Why was the table considered made from wood for rules of purity/impurity and not from metals as it was covered in gold? If there were cubits that were 6 handsbreadths and cubits that were 5, which items in the mikdash were 6 handbreadth cubits and which were 5?
This month’s learning is dedicated in memory of Rabbi Dr. Raymond Harari z”l, on his 1st yahrzeit. As an educator, principal of Yeshiva of Flatbush, and community rabbi, he inspired thousands with his wisdom, warmth, and unwavering commitment to Torah.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
English
עברית
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is dedicated in memory of Rabbi Dr. Raymond Harari z”l, on his 1st yahrzeit. As an educator, principal of Yeshiva of Flatbush, and community rabbi, he inspired thousands with his wisdom, warmth, and unwavering commitment to Torah.
Menachot 97
לבזבזין או בשלא חיפה את לבזבזין ואמר ליה לא שנא ציפוי עומד ולא שנא ציפוי שאינו עומד לא שנא חיפה את לבזבזין ולא שנא לא חיפה לבזבזין
the Table’s rim [levazbazin] as well as the Table itself, or even to a case where one did not cover its rim? And Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Reish Lakish: The case of a permanent covering is not different, and the case of a covering that is not permanent is not different. Likewise, the case where one covered the rim is not different, and the case where one did not cover the rim is not different. In any case a vessel’s status is determined according to the material of the external covering, and the shewbread Table should be susceptible to impurity because its external covering was of gold. It is therefore not necessary to derive that the Table is susceptible to impurity due to the fact that it is not designated to rest in a fixed place.
וכי תימא עצי שיטים חשיבי ולא בטלי הניחא לריש לקיש דאמר לא שנו אלא בכלי אכסלגוס הבאים ממדינת הים אבל כלי מסמס חשיבי ולא בטלי שפיר אלא לרבי יוחנן דאמר כלי מסמס נמי בטלי מאי איכא למימר
The Gemara suggests another explanation: And if you would say that the acacia wood from which the shewbread Table is fashioned is different, as it is an important, valuable type of wood and therefore the Table’s status as a wooden vessel is not negated by the fact that it was covered with gold, there would still be a difficulty. This explanation works out well according to the opinion of Reish Lakish, who said: The mishna taught that the status of a wooden vessel is determined according to the material of its covering only with regard to vessels made of medium-grade akhsalgos wood, which come from overseas, but vessels made of expensive masmas wood are important, and therefore their status as wooden vessels is not negated by the covering. According to this opinion the ruling works out well, as the acacia wood of the shewbread Table is also valuable. But according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said the importance of masmas vessels is also negated by the covering, what is there to say?
שאני שולחן דרחמנא קרייה עץ שנאמר (יחזקאל מא, כב) המזבח עץ שלש אמות גבוה ארכו שתים אמות ומקצעות לו וארכו וקירותיו עץ וידבר אלי זה השולחן אשר לפני ה’
The Gemara answers: The Table is different, because the Merciful One called it wood, as it is stated: “The altar was of wood, three cubits high, and its length two cubits, and so its corners; and its length, and its walls were also of wood, and he said to me: This is the Table that is before the Lord” (Ezekiel 41:22). This verse is referring to the shewbread Table, and it describes it as being made of wood, even though the wood was not visible. This indicates that its status is like that of all wooden vessels, which are not susceptible to impurity unless they are carried both when empty and when full.
פתח במזבח וסיים בשולחן ר’ יוחנן ור’ אלעזר דאמרי תרוייהו בזמן שבית המקדש קיים מזבח מכפר על אדם ועכשיו שאין בית המקדש קיים שולחנו של אדם מכפר עליו:
The Gemara challenges: Why does the verse begin with the word “altar” and conclude with the word “Table,” even though both terms are referring to the same item? Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar both say the following interpretation: When the Temple is standing, the altar effects atonement for the transgressions of a person, but now that the Temple is not standing, a person’s table effects atonement for his transgressions, if he provides for the poor and needy from the food on his table.
ארבע סניפין של זהב היו שם [וכו’]: מנא הני מילי אמר רב קטינא אמר קרא (שמות כה, כט) ועשית קערותיו וכפותיו וקשותיו ומנקיותיו
§ The mishna describes the shewbread Table (96a): There were four panels of gold there, which split up at their upper ends, above the Table, and there were twenty-eight rods that rested upon the panels. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav Ketina said: The verse states with regard to the Table: “And you shall make its dishes and its pans, uksotav umnakkiyyotav, with which it shall be covered; of pure gold you shall make them” (Exodus 25:29).
קערותיו אלו דפוסין כפותיו אלו בזיכין קשותיו אלו סניפין ומנקיותיו אלו קנים אשר יסך בהן שמסככין בהן את הלחם
Rav Ketina interprets the verse: “Its dishes,” these are the molds in which the loaves are kneaded, baked, and placed after baking (see 94a). “Its pans,” these are the bowls for the frankincense that is placed on the Table with the shewbread. “Kesotav,” these are the four panels of gold. “Umnakkiyyotav,” these are the rods, which rest on the notches in the panels and bear the loaves, one on top of the other. “With which it shall be covered,” this indicates that the bread is covered by the rods.
מותיב רבא לא סידור הקנים ולא נטילתן דוחות את השבת ואי סלקא דעתך דאורייתא אמאי אין דוחות את השבת
Rava raises an objection to this interpretation, which indicates that the rods are required by Torah law: The mishna states: Neither the arranging of the rods for the new shewbread, nor their removal from the arrangement of the old shewbread, overrides Shabbat. And if it enters your mind to say the rods are required by Torah law, why does their arrangement not override Shabbat?
