Menachot 95
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
Did the lechem hapanim become disqualified in the desert whenever the Tabernacle was dismantled for travel? Furthermore, does this status depend on whether the bread remained on the Table (Shulchan) or had already been removed? There is a debate between Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, which the Gemara interprets in three ways. In the final explanation, Ravin explains that there is actually no disagreement; rather, each Sage was referring to a different scenario – one discussed bread still on the Table, while the other addressed bread that had been removed.
The Mishna presents a three-way Tannaitic debate regarding the preparation of the loaves: Can the kneading, shaping, and baking be performed outside the Temple courtyard, or must they occur within? Additionally, could these tasks be performed on Shabbat?
This debate centers on the moment the loaves become sanctified. The three positions – held by the Tana Kamma, Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Shimon – differ on the catalyst for sanctification:
- When the flour is first placed into a sacred vessel.
- When the bread is baked in the oven.
- When the loaves are formally arranged on the Table.
A challenge is raised against the Tana Kamma’s position that remains unresolved. Rabbi Abahu attempts to derive the basis of the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon from a verse, but this derivation is ultimately rejected. Instead, the Gemara explains that their positions are rooted in the specific traditions they each received.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Menachot 95
מֵיתִיבִי: כְּמִין כַּוֶּורֶת הָיָה לָהּ בַּתַּנּוּר, וְדוֹמָה כְּמִין טַבְלָא מְרוּבַּעַת! אֵימָא: וּפִיהָ דּוֹמֶה כְּמִין טַבְלָא מְרוּבַּעַת.
The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.
תַּנְיָא כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר כְּמִין סְפִינָה רוֹקֶדֶת, דְּתַנְיָא: אַרְבָּעָה סְנִיפִין שֶׁל זָהָב הָיוּ שָׁם, מְפוּצָּלִין מֵרָאשֵׁיהֶן כְּמִין דֻּקְרָנִין הָיוּ, שֶׁסּוֹמְכִין בָּהֶן אֶת הַלֶּחֶם, שֶׁהוּא דּוֹמֶה כְּמִין סְפִינָה רוֹקֶדֶת.
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.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים נִפְסָל בַּמַּסָּעוֹת, אוֹ אֵינוֹ נִפְסָל בַּמַּסָּעוֹת? רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי – חַד אָמַר: נִפְסָל, וְחַד אָמַר: אֵינוֹ נִפְסָל.
§ 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 Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. One says the loaves were thereby disqualified, and one says they were not disqualified.
מַאן דְּאָמַר נִפְסָל, דִּכְתִיב: ״כַּאֲשֶׁר יַחֲנוּ כֵּן יִסָּעוּ״. מָה בַּחֲנִיָּיתוֹ – נִפְסָל בְּיוֹצֵא, אַף בִּנְסִיעָתוֹ – נִפְסָל בְּיוֹצֵא.
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: “Then 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” (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.
מַאן דְּאָמַר אֵינוֹ נִפְסָל, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְלֶחֶם הַתָּמִיד עָלָיו יִהְיֶה״.
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: “And upon the Table of shewbread they shall spread a cloth of blue…and the continual bread shall remain upon it” (Numbers 4:7). The verse refers to the shewbread as “the continual bread” even during the journeys, indicating that as long as the loaves are on the Table they retain their sacred status.
וְאִידַּךְ נָמֵי, הָא כְּתִיב ״כַּאֲשֶׁר יַחֲנוּ כֵּן יִסָּעוּ״, לְאִידַּךְ גִּיסָא: מָה בַּחֲנִיָּיתוֹ, כִּי לֹא יָצָא מִמְּקוֹמוֹ – לָא מִיפְּסֵיל, אַף בִּנְסִיעָתוֹ, כִּי לֹא יָצָא מִמְּקוֹמוֹ – לָא מִיפְּסֵיל.
The Gemara asks: But also according to the other amora, who maintains the shewbread was not disqualified during the journeys, isn’t it written: “As they encamp, so shall they journey,” 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.
