Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

November 13, 2018 | 讛壮 讘讻住诇讜 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Menachot 95

Were the lechem hapanim disqualified in the desert every time they moved and took apart the walls of the tabernacle? Does it depend on whether they were still on the table or had been removed? the lechem聽hapanim and the two loaves of Shavuot – are there stages of their preparation that needed to be done in the inner chambers of the temple (the azara)? Could they be baked on Shabbat?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

诪讬转讬讘讬 讻诪讬谉 讻讜讜专转 讛讬讛 诇讛 讘转谞讜专 讜讚讜诪讛 讻诪讬谉 讟讘诇讗 诪专讜讘注转 讗讬诪讗 讜驻讬讛 讚讜诪讛 讻诪讬谉 讟讘诇讗 诪专讜讘注转

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan from another baraita: There was a mold in the oven for the shewbread that was similar to a barrel made of reeds, as it was perforated to enable the bread to bake well, and in its shape it resembled a type of rectangular tablet [tavla]. This indicates that the shewbread was rectangular. The Gemara answers: Say that the opening, i.e., the upper section of the mold, resembled a type of rectangular tablet, and that the mold tapered down to a point.

转谞讬讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻诪讬谉 住驻讬谞讛 专讜拽讚转 讚转谞讬讗 讗专讘注讛 住谞讬驻讬谉 砖诇 讝讛讘 讛讬讜 砖诐 诪驻讜爪诇讬谉 诪专讗砖讬讛谉 讻诪讬谉 讚拽专谞讬谉 讛讬讜 砖住讜诪讻讬谉 讘讛谉 讗转 讛诇讞诐 砖讛讜讗 讚讜诪讛 讻诪讬谉 住驻讬谞讛 专讜拽讚转

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the one who said the shewbread was like a rocking boat, as it is taught in a baraita: There were four gold panels there, on the Table, which split up at their upper ends so that they were like forked reed branches. The panels were forked because the bread, which resembled a type of rocking boat, was supported by them.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 谞驻住诇 讘诪住注讜转 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 谞驻住诇 讘诪住注讜转 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讞讚 讗诪专 谞驻住诇 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 谞驻住诇

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: During the era of the Tabernacle, was the shewbread disqualified during the journeys of the Jewish people in the wilderness, or was it not disqualified during the journeys? When the Jewish people would travel from one place to another in the wilderness, the Tabernacle would be dismantled and the Table would be carried with the loaves upon it. The dilemma is about whether or not the loaves were disqualified, since they left the boundaries of the Sanctuary. This matter is the subject of a dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. One says the loaves were thereby disqualified, and one says they were not disqualified.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞驻住诇 讚讻转讬讘 讻讗砖专 讬讞谞讜 讻谉 讬住注讜 诪讛 讘讞谞讬讬转讜 谞驻住诇 讘讬讜爪讗 讗祝 讘谞住讬注转讜 谞驻住诇 讘讬讜爪讗

The Gemara explains their respective reasons: The one who says the shewbread was disqualified derives his opinion from a verse, as it is written with regard to the journeys: 鈥淭hen the Tent of Meeting shall journey with the camp of the Levites in the midst of the camps; as they encamp, so shall they journey, every man in his place, by their banners鈥 (Numbers 2:17). The verse juxtaposes the encampments with the journeys, indicating that just as when the Tabernacle is encamped the shewbread is disqualified when it leaves the Tabernacle courtyard, so too, when the Tabernacle journeys the shewbread is disqualified when it leaves the courtyard.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 谞驻住诇 讚讻转讬讘 讜诇讞诐 讛转诪讬讚 注诇讬讜 讬讛讬讛

The one who says the shewbread was not disqualified during the journeys derives his opinion from a verse, as it is written with regard to the journeys: 鈥淎nd upon the Table of shewbread they shall spread a cloth of blue鈥and the continual bread shall remain upon it鈥 (Numbers 4:7). The verse refers to the shewbread as 鈥渢he continual bread鈥 even during the journeys, indicating that as long as the loaves are on the Table they retain their sacred status.

讜讗讬讚讱 谞诪讬 讛讗 讻转讬讘 讻讗砖专 讬讞谞讜 讻谉 讬住注讜 诇讗讬讚讱 讙讬住讗 诪讛 讘讞谞讬讬转讜 讻讬 诇讗 讬爪讗 诪诪拽讜诪讜 诇讗 诪讬驻住讬诇 讗祝 讘谞住讬注转讜 讻讬 诇讗 讬爪讗 诪诪拽讜诪讜 诇讗 诪讬驻住讬诇

The Gemara asks: But also according to the other amora, who maintains the shewbread was not disqualified during the journeys, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎s they encamp, so shall they journey,鈥 indicating that the shewbread is disqualified when it leaves the Tabernacle during the journeys? The Gemara replies that according to this opinion, the juxtaposition of the encampments with the journeys is interpreted in the other direction: Just as when the Tabernacle is encamped, if the shewbread does not leave its place and remains on the Table it is not disqualified, so too, when the Tabernacle journeys, if it does not leave its place on the Table it is not disqualified.

讜讗讬讚讱 谞诪讬 讛讗 讻转讬讘 讜诇讞诐 讛转诪讬讚 注诇讬讜 讬讛讬讛 讗诇讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 讘诪住讜讚专 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讗 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘诪住讜诇拽

The Gemara asks: But also according to the other amora, who maintains the shewbread was disqualified during the journeys, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd the continual bread shall remain upon it,鈥 indicating that the shewbread retains its sanctity as long as it is on the Table? Rather, when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that the explanation of the dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is different. With regard to a case where the shewbread is arranged on the Table, everyone agrees the shewbread is not disqualified during the journey. Rather, when they disagree it is in a case where the shewbread is removed from the Table before the journey.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞驻住诇 讚讻转讬讘 讻讗砖专 讬讞谞讜 讻谉 讬住注讜 诪讛 讘讞谞讬讬转讜 谞驻住诇 讘讬讜爪讗 讗祝 讘谞住讬注转讜 诪讬驻住诇 讘讬讜爪讗

The Gemara explains their respective reasons: The one who says the shewbread is disqualified derives his opinion from a verse, as it is written: 鈥淭hen the Tent of Meeting shall journey with the camp of the Levites in the midst of the camps; as they encamp, so shall they journey, every man in his place, by their banners鈥 (Numbers 2:17). The verse juxtaposes the encampments with the journeys, indicating that just as when the Tabernacle is encamped the shewbread is disqualified when it leaves the Tabernacle courtyard, so too, when the Tabernacle journeys the shewbread is disqualified when it leaves the courtyard.

诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 谞驻住诇 讚讻转讬讘 讜谞住注 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞住注 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讛讜讗

According to the one who says the shewbread is not disqualified during the journeys, this is derived from a verse, as it is written: 鈥淭hen the Tent of Meeting shall journey,鈥 indicating that even though it has journeyed it is still considered the Tent of Meeting, and therefore the shewbread is not disqualified.

讜讗讬讚讱 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 讻讗砖专 讬讞谞讜 讻谉 讬住注讜 诇讗讬讚讱 讙讬住讗 诪讛 讘讞谞讬讬转讜 讻讬 诇讗 诪驻讬拽 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪讬驻住讬诇 讗祝 讘谞住讬注转讜 讻讬 诇讗 诪驻讬拽 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪讬驻住讬诇

The Gemara asks: But also according to the other amora, who maintains the shewbread was not disqualified during the journeys, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎s they encamp, so shall they journey,鈥 indicating that the shewbread is disqualified when it leaves the Tabernacle during the journeys? The Gemara replies that according to this opinion, the juxtaposition of the encampments with the journeys is interpreted in the other direction: Just as when the Tabernacle is encamped, if one does not take the shewbread out of the courtyard it is not disqualified, so too, when the Tabernacle journeys, if one does not take the shewbread out of the courtyard it is not disqualified.

讜讗讬讚讱 谞诪讬 讛讗 讻转讬讘 讜谞住注 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讛讛讜讗 诇讚讙诇讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗

The Gemara asks: But also according to the other amora, who maintains the shewbread was disqualified during the journeys, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淭hen the Tent of Meeting shall journey,鈥 indicating that the Tent of Meeting retains its sanctity during the journeys and therefore the shewbread should not be disqualified? The Gemara answers: That verse is not referring to the sanctity of the Tent of Meeting during the journeys. Rather, it comes to teach the position of the Tent of Meeting between the banners of the different tribes during the journeys.

讜讗讬讚讱 诪诪讞谞讛 讛诇讜讬诐 讘转讜讱 讛诪讞谞讜转 谞驻拽讗

The Gemara asks: And according to the other amora, from where does he derive the position of the Tent of Meeting during the journeys? The Gemara replies: He derives this from the continuation of the verse: 鈥淲ith the camp of the Levites in the midst of the camps鈥 (Numbers 2:17).

诪讬转讬讘讬 讘砖注转 住讬诇讜拽 诪住注讜转 拽讚砖讬诐 谞驻住诇讬谉 讘讬讜爪讗 讜讝讘讬谉 讜诪爪讜专注讬谉 诪砖转诇讞讬谉 讞讜抓 诇诪讞讬爪转谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 诇讗 讘专 诪诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita to the opinion that the shewbread was not disqualified during the journeys: At the time of the dismantling of the Tabernacle in order to commence the journeys, when the curtains surrounding the Tabernacle courtyard are removed, the sacrificial food is disqualified from being consumed, as it is considered to have left the Tabernacle courtyard. And zavim and lepers are sent out of the partitions of their camps; the zavim are sent out of the Levite camp, while lepers are sent out of the Israelite camp. What, is it not referring even to the shewbread, indicating that it is disqualified during the journeys? The Gemara answers: No, the baraita means that most sacrificial food is disqualified, except for the shewbread.

诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讚讜拽讗 讛讜讗 讗驻讬诇讜 拽讚砖讬诐 谞诪讬 讗讬 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 诇讗讜 讚讜拽讗 讛讜讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 谞诪讬

The Gemara challenges: Whichever way you look at it, this explanation is difficult. If the phrase: 鈥淭hen the Tent of Meeting shall journey,鈥 is meant exactly, i.e., literally, and it still has the status of the Tent of Meeting even during the journeys, then even other sacrificial food should not be disqualified during the journeys. If 鈥渢hen the Tent of Meeting shall journey,鈥 is not meant exactly, and it does not have the status of the Tent of Meeting during the journeys, then even the shewbread should be disqualified.

讗诇讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 诪专 讗诪专 讘诪住讜讚专 讜诪专 讗诪专 讘诪住讜诇拽 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬

Rather, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that there is actually no dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. This Master, who stated that the shewbread is not disqualified during the journeys, stated his ruling with regard to loaves that are arranged on the Table; and that Master, who stated that the shewbread is disqualified during the journeys, stated his ruling with regard to loaves that were removed from the Table. And the two amora鈥檌m do not disagree, as each was referring to a different case.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讬砖 住讬诇讜拽 诪住注讜转 讘诇讬诇讛 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗讬谉 住讬诇讜拽 诪住注讜转 讘诇讬诇讛 讗讬诪转 诪讚诇讬 诇爪驻专讗 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 诪砖讜诐 讬讜爪讗 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬 讚讗讬驻住讬诇 诇讬讛 讘诇讬谞讛

搂 The aforementioned baraita states that when the Tabernacle was dismantled the sacrificial food was disqualified, as it was considered to have left the Tabernacle courtyard. Abaye said: One may conclude from the baraita that there could be a case where the dismantling of the Tabernacle in order to commence the journeys would take place at night. This is a necessary conclusion, as if it should enter your mind to say that there could not be a case where the dismantling of the Tabernacle in order to commence the journeys would take place at night, when would the curtains surrounding the Tabernacle be removed? If they were removed right away in the morning, why was the sacrificial food disqualified specifically due to the fact that it left the Tabernacle courtyard? I may derive that it was disqualified because of the fact that it was left overnight.

驻砖讬讟讗 诇诇讻转 讬讜诪诐 讜诇讬诇讛 讻转讬讘 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚注拽讜专 讘讬诪诪讗 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 注拽讜专 讘讬诪诪讗 讘诇讬诇讬讗 诇讗 诪爪讜 注拽专讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara challenges: It is obvious that the Tabernacle could be dismantled at night, as it is written: 鈥淎nd the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; that they might go by day and by night鈥 (Exodus 13:21). The Gemara answers that Abaye鈥檚 observation is necessary lest you say that this statement, that they would travel at night, applies only in a case where the Jewish people dismantled their camp and began to journey by day, in which case they would continue to travel at night. But in a case where they did not dismantle their camp by day they could not dismantle the camp and leave at night. Abaye therefore teaches us that they could set out even at night.