הדר אמר רבא לאו מילתא הוא דאמרי דתנן כלל אמר רבי עקיבא כל מלאכה שאפשר לה לעשותה מערב שבת אינו דוחה את השבת והני נמי אפשר דלא דחי שבת עלייהו
Rava then said: That which I said, that one can infer from the mishna that the rods are not required by Torah law, is not correct, as we learned in the mishna that Rabbi Akiva stated a principle: Any labor that can be performed on Shabbat eve does not override Shabbat. And these actions, arranging and removing the rods, can also be performed in a manner that does not require overriding Shabbat for them, as the rods can be removed before Shabbat, and the rods can be arranged for the new loaves once Shabbat has ended.
טעמא מאי דלא ליעפש לחם בכי האי שיעורא לא מיעפש
Rava explains why the rods can be arranged after Shabbat: What is the reason that the rods are required? They are necessary in order to create a gap between the loaves, so that the bread does not become moldy. In such a short time period as this, from when the new loaves are placed on the Table on Shabbat until the arrangement of the rods after Shabbat, the loaves will not become moldy.
כדתניא כיצד נכנס מערב שבת ושמטן ומניחן לארכו של שולחן ומוצאי שבת נכנס מגביה ראשיה של חלה ומכניס קנה תחתיה וחוזר ומגביה ראשיה של חלה ומכניס קנה תחתיה
This is as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the removal and arrangement of the rods: How does the priest proceed? He enters the Sanctuary on Shabbat eve and removes the rods from between the loaves. And he places them in the space of two handbreadths between the two arrangements, along the length of the Table. And at the conclusion of Shabbat he enters the Sanctuary again. He raises the ends of a loaf of the shewbread and inserts a rod underneath it, and again raises the ends of a loaf and inserts a rod underneath it.
ארבעה חלות צריכות שלשה שלשה קנים העליונה אינה צריכה אלא שנים לפי שאין עליה משאוי התחתונה אינה צריכה כל עיקר לפי שמונחת על טהרו של שולחן
The baraita continues to describe the placement of the rods: Each arrangement contains six loaves. The four loaves in the middle of the six require three for the first of the four middle loaves, and likewise three rods for each of the other middle loaves, totaling twelve rods. The upper loaf requires only two rods, as the weight of another loaf does not bear upon it. Each arrangement therefore requires a total of fourteen rods, and the two arrangements require twenty-eight rods. As for the lowest loaf of each arrangement, it does not require rods at all, as it rests on the Table itself.
תנן התם רבי מאיר אומר כל אמות שהיו במקדש בינוניות חוץ ממזבח הזהב והקרן והסובב והיסוד רבי יהודה אומר אמת בנין ששה טפחים ושל כלים חמשה
§ We learned in a mishna there (Kelim 17:10) that Rabbi Meir says: All the cubits that were mentioned with regard to the Temple were medium cubits, consisting of six handbreadths, except in the case of the following items: The golden altar, which was one cubit long and one cubit wide; each protruding corner of the external altar, which were one cubit long, one cubit wide, and one cubit high; the surrounding ledge of the external altar, which was five cubits high and one cubit wide; and the base of the altar, which was one cubit high and one cubit wide. In all these cases, the cubit was of five handbreadths. Rabbi Yehuda says: The measure of a cubit that was used with regard to the building of the Temple was a cubit of six handbreadths, but the cubit mentioned with regard to the Temple vessels, e.g., the Table, the Candelabrum and the golden altar, was a smaller cubit of five handbreadths.
אמר רבי יוחנן ושניהם מקרא אחד דרשו (יחזקאל מג, יג) ואלה מדות המזבח באמות אמה אמה וטופח
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: And both Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda derived their opinions from the same verse: “And these are the measures of the altar by cubits: The cubit is a cubit and a handbreadth,
וחיק האמה ואמה רוחב וגבולה אל שפתה סביב זרת האחד וזה גב המזבח חיק האמה זה יסוד אמה רוחב זה סובב וגבולה אל שפתה סביב זרת האחד אלו קרנות זה גב המזבח זה מזבח הזהב
and the bottom shall be a cubit, and the breadth a cubit, and its border by its edge round about shall be the one span. And this shall be the higher part of the altar” (Ezekiel 43:13). The first section of this verse is referring to the outer altar: “The bottom shall be a cubit,” this is the base of the altar. “And the breadth a cubit,” this is the surrounding ledge of the altar. “And its border by its edge round about shall be the one span,” these are the protruding corners of the altar, which were one cubit wide and one cubit high. “And this shall be the higher part of the altar,” this is referring to the golden altar, which stood inside the Sanctuary and was also measured with small cubits.
ר’ מאיר סבר זהו באמה בת חמשה הא כל אמות כלים באמה בת שש ורבי יהודה סבר כזה יהו כל אמות כלים
Rabbi Yoḥanan explains that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagree with regard to the inference from the phrase “And this shall be the higher part of the altar.” Rabbi Meir maintains that one can infer that it is this, the golden altar, which is measured with a cubit of five handbreadths, but all the cubits of the other vessels in the Temple are measured with a cubit of six handbreadths. And Rabbi Yehuda maintains that one can infer that like this small cubit shall be all the cubits of the other vessels in the Temple.
קא סלקא דעתך מיסוד ועד סובב באמה בת חמישה בגובה ומאי חיק האמה ואמה רוחב הכי קא אמר מחיק האמה ועד רוחב באמה בת חמשה
The Gemara discusses the interpretation of the verse: It might enter your mind to say that the verse is referring to the height of the sections of the altar, i.e., from the base of the altar until the surrounding ledge the height is measured with a cubit of five handbreadths. And what is the meaning of the phrase “The bottom shall be a cubit, and the breadth a cubit”? This is what the verse is saying: From the cubit at the bottom, i.e., the base of the altar, until the cubit of the breadth of the surrounding ledge shall be measured with a cubit of five handbreadths.
