Menachot

But there was also the border of the table!1 — It is in accordance with the view of him who says that the border was underneath [the table].2 But [what can be said] according to him who says that the border was above [the table]? — It slanted outwards so that the bread actually rested on the table. As was taught: R. Jose says, There were no props there at all but the border of the table supported the bread. But they said to him, The border was beneath [the table]. R. Johanan said, According to him who says that the border was beneath the table, it follows that a board which can be used on either side3 is susceptible to uncleanness;4 but according to him who says that the border was above the table,5 there is still a doubt as to whether a board which can be used on either side [is susceptible to uncleanness or not]. It is evident [from the above] that the table was susceptible to uncleanness, but surely it is a wooden vessel made to rest, and a wooden vessel made to rest is not susceptible to uncleanness! For what reason? We require it to be like a sack:6 just as a sack is movable both full and empty so everything that is movable both full and empty is susceptible to uncleanness!7 — The table, too, was movable both full and empty, in accordance with Resh Lakish's statement. For Resh Lakish said, What is the meaning of the verse, upon the clean table?8 The inference is that it is susceptible to uncleanness. But why? It is a wooden vessel made to rest and cannot therefore contract uncleanness!9 It teaches that they used to lift it up and exhibit the Shewbread thereon to those who came up for the Festivals, saying to them, Behold the love in which you are held by God! This is in accordance with R. Joshua b. Levi; for R. Joshua b. Levi said, A great miracle was wrought in regard to the Shewbread: it was taken away as [fresh as] when it was set down, as it is written, To put hot bread in the day when it was taken away.10 But surely you can arrive at this11 from the fact that it was overlaid [with gold]!12 For we have learnt:13 If a table or a side-table14 was damaged,15 or was overlaid with marble,16 yet room enough was left to set cups thereon,17 it is still susceptible to uncleanness. R. Judah says, There must be room enough left to set portions [of food thereon]. Now if there was room enough left it is [susceptible] but if there was not room enough left it is not [susceptible].18 And should you say that in the one case19 the overlaying was fixed, whereas in the other it was not fixed;20 but [it has been reported] that Resh Lakish enquired of R. Johanan, [Does it21 apply only] to a fixed overlaying or also to an overlaying that is not fixed? And furthermore does it apply only to the case where the rims were also overlaid placed above this ledge, and as the border was one handbreadth wide each row of bread would then reach to a height of sixteen handbreadths above the table. board and not attached to the frame, so that either side of the board could have been used as the table top. was susceptible to uncleanness. mentioned together in one verse in respect of uncleanness (Lev. XI, 32). they are not likened to a sack. (v. p. 590, n. 4). contrad. from ijka (eating table)’. original purpose. hence it is evident that we consider a vessel in regard to uncleanness according to the material of its overlaying. could not be regarded as a metal vessel. purposes of uncleanness as the material of the vessel.