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讛讜讙诇诇讜 讛驻专讜讻转 讛讜转专讜 讛讝讘讬谉 讜诪爪讜专注讬谉 诇讬讻谞住 诇砖诐 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讗 专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗

搂 The aforementioned baraita teaches that even when the Tabernacle was dismantled, zavim and lepers were sent outside the camp, as the sanctity of both the Levite camp and the Israelite camp remained intact even while the Tabernacle was dismantled. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from another baraita: Once the curtain surrounding the Tabernacle courtyard was rolled up, the zavim and the lepers were permitted to enter into that area where the Tabernacle had stood. This indicates that the camps did not retain their sacred status once the Tabernacle was dismantled. Rav Ashi said: This is not difficult; this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer and that baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. As it is taught in a baraita:

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇 讚讞拽讜 讝讘讬谉 讜诪爪讜专注讬谉 讜谞讻谞住讜 诇注讝专讛 讘驻住讞 讛讘讗 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讜 讞讬讬讘讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讬砖诇讞讜 诪谉 讛诪讞谞讛 讻诇 爪专讜注 讜讻诇 讝讘 讜讻诇 讟诪讗 诇谞驻砖 讘砖注讛 砖讟诪讗讬 诪转讬诐 诪砖转诇讞讬谉 讝讘讬谉 讜诪爪讜专注讬谉 诪砖转诇讞讬谉

Rabbi Eliezer says: One might have thought that if zavim and lepers pushed their way in and entered the Temple courtyard during the sacrifice of a Paschal offering that is brought in a state of impurity, i.e., when the majority of the nation are ritually impure due to contact with a corpse, that perhaps the zavim and lepers are liable. In other words, one might have thought that since it is prohibited for zavim and lepers to enter even under such circumstances, they would be liable to receive excision from the World-to-Come [karet]. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭hat they send out from the camp any leper and any zav and anyone impure by reason of a corpse鈥 (Numbers 5:2). The verse indicates that at a time when those who are impure with impurity imparted by a corpse are sent out of the Temple, zavim and lepers are also sent out of the Temple and are liable to receive karet if they enter it.

讗讬谉 讟诪讗讬 诪转讬诐 诪砖转诇讞讬谉 讗讬谉 讝讘讬谉 讜诪爪讜专注讬谉 诪砖转诇讞讬谉

But when those who are impure with impurity imparted by a corpse are not sent out of the Temple, zavim and lepers are also not sent out, i.e., they are not liable to receive karet if they enter the Temple. The baraita that teaches that once the curtain surrounding the Tabernacle courtyard was rolled up it was permitted for zavim and lepers to enter the place where it had stood, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. The reason is that once the curtain was rolled up it was permitted for those who were impure with impurity imparted by a corpse to enter; it was prohibited for them to enter only the Temple courtyard, and this had been dismantled. According to Rabbi Eliezer, it was permitted even for zavim and lepers to then enter the camp. The baraita that rules that even when the Tabernacle was dismantled zavim and lepers were sent outside the camp, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讞转 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讜讗讞转 诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 诇讬砖转谉 讜注专讬讻转谉 讘讞讜抓 讜讗驻讬讬转谉 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讗讬谞谉 讚讜讞讜转 讗转 讛砖讘转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 诪注砖讬讛诐 讘驻谞讬诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讛讜讬 专讙讬诇 诇讜诪专 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讜诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 讻砖专讜转 讘注讝专讛 讜讻砖专讜转 讘讘讬转 驻讗讙讬

MISHNA: In the case of both the two loaves and the shewbread, the kneading of their dough and the forming of their loaves take place outside the Temple courtyard, but their baking takes place inside the Temple courtyard. And their preparation does not override Shabbat. Rabbi Yehuda says: All of the procedures involved in their preparation take place inside the courtyard. Rabbi Shimon says: One should always be accustomed to say that the two loaves and the shewbread are fit if they were prepared in the Temple courtyard and they are also fit if they were prepared in Beit Pagei, outside the Temple Mount, as he maintains that they may be baked outside the Temple courtyard.

讙诪壮 讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗

GEMARA: The mishna states that according to the opinion of the first tanna the two loaves and the shewbread are kneaded and shaped outside the Temple courtyard, but they are baked inside the courtyard. The Gemara comments: This itself is difficult.

讗诪专转 诇讬砖转谉 讜注专讬讻转谉 讘讞讜抓 讗诇诪讗 诪讚转 讬讘砖 诇讗 谞转拽讚砖讛 讜讗驻讬讬转谉 讘驻谞讬诐 讗诇诪讗 诪讚转 讬讘砖 谞转拽讚砖讛 讗诪专 专讘讛 讛拽砖讛 讗讚诐 拽砖讛 砖讛讜讗 拽砖讛 讻讘专讝诇 讜诪谞讜 专讘 砖砖转

The Gemara elaborates: You said initially that the kneading of their dough and the forming of their loaves take place outside the Temple courtyard. One can infer from this that apparently, the dry measure, i.e., the vessel used in the Temple for measuring dry substances, e.g., flour, was not consecrated. If the dry measure sanctified the items placed in them, the flour brought for the two loaves and the shewbread would already be sanctified, and these loaves could not be kneaded and shaped outside the courtyard. And the mishna subsequently states that their baking takes place inside the Temple courtyard. One can infer from this that apparently, the dry measure was consecrated. If the flour had not been sanctified by being placed in the measuring vessel, why must the loaves be baked inside the Temple courtyard? Rabba says: A formidable man, who is as tough as iron, raised this difficulty. And who is that Sage? This is referring to Rav Sheshet.

诪讗讬 拽砖讬讗 讚诇诪讗 注砖专讜谉 诇讗 诪拽讚砖 转谞讜专 诪拽讚砖

The Gemara asks: What is the difficulty? Perhaps the measure of a tenth of an ephah, which is used to measure the flour for the two loaves and the shewbread, does not sanctify that which is placed inside it, but the oven sanctifies the loaves that are baked in it, and therefore they must be baked inside the Temple courtyard.