גובה המזבח כמה הוי עשר אמות שית בני חמשה חמשה וארבעי בני שיתא שיתא
The Gemara explains the difficulty with this interpretation: According to this interpretation, how many cubits is the height of the altar? It is ten cubits. Six of these cubits, from the ground up to the surrounding ledge, are measured with a cubit of five handbreadths each, totaling thirty handbreadths. And the remaining four cubits, from the ledge up to the top of the corners of the altar, are measured with a cubit of six handbreadths each, totaling twenty-four handbreadths.
מזבח כמה הוי חמשין וארבעה פלגיה דמזבח כמה הוי עשרים ושבעה מקרנות ועד סובב כמה הוי עשרים וארבעה כמה בציר לפלגיה דמזבח תלתא ותנן חוט של סקרא חוגרו באמצע כדי להבדיל בין דמים העליונים לדמים התחתונים
Accordingly, how many handbreadths is the height of the altar? It is fifty-four handbreadths. How many handbreadths is the height of half of the altar? It is twenty-seven handbreadths. How many handbreadths is the height from the top of the corners of the altar until the surrounding ledge? It is twenty-four handbreadths, four cubits of six handbreadths each. Therefore, how many handbreadths is the surrounding ledge short of half the height of the altar? It is three handbreadths above the halfway mark. And we learned in a mishna (Middot 3:1): A red line encircled the altar in the middle, in order to separate between the blood that must be presented on the upper part of the altar and the blood that must be presented on the lower part of the altar.
אלא הא דתניא גבי עולת העוף היה עולה בכבש ופנה לסובב ובא לו לקרן דרומית [מזרחית] ומולק את ראשה ממול ערפה ומבדיל ומוצה את דמה על קיר המזבח ואם עשאה למטה מרגליו אפילו אמה אחת כשירה
But this interpretation is contradicted by that which is taught in a baraita with regard to the bird burnt offering, the blood of which must be presented on the upper part of the altar: The priest would ascend the ramp and turn to the surrounding ledge and arrive at the southeast corner. He would pinch off the bird’s head across its nape, and separate it from its body. He would then squeeze out its blood on the wall of the altar beside him. And if the priest performed the squeezing below his feet, i.e., below the surrounding ledge, even one cubit beneath the ledge, it is valid.
הא קא יהיב עליונה למטה משני טפחים
The Gemara explains the difficulty: According to the previous calculation, the surrounding ledge was only three handbreadths above the halfway mark. Therefore, if one squeezes out the blood one cubit, of five handbreadths, below the ledge, isn’t he putting the blood of an offering that must be presented on the upper part of the altar, two handbreadths below the middle of the altar?
אלא חיק האמה כניסה אמה רוחב כניסה גבולה אל שפתה סביב כניסה
Rather, the verse must be interpreted differently. It is not referring to the height of the altar but to the width of each of its levels, as follows: “The bottom shall be a cubit”: From the top of the external side of the base of the altar, the wall of the altar is inset by one cubit of five handbreadths. “And the breadth a cubit,” this is referring to the width of the surrounding ledge of the altar, as at this point the wall is again inset by one cubit of five handbreadths. “Its border by its edge round about shall be the one span,” this is referring to the width of the corners of the altar, which is also a cubit of five handbreadths, causing the area of the top of the altar to be inset by an additional cubit.
מזבח כמה הוה ליה שיתין פלגיה דמזבח כמה הוי תלתין מקרנות ועד סובב כמה הוי עשרים וארבעה כמה בציר לפלגיה דמזבח ששה ותנן אם עשאה למטה מרגליו אפילו אמה אחת כשרה
The Gemara explains the halakha with regard to the bird burnt offering according to this interpretation: How many handbreadths is the height of the altar? It is sixty handbreadths, ten cubits of six handbreadths each. How many handbreadths is the height of half of the altar? It is thirty handbreadths. How many handbreadths is the height from the top of the corners of the altar until the surrounding ledge? It is twenty-four handbreadths, four cubits of six handbreadths each. Therefore, how many handbreadths is the surrounding ledge short of half the height of the altar? It is six handbreadths above the halfway mark. And we learned in the baraita: And if the priest performed the squeezing below his feet, even one cubit beneath the ledge, it is valid. According to this calculation, one cubit below the surrounding ledge is still part of the upper section of the altar.
במאי אוקימתא בכניסה ומי מצית מוקמת לה בכניסה והא תנן מזבח היה שלשים ושתים על שלשים ושתים עלה אמה וכנס אמה זהו יסוד נמצא שלשים על שלשים
The Gemara asks: To what part of the altar did you interpret the verse to be referring? It is referring to the width by which each section of the altar is inset. And can you interpret the verse as referring to the width by which each section is inset? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Middot 3:1): The measurements of the base of the altar were thirty-two cubits by thirty-two cubits. Once the altar rose to the height of one cubit it was inset by one cubit on each side. This lower section was the base of the altar. One therefore finds that the second section of the altar measured thirty cubits by thirty cubits.
שלשים ושני טפחים הוי
If the width of the base is measured with a cubit of five handbreadths, then the second section of the altar does not measure thirty cubits by thirty cubits. Since the rest of the altar is measured with a cubit of six handbreadths, the second section measures thirty cubits and two handbreadths.
ותו עלה חמש וכנס אמה זהו סובב נמצא עשרים ושמונה על עשרים ושמונה עשרים ושמונה וארבע טפחים הוי
And furthermore, the aforementioned mishna continues: Once the altar rose to the height of six cubits, i.e., five cubits above the base, it was inset by one cubit on each side, forming a ledge. This is the surrounding ledge. One therefore finds that the third section of the altar measured twenty-eight cubits by twenty-eight cubits. If the width of the base and the surrounding ledge are measured with a cubit of five handbreadths, the third section measures twenty-eight cubits and four handbreadths.