וְאִידַּךְ נָמֵי, הָא כְּתִיב ״וְלֶחֶם הַתָּמִיד עָלָיו יִהְיֶה״? אֶלָּא, כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר: בִּמְסוּדָּר – דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי, אֶלָּא כִּי פְּלִיגִי – בִּמְסוּלָּק.
The Gemara asks: But also according to the other amora, who maintains the shewbread was disqualified during the journeys, isn’t it written: “And the continual bread shall remain upon it,” 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 Yoḥanan 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.
מַאן דְּאָמַר נִפְסָל, דִּכְתִיב: ״כַּאֲשֶׁר יַחֲנוּ כֵּן יִסָּעוּ״, מָה בַּחֲנִיָּיתוֹ נִפְסָל בְּיוֹצֵא, אַף בִּנְסִיעָתוֹ מִיפְּסֵל בְּיוֹצֵא.
The Gemara explains their respective reasons: The one who says the shewbread is disqualified derives his opinion from a verse, as it is written: “Then 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” (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.
לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵינוֹ נִפְסָל, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְנָסַע אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנָּסַע, אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד הוּא.
According to the one who says the shewbread is not disqualified during the journeys, this is derived from a verse, as it is written: “Then the Tent of Meeting shall journey,” indicating that even though it has journeyed it is still considered the Tent of Meeting, and therefore the shewbread is not disqualified.
וְאִידַּךְ נָמֵי, הָכְתִיב ״כַּאֲשֶׁר יַחֲנוּ כֵּן יִסָּעוּ״, לְאִידַּךְ גִּיסָא: מָה בַּחֲנִיָּיתוֹ – כִּי לָא מַפֵּיק לֵיהּ לָא מִיפְּסֵיל, אַף בִּנְסִיעָתוֹ – כִּי לָא מַפֵּיק לֵיהּ לָא מִיפְּסֵיל.
The Gemara asks: But also according to the other amora, who maintains the shewbread was not disqualified during the journeys, isn’t it written: “As they encamp, so shall they journey,” 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.
וְאִידַּךְ נָמֵי, הָא כְּתִיב ״וְנָסַע אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״? הַהוּא לִדְגָלִים הוּא דַּאֲתָא.
The Gemara asks: But also according to the other amora, who maintains the shewbread was disqualified during the journeys, isn’t it written: “Then the Tent of Meeting shall journey,” 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.
וְאִידָּךְ, מִ״מַּחֲנֵה הַלְוִיִּם בְּתוֹךְ הַמַּחֲנוֹת״ נָפְקָא.
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: “With the camp of the Levites in the midst of the camps” (Numbers 2:17).
מֵיתִיבִי: בִּשְׁעַת סִילּוּק מַסָּעוֹת, קָדָשִׁים נִפְסָלִין בְּיוֹצֵא, וְזָבִין וּמְצוֹרָעִין מִשְׁתַּלְּחִין חוּץ לִמְחִיצָתָן. מַאי לָאו אֲפִילּוּ לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים? לָא, בַּר מִלֶּחֶם הַפָּנִים.
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.
מָה נַפְשָׁךְ, אִי ״אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״ דַּוְקָא הוּא – אֲפִילּוּ קֳדָשִׁים נָמֵי, אִי ״אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״ לָאו דַּוְקָא הוּא – אֲפִילּוּ לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים נָמֵי.
The Gemara challenges: Whichever way you look at it, this explanation is difficult. If the phrase: “Then the Tent of Meeting shall journey,” 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 “then the Tent of Meeting shall journey,” 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.
אֶלָּא, כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר: מָר אָמַר בִּמְסוּדָּר, וּמָר אֲמַר בִּמְסוּלָּק, וְלָא פְּלִיגִי.
Rather, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that there is actually no dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan 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’im do not disagree, as each was referring to a different case.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ יֵשׁ סִילּוּק מַסָּעוֹת בַּלַּיְלָה, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ אֵין סִילּוּק מַסָּעוֹת בַּלַּיְלָה – אֵימַת מִדְּלֵי? לְצַפְרָא? מַאי אִירְיָא מִשּׁוּם יוֹצֵא? תִּיפּוֹק לִי דְּאִיפְּסִיל לֵיהּ בְּלִינָה!
§ 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.
