מנחות 95 — Soncino English Talmud

¹An objection was raised: There was in the oven [a mould] in the form of a bee-hive, and it resembled a square plate! — Render: the top of it resembled a square plate. There is [a Baraitha] taught which agrees with the view that they were like a ship's keel. For it was taught: There were four golden props there which put forth branches on top like brackets, and these supported the cakes which resembled a ship's keel. The question was raised: Was the Shewbread rendered invalid on the journeys, or not? — R. Johanan and R. Joshua b. Levi [hold different views]. One said, it was rendered invalid. The other said, It was not rendered invalid. One said, It was rendered invalid, because it is written, As they encamp so they shall journey; therefore as when they encamped it was rendered invalid by being taken outside [the curtains of the Tabernacle], so when they journeyed it was rendered invalid, since it was taken outside [the Tabernacle]. The other says, It was not rendered invalid, because it is written, And the continual bread shall remain thereon. And the other? Is there not written, As they encamp so they shall journey? — This means quite the reverse: just as when they encamped it was not rendered invalid if it had not been taken outside [the Tabernacle], so when they journeyed it was not rendered invalid if it had not been taken outside. And the other? Is there not written, And the continual bread shall remain thereon? — The fact is that when R. Dimi came [from Palestine] he reported as follows: As regards [the bread] that was still set [on the table] they do not differ, they differ only regarding the bread that had been removed. He who said, It was rendered invalid, [argued thus:] It is written, ‘As they encamp so they shall journey’: therefore just as when they encamped it was rendered invalid by being taken outside [the Tabernacle], so when they journeyed it was rendered invalid, since it was taken outside. But he who said, It was not rendered invalid, [argued thus:] It is written, Then the tent of meeting shall set forward; thus even though they had set forth it was still the tent of meeting. And the other? Is there not written, ‘As they encamp so they shall journey’? — It means quite the reverse; just as when they encamped it was not rendered invalid if it had not been taken outside [the Tabernacle], so when they journeyed it was not rendered invalid if it had not been taken outside. And the other? Is there not written, ‘And the tent of meeting shall set forward’? — That only comes to teach us the [order of the] standards. And the other? — He derives [the order of the standards] from the verse, The camp of the Levites in the midst of the camps. An objection was raised: When [the Tabernacle] was dismantled for journeying consecrated things became invalid since they were outside [the Tabernacle]; none the less persons suffering from an issue and lepers were to be put outside their respective bounds. Now this applies, does it not, also to the Shewbread? — No, [it applies to everything] except the Shewbread. But what is your view? If you hold that it is still the tent of meeting then the consecrated things should also [not become invalid], and if you hold that it is no more the tent of meeting then even the Shewbread should [become invalid]! — Rather [the true position is] as reported by Rabin when he came [from Palestine]: One stated his view in respect of [the Shewbread] that was still set [on the table], while the other stated his view in respect of [the Shewbread] that had been removed, and so they do not differ at all. Abaye said, This proves that the Tabernacle could be dismantled for journeying at night, for should you hold that the Tabernacle could not be dismantled for journeying at night, but it was taken to parts only in the morning, then why [did the consecrated things become invalid] on the ground of being taken outside the Tabernacle? Surely they became invalid by being kept overnight! Is not this obvious? Holy Writ expressly says, That they might go by day and by night! — I might have thought that that was so only when they had already set out by day, but if they had not set out by day they would not set out at night; we are therefore taught [that it was not so]. I can point out a contradiction [to the above teaching]. [It was taught:] As soon as the curtains [of the Tabernacle] were folded up those that had an issue and lepers were permitted to enter [into the camp]! — R. Ashi said, This is no difficulty, for one [Baraitha] represents the view of R. Eliezer, the other the view of the Rabbis. For it was taught: 25^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ

^ᵃnote:I.e., perforated like a bee-hive (Tosaf.).
^ᵇnote:in this mould the cake was baked (v. supra p. 577). It is evident, however, that the cake was not v-shaped, but had a square base, like the bottom of a box.
^ᶜnote:But the sides narrowed downwards until they joined together; i.e., v-shaped.