讗诇讗 讗讬 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 拽砖讬讗 讜讗驻讬讬转谉 讘驻谞讬诐 讗诇诪讗 转谞讜专 诪拽讚砖 讜讗讬谉 讚讜讞讜转 讗转 讛砖讘转 讗讬驻住诇讛 讘诇讬谞讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛拽砖讛 讗讚诐 拽砖讛 砖讛讜讗 拽砖讛 讻讘专讝诇 讜诪谞讜 专讘 砖砖转

Rather, if the mishna is difficult, this is difficult: The mishna states that the baking of the two loaves and the shewbread takes place inside the courtyard. Evidently, the oven sanctifies that which is baked inside it. And the mishna subsequently states that kneading, shaping, and baking the loaves does not override Shabbat. If these procedures were performed before Shabbat in a vessel that sanctifies them, the loaves would be disqualified by virtue of the fact that they were left overnight without having been placed on the Table. Rather, Rava says: A formidable man, who is as tough as iron, raised this difficulty. And who is that Sage? This is referring to Rav Sheshet.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚诇诪讗 诪讗讬 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讘诪拽讜诐 讝专讬讝讬谉

Rav Ashi said: What is the difficulty? Perhaps the oven does not sanctify the loaves that are baked in it, and therefore the two loaves and the shewbread are not disqualified by being left overnight. And accordingly, what is the meaning of the statement: Their baking takes place inside? This is not referring to inside the Temple courtyard. Rather, it means they are baked in a place where there are priests who are vigilant in their efforts, who will supervise the loaves as they are baked and ensure they do not become leavened.

讜讛讗 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讘专讜转讗 讛讬讗 诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 讗驻讬讬讛 讘注讬谞谉 讝专讬讝讬谉 诇讬砖讛 讜注专讬讻讛 谞诪讬 [讘注讬谞谉] 讝专讬讝讬谉 讜讗讬 诇讬砖讛 [讜注专讬讻讛] 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讝专讬讝讬谉 讗驻讬讬讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讝专讬讝讬谉 讗诇讗 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讘专讜转讗 讛讬讗

The Gemara notes: And this statement attributed to Rav Ashi is an error [baruta], as whichever way you look at it, it is difficult: If we require vigilant priests for the baking of the two loaves and the shewbread, we should also require vigilant priests for the kneading and forming of the loaves. And if we do not require vigilant priests for the kneading and forming of the loaves, we should also not require vigilant priests for the baking. Rav Ashi鈥檚 explanation does not explain why the mishna differentiates between the kneading and forming of the loaves on the one hand, and their baking on the other hand. Rather, the statement attributed to Rav Ashi is an error.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 诪注砖讬讛谉 讘驻谞讬诐 [讜讻讜壮] 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讘专 讻讛谞讗 讜砖谞讬讛谉 诪拽专讗 讗讞讚 讚专砖讜 讜讛讜讗 讚专讱 讞诇 讗祝 讻讬 讛讬讜诐 讬拽讚砖 讘讻诇讬

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: All the procedures involved in the preparation of the two loaves and the shewbread take place inside the Temple courtyard, whereas Rabbi Shimon maintains that even their baking may take place outside the courtyard. Rabbi Abbahu bar Kahana says: Both Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon derived their opinions from the same verse, which they interpreted homiletically. When David fled from King Saul he came to Nov, where he requested bread from Ahimelech the priest. Ahimelech replied: 鈥淭here is no non-sacred bread under my hand, but there is sacred bread鈥 (I聽Samuel 21:5), i.e., the shewbread. David then said to Ahimelech: 鈥淏ut it is a non-sacred manner, and yet it shall be consecrated today in the vessel鈥 (I聽Samuel 21:6).

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讘讞讜诇 讗砖讻讞讬谞讛讜 讚拽讗 讗驻讜 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讚专讱 讞讜诇 拽讗 讗驻讬转讜 诇讬讛 讗祝 讻讬 讛讬讜诐 讬拽讚砖 讘讻诇讬 讗讬驻住讬诇 诇讬讛 讘诇讬谞讛

Both Sages understand David鈥檚 response to be a halakhic critique: Rabbi Yehuda holds that David found the priests baking the shewbread on a weekday. David said to them: Why are you baking the shewbread in a non-sacred manner, i.e., on a weekday, rather than on Shabbat? 鈥淵et it shall be consecrated today in the vessel,鈥 i.e., it will be consecrated today when it is baked in the oven, and it will be disqualified tomorrow because it will have been left overnight. Rabbi Yehuda infers from David鈥檚 criticism that the shewbread must be baked on Shabbat in the Temple courtyard, as it is consecrated in the oven.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 讘砖讘转 讗砖讻讞讬谞讛讜 讚拽讗 讗驻讜 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗 讚专讱 讞讜诇 讘注讬转讜 诇诪讬注讘讚讬讛 诪讬讚讬 转谞讜专 诪拽讚砖 砖诇讞谉 讛讜讗 讚诪拽讚砖

Rabbi Shimon holds that David found the priests baking the shewbread on Shabbat. David said to them: Aren鈥檛 you required to prepare it in a non-sacred manner, i.e., on a weekday? Does the oven consecrate the shewbread? No, it is the Table that consecrates it when the shewbread is placed there. The loaves are therefore not disqualified by being left overnight.

讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讚讘砖注转 讗驻讬讬讛 讗砖讻讞讬谞讛讜 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讬转谉 诇讜 讛讻讛谉 拽讚砖 讻讬 诇讗 讛讬讛 砖诐 诇讞诐 讻讬 讗诐 诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 讛诪讜住专讬诐 诪诇驻谞讬 讛壮

The Gemara asks: And how can you say that David found the priests at the time of baking? But isn鈥檛 it subsequently written: 鈥淎nd the priest gave him sacred bread, for there was no bread there but the shewbread that was taken from before the Lord鈥 (I聽Samuel 21:7)? This indicates that David received shewbread that had already been on the Table, not loaves that had just been baked.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讚专讱 讞诇 讚拽讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讻讬 拽讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讬讻讗 诇讞诐 讻讬 讗诐 诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 讛诪讜住专讬诐 诪诇驻谞讬 讛壮

Rather, what is the meaning of the statement: 鈥淏ut it is a non-sacred manner, and yet it shall be consecrated today in the vessel,鈥 which David said to the priests? The Gemara replies: This is what the priests said to him: There is no bread here except 鈥渢he shewbread that was taken from before the Lord,鈥 and the shewbread is prohibited for consumption by non-priests.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 讛讗讬 讚讻讬讜谉 讚谞驻拽 诇讬讛 诪诪注讬诇讛 讚专讱 讞讜诇 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讗讬讱 谞诪讬 讚讛讬讜诐 讬拽讚砖 讘讻诇讬 讛讘讜 诇讬讛 讚诇讬讻讜诇

David said to the priests: It is not necessary to say that it is permitted for me to eat this shewbread, which has already been removed from the Table. This is because the frankincense placed in the bowls that were on the Table has been burned. Since the shewbread has been removed from having the status of items to which the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property apply, it is considered a non-sacred matter, i.e., permitted to priests for consumption. But even the other shewbread, which 鈥渟hall be consecrated today in the vessel,鈥 i.e., the shewbread placed on the Table today, you should give him, i.e., you should give me, to eat.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Menachot 95

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 95

诪讬转讬讘讬 讻诪讬谉 讻讜讜专转 讛讬讛 诇讛 讘转谞讜专 讜讚讜诪讛 讻诪讬谉 讟讘诇讗 诪专讜讘注转 讗讬诪讗 讜驻讬讛 讚讜诪讛 讻诪讬谉 讟讘诇讗 诪专讜讘注转

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan from another baraita: There was a mold in the oven for the shewbread that was similar to a barrel made of reeds, as it was perforated to enable the bread to bake well, and in its shape it resembled a type of rectangular tablet [tavla]. This indicates that the shewbread was rectangular. The Gemara answers: Say that the opening, i.e., the upper section of the mold, resembled a type of rectangular tablet, and that the mold tapered down to a point.