פְּשִׁיטָא, ״לָלֶכֶת יוֹמָם וָלָיְלָה״ כְּתִיב! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דַּעֲקוּר בִּימָמָא, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּלָא עֲקוּר בִּימָמָא – בְּלֵילְיָא לָא מָצוּ עָקְרִי; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara challenges: It is obvious that the Tabernacle could be dismantled at night, as it is written: “And 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” (Exodus 13:21). The Gemara answers that Abaye’s 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.
וּרְמִינְהִי: הוּגְלְלוּ הַפָּרֹכוֹת, הוּתְּרוּ (הזבין) [זָבִין] וּמְצוֹרָעִין לִיכָּנֵס לְשָׁם. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, הָא – רַבָּנַן. דְּתַנְיָא:
§ 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:
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יָכוֹל דָּחֲקוּ זָבִין וּמְצוֹרָעִין וְנִכְנְסוּ לַעֲזָרָה בְּפֶסַח הַבָּא בְּטוּמְאָה יָכוֹל יְהוּ חַיָּיבִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וִישַׁלְּחוּ מִן הַמַּחֲנֶה כׇּל צָרוּעַ וְכׇל זָב וְכֹל טָמֵא לָנָפֶשׁ״, בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁטְּמֵאֵי מֵתִים מִשְׁתַּלְּחִין – זָבִין וּמְצוֹרָעִין מִשְׁתַּלְּחִין.
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: “That they send out from the camp any leper and any zav and anyone impure by reason of a corpse” (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.
אֵין טְמֵאֵי מֵתִים מִשְׁתַּלְּחִין – אֵין זָבִין וּמְצוֹרָעִין מִשְׁתַּלְּחִין.
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.
מַתְנִי׳ אַחַת שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם, וְאַחַת לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים – לִישָׁתָן וַעֲרִיכָתָן בַּחוּץ, וַאֲפִיָּיתָן בִּפְנִים, וְאֵינָן דּוֹחוֹת אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כׇּל מַעֲשֵׂיהֶם בִּפְנִים. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: לְעוֹלָם הֱוֵי רָגִיל לוֹמַר שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים כְּשֵׁרוֹת בַּעֲזָרָה, וּכְשֵׁרוֹת בְּבֵית פָּאגֵי.
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.
גְּמָ׳ הָא גּוּפַאּ קַשְׁיָא:
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.
אָמַרְתָּ: לִישָׁתָן וַעֲרִיכָתָן בַּחוּץ – אַלְמָא מִדַּת יָבֵשׁ לֹא נִתְקַדְּשָׁה, וַאֲפִיָּיתָן בִּפְנִים – אַלְמָא מִדַּת יָבֵשׁ נִתְקַדְּשָׁה! אָמַר רַבָּה: הִקְשָׁה אָדָם קָשֶׁה, שֶׁהוּא קָשֶׁה כַּבַּרְזֶל, וּמַנּוּ – רַב שֵׁשֶׁת.
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.
מַאי קַשְׁיָא? דִּלְמָא עִשָּׂרוֹן לָא מְקַדֵּשׁ, תַּנּוּר מְקַדֵּשׁ.
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.
אֶלָּא, אִי קַשְׁיָא – הָא קַשְׁיָא: וַאֲפִיָּיתָן בִּפְנִים, אַלְמָא תַּנּוּר מְקַדֵּשׁ, וְאֵין דּוֹחוֹת אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת – אִיפַּסְלָה בְּלִינָה! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: הִקְשָׁה אָדָם קָשֶׁה, שֶׁהוּא קָשֶׁה כַּבַּרְזֶל, וּמַנּוּ – רַב שֵׁשֶׁת.
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.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: מַאי קוּשְׁיָא? דִּלְמָא מַאי ״מִבִּפְנִים״ – בִּמְקוֹם זְרִיזִין.
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.