וכי תימא כיון דלא הוי אמה לא חשיב ליה מקום קרנות אמה מזה ואמה מזה נמצא עשרים ושש על עשרים ושש
And if you would say that since the additional area is not a full cubit the mishna did not count it, this explanation is difficult, as the mishna continues: The area taken up by each of the four corners of the altar was one cubit on this side, along the length of the altar, and one cubit on that side, along the width of the altar. One therefore finds that the area of the top of the altar, within the corners, is twenty-six cubits by twenty-six cubits.
עשרין ושבע הוו לא דק
If the corners of the altar were also measured with a cubit of five handbreadths, then the top of the altar was a full cubit of six handbreadths wider, as the wall of the altar was inset three times on each side by a cubit of five handbreadths rather than six handbreadths. The area of the top of the altar was therefore twenty-seven cubits by twenty-seven cubits, which the mishna should not have referred to as twenty-six cubits. The Gemara answers that the tanna was not precise, as he should indeed have stated that the altar measured twenty-seven cubits by twenty-seven cubits.
מקום הילוך רגלי הכהנים אמה מזה ואמה מזה נמצא עשרים וארבע על עשרים וארבע מקום המערכה עשרים וחמשה הואי
The Gemara rejects this explanation, as the mishna continues: Within the corners of the altar there was an area where the priests set their feet as they circuited the altar. This area was one cubit on this side, along the length of the altar, and one cubit on that side, along the width of the altar. One therefore finds that an area of twenty-four cubits by twenty-four cubits remained as the area for the arrangement of wood on the altar. If the total area of the top of the altar was twenty-seven cubits by twenty-seven cubits, the remaining area would be twenty-five cubits by twenty-five cubits, not twenty-four by twenty-four.
וכי תימא הכא נמי לא דק והא כתיב (יחזקאל מג, טז) והאריאל שתים עשרה אורך בשתים עשרה רוחב רבוע יכול שאינו אלא שתים עשרה על שתים עשרה כשהוא אומר אל ארבעת רבעיו מלמד שבאמצע הוא מודד שתים עשרה אמה לכל רוח ורוח
And if you would say that here too, the tanna was not precise, that is difficult: But isn’t it written: “And the hearth shall be twelve cubits long by twelve wide, square on its four sides” (Ezekiel 43:16)? The hearth is the area for the arrangement of wood on the altar. One might have thought that the area for the arrangement of wood was only twelve cubits by twelve cubits. When the verse states: “On its four sides,” this teaches that one measures from the middle of the altar twelve cubits in each and every direction, i.e., the area for the arrangement of wood was twenty-four cubits by twenty-four cubits, not twenty-five by twenty-five.
וכי תימא שית מינייהו מעיקרא באמה בת חמשה מייתי להו אם כן רווחא לה עזרה
The Gemara rejects an alternative explanation: And if you would say that when the mishna states that the base of the altar was thirty-two cubits by thirty-two cubits, with regard to six of those cubits the mishna initially counted them as cubits of five handbreadths, this explanation is difficult. If so, the base of the altar measures six handbreadths less, totaling only thirty-one cubits of six handbreadths, in which case the vacant area in the Temple courtyard would be one cubit wider than it actually was.
דתנן כל העזרה היתה אורך מאה ושמונים ושבע על רוחב מאה ושלשים וחמש ממזרח למערב מאה שמונים ושבע מקום דריסת רגלי ישראל אחת עשרה אמה ומקום דריסת רגלי הכהנים אחת עשרה אמה המזבח שלשים ושתים בין אולם ולמזבח עשרים ושתים אמה ההיכל מאה אמה אחת עשרה אמה אחורי בית הכפורת
The Gemara elaborates: This is as we learned in a mishna (Middot 5:1): The dimensions of the entire Temple courtyard were a length of 187 cubits by a width of 135 cubits. The length of the courtyard from east to west was 187 cubits, divided as follows: The area of the Israelite courtyard, where it was permitted for Israelites to set their feet, was eleven cubits long, and the area where it was permitted only for the priests to set their feet was eleven cubits long. The altar was thirty-two cubits long. The area designated as: Between the Entrance Hall and the altar, was twenty-two cubits, and the Sanctuary was one hundred cubits long. There was an additional eleven cubits of space behind the Hall of the Ark Cover, i.e., behind the Holy of Holies, which was at the western end of the Sanctuary. If the altar was actually only thirty-one cubits long, the mishna accounts for the length of only 186 cubits.
אלא חיק האמה בגובהה אמה רוחב כניסה גבולה אל שפתה סביב
Rather, the verse must be interpreted differently: “The bottom shall be a cubit,” this is referring to the height of the base. “The breadth a cubit,” this is referring to the width of the surrounding ledge, where the wall of the altar is inset by one cubit. “Its border by its edge round about shall be the one span,”
Follow 
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.
A Daf Of Their Own – Above the Law: Exploring the Limits of Royal Authority
01.05.2025 | ה׳ בטבת תשפ״ה
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.
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Reena Slovin
Worcester, United States
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.
Ruth Leah Kahan
Ra’anana, Israel
Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.
Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.
Carolyn Hochstadter and Margo Kossoff Shizgal
Merion Station, USA
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Hannah Greenberg
Pennsylvania, United States
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Stacey Goodstein Ashtamker
Modi’in, Israel
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Rina Goldberg
Englewood NJ, United States
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.
Janine Rubens
Virginia, United States
I started with Ze Kollel in Berlin, directed by Jeremy Borowitz for Hillel Deutschland. We read Masechet Megillah chapter 4 and each participant wrote his commentary on a Sugia that particularly impressed him. I wrote six poems about different Sugiot! Fascinated by the discussions on Talmud I continued to learn with Rabanit Michelle Farber and am currently taking part in the Tikun Olam course.