转谞讬讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻诪讬谉 住驻讬谞讛 专讜拽讚转 讚转谞讬讗 讗专讘注讛 住谞讬驻讬谉 砖诇 讝讛讘 讛讬讜 砖诐 诪驻讜爪诇讬谉 诪专讗砖讬讛谉 讻诪讬谉 讚拽专谞讬谉 讛讬讜 砖住讜诪讻讬谉 讘讛谉 讗转 讛诇讞诐 砖讛讜讗 讚讜诪讛 讻诪讬谉 住驻讬谞讛 专讜拽讚转

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the one who said the shewbread was like a rocking boat, as it is taught in a baraita: There were four gold panels there, on the Table, which split up at their upper ends so that they were like forked reed branches. The panels were forked because the bread, which resembled a type of rocking boat, was supported by them.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 谞驻住诇 讘诪住注讜转 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 谞驻住诇 讘诪住注讜转 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讞讚 讗诪专 谞驻住诇 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 谞驻住诇

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: During the era of the Tabernacle, was the shewbread disqualified during the journeys of the Jewish people in the wilderness, or was it not disqualified during the journeys? When the Jewish people would travel from one place to another in the wilderness, the Tabernacle would be dismantled and the Table would be carried with the loaves upon it. The dilemma is about whether or not the loaves were disqualified, since they left the boundaries of the Sanctuary. This matter is the subject of a dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. One says the loaves were thereby disqualified, and one says they were not disqualified.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞驻住诇 讚讻转讬讘 讻讗砖专 讬讞谞讜 讻谉 讬住注讜 诪讛 讘讞谞讬讬转讜 谞驻住诇 讘讬讜爪讗 讗祝 讘谞住讬注转讜 谞驻住诇 讘讬讜爪讗

The Gemara explains their respective reasons: The one who says the shewbread was disqualified derives his opinion from a verse, as it is written with regard to the journeys: 鈥淭hen the Tent of Meeting shall journey with the camp of the Levites in the midst of the camps; as they encamp, so shall they journey, every man in his place, by their banners鈥 (Numbers 2:17). The verse juxtaposes the encampments with the journeys, indicating that just as when the Tabernacle is encamped the shewbread is disqualified when it leaves the Tabernacle courtyard, so too, when the Tabernacle journeys the shewbread is disqualified when it leaves the courtyard.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 谞驻住诇 讚讻转讬讘 讜诇讞诐 讛转诪讬讚 注诇讬讜 讬讛讬讛

The one who says the shewbread was not disqualified during the journeys derives his opinion from a verse, as it is written with regard to the journeys: 鈥淎nd upon the Table of shewbread they shall spread a cloth of blue鈥and the continual bread shall remain upon it鈥 (Numbers 4:7). The verse refers to the shewbread as 鈥渢he continual bread鈥 even during the journeys, indicating that as long as the loaves are on the Table they retain their sacred status.

讜讗讬讚讱 谞诪讬 讛讗 讻转讬讘 讻讗砖专 讬讞谞讜 讻谉 讬住注讜 诇讗讬讚讱 讙讬住讗 诪讛 讘讞谞讬讬转讜 讻讬 诇讗 讬爪讗 诪诪拽讜诪讜 诇讗 诪讬驻住讬诇 讗祝 讘谞住讬注转讜 讻讬 诇讗 讬爪讗 诪诪拽讜诪讜 诇讗 诪讬驻住讬诇

The Gemara asks: But also according to the other amora, who maintains the shewbread was not disqualified during the journeys, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎s they encamp, so shall they journey,鈥 indicating that the shewbread is disqualified when it leaves the Tabernacle during the journeys? The Gemara replies that according to this opinion, the juxtaposition of the encampments with the journeys is interpreted in the other direction: Just as when the Tabernacle is encamped, if the shewbread does not leave its place and remains on the Table it is not disqualified, so too, when the Tabernacle journeys, if it does not leave its place on the Table it is not disqualified.

讜讗讬讚讱 谞诪讬 讛讗 讻转讬讘 讜诇讞诐 讛转诪讬讚 注诇讬讜 讬讛讬讛 讗诇讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 讘诪住讜讚专 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讗 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘诪住讜诇拽

The Gemara asks: But also according to the other amora, who maintains the shewbread was disqualified during the journeys, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd the continual bread shall remain upon it,鈥 indicating that the shewbread retains its sanctity as long as it is on the Table? Rather, when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that the explanation of the dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is different. With regard to a case where the shewbread is arranged on the Table, everyone agrees the shewbread is not disqualified during the journey. Rather, when they disagree it is in a case where the shewbread is removed from the Table before the journey.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞驻住诇 讚讻转讬讘 讻讗砖专 讬讞谞讜 讻谉 讬住注讜 诪讛 讘讞谞讬讬转讜 谞驻住诇 讘讬讜爪讗 讗祝 讘谞住讬注转讜 诪讬驻住诇 讘讬讜爪讗

The Gemara explains their respective reasons: The one who says the shewbread is disqualified derives his opinion from a verse, as it is written: 鈥淭hen the Tent of Meeting shall journey with the camp of the Levites in the midst of the camps; as they encamp, so shall they journey, every man in his place, by their banners鈥 (Numbers 2:17). The verse juxtaposes the encampments with the journeys, indicating that just as when the Tabernacle is encamped the shewbread is disqualified when it leaves the Tabernacle courtyard, so too, when the Tabernacle journeys the shewbread is disqualified when it leaves the courtyard.

诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 谞驻住诇 讚讻转讬讘 讜谞住注 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞住注 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讛讜讗

According to the one who says the shewbread is not disqualified during the journeys, this is derived from a verse, as it is written: 鈥淭hen the Tent of Meeting shall journey,鈥 indicating that even though it has journeyed it is still considered the Tent of Meeting, and therefore the shewbread is not disqualified.

讜讗讬讚讱 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 讻讗砖专 讬讞谞讜 讻谉 讬住注讜 诇讗讬讚讱 讙讬住讗 诪讛 讘讞谞讬讬转讜 讻讬 诇讗 诪驻讬拽 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪讬驻住讬诇 讗祝 讘谞住讬注转讜 讻讬 诇讗 诪驻讬拽 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪讬驻住讬诇

The Gemara asks: But also according to the other amora, who maintains the shewbread was not disqualified during the journeys, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎s they encamp, so shall they journey,鈥 indicating that the shewbread is disqualified when it leaves the Tabernacle during the journeys? The Gemara replies that according to this opinion, the juxtaposition of the encampments with the journeys is interpreted in the other direction: Just as when the Tabernacle is encamped, if one does not take the shewbread out of the courtyard it is not disqualified, so too, when the Tabernacle journeys, if one does not take the shewbread out of the courtyard it is not disqualified.

讜讗讬讚讱 谞诪讬 讛讗 讻转讬讘 讜谞住注 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讛讛讜讗 诇讚讙诇讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗

The Gemara asks: But also according to the other amora, who maintains the shewbread was disqualified during the journeys, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淭hen the Tent of Meeting shall journey,鈥 indicating that the Tent of Meeting retains its sanctity during the journeys and therefore the shewbread should not be disqualified? The Gemara answers: That verse is not referring to the sanctity of the Tent of Meeting during the journeys. Rather, it comes to teach the position of the Tent of Meeting between the banners of the different tribes during the journeys.

讜讗讬讚讱 诪诪讞谞讛 讛诇讜讬诐 讘转讜讱 讛诪讞谞讜转 谞驻拽讗

The Gemara asks: And according to the other amora, from where does he derive the position of the Tent of Meeting during the journeys? The Gemara replies: He derives this from the continuation of the verse: 鈥淲ith the camp of the Levites in the midst of the camps鈥 (Numbers 2:17).

诪讬转讬讘讬 讘砖注转 住讬诇讜拽 诪住注讜转 拽讚砖讬诐 谞驻住诇讬谉 讘讬讜爪讗 讜讝讘讬谉 讜诪爪讜专注讬谉 诪砖转诇讞讬谉 讞讜抓 诇诪讞讬爪转谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 诇讗 讘专 诪诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita to the opinion that the shewbread was not disqualified during the journeys: At the time of the dismantling of the Tabernacle in order to commence the journeys, when the curtains surrounding the Tabernacle courtyard are removed, the sacrificial food is disqualified from being consumed, as it is considered to have left the Tabernacle courtyard. And zavim and lepers are sent out of the partitions of their camps; the zavim are sent out of the Levite camp, while lepers are sent out of the Israelite camp. What, is it not referring even to the shewbread, indicating that it is disqualified during the journeys? The Gemara answers: No, the baraita means that most sacrificial food is disqualified, except for the shewbread.

诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讚讜拽讗 讛讜讗 讗驻讬诇讜 拽讚砖讬诐 谞诪讬 讗讬 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 诇讗讜 讚讜拽讗 讛讜讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 谞诪讬

The Gemara challenges: Whichever way you look at it, this explanation is difficult. If the phrase: 鈥淭hen the Tent of Meeting shall journey,鈥 is meant exactly, i.e., literally, and it still has the status of the Tent of Meeting even during the journeys, then even other sacrificial food should not be disqualified during the journeys. If 鈥渢hen the Tent of Meeting shall journey,鈥 is not meant exactly, and it does not have the status of the Tent of Meeting during the journeys, then even the shewbread should be disqualified.

讗诇讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 诪专 讗诪专 讘诪住讜讚专 讜诪专 讗诪专 讘诪住讜诇拽 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬

Rather, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that there is actually no dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. This Master, who stated that the shewbread is not disqualified during the journeys, stated his ruling with regard to loaves that are arranged on the Table; and that Master, who stated that the shewbread is disqualified during the journeys, stated his ruling with regard to loaves that were removed from the Table. And the two amora鈥檌m do not disagree, as each was referring to a different case.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讬砖 住讬诇讜拽 诪住注讜转 讘诇讬诇讛 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗讬谉 住讬诇讜拽 诪住注讜转 讘诇讬诇讛 讗讬诪转 诪讚诇讬 诇爪驻专讗 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 诪砖讜诐 讬讜爪讗 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬 讚讗讬驻住讬诇 诇讬讛 讘诇讬谞讛

搂 The aforementioned baraita states that when the Tabernacle was dismantled the sacrificial food was disqualified, as it was considered to have left the Tabernacle courtyard. Abaye said: One may conclude from the baraita that there could be a case where the dismantling of the Tabernacle in order to commence the journeys would take place at night. This is a necessary conclusion, as if it should enter your mind to say that there could not be a case where the dismantling of the Tabernacle in order to commence the journeys would take place at night, when would the curtains surrounding the Tabernacle be removed? If they were removed right away in the morning, why was the sacrificial food disqualified specifically due to the fact that it left the Tabernacle courtyard? I may derive that it was disqualified because of the fact that it was left overnight.

驻砖讬讟讗 诇诇讻转 讬讜诪诐 讜诇讬诇讛 讻转讬讘 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚注拽讜专 讘讬诪诪讗 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 注拽讜专 讘讬诪诪讗 讘诇讬诇讬讗 诇讗 诪爪讜 注拽专讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara challenges: It is obvious that the Tabernacle could be dismantled at night, as it is written: 鈥淎nd the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; that they might go by day and by night鈥 (Exodus 13:21). The Gemara answers that Abaye鈥檚 observation is necessary lest you say that this statement, that they would travel at night, applies only in a case where the Jewish people dismantled their camp and began to journey by day, in which case they would continue to travel at night. But in a case where they did not dismantle their camp by day they could not dismantle the camp and leave at night. Abaye therefore teaches us that they could set out even at night.