וְהָא דְּרַב אָשֵׁי בְּרוּתָא הִיא, מָה נַפְשָׁךְ? אִי אֲפִיָּיה בָּעֵינַן זְרִיזִין – לִישָׁה וַעֲרִיכָה נָמֵי [בָּעֵינַן] זְרִיזִין, וְאִי לִישָׁה [וַעֲרִיכָה] לָא בָּעֵינַן זְרִיזִין – אֲפִיָּיה נָמֵי לָא בָּעֵינַן זְרִיזִין, אֶלָּא דְּרַב אָשֵׁי בְּרוּתָא הִיא.
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’s 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.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כׇּל מַעֲשֵׂיהֶן בִּפְנִים [וְכוּ׳]. אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ בַּר כָּהֲנָא: וּשְׁנֵיהֶן מִקְרָא אֶחָד דָּרְשׁוּ, ״וְהוּא דֶּרֶךְ חֹל אַף כִּי הַיּוֹם יִקְדַּשׁ בַּכֶּלִי״.
§ 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: “There is no non-sacred bread under my hand, but there is sacred bread” (I Samuel 21:5), i.e., the shewbread. David then said to Ahimelech: “But it is a non-sacred manner, and yet it shall be consecrated today in the vessel” (I Samuel 21:6).
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: בַּחוֹל אַשְׁכְּחִינְהוּ דְּקָא אָפוּ לֵיהּ, אֲמַר לְהוּ: דֶּרֶךְ חוֹל קָא אָפֵיתוּ לֵיהּ? ״אַף כִּי הַיּוֹם יִקְדַּשׁ בַּכֶּלִי״, אִיפְּסִיל לֵיהּ בְּלִינָה.
Both Sages understand David’s 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? “Yet it shall be consecrated today in the vessel,” 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’s criticism that the shewbread must be baked on Shabbat in the Temple courtyard, as it is consecrated in the oven.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר: בְּשַׁבָּת אַשְׁכְּחִינְהוּ דְּקָא אָפוּ לֵיהּ, אֲמַר לְהוּ: לָא דֶּרֶךְ חוֹל בָּעֵיתוּ לְמִיעְבְּדֵיהּ?! מִידֵּי תַּנּוּר מְקַדֵּשׁ?! שֻׁלְחָן הוּא דִּמְקַדֵּשׁ.
Rabbi Shimon holds that David found the priests baking the shewbread on Shabbat. David said to them: Aren’t 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.
וּמִי מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ דְּבִשְׁעַת אֲפִיָּיה אַשְׁכְּחִינְהוּ? וְהָכְתִיב: ״וַיִּתֵּן לוֹ הַכֹּהֵן קֹדֶשׁ כִּי לֹא הָיָה שָׁם לֶחֶם כִּי אִם לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים הַמּוּסָרִים מִלִּפְנֵי ה׳״!
The Gemara asks: And how can you say that David found the priests at the time of baking? But isn’t it subsequently written: “And the priest gave him sacred bread, for there was no bread there but the shewbread that was taken from before the Lord” (I Samuel 21:7)? This indicates that David received shewbread that had already been on the Table, not loaves that had just been baked.
אֶלָּא מַאי ״דֶּרֶךְ חֹל״, דְּקָא אָמַר לְהוּ? – הָכִי קָא אָמְרוּ לֵיהּ: לֵיכָּא לֶחֶם, כִּי אִם ״לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים הַמּוּסָרִים מִלִּפְנֵי ה׳״.
Rather, what is the meaning of the statement: “But it is a non-sacred manner, and yet it shall be consecrated today in the vessel,” which David said to the priests? The Gemara replies: This is what the priests said to him: There is no bread here except “the shewbread that was taken from before the Lord,” and the shewbread is prohibited for consumption by non-priests.
אֲמַר לְהוּ: לָא מִיבַּעְיָא הַאי, דְּכֵיוָן דִּנְפַק לֵיהּ מִמְּעִילָה דֶּרֶךְ חוֹל הוּא, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ הַאיְךְ נָמֵי דְּ״הַיּוֹם יִקְדַּשׁ בַּכֶּלִי״ – הַבוּ לֵיהּ דְּלֵיכוֹל,
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 “shall be consecrated today in the vessel,” i.e., the shewbread placed on the Table today, you should give him, i.e., you should give me, to eat.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Menachot Daf 94-101- Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Bakersfield, United States
I began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Silver Spring, MD, United States
Los Angeles, United States
New York, United States
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Jerusalem, Israel
When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.