^ᵈnote:When the camp was about to break up and Israel was ordered to set forth on their journeys, the Tabernacle was dismantled Fig. 2 and its parts carried by the Levites. Now the only offering that was continually in progress a=props; b=cakes; c=rods. in the Tabernacle was the Shewbread, for every Sabbath fresh bread was set upon the table and the old bread which had stood for seven days on the table was removed and consumed by the priests. The question here is, whether the Shewbread was immediately rendered invalid on the dismantling of the Tabernacle or not.
^ᵉnote:Num. II, 17.
^ᶠnote:For the Tabernacle has now been dismantled.
^ᵍnote:Ibid. IV, 7. I.e., even though the Tabernacle has been dismantled the bread is still holy.
^ʰnote:I.e., so long as it had not been removed from the table it was valid.
^ⁱnote:That bread was certainly valid, for the last mentioned verse states that so long as the bread was on the table it remained in its sanctity.
^ʲnote:But which had not yet been consumed by the priests (Rashi). According to R. Gershom the reference is to the bread that was set before the Lord but which had for some reason or other been taken off the table at the time of the dismantling of the Tabernacle.
^ᵏnote:And the bread remained in its sanctity.
^ˡnote:Sc. the arrangement of the camp and the order of the march.
^ᵐnote:Num. II, 17.
^ⁿnote:The leper was excluded from the whole camp, while those afflicted with issues were permitted to remain in the camp of Israel but were excluded from the Sanctuary proper and from the Levite encampment.
^ᵒnote:Even though the Tabernacle has been dismantled.
^ᵖnote:That it was not invalid.
^ᵠnote:That it became invalid.
^ʳnote:The statement in the foregoing Baraitha that all consecrated things at the dismantling of the Tabernacle became invalid on the ground of being ‘outside’.
^ˢnote:I.e., if the cloud was lifted (which was the signal for the people to march onward, cf. Num. IX, 17ff) at night, the Tabernacle was immediately dismantled and the people straightway set forth on their journey and did not wait till the morning.
^ᵗnote:Ex. XIII, 21.
^ᵘnote:That they journeyed by night.
^ᵛnote:Which stated that those afflicted with an issue and lepers were still excluded from the camp even when the Tabernacle was dismantled.
^ʷnote:Ta'an. 21b.
^ˣnote:The latter Baraitha.
^ʸnote:Pes. 67b.

²R. Eliezer says, You might think that if those that had an issue and lepers had forced their way through and entered the Temple court at a time when the Passover-offering was being offered in uncleanness — you might think that they are culpable, the text therefore stated, They shall put out of the camp every leper, and every one that hath an issue, and whosoever is unclean by the dead: when those that are unclean by the dead are put out [of the Sanctuary], those that have an issue and lepers are put out [of their respective camps]; when those that are unclean by the dead are not put out, those that have an issue and lepers are not put out. MISHNAH. THE TWO LOAVES AND THE SHEWBREAD WERE ALIKE IN THAT THE KNEADING AND THE SHAPING WERE PERFORMED OUTSIDE [THE TEMPLE COURT], BUT THE BAKING INSIDE; AND IT DID NOT OVERRIDE THE SABBATH. R. JUDAH SAYS, ALL THESE WORKS WERE PERFORMED INSIDE [THE TEMPLE COURT]. R. SIMEON SAYS, ACCUSTOM THYSELF TO SAY, THE TWO LOAVES AND THE SHEWBREAD WERE VALID WHETHER MADE IN THE TEMPLE COURT OR IN BETH PAGE. GEMARA. Is not this self-contradictory? You say, THE KNEADING AND THE SHAPING WERE PERFORMED OUTSIDE, which proves that the dry-measures were not hallowed, and then you say, BUT THE BAKING INSIDE, which proves that the dry-measures were hallowed! — Said Raba: This question was raised by a hard man, who is as hard as iron, namely R. Shesheth. But what is the difficulty? Perhaps the tenth [measure] does not hallow [whatsoever is put therein] whereas the oven does! Rather if a difficulty is to be pointed out it is the following: [You say,] BUT THE BAKING INSIDE, which proves that the oven hallows [whatsoever was baked in it], and then you say, IT DID NOT OVERRIDE THE SABBATH. The cakes