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讛讜讙诇诇讜 讛驻专讜讻转 讛讜转专讜 讛讝讘讬谉 讜诪爪讜专注讬谉 诇讬讻谞住 诇砖诐 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讗 专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗

搂 The aforementioned baraita teaches that even when the Tabernacle was dismantled, zavim and lepers were sent outside the camp, as the sanctity of both the Levite camp and the Israelite camp remained intact even while the Tabernacle was dismantled. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from another baraita: Once the curtain surrounding the Tabernacle courtyard was rolled up, the zavim and the lepers were permitted to enter into that area where the Tabernacle had stood. This indicates that the camps did not retain their sacred status once the Tabernacle was dismantled. Rav Ashi said: This is not difficult; this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer and that baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. As it is taught in a baraita:

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇 讚讞拽讜 讝讘讬谉 讜诪爪讜专注讬谉 讜谞讻谞住讜 诇注讝专讛 讘驻住讞 讛讘讗 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讜 讞讬讬讘讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讬砖诇讞讜 诪谉 讛诪讞谞讛 讻诇 爪专讜注 讜讻诇 讝讘 讜讻诇 讟诪讗 诇谞驻砖 讘砖注讛 砖讟诪讗讬 诪转讬诐 诪砖转诇讞讬谉 讝讘讬谉 讜诪爪讜专注讬谉 诪砖转诇讞讬谉

Rabbi Eliezer says: One might have thought that if zavim and lepers pushed their way in and entered the Temple courtyard during the sacrifice of a Paschal offering that is brought in a state of impurity, i.e., when the majority of the nation are ritually impure due to contact with a corpse, that perhaps the zavim and lepers are liable. In other words, one might have thought that since it is prohibited for zavim and lepers to enter even under such circumstances, they would be liable to receive excision from the World-to-Come [karet]. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭hat they send out from the camp any leper and any zav and anyone impure by reason of a corpse鈥 (Numbers 5:2). The verse indicates that at a time when those who are impure with impurity imparted by a corpse are sent out of the Temple, zavim and lepers are also sent out of the Temple and are liable to receive karet if they enter it.

讗讬谉 讟诪讗讬 诪转讬诐 诪砖转诇讞讬谉 讗讬谉 讝讘讬谉 讜诪爪讜专注讬谉 诪砖转诇讞讬谉

But when those who are impure with impurity imparted by a corpse are not sent out of the Temple, zavim and lepers are also not sent out, i.e., they are not liable to receive karet if they enter the Temple. The baraita that teaches that once the curtain surrounding the Tabernacle courtyard was rolled up it was permitted for zavim and lepers to enter the place where it had stood, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. The reason is that once the curtain was rolled up it was permitted for those who were impure with impurity imparted by a corpse to enter; it was prohibited for them to enter only the Temple courtyard, and this had been dismantled. According to Rabbi Eliezer, it was permitted even for zavim and lepers to then enter the camp. The baraita that rules that even when the Tabernacle was dismantled zavim and lepers were sent outside the camp, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讞转 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讜讗讞转 诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 诇讬砖转谉 讜注专讬讻转谉 讘讞讜抓 讜讗驻讬讬转谉 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讗讬谞谉 讚讜讞讜转 讗转 讛砖讘转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 诪注砖讬讛诐 讘驻谞讬诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讛讜讬 专讙讬诇 诇讜诪专 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讜诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 讻砖专讜转 讘注讝专讛 讜讻砖专讜转 讘讘讬转 驻讗讙讬

MISHNA: In the case of both the two loaves and the shewbread, the kneading of their dough and the forming of their loaves take place outside the Temple courtyard, but their baking takes place inside the Temple courtyard. And their preparation does not override Shabbat. Rabbi Yehuda says: All of the procedures involved in their preparation take place inside the courtyard. Rabbi Shimon says: One should always be accustomed to say that the two loaves and the shewbread are fit if they were prepared in the Temple courtyard and they are also fit if they were prepared in Beit Pagei, outside the Temple Mount, as he maintains that they may be baked outside the Temple courtyard.

讙诪壮 讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗

GEMARA: The mishna states that according to the opinion of the first tanna the two loaves and the shewbread are kneaded and shaped outside the Temple courtyard, but they are baked inside the courtyard. The Gemara comments: This itself is difficult.

讗诪专转 诇讬砖转谉 讜注专讬讻转谉 讘讞讜抓 讗诇诪讗 诪讚转 讬讘砖 诇讗 谞转拽讚砖讛 讜讗驻讬讬转谉 讘驻谞讬诐 讗诇诪讗 诪讚转 讬讘砖 谞转拽讚砖讛 讗诪专 专讘讛 讛拽砖讛 讗讚诐 拽砖讛 砖讛讜讗 拽砖讛 讻讘专讝诇 讜诪谞讜 专讘 砖砖转

The Gemara elaborates: You said initially that the kneading of their dough and the forming of their loaves take place outside the Temple courtyard. One can infer from this that apparently, the dry measure, i.e., the vessel used in the Temple for measuring dry substances, e.g., flour, was not consecrated. If the dry measure sanctified the items placed in them, the flour brought for the two loaves and the shewbread would already be sanctified, and these loaves could not be kneaded and shaped outside the courtyard. And the mishna subsequently states that their baking takes place inside the Temple courtyard. One can infer from this that apparently, the dry measure was consecrated. If the flour had not been sanctified by being placed in the measuring vessel, why must the loaves be baked inside the Temple courtyard? Rabba says: A formidable man, who is as tough as iron, raised this difficulty. And who is that Sage? This is referring to Rav Sheshet.

诪讗讬 拽砖讬讗 讚诇诪讗 注砖专讜谉 诇讗 诪拽讚砖 转谞讜专 诪拽讚砖

The Gemara asks: What is the difficulty? Perhaps the measure of a tenth of an ephah, which is used to measure the flour for the two loaves and the shewbread, does not sanctify that which is placed inside it, but the oven sanctifies the loaves that are baked in it, and therefore they must be baked inside the Temple courtyard.

讗诇讗 讗讬 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 拽砖讬讗 讜讗驻讬讬转谉 讘驻谞讬诐 讗诇诪讗 转谞讜专 诪拽讚砖 讜讗讬谉 讚讜讞讜转 讗转 讛砖讘转 讗讬驻住诇讛 讘诇讬谞讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛拽砖讛 讗讚诐 拽砖讛 砖讛讜讗 拽砖讛 讻讘专讝诇 讜诪谞讜 专讘 砖砖转

Rather, if the mishna is difficult, this is difficult: The mishna states that the baking of the two loaves and the shewbread takes place inside the courtyard. Evidently, the oven sanctifies that which is baked inside it. And the mishna subsequently states that kneading, shaping, and baking the loaves does not override Shabbat. If these procedures were performed before Shabbat in a vessel that sanctifies them, the loaves would be disqualified by virtue of the fact that they were left overnight without having been placed on the Table. Rather, Rava says: A formidable man, who is as tough as iron, raised this difficulty. And who is that Sage? This is referring to Rav Sheshet.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚诇诪讗 诪讗讬 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讘诪拽讜诐 讝专讬讝讬谉

Rav Ashi said: What is the difficulty? Perhaps the oven does not sanctify the loaves that are baked in it, and therefore the two loaves and the shewbread are not disqualified by being left overnight. And accordingly, what is the meaning of the statement: Their baking takes place inside? This is not referring to inside the Temple courtyard. Rather, it means they are baked in a place where there are priests who are vigilant in their efforts, who will supervise the loaves as they are baked and ensure they do not become leavened.