Ra’anana, Israel
I started learning Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!
Maale Adumim, Israel
Palo Alto, CA, United States
Last cycle, I listened to parts of various מסכתות. When the הדרן סיום was advertised, I listened to Michelle on נידה. I knew that בע”ה with the next cycle I was in (ב”נ). As I entered the סיום (early), I saw the signs and was overcome with emotion. I was randomly seated in the front row, and I cried many times that night. My choice to learn דף יומי was affirmed. It is one of the best I have made!
אפרת, Israel
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
I started learning the daf during Covid. I’d always wanted to learn Talmud but that wasn’t an option for girls in the small town I grew up in and I struggled to help my younger kids with Hebrew homework let alone read a Hebrew text. I decided to start small by listening to the daf podcast on the way to work each morning. Then I joined the Long Island WhatsApp group. Now I go to the siyyums.
Long Island, United States
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Pennsylvania, United States
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
HUNTINGTON, United States
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Bakersfield, United States
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Pittsburgh, United States
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
San Diego, United States
I started my Daf Yomi journey at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic.
Los Angeles, United States
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Givat Zev, Israel
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Virginia, United States
Menachot 95
מֵיתִיבִי: כְּמִין כַּוֶּורֶת הָיָה לָהּ בַּתַּנּוּר, וְדוֹמָה כְּמִין טַבְלָא מְרוּבַּעַת! אֵימָא: וּפִיהָ דּוֹמֶה כְּמִין טַבְלָא מְרוּבַּעַת.
The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.
תַּנְיָא כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר כְּמִין סְפִינָה רוֹקֶדֶת, דְּתַנְיָא: אַרְבָּעָה סְנִיפִין שֶׁל זָהָב הָיוּ שָׁם, מְפוּצָּלִין מֵרָאשֵׁיהֶן כְּמִין דֻּקְרָנִין הָיוּ, שֶׁסּוֹמְכִין בָּהֶן אֶת הַלֶּחֶם, שֶׁהוּא דּוֹמֶה כְּמִין סְפִינָה רוֹקֶדֶת.
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.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים נִפְסָל בַּמַּסָּעוֹת, אוֹ אֵינוֹ נִפְסָל בַּמַּסָּעוֹת? רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי – חַד אָמַר: נִפְסָל, וְחַד אָמַר: אֵינוֹ נִפְסָל.
§ 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 Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. One says the loaves were thereby disqualified, and one says they were not disqualified.
מַאן דְּאָמַר נִפְסָל, דִּכְתִיב: ״כַּאֲשֶׁר יַחֲנוּ כֵּן יִסָּעוּ״. מָה בַּחֲנִיָּיתוֹ – נִפְסָל בְּיוֹצֵא, אַף בִּנְסִיעָתוֹ – נִפְסָל בְּיוֹצֵא.
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: “Then 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” (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.
מַאן דְּאָמַר אֵינוֹ נִפְסָל, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְלֶחֶם הַתָּמִיד עָלָיו יִהְיֶה״.
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: “And upon the Table of shewbread they shall spread a cloth of blue…and the continual bread shall remain upon it” (Numbers 4:7). The verse refers to the shewbread as “the continual bread” even during the journeys, indicating that as long as the loaves are on the Table they retain their sacred status.
וְאִידַּךְ נָמֵי, הָא כְּתִיב ״כַּאֲשֶׁר יַחֲנוּ כֵּן יִסָּעוּ״, לְאִידַּךְ גִּיסָא: מָה בַּחֲנִיָּיתוֹ, כִּי לֹא יָצָא מִמְּקוֹמוֹ – לָא מִיפְּסֵיל, אַף בִּנְסִיעָתוֹ, כִּי לֹא יָצָא מִמְּקוֹמוֹ – לָא מִיפְּסֵיל.
The Gemara asks: But also according to the other amora, who maintains the shewbread was not disqualified during the journeys, isn’t it written: “As they encamp, so shall they journey,” 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.