would then become invalid by being kept overnight! Said Raba: This question was raised by a hard man, who is as hard as iron, namely R. Shesheth. R. Ashi said, But what is the difficulty? Perhaps ‘INSIDE’ means under the supervision of careful men. This view of R. Ashi, however, is beside the mark. For take whichever view you will, if the baking required the supervision of careful men then the kneading and the shaping also required the supervision of careful men; and if the kneading and the shaping did not require the supervision of careful men, then the baking also did not require the supervision of careful men. We must therefore say that R. Ashi's view is beside the mark. R. JUDAH SAYS, ALL THESE WORKS WERE PERFORMED INSIDE [THE TEMPLE COURT] etc. R. Abbahu b. Kahana said, Both derived their views from the same verse: And it is in a manner common, yea, though it were sanctified this day in the vessel. R. Judah maintains that he found [the priests] baking [the Shewbread] on a weekday and said to them, You are baking it on a weekday? But since it has been sanctified this day in the vessel it will become invalid by being kept overnight! R. Simeon maintains that he found them baking it on the Sabbath and said to them, Should you not have baked it on a weekday? After all it is not the oven that hallows the bread but the table. But how can it be said that he found them baking [the Shewbread]? Is it not written, So the priest gave him hallowed bread; for there was no bread there but the Shewbread that was taken from before the Lord? — Rather it is this that he meant by ‘in a manner common’. They said to him, There is no bread here but the Shewbread that has been taken from before the Lord. And he replied, As to that bread there is no doubt at all, for since it is no more subject to the law of sacrilege it is in a manner common. But even that which has been sanctified this day in the vessel you may give him to eat^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ

^ᶻnote:I.e., if the greater part of the community were unclean by contact with a dead body.
^ᵃᵃnote:Num. V, 2.
^ᵃᵇnote:V. supra p. 582, n. 3.
^ᵃᶜnote:Likewise with regard to the entering into the camp by unclean persons during the time that the Tabernacle was dismantled: since those that are unclean by the dead are not put out at all (for they were only excluded from the Sanctuary and now there is no Sanctuary), lepers and those afflicted with issues are likewise not put out of the camp.
^ᵃᵈnote:Sc. the baking. Accordingly the loaves were baked before the Sabbath.
^ᵃᵉnote:V. supra p. 468, n. 6. R. Simeon holds that they may even be baked outside the Temple court.
^ᵃᶠnote:I.e., the tenth measure by which the flour was measured was not hallowed, hence it could not hallow the flour and therefore it was permitted to knead it outside the Temple court. Had it been hallowed by the measuring vessel, the flour would have become invalid as soon as it was taken outside.
^ᵃᵍnote:Cf. Ta'an. 4a: a scholar who is not as hard as iron is no real scholar.
^ᵃʰnote:Since they were baked, and thereby hallowed, on the day before the Sabbath.
^ᵃⁱnote:Lit., ‘in the place of careful men’, i.e., priests; but not in the Temple court.
^ᵃʲnote:But there is no valid reason for distinguishing between the baking and the other works.
^ᵃᵏnote:The position therefore is that the two clauses of our Mishnah cannot be reconciled but they are the conflicting opinions of different Tannaim (Tosaf.).
^ᵃˡnote:R. Judah and R. Simeon.
^ᵃᵐnote:I Sam. XXI, 6. The Heb. kuj usually meaning profane, common, non-holy, is taken in the sense of non-holy day, weekday.
^ᵃⁿnote:David.
^ᵃᵒnote:Sc. in the oven.
^ᵃᵖnote:It is therefore wrong to bake the Shewbread on a weekday.
^ᵃᵠnote:It could have been baked before the Sabbath and kept for the Sabbath, for it is not hallowed until it is set on the table.
^ᵃʳnote:Ibid. 7.
^ᵃˢnote:That it may be given to a non-priest to eat.
^ᵃᵗnote:In accordance with the rule laid down (Me'il. I, 1): The law of sacrilege does not apply to whatsoever is permitted to the priests.
^ᵃᵘnote:Sc. David.