Menachot

An objection was raised: There was in the oven [a mould] in the form of a bee-hive,1 and it resembled a square plate!2 — Render: the top of it resembled a square plate.3 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,4 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;5 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].6 The other says, It was not rendered invalid, because it is written, And the continual bread shall remain thereon.7 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.8 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,9 they differ only regarding the bread that had been removed.10 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;5 thus even though they had set forth it was still the tent of meeting.11 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.12 And the other? — He derives [the order of the standards] from the verse, The camp of the Levites in the midst of the camps.13 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.14 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 meeting15 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 view16 in respect of [the Shewbread] that was still set [on the table], while the other stated his view17 in respect of [the Shewbread] that had been removed, and so they do not differ at all. Abaye said, This18 proves that the Tabernacle could be dismantled for journeying at night,19 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!20 — I might have thought that that was so21 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].22 [It was taught:]23 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]24 represents the view of R. Eliezer, the other the view of the Rabbis. For it was taught: 25 square base, like the bottom of a box. 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. remained in its sanctity. 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. camp of Israel but were excluded from the Sanctuary proper and from the Levite encampment. invalid on the ground of being ‘outside’. Tabernacle was immediately dismantled and the people straightway set forth on their journey and did not wait till the morning. Tabernacle was dismantled.