וְאִידַּךְ נָמֵי, הָא כְּתִיב ״וְלֶחֶם הַתָּמִיד עָלָיו יִהְיֶה״? אֶלָּא, כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר: בִּמְסוּדָּר – דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי, אֶלָּא כִּי פְּלִיגִי – בִּמְסוּלָּק.
The Gemara asks: But also according to the other amora, who maintains the shewbread was disqualified during the journeys, isn’t it written: “And the continual bread shall remain upon it,” 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 Yoḥanan 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.
מַאן דְּאָמַר נִפְסָל, דִּכְתִיב: ״כַּאֲשֶׁר יַחֲנוּ כֵּן יִסָּעוּ״, מָה בַּחֲנִיָּיתוֹ נִפְסָל בְּיוֹצֵא, אַף בִּנְסִיעָתוֹ מִיפְּסֵל בְּיוֹצֵא.
The Gemara explains their respective reasons: The one who says the shewbread is disqualified derives his opinion from a verse, as it is written: “Then 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” (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.
לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵינוֹ נִפְסָל, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְנָסַע אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנָּסַע, אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד הוּא.
According to the one who says the shewbread is not disqualified during the journeys, this is derived from a verse, as it is written: “Then the Tent of Meeting shall journey,” indicating that even though it has journeyed it is still considered the Tent of Meeting, and therefore the shewbread is not disqualified.
וְאִידַּךְ נָמֵי, הָכְתִיב ״כַּאֲשֶׁר יַחֲנוּ כֵּן יִסָּעוּ״, לְאִידַּךְ גִּיסָא: מָה בַּחֲנִיָּיתוֹ – כִּי לָא מַפֵּיק לֵיהּ לָא מִיפְּסֵיל, אַף בִּנְסִיעָתוֹ – כִּי לָא מַפֵּיק לֵיהּ לָא מִיפְּסֵיל.
The Gemara asks: But also according to the other amora, who maintains the shewbread was not disqualified during the journeys, isn’t it written: “As they encamp, so shall they journey,” 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.
וְאִידַּךְ נָמֵי, הָא כְּתִיב ״וְנָסַע אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״? הַהוּא לִדְגָלִים הוּא דַּאֲתָא.
The Gemara asks: But also according to the other amora, who maintains the shewbread was disqualified during the journeys, isn’t it written: “Then the Tent of Meeting shall journey,” 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.
וְאִידָּךְ, מִ״מַּחֲנֵה הַלְוִיִּם בְּתוֹךְ הַמַּחֲנוֹת״ נָפְקָא.
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: “With the camp of the Levites in the midst of the camps” (Numbers 2:17).
מֵיתִיבִי: בִּשְׁעַת סִילּוּק מַסָּעוֹת, קָדָשִׁים נִפְסָלִין בְּיוֹצֵא, וְזָבִין וּמְצוֹרָעִין מִשְׁתַּלְּחִין חוּץ לִמְחִיצָתָן. מַאי לָאו אֲפִילּוּ לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים? לָא, בַּר מִלֶּחֶם הַפָּנִים.
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.
מָה נַפְשָׁךְ, אִי ״אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״ דַּוְקָא הוּא – אֲפִילּוּ קֳדָשִׁים נָמֵי, אִי ״אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״ לָאו דַּוְקָא הוּא – אֲפִילּוּ לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים נָמֵי.
The Gemara challenges: Whichever way you look at it, this explanation is difficult. If the phrase: “Then the Tent of Meeting shall journey,” 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 “then the Tent of Meeting shall journey,” 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.
אֶלָּא, כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר: מָר אָמַר בִּמְסוּדָּר, וּמָר אֲמַר בִּמְסוּלָּק, וְלָא פְּלִיגִי.
Rather, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that there is actually no dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan 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’im do not disagree, as each was referring to a different case.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ יֵשׁ סִילּוּק מַסָּעוֹת בַּלַּיְלָה, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ אֵין סִילּוּק מַסָּעוֹת בַּלַּיְלָה – אֵימַת מִדְּלֵי? לְצַפְרָא? מַאי אִירְיָא מִשּׁוּם יוֹצֵא? תִּיפּוֹק לִי דְּאִיפְּסִיל לֵיהּ בְּלִינָה!