Yael Merlini
Berlin, Germany
I’ve been studying Talmud since the ’90s, and decided to take on Daf Yomi two years ago. I wanted to attempt the challenge of a day-to-day, very Jewish activity. Some days are so interesting and some days are so boring. But I’m still here.
Sarene Shanus
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Harriet Hartman
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
I never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.
Caroline Ben-Ari
Karmiel, Israel
I started the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.
Rookie Billet
Jerusalem, Israel
A friend mentioned that she was starting Daf Yomi in January 2020. I had heard of it and thought, why not? I decided to try it – go day by day and not think about the seven plus year commitment. Fast forward today, over two years in and I can’t imagine my life without Daf Yomi. It’s part of my morning ritual. If I have a busy day ahead of me I set my alarm to get up early to finish the day’s daf
Debbie Fitzerman
Ontario, Canada
I started learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.
Meira Shapiro
NJ, United States
Jill Shames
Jerusalem, Israel
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Leah Goldford
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Jeanne Yael Klempner
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Caroline Graham-Ofstein
Bet Shemesh, Israel
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
Lisa Berkelhammer
San Francisco, CA , United States
I started learning at the beginning of this cycle more than 2 years ago, and I have not missed a day or a daf. It’s been challenging and enlightening and even mind-numbing at times, but the learning and the shared experience have all been worth it. If you are open to it, there’s no telling what might come into your life.
Patti Evans
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
Menachot 97
לבזבזין או בשלא חיפה את לבזבזין ואמר ליה לא שנא ציפוי עומד ולא שנא ציפוי שאינו עומד לא שנא חיפה את לבזבזין ולא שנא לא חיפה לבזבזין
the Table’s rim [levazbazin] as well as the Table itself, or even to a case where one did not cover its rim? And Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Reish Lakish: The case of a permanent covering is not different, and the case of a covering that is not permanent is not different. Likewise, the case where one covered the rim is not different, and the case where one did not cover the rim is not different. In any case a vessel’s status is determined according to the material of the external covering, and the shewbread Table should be susceptible to impurity because its external covering was of gold. It is therefore not necessary to derive that the Table is susceptible to impurity due to the fact that it is not designated to rest in a fixed place.
וכי תימא עצי שיטים חשיבי ולא בטלי הניחא לריש לקיש דאמר לא שנו אלא בכלי אכסלגוס הבאים ממדינת הים אבל כלי מסמס חשיבי ולא בטלי שפיר אלא לרבי יוחנן דאמר כלי מסמס נמי בטלי מאי איכא למימר
The Gemara suggests another explanation: And if you would say that the acacia wood from which the shewbread Table is fashioned is different, as it is an important, valuable type of wood and therefore the Table’s status as a wooden vessel is not negated by the fact that it was covered with gold, there would still be a difficulty. This explanation works out well according to the opinion of Reish Lakish, who said: The mishna taught that the status of a wooden vessel is determined according to the material of its covering only with regard to vessels made of medium-grade akhsalgos wood, which come from overseas, but vessels made of expensive masmas wood are important, and therefore their status as wooden vessels is not negated by the covering. According to this opinion the ruling works out well, as the acacia wood of the shewbread Table is also valuable. But according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said the importance of masmas vessels is also negated by the covering, what is there to say?
שאני שולחן דרחמנא קרייה עץ שנאמר (יחזקאל מא, כב) המזבח עץ שלש אמות גבוה ארכו שתים אמות ומקצעות לו וארכו וקירותיו עץ וידבר אלי זה השולחן אשר לפני ה’
The Gemara answers: The Table is different, because the Merciful One called it wood, as it is stated: “The altar was of wood, three cubits high, and its length two cubits, and so its corners; and its length, and its walls were also of wood, and he said to me: This is the Table that is before the Lord” (Ezekiel 41:22). This verse is referring to the shewbread Table, and it describes it as being made of wood, even though the wood was not visible. This indicates that its status is like that of all wooden vessels, which are not susceptible to impurity unless they are carried both when empty and when full.
פתח במזבח וסיים בשולחן ר’ יוחנן ור’ אלעזר דאמרי תרוייהו בזמן שבית המקדש קיים מזבח מכפר על אדם ועכשיו שאין בית המקדש קיים שולחנו של אדם מכפר עליו:
The Gemara challenges: Why does the verse begin with the word “altar” and conclude with the word “Table,” even though both terms are referring to the same item? Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar both say the following interpretation: When the Temple is standing, the altar effects atonement for the transgressions of a person, but now that the Temple is not standing, a person’s table effects atonement for his transgressions, if he provides for the poor and needy from the food on his table.
ארבע סניפין של זהב היו שם [וכו’]: מנא הני מילי אמר רב קטינא אמר קרא (שמות כה, כט) ועשית קערותיו וכפותיו וקשותיו ומנקיותיו
§ The mishna describes the shewbread Table (96a): There were four panels of gold there, which split up at their upper ends, above the Table, and there were twenty-eight rods that rested upon the panels. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav Ketina said: The verse states with regard to the Table: “And you shall make its dishes and its pans, uksotav umnakkiyyotav, with which it shall be covered; of pure gold you shall make them” (Exodus 25:29).
קערותיו אלו דפוסין כפותיו אלו בזיכין קשותיו אלו סניפין ומנקיותיו אלו קנים אשר יסך בהן שמסככין בהן את הלחם
Rav Ketina interprets the verse: “Its dishes,” these are the molds in which the loaves are kneaded, baked, and placed after baking (see 94a). “Its pans,” these are the bowls for the frankincense that is placed on the Table with the shewbread. “Kesotav,” these are the four panels of gold. “Umnakkiyyotav,” these are the rods, which rest on the notches in the panels and bear the loaves, one on top of the other. “With which it shall be covered,” this indicates that the bread is covered by the rods.
