1 it is immaterial whether the one or the other [cubit was used]. Accordingly the height of the altar was fifty-eight handbreadths, and the half thereof was twenty-nine handbreadths. [The distance] from the [top of the] horns down to the sobeb was twenty-three handbreadths, that is, six handbreadths less than half the height of the altar. And therefore we have learnt: ‘If he did it even one cubit's distance below his feet, it was valid’. This may be proved too, for it is written, The bottom shall be a cubit, and a cubit the breadth. This is conclusive. How much is a cubit of medium size? — R. Johanan said, Six handbreadths. R. Jose b. Abin said, We have also learnt the same [in our Mishnah]: R. MEIR SAYS, THE TABLE WAS TWELVE HANDBREADTHS LONG AND SIX WIDE. It follows that there was a cubit larger than this! — There was, as we have learnt: There were two cubits in the Palace of Shushan, one at the north-eastern corner and the other at the south-eastern corner. That at the north-eastern corner was longer than the cubit of Moses by half a fingerbreadth, and that at the south-eastern corner was longer than the other by half a fingerbreadth; thus it was one fingerbreadth longer than the cubit of Moses. And why did they set up a large cubit and a small one? So that the workmen might receive [contracts of work] according to the measure of the smaller cubit and deliver [the work] according to the measure of the larger cubit, thereby avoiding any possible guilt of sacrilege. And why two? — One was for [work in] gold and silver and the other was for building. We have learnt elsewhere: The eastern gate on which was portrayed the palace of Shushan. What was the reason for this? — R. Hisda and R. Isaac b. Abdimi [offered different opinions]. One said, So that they be ever mindful whence they came; the other said, So that the fear of the dominant power be ever before them. R. Jannai said, The fear of the dominant power should ever be before you, as it is written, And all these thy servants shall come down unto me, and bow dawn unto me saying; but he did not say so of [the king] himself. R. Johanan derives it from the following verse: And the hand of the Lord was on Elijah; and he girded up his loins, and ran before Ahab to the entrance of Jezreel. And the leaf thereof for healing. R. Hisda and R. Isaac b. Abdimi [each interpreted this verse]. One said, To loosen the mouth above; the other said, To loosen the mouth below. It has been [likewise] reported: Hezekiah said, To loosen the mouth of the dumb; Bar Kappara said, To loosen the mouth of barren women. Our Rabbis taught: Had [Scripture] said, And thou shalt take fine flour and bake twelve cakes thereof . . . And thou shalt set them in two rows, and not added, Six [in a row], I would have said that one row may consist of four cakes and the other of eight; [Scripture] therefore said, Six [in a row]. Furthermore, had [Scripture] said, ‘In two rows, six in a row’, and it had not stated, ‘Twelve’, I would have said that there were to be three rows each of six cakes; [Scripture] therefore said, ‘Twelve’. And further, had [Scripture] said, ‘Twelve’, and also, ‘In rows’, but not, ‘In two rows’, nor, ‘Six in a row’, I would have said that there were to be three rows each of four cakes; [Scripture] therefore said, ‘In two rows’ and ‘Six in a row’. Hence without these three expressions we should not have known [the proper practice]. And what was it? [The priest] used to set them in two rows each of six cakes. If he set one row of four and another of eight, he has not fulfilled the obligation. If he set two rows each of seven cakes, the top cake [of each row], says Rabbi, is regarded as though it was not. But does not the verse say, And thou shalt put upon [‘al] each row pure frankincense? — R. Hisda said to R. Hamnuna (others say, R. Hamnuna said to R. Hisda): Rabbi consistently holds the view that ‘al means ‘by the side of’. As has been taught: Rabbi says, In the verse, And thou shalt put ‘al each row pure frankincense, the preposition ‘al has the sense of ‘by the side of’. You say it has the sense of ‘by the side of’, but perhaps it is not so but rather it means actually upon it! When it says, And thou shalt place the veil as a screen ‘al the ark, you may learn from it that ‘al [generally] has the sense of ‘by the side of’. EVERY ARTICLE THAT STOOD IN THE TEMPLE etc. Our Rabbis taught: Every article that stood in the Temple was placed with its length parallel with the length of the house, excepting the ark whose length was parallel with the breadth of the house. So was it placed and so were its staves placed. What can this mean? — It means as follows: So was it placed for so were its staves placed. And whence do we know this of the staves? — From the following [Baraitha] which was taught: And the staves were so long, I might have thought that they did not reach the curtain; the text therefore further states, [That the ends of the staves] were seen [from the holy place]. But if I had the verse, [That the ends of the staves] were seen, only to go by I might have assumed that they tore through the curtain and protruded outside; the text therefore states, But they could not be seen without. How then [are we to understand the verse]?ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠᵃᵍᵃʰ
2 They pressed against the curtain and bulged out as the two breasts of a woman, as it is said, My beloved is unto me as a bundle of myrrh, that lieth betwixt my breasts. But whence do we know that the staves lay along the breadth of the ark? Perhaps they lay along the length of the ark? — Rab Judah answered, Because in the space of one cubit and a half two men could not stand. And whence do we know that four persons carried it? — Because it is written, And the Kohathites [which are at least] two, the bearers of the sanctuary again two, set forward. Our Rabbis taught: King Solomon made ten tables, as it is written, He made also ten tables and placed them in the Temple, five on the right side and five on the left. If you were to say that five were on the right side of the [Temple] entrance and five on the left side of the entrance, then we should have tables placed on the south side [of the Temple], but the Torah says, And thou shalt put the table on the north side. You must therefore say that [the table] of Moses stood in the middle with five [tables] to the right of it and five to the left of it. Our Rabbis taught: King Solomon also made ten candlesticks, as it is written, And he made the ten candlesticks of gold according to the ordinance concerning them; and he set them in the Temple, five on the right hand and five on the left. If you were to say that five were on the right side of the [Temple] entrance and five on the left side, we should then have candlesticks set on the north side [of the Temple], but the Torah says, And the candlestick over against the table on the side of the tabernacle towards the south. You must therefore say that [the candlestick] of Moses stood in the middle with five [candlesticks] to the right of it and five to the left of it. One [Baraitha] states that [the tables] stood in the inner half of the Sanctuary, whilst another [Baraitha] states that they stood in the inner third of the Sanctuary! — This, however, presents no difficulty, for the one [Baraitha] includes the Holy of Holies in the term ‘Sanctuary’, whilst the other does not include the Holy of Holies in the term ‘Sanctuary’. Our Rabbis taught: [The tables] were placed [lengthwise] from east to west. So Rabbi. R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon says, From north to south. What is Rabbi's reason? — He derives it from the candlestick: as the candlestick stood [with its branches] towards east and west, so these stood from east to west. But whence do we know this of the candlestick itself? — Since of the western lamp the verse says, Aaron shall order it . . . before the Lord, it follows that all the others were not before the Lord; now if one were to assume [that the candlestick stood with its branches] towards north and south, all the lamps would then be before the Lord. And what is the reason for the view of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon? — He derives it from the ark: as the ark stood [lengthwise in the direction of] north and south, so these also stood [lengthwise] from north to south. And why does not Rabbi derive it from the ark? — One may infer [an object that stood] outside from [another that stood] outside, but one may not infer [that which stood] outside from [that which stood] inside. And why does not R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon derive it from the candlestick? — He maintains that even the candlestick stood [with its branches extending] towards north and south. But is it not written, Aaron and his sons shall order it . . . [before the Lord]? — They were all made to face [the middle lamp]. For it has been taught: The seven lamps shall give light in front of the candlestick; this teaches that they were made to face the middle lamp. R. Nathan said, This shows that the middle one is specially prized. It is quite clear, according to him who said [that the tables stood lengthwise] from east to west, to see how the ten [tables] were placed in the twenty cubits; but according to him who said [that they stood lengthwise] from north to south, how could the ten tables be placed in twenty cubits? Furthermore, how could the priests enter [the Holy of Holies]? Furthermore, we would then have five tables on the south side! And further, where did the table of Moses stand? — But according to your argument [this question could] also [be raised] against him who said [that they stood lengthwise] from east to west: Where did the table of Moses stand? But in fact [there is no difficulty] for you have assumed, have you not, that they stood in one row? [In reality, however,] they stood in two rows.33ᵃⁱᵃʲᵃᵏᵃˡᵃᵐᵃⁿᵃᵒᵃᵖᵃᵠᵃʳᵃˢᵃᵗᵃᵘᵃᵛᵃʷᵃˣᵃʸᵃᶻᵇᵃᵇᵇᵇᶜᵇᵈᵇᵉᵇᶠᵇᵍᵇʰᵇⁱᵇʲᵇᵏᵇˡᵇᵐᵇⁿᵇᵒ