§ 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.
פְּשִׁיטָא, ״לָלֶכֶת יוֹמָם וָלָיְלָה״ כְּתִיב! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דַּעֲקוּר בִּימָמָא, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּלָא עֲקוּר בִּימָמָא – בְּלֵילְיָא לָא מָצוּ עָקְרִי; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara challenges: It is obvious that the Tabernacle could be dismantled at night, as it is written: “And 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” (Exodus 13:21). The Gemara answers that Abaye’s 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.
וּרְמִינְהִי: הוּגְלְלוּ הַפָּרֹכוֹת, הוּתְּרוּ (הזבין) [זָבִין] וּמְצוֹרָעִין לִיכָּנֵס לְשָׁם. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, הָא – רַבָּנַן. דְּתַנְיָא:
§ 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:
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יָכוֹל דָּחֲקוּ זָבִין וּמְצוֹרָעִין וְנִכְנְסוּ לַעֲזָרָה בְּפֶסַח הַבָּא בְּטוּמְאָה יָכוֹל יְהוּ חַיָּיבִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וִישַׁלְּחוּ מִן הַמַּחֲנֶה כׇּל צָרוּעַ וְכׇל זָב וְכֹל טָמֵא לָנָפֶשׁ״, בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁטְּמֵאֵי מֵתִים מִשְׁתַּלְּחִין – זָבִין וּמְצוֹרָעִין מִשְׁתַּלְּחִין.
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: “That they send out from the camp any leper and any zav and anyone impure by reason of a corpse” (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.
אֵין טְמֵאֵי מֵתִים מִשְׁתַּלְּחִין – אֵין זָבִין וּמְצוֹרָעִין מִשְׁתַּלְּחִין.
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.
מַתְנִי׳ אַחַת שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם, וְאַחַת לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים – לִישָׁתָן וַעֲרִיכָתָן בַּחוּץ, וַאֲפִיָּיתָן בִּפְנִים, וְאֵינָן דּוֹחוֹת אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כׇּל מַעֲשֵׂיהֶם בִּפְנִים. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: לְעוֹלָם הֱוֵי רָגִיל לוֹמַר שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים כְּשֵׁרוֹת בַּעֲזָרָה, וּכְשֵׁרוֹת בְּבֵית פָּאגֵי.
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.
גְּמָ׳ הָא גּוּפַאּ קַשְׁיָא:
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.
אָמַרְתָּ: לִישָׁתָן וַעֲרִיכָתָן בַּחוּץ – אַלְמָא מִדַּת יָבֵשׁ לֹא נִתְקַדְּשָׁה, וַאֲפִיָּיתָן בִּפְנִים – אַלְמָא מִדַּת יָבֵשׁ נִתְקַדְּשָׁה! אָמַר רַבָּה: הִקְשָׁה אָדָם קָשֶׁה, שֶׁהוּא קָשֶׁה כַּבַּרְזֶל, וּמַנּוּ – רַב שֵׁשֶׁת.
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.
מַאי קַשְׁיָא? דִּלְמָא עִשָּׂרוֹן לָא מְקַדֵּשׁ, תַּנּוּר מְקַדֵּשׁ.
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.
אֶלָּא, אִי קַשְׁיָא – הָא קַשְׁיָא: וַאֲפִיָּיתָן בִּפְנִים, אַלְמָא תַּנּוּר מְקַדֵּשׁ, וְאֵין דּוֹחוֹת אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת – אִיפַּסְלָה בְּלִינָה! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: הִקְשָׁה אָדָם קָשֶׁה, שֶׁהוּא קָשֶׁה כַּבַּרְזֶל, וּמַנּוּ – רַב שֵׁשֶׁת.
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.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: מַאי קוּשְׁיָא? דִּלְמָא מַאי ״מִבִּפְנִים״ – בִּמְקוֹם זְרִיזִין.
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.