מותיב רבא לא סידור הקנים ולא נטילתן דוחות את השבת ואי סלקא דעתך דאורייתא אמאי אין דוחות את השבת
Rava raises an objection to this interpretation, which indicates that the rods are required by Torah law: The mishna states: Neither the arranging of the rods for the new shewbread, nor their removal from the arrangement of the old shewbread, overrides Shabbat. And if it enters your mind to say the rods are required by Torah law, why does their arrangement not override Shabbat?
הדר אמר רבא לאו מילתא הוא דאמרי דתנן כלל אמר רבי עקיבא כל מלאכה שאפשר לה לעשותה מערב שבת אינו דוחה את השבת והני נמי אפשר דלא דחי שבת עלייהו
Rava then said: That which I said, that one can infer from the mishna that the rods are not required by Torah law, is not correct, as we learned in the mishna that Rabbi Akiva stated a principle: Any labor that can be performed on Shabbat eve does not override Shabbat. And these actions, arranging and removing the rods, can also be performed in a manner that does not require overriding Shabbat for them, as the rods can be removed before Shabbat, and the rods can be arranged for the new loaves once Shabbat has ended.
טעמא מאי דלא ליעפש לחם בכי האי שיעורא לא מיעפש
Rava explains why the rods can be arranged after Shabbat: What is the reason that the rods are required? They are necessary in order to create a gap between the loaves, so that the bread does not become moldy. In such a short time period as this, from when the new loaves are placed on the Table on Shabbat until the arrangement of the rods after Shabbat, the loaves will not become moldy.
כדתניא כיצד נכנס מערב שבת ושמטן ומניחן לארכו של שולחן ומוצאי שבת נכנס מגביה ראשיה של חלה ומכניס קנה תחתיה וחוזר ומגביה ראשיה של חלה ומכניס קנה תחתיה
This is as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the removal and arrangement of the rods: How does the priest proceed? He enters the Sanctuary on Shabbat eve and removes the rods from between the loaves. And he places them in the space of two handbreadths between the two arrangements, along the length of the Table. And at the conclusion of Shabbat he enters the Sanctuary again. He raises the ends of a loaf of the shewbread and inserts a rod underneath it, and again raises the ends of a loaf and inserts a rod underneath it.
ארבעה חלות צריכות שלשה שלשה קנים העליונה אינה צריכה אלא שנים לפי שאין עליה משאוי התחתונה אינה צריכה כל עיקר לפי שמונחת על טהרו של שולחן
The baraita continues to describe the placement of the rods: Each arrangement contains six loaves. The four loaves in the middle of the six require three for the first of the four middle loaves, and likewise three rods for each of the other middle loaves, totaling twelve rods. The upper loaf requires only two rods, as the weight of another loaf does not bear upon it. Each arrangement therefore requires a total of fourteen rods, and the two arrangements require twenty-eight rods. As for the lowest loaf of each arrangement, it does not require rods at all, as it rests on the Table itself.
תנן התם רבי מאיר אומר כל אמות שהיו במקדש בינוניות חוץ ממזבח הזהב והקרן והסובב והיסוד רבי יהודה אומר אמת בנין ששה טפחים ושל כלים חמשה
§ We learned in a mishna there (Kelim 17:10) that Rabbi Meir says: All the cubits that were mentioned with regard to the Temple were medium cubits, consisting of six handbreadths, except in the case of the following items: The golden altar, which was one cubit long and one cubit wide; each protruding corner of the external altar, which were one cubit long, one cubit wide, and one cubit high; the surrounding ledge of the external altar, which was five cubits high and one cubit wide; and the base of the altar, which was one cubit high and one cubit wide. In all these cases, the cubit was of five handbreadths. Rabbi Yehuda says: The measure of a cubit that was used with regard to the building of the Temple was a cubit of six handbreadths, but the cubit mentioned with regard to the Temple vessels, e.g., the Table, the Candelabrum and the golden altar, was a smaller cubit of five handbreadths.
אמר רבי יוחנן ושניהם מקרא אחד דרשו (יחזקאל מג, יג) ואלה מדות המזבח באמות אמה אמה וטופח
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: And both Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda derived their opinions from the same verse: “And these are the measures of the altar by cubits: The cubit is a cubit and a handbreadth,
וחיק האמה ואמה רוחב וגבולה אל שפתה סביב זרת האחד וזה גב המזבח חיק האמה זה יסוד אמה רוחב זה סובב וגבולה אל שפתה סביב זרת האחד אלו קרנות זה גב המזבח זה מזבח הזהב
and the bottom shall be a cubit, and the breadth a cubit, and its border by its edge round about shall be the one span. And this shall be the higher part of the altar” (Ezekiel 43:13). The first section of this verse is referring to the outer altar: “The bottom shall be a cubit,” this is the base of the altar. “And the breadth a cubit,” this is the surrounding ledge of the altar. “And its border by its edge round about shall be the one span,” these are the protruding corners of the altar, which were one cubit wide and one cubit high. “And this shall be the higher part of the altar,” this is referring to the golden altar, which stood inside the Sanctuary and was also measured with small cubits.
ר’ מאיר סבר זהו באמה בת חמשה הא כל אמות כלים באמה בת שש ורבי יהודה סבר כזה יהו כל אמות כלים
Rabbi Yoḥanan explains that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagree with regard to the inference from the phrase “And this shall be the higher part of the altar.” Rabbi Meir maintains that one can infer that it is this, the golden altar, which is measured with a cubit of five handbreadths, but all the cubits of the other vessels in the Temple are measured with a cubit of six handbreadths. And Rabbi Yehuda maintains that one can infer that like this small cubit shall be all the cubits of the other vessels in the Temple.
