Keranot. According to this, the height of the Mizbeach was measured with six-tifachim amot, but the widths mentioned in the verse were five-tifachim amot. Based on this, the Mizbeach, being ten amot high, would be 60 tifachim (ten amot x six tifachim). The midpoint would be 30 tifachim. From the Keranot to the Sovev would be 24 tifachim. To reach the midpoint (30 tifachim), one would need to go six more tifachim down. Now, if the Kohen sprinkles the blood "an amah below his legs," and that amah is a five-tifachim amah, he would be sprinkling it at 29 tifachim (24 + 5 = 29), which is still above the 30-tifachim midpoint. This resolves the contradiction, as the sprinkling would be valid.
The Gemara then challenges this new interpretation with another Mishnah: The base of the Mizbeach was 32 by 32 amot. It then rose one amah high, and narrowed by one amah on each side, becoming 30 by 30 amot at the Yesod. The Mishnah then states it rose five more amot, narrowing again by one amah on each side, making the Sovev 28 by 28 amot. It continued to narrow, reaching 26 by 26 amot at the Keranot, and finally 24 by 24 amot at the place of the pyre (ma'aracha). The issue is that if the base was 32 by 32 amot (using six-tifachim amot, as assumed for the general building cubit), but the width of the Yesod and Sovev were five-tifachim amot (as per the new interpretation of the Ezekiel verse), the calculations would not result in precise 30 by 30 or 28 by 28 squares. Instead, they would be 30.2 by 30.2 or 28.4 by 28.4, due to the conversion between six-tifachim and five-tifachim amot. The Mishnah gives round numbers, not fractions.
The Gemara suggests that perhaps the Mishnah is simply rounding off, not providing exact measurements down to fractions of a tefach. However, this is problematic because the Mishnah also states the area of the Keranot was 26 by 26, and the Ma'aracha (pyre) was 24 by 24. If the Mishnah is rounding, the numbers wouldn't align perfectly. For example, if the top of the Mizbeach was 26 by 26, but the Keranot were measured in five-tifachim amot, it should technically be 27 by 27. The Mishnah's numbers seem to be precise figures.
The Gemara then offers a third interpretation of the Ezekiel verse. When the verse says "Heka amah," it refers to the height (govah) of the Yesod from the ground. This amah is a five-tifachim amah. "Amah rohav" refers to the width (kenisah) of the Sovev, which is also a five-tifachim amah. The "G'vulaha el sefata saviv" refers to the height of the Keranot, which is also a five-tifachim amah. All other dimensions (the width of the Yesod, the height between the Yesod and Sovev, etc.) are measured in six-tifachim amot. According to this, the total height of the Mizbeach is ten amot. The first amah (the height of the Yesod) is five tifachim. The last amah (the height of the Keranot) is also five tifachim. The remaining eight amot of height are six tifachim each (8 x 6 = 48 tifachim). So the total height is 5 + 48 + 5 = 58 tifachim. The midpoint is 29 tifachim. From the top of the Mizbeach to the Sovev is 23 tifachim. To reach the midpoint (29 tifachim), one needs to go six more tifachim down. If the Kohen sprinkles the blood "an amah below his legs," and this amah is a five-tifachim amah, he would be sprinkling at 28 tifachim (23 + 5 = 28), which is still above the 29-tifachim midpoint. This again resolves the contradiction with the Baraita.
The Gemara confirms this interpretation: "That is correct, for it is written 'Heka amah' and 'amah rohav,' implying both height and width." This interpretation means that the Mizbeach HaOlah was constructed using different measurements for different parts: the height of the Yesod and Keranot were five-tifachim amot, and the width of the Sovev was a five-tifachim amah. All other dimensions, including the width of the Yesod, were six-tifachim amot. This allows all the numbers from the Mishnah (32 by 32, 30 by 30, 28 by 28, 26 by 26, and 24 by 24 for the Ma'aracha) to work out precisely, as the base and other widths are six-tifachim amot, and only specific heights and the Sovev width are five-tifachim amot. Even if the width of the Keranot were also five-tifachim amot, the Ma'aracha would still be 24 by 24, as the Mishnah and the verse in Ezekiel state, because the overall calculation from the six-tifachim base would absorb these small differences, preventing them from accumulating into a full amah.