וְהָא דְּרַב אָשֵׁי בְּרוּתָא הִיא, מָה נַפְשָׁךְ? אִי אֲפִיָּיה בָּעֵינַן זְרִיזִין – לִישָׁה וַעֲרִיכָה נָמֵי [בָּעֵינַן] זְרִיזִין, וְאִי לִישָׁה [וַעֲרִיכָה] לָא בָּעֵינַן זְרִיזִין – אֲפִיָּיה נָמֵי לָא בָּעֵינַן זְרִיזִין, אֶלָּא דְּרַב אָשֵׁי בְּרוּתָא הִיא.
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’s 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.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כׇּל מַעֲשֵׂיהֶן בִּפְנִים [וְכוּ׳]. אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ בַּר כָּהֲנָא: וּשְׁנֵיהֶן מִקְרָא אֶחָד דָּרְשׁוּ, ״וְהוּא דֶּרֶךְ חֹל אַף כִּי הַיּוֹם יִקְדַּשׁ בַּכֶּלִי״.
§ 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: “There is no non-sacred bread under my hand, but there is sacred bread” (I Samuel 21:5), i.e., the shewbread. David then said to Ahimelech: “But it is a non-sacred manner, and yet it shall be consecrated today in the vessel” (I Samuel 21:6).
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: בַּחוֹל אַשְׁכְּחִינְהוּ דְּקָא אָפוּ לֵיהּ, אֲמַר לְהוּ: דֶּרֶךְ חוֹל קָא אָפֵיתוּ לֵיהּ? ״אַף כִּי הַיּוֹם יִקְדַּשׁ בַּכֶּלִי״, אִיפְּסִיל לֵיהּ בְּלִינָה.
Both Sages understand David’s 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? “Yet it shall be consecrated today in the vessel,” 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’s criticism that the shewbread must be baked on Shabbat in the Temple courtyard, as it is consecrated in the oven.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר: בְּשַׁבָּת אַשְׁכְּחִינְהוּ דְּקָא אָפוּ לֵיהּ, אֲמַר לְהוּ: לָא דֶּרֶךְ חוֹל בָּעֵיתוּ לְמִיעְבְּדֵיהּ?! מִידֵּי תַּנּוּר מְקַדֵּשׁ?! שֻׁלְחָן הוּא דִּמְקַדֵּשׁ.
Rabbi Shimon holds that David found the priests baking the shewbread on Shabbat. David said to them: Aren’t 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.
וּמִי מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ דְּבִשְׁעַת אֲפִיָּיה אַשְׁכְּחִינְהוּ? וְהָכְתִיב: ״וַיִּתֵּן לוֹ הַכֹּהֵן קֹדֶשׁ כִּי לֹא הָיָה שָׁם לֶחֶם כִּי אִם לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים הַמּוּסָרִים מִלִּפְנֵי ה׳״!
The Gemara asks: And how can you say that David found the priests at the time of baking? But isn’t it subsequently written: “And the priest gave him sacred bread, for there was no bread there but the shewbread that was taken from before the Lord” (I Samuel 21:7)? This indicates that David received shewbread that had already been on the Table, not loaves that had just been baked.
אֶלָּא מַאי ״דֶּרֶךְ חֹל״, דְּקָא אָמַר לְהוּ? – הָכִי קָא אָמְרוּ לֵיהּ: לֵיכָּא לֶחֶם, כִּי אִם ״לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים הַמּוּסָרִים מִלִּפְנֵי ה׳״.
Rather, what is the meaning of the statement: “But it is a non-sacred manner, and yet it shall be consecrated today in the vessel,” which David said to the priests? The Gemara replies: This is what the priests said to him: There is no bread here except “the shewbread that was taken from before the Lord,” and the shewbread is prohibited for consumption by non-priests.
אֲמַר לְהוּ: לָא מִיבַּעְיָא הַאי, דְּכֵיוָן דִּנְפַק לֵיהּ מִמְּעִילָה דֶּרֶךְ חוֹל הוּא, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ הַאיְךְ נָמֵי דְּ״הַיּוֹם יִקְדַּשׁ בַּכֶּלִי״ – הַבוּ לֵיהּ דְּלֵיכוֹל,
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 “shall be consecrated today in the vessel,” i.e., the shewbread placed on the Table today, you should give him, i.e., you should give me, to eat.