讜讛讗 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讘专讜转讗 讛讬讗 诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 讗驻讬讬讛 讘注讬谞谉 讝专讬讝讬谉 诇讬砖讛 讜注专讬讻讛 谞诪讬 [讘注讬谞谉] 讝专讬讝讬谉 讜讗讬 诇讬砖讛 [讜注专讬讻讛] 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讝专讬讝讬谉 讗驻讬讬讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讝专讬讝讬谉 讗诇讗 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讘专讜转讗 讛讬讗

The Gemara notes: And this statement attributed to Rav Ashi is an error [baruta], as whichever way you look at it, it is difficult: If we require vigilant priests for the baking of the two loaves and the shewbread, we should also require vigilant priests for the kneading and forming of the loaves. And if we do not require vigilant priests for the kneading and forming of the loaves, we should also not require vigilant priests for the baking. Rav Ashi鈥檚 explanation does not explain why the mishna differentiates between the kneading and forming of the loaves on the one hand, and their baking on the other hand. Rather, the statement attributed to Rav Ashi is an error.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 诪注砖讬讛谉 讘驻谞讬诐 [讜讻讜壮] 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讘专 讻讛谞讗 讜砖谞讬讛谉 诪拽专讗 讗讞讚 讚专砖讜 讜讛讜讗 讚专讱 讞诇 讗祝 讻讬 讛讬讜诐 讬拽讚砖 讘讻诇讬

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: All the procedures involved in the preparation of the two loaves and the shewbread take place inside the Temple courtyard, whereas Rabbi Shimon maintains that even their baking may take place outside the courtyard. Rabbi Abbahu bar Kahana says: Both Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon derived their opinions from the same verse, which they interpreted homiletically. When David fled from King Saul he came to Nov, where he requested bread from Ahimelech the priest. Ahimelech replied: 鈥淭here is no non-sacred bread under my hand, but there is sacred bread鈥 (I聽Samuel 21:5), i.e., the shewbread. David then said to Ahimelech: 鈥淏ut it is a non-sacred manner, and yet it shall be consecrated today in the vessel鈥 (I聽Samuel 21:6).

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讘讞讜诇 讗砖讻讞讬谞讛讜 讚拽讗 讗驻讜 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讚专讱 讞讜诇 拽讗 讗驻讬转讜 诇讬讛 讗祝 讻讬 讛讬讜诐 讬拽讚砖 讘讻诇讬 讗讬驻住讬诇 诇讬讛 讘诇讬谞讛

Both Sages understand David鈥檚 response to be a halakhic critique: Rabbi Yehuda holds that David found the priests baking the shewbread on a weekday. David said to them: Why are you baking the shewbread in a non-sacred manner, i.e., on a weekday, rather than on Shabbat? 鈥淵et it shall be consecrated today in the vessel,鈥 i.e., it will be consecrated today when it is baked in the oven, and it will be disqualified tomorrow because it will have been left overnight. Rabbi Yehuda infers from David鈥檚 criticism that the shewbread must be baked on Shabbat in the Temple courtyard, as it is consecrated in the oven.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 讘砖讘转 讗砖讻讞讬谞讛讜 讚拽讗 讗驻讜 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗 讚专讱 讞讜诇 讘注讬转讜 诇诪讬注讘讚讬讛 诪讬讚讬 转谞讜专 诪拽讚砖 砖诇讞谉 讛讜讗 讚诪拽讚砖

Rabbi Shimon holds that David found the priests baking the shewbread on Shabbat. David said to them: Aren鈥檛 you required to prepare it in a non-sacred manner, i.e., on a weekday? Does the oven consecrate the shewbread? No, it is the Table that consecrates it when the shewbread is placed there. The loaves are therefore not disqualified by being left overnight.

讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讚讘砖注转 讗驻讬讬讛 讗砖讻讞讬谞讛讜 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讬转谉 诇讜 讛讻讛谉 拽讚砖 讻讬 诇讗 讛讬讛 砖诐 诇讞诐 讻讬 讗诐 诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 讛诪讜住专讬诐 诪诇驻谞讬 讛壮

The Gemara asks: And how can you say that David found the priests at the time of baking? But isn鈥檛 it subsequently written: 鈥淎nd the priest gave him sacred bread, for there was no bread there but the shewbread that was taken from before the Lord鈥 (I聽Samuel 21:7)? This indicates that David received shewbread that had already been on the Table, not loaves that had just been baked.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讚专讱 讞诇 讚拽讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讻讬 拽讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讬讻讗 诇讞诐 讻讬 讗诐 诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 讛诪讜住专讬诐 诪诇驻谞讬 讛壮

Rather, what is the meaning of the statement: 鈥淏ut it is a non-sacred manner, and yet it shall be consecrated today in the vessel,鈥 which David said to the priests? The Gemara replies: This is what the priests said to him: There is no bread here except 鈥渢he shewbread that was taken from before the Lord,鈥 and the shewbread is prohibited for consumption by non-priests.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 讛讗讬 讚讻讬讜谉 讚谞驻拽 诇讬讛 诪诪注讬诇讛 讚专讱 讞讜诇 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讗讬讱 谞诪讬 讚讛讬讜诐 讬拽讚砖 讘讻诇讬 讛讘讜 诇讬讛 讚诇讬讻讜诇

David said to the priests: It is not necessary to say that it is permitted for me to eat this shewbread, which has already been removed from the Table. This is because the frankincense placed in the bowls that were on the Table has been burned. Since the shewbread has been removed from having the status of items to which the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property apply, it is considered a non-sacred matter, i.e., permitted to priests for consumption. But even the other shewbread, which 鈥渟hall be consecrated today in the vessel,鈥 i.e., the shewbread placed on the Table today, you should give him, i.e., you should give me, to eat.

Scroll To Top