קא סלקא דעתך מיסוד ועד סובב באמה בת חמישה בגובה ומאי חיק האמה ואמה רוחב הכי קא אמר מחיק האמה ועד רוחב באמה בת חמשה
The Gemara discusses the interpretation of the verse: It might enter your mind to say that the verse is referring to the height of the sections of the altar, i.e., from the base of the altar until the surrounding ledge the height is measured with a cubit of five handbreadths. And what is the meaning of the phrase “The bottom shall be a cubit, and the breadth a cubit”? This is what the verse is saying: From the cubit at the bottom, i.e., the base of the altar, until the cubit of the breadth of the surrounding ledge shall be measured with a cubit of five handbreadths.
גובה המזבח כמה הוי עשר אמות שית בני חמשה חמשה וארבעי בני שיתא שיתא
The Gemara explains the difficulty with this interpretation: According to this interpretation, how many cubits is the height of the altar? It is ten cubits. Six of these cubits, from the ground up to the surrounding ledge, are measured with a cubit of five handbreadths each, totaling thirty handbreadths. And the remaining four cubits, from the ledge up to the top of the corners of the altar, are measured with a cubit of six handbreadths each, totaling twenty-four handbreadths.
מזבח כמה הוי חמשין וארבעה פלגיה דמזבח כמה הוי עשרים ושבעה מקרנות ועד סובב כמה הוי עשרים וארבעה כמה בציר לפלגיה דמזבח תלתא ותנן חוט של סקרא חוגרו באמצע כדי להבדיל בין דמים העליונים לדמים התחתונים
Accordingly, how many handbreadths is the height of the altar? It is fifty-four handbreadths. How many handbreadths is the height of half of the altar? It is twenty-seven handbreadths. How many handbreadths is the height from the top of the corners of the altar until the surrounding ledge? It is twenty-four handbreadths, four cubits of six handbreadths each. Therefore, how many handbreadths is the surrounding ledge short of half the height of the altar? It is three handbreadths above the halfway mark. And we learned in a mishna (Middot 3:1): A red line encircled the altar in the middle, in order to separate between the blood that must be presented on the upper part of the altar and the blood that must be presented on the lower part of the altar.
אלא הא דתניא גבי עולת העוף היה עולה בכבש ופנה לסובב ובא לו לקרן דרומית [מזרחית] ומולק את ראשה ממול ערפה ומבדיל ומוצה את דמה על קיר המזבח ואם עשאה למטה מרגליו אפילו אמה אחת כשירה
But this interpretation is contradicted by that which is taught in a baraita with regard to the bird burnt offering, the blood of which must be presented on the upper part of the altar: The priest would ascend the ramp and turn to the surrounding ledge and arrive at the southeast corner. He would pinch off the bird’s head across its nape, and separate it from its body. He would then squeeze out its blood on the wall of the altar beside him. And if the priest performed the squeezing below his feet, i.e., below the surrounding ledge, even one cubit beneath the ledge, it is valid.
הא קא יהיב עליונה למטה משני טפחים
The Gemara explains the difficulty: According to the previous calculation, the surrounding ledge was only three handbreadths above the halfway mark. Therefore, if one squeezes out the blood one cubit, of five handbreadths, below the ledge, isn’t he putting the blood of an offering that must be presented on the upper part of the altar, two handbreadths below the middle of the altar?
אלא חיק האמה כניסה אמה רוחב כניסה גבולה אל שפתה סביב כניסה
Rather, the verse must be interpreted differently. It is not referring to the height of the altar but to the width of each of its levels, as follows: “The bottom shall be a cubit”: From the top of the external side of the base of the altar, the wall of the altar is inset by one cubit of five handbreadths. “And the breadth a cubit,” this is referring to the width of the surrounding ledge of the altar, as at this point the wall is again inset by one cubit of five handbreadths. “Its border by its edge round about shall be the one span,” this is referring to the width of the corners of the altar, which is also a cubit of five handbreadths, causing the area of the top of the altar to be inset by an additional cubit.
מזבח כמה הוה ליה שיתין פלגיה דמזבח כמה הוי תלתין מקרנות ועד סובב כמה הוי עשרים וארבעה כמה בציר לפלגיה דמזבח ששה ותנן אם עשאה למטה מרגליו אפילו אמה אחת כשרה
The Gemara explains the halakha with regard to the bird burnt offering according to this interpretation: How many handbreadths is the height of the altar? It is sixty handbreadths, ten cubits of six handbreadths each. How many handbreadths is the height of half of the altar? It is thirty handbreadths. How many handbreadths is the height from the top of the corners of the altar until the surrounding ledge? It is twenty-four handbreadths, four cubits of six handbreadths each. Therefore, how many handbreadths is the surrounding ledge short of half the height of the altar? It is six handbreadths above the halfway mark. And we learned in the baraita: And if the priest performed the squeezing below his feet, even one cubit beneath the ledge, it is valid. According to this calculation, one cubit below the surrounding ledge is still part of the upper section of the altar.
במאי אוקימתא בכניסה ומי מצית מוקמת לה בכניסה והא תנן מזבח היה שלשים ושתים על שלשים ושתים עלה אמה וכנס אמה זהו יסוד נמצא שלשים על שלשים
The Gemara asks: To what part of the altar did you interpret the verse to be referring? It is referring to the width by which each section of the altar is inset. And can you interpret the verse as referring to the width by which each section is inset? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Middot 3:1): The measurements of the base of the altar were thirty-two cubits by thirty-two cubits. Once the altar rose to the height of one cubit it was inset by one cubit on each side. This lower section was the base of the altar. One therefore finds that the second section of the altar measured thirty cubits by thirty cubits.
שלשים ושני טפחים הוי
If the width of the base is measured with a cubit of five handbreadths, then the second section of the altar does not measure thirty cubits by thirty cubits. Since the rest of the altar is measured with a cubit of six handbreadths, the second section measures thirty cubits and two handbreadths.
ותו עלה חמש וכנס אמה זהו סובב נמצא עשרים ושמונה על עשרים ושמונה עשרים ושמונה וארבע טפחים הוי
And furthermore, the aforementioned mishna continues: Once the altar rose to the height of six cubits, i.e., five cubits above the base, it was inset by one cubit on each side, forming a ledge. This is the surrounding ledge. One therefore finds that the third section of the altar measured twenty-eight cubits by twenty-eight cubits. If the width of the base and the surrounding ledge are measured with a cubit of five handbreadths, the third section measures twenty-eight cubits and four handbreadths.
וכי תימא כיון דלא הוי אמה לא חשיב ליה מקום קרנות אמה מזה ואמה מזה נמצא עשרים ושש על עשרים ושש
And if you would say that since the additional area is not a full cubit the mishna did not count it, this explanation is difficult, as the mishna continues: The area taken up by each of the four corners of the altar was one cubit on this side, along the length of the altar, and one cubit on that side, along the width of the altar. One therefore finds that the area of the top of the altar, within the corners, is twenty-six cubits by twenty-six cubits.
עשרין ושבע הוו לא דק
If the corners of the altar were also measured with a cubit of five handbreadths, then the top of the altar was a full cubit of six handbreadths wider, as the wall of the altar was inset three times on each side by a cubit of five handbreadths rather than six handbreadths. The area of the top of the altar was therefore twenty-seven cubits by twenty-seven cubits, which the mishna should not have referred to as twenty-six cubits. The Gemara answers that the tanna was not precise, as he should indeed have stated that the altar measured twenty-seven cubits by twenty-seven cubits.
מקום הילוך רגלי הכהנים אמה מזה ואמה מזה נמצא עשרים וארבע על עשרים וארבע מקום המערכה עשרים וחמשה הואי
The Gemara rejects this explanation, as the mishna continues: Within the corners of the altar there was an area where the priests set their feet as they circuited the altar. This area was one cubit on this side, along the length of the altar, and one cubit on that side, along the width of the altar. One therefore finds that an area of twenty-four cubits by twenty-four cubits remained as the area for the arrangement of wood on the altar. If the total area of the top of the altar was twenty-seven cubits by twenty-seven cubits, the remaining area would be twenty-five cubits by twenty-five cubits, not twenty-four by twenty-four.
וכי תימא הכא נמי לא דק והא כתיב (יחזקאל מג, טז) והאריאל שתים עשרה אורך בשתים עשרה רוחב רבוע יכול שאינו אלא שתים עשרה על שתים עשרה כשהוא אומר אל ארבעת רבעיו מלמד שבאמצע הוא מודד שתים עשרה אמה לכל רוח ורוח
And if you would say that here too, the tanna was not precise, that is difficult: But isn’t it written: “And the hearth shall be twelve cubits long by twelve wide, square on its four sides” (Ezekiel 43:16)? The hearth is the area for the arrangement of wood on the altar. One might have thought that the area for the arrangement of wood was only twelve cubits by twelve cubits. When the verse states: “On its four sides,” this teaches that one measures from the middle of the altar twelve cubits in each and every direction, i.e., the area for the arrangement of wood was twenty-four cubits by twenty-four cubits, not twenty-five by twenty-five.
וכי תימא שית מינייהו מעיקרא באמה בת חמשה מייתי להו אם כן רווחא לה עזרה
The Gemara rejects an alternative explanation: And if you would say that when the mishna states that the base of the altar was thirty-two cubits by thirty-two cubits, with regard to six of those cubits the mishna initially counted them as cubits of five handbreadths, this explanation is difficult. If so, the base of the altar measures six handbreadths less, totaling only thirty-one cubits of six handbreadths, in which case the vacant area in the Temple courtyard would be one cubit wider than it actually was.
דתנן כל העזרה היתה אורך מאה ושמונים ושבע על רוחב מאה ושלשים וחמש ממזרח למערב מאה שמונים ושבע מקום דריסת רגלי ישראל אחת עשרה אמה ומקום דריסת רגלי הכהנים אחת עשרה אמה המזבח שלשים ושתים בין אולם ולמזבח עשרים ושתים אמה ההיכל מאה אמה אחת עשרה אמה אחורי בית הכפורת
The Gemara elaborates: This is as we learned in a mishna (Middot 5:1): The dimensions of the entire Temple courtyard were a length of 187 cubits by a width of 135 cubits. The length of the courtyard from east to west was 187 cubits, divided as follows: The area of the Israelite courtyard, where it was permitted for Israelites to set their feet, was eleven cubits long, and the area where it was permitted only for the priests to set their feet was eleven cubits long. The altar was thirty-two cubits long. The area designated as: Between the Entrance Hall and the altar, was twenty-two cubits, and the Sanctuary was one hundred cubits long. There was an additional eleven cubits of space behind the Hall of the Ark Cover, i.e., behind the Holy of Holies, which was at the western end of the Sanctuary. If the altar was actually only thirty-one cubits long, the mishna accounts for the length of only 186 cubits.
אלא חיק האמה בגובהה אמה רוחב כניסה גבולה אל שפתה סביב
Rather, the verse must be interpreted differently: “The bottom shall be a cubit,” this is referring to the height of the base. “The breadth a cubit,” this is referring to the width of the surrounding ledge, where the wall of the altar is inset by one cubit. “Its border by its edge round about shall be the one span,”
Follow
