Menachot Daf 98 (מנחות דף צ״ח)
Daf: 98 | Amudim: 98a – 98b
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (98a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
Concluding the altar corner measurement from the previous daf
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָא שְׁנָא הָכִי וְלָא שְׁנָא הָכִי.
English Translation:
this is referring to the measurements of the corners of the altar, concerning which there is no difference with regard to this, their height, and there is no difference with regard to that, their width, as both are measured with a cubit of five handbreadths.
קלאוד על הדף:
This brief concluding statement wraps up the discussion begun on 97b regarding which cubit size applies to the corners of the altar. The Gemara establishes that both the height and the width of the corners are measured using the smaller five-tefach cubit, not the standard six-tefach cubit used elsewhere on the altar. This uniformity simplifies the calculation that follows and has implications for determining the exact midpoint of the altar’s height.
Key Terms:
- קרנות (Karnot) = The four horn-like projections at the top corners of the outer altar
- אמה בת חמשה טפחים (Cubit of five handbreadths) = The smaller cubit used for specific altar measurements (base, corners, sovev)
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא
Final calculation of the altar’s height in tefachim and its midpoint
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִזְבֵּחַ כַּמָּה הָוֵי? חַמְשִׁין וּתְמָנְיָא. פַּלְגֵיהּ דְּמִזְבֵּחַ כַּמָּה הָוֵי? עֶשְׂרִין וְתִשְׁעָה. מִקְּרָנוֹת וְעַד סוֹבֵב כַּמָּה הָווּ? עֶשְׂרִין וּתְלָתָא.
English Translation:
Accordingly, how many handbreadths is the height of the altar? It is fifty-eight handbreadths high, as only eight of its cubits are of six handbreadths, while two cubits, those of the base and of the corners, are of five handbreadths. How many handbreadths is the height of half of the altar? It is twenty-nine handbreadths. How many handbreadths is the height from the top of the corners of the altar until the surrounding ledge? It is twenty-three handbreadths, as the corners of the altar are five handbreadths high, and the upper section of the altar is three cubits of six handbreadths.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now performs the critical arithmetic. The altar is 10 cubits tall, but not all cubits are equal: 8 cubits are measured at 6 tefachim each (48), while the base cubit and the corners cubit use the smaller 5-tefach measure (10), yielding a total of 58 tefachim. The midpoint is therefore 29 tefachim. From the top of the corners down to the sovev is 23 tefachim (5 for the corners plus 3 cubits of 6 tefachim for the upper altar section). This means the sovev sits 6 tefachim above the midpoint (29 - 23 = 6), which is the key figure needed to validate the baraita discussed next.
Key Terms:
- סוֹבֵב (Sovev) = The surrounding ledge that encircles the altar at a height of 6 cubits from the ground
- פַּלְגֵיהּ (Palgei) = Half; here referring to the midpoint of the altar’s total height
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
Confirming the sovev is above the midpoint, validating the baraita
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כַּמָּה בְּצִיר לְפַלְגֵיהּ דְּמִזְבֵּחַ? שִׁיתָּא, וּתְנַן: אִם עֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַטָּה מֵרַגְלָיו, אֲפִילּוּ אַמָּה אַחַת – כְּשֵׁירָה.
English Translation:
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 this correlates with that which 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment brings the calculation to its practical conclusion. Since the sovev is 6 tefachim above the altar’s midpoint, performing a service even one cubit (6 tefachim) below the sovev still places the priest in the upper half of the altar. This perfectly aligns with the baraita that permits squeezing (melikah) performed below the priest’s feet on the sovev down to one cubit beneath it. The mathematical proof confirms the halachic ruling: one amah below the sovev is exactly at the midpoint, still within the valid zone.
Key Terms:
- מְלִיקָה (Melikah) = The act of pinching the neck of a bird offering, performed on the altar
- כְּשֵׁירָה (Kesheirah) = Valid; the sacrifice is acceptable
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא
Linguistic proof from the verse distinguishing height (cheik) from width (rochav)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דִּכְתִיב ״חֵיק הָאַמָּה״ וְ״אַמָּה רֹחַב״, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara adds that the language of the verse is also precise. The verse indicates that although it is referring to the height of the base, it is referring to the width of the surrounding ledge, as it is written with regard to the base: “The bottom shall be a cubit,” whereas with regard to the ledge it is written: “And the breadth a cubit.” Since the verse mentions the breadth only with regard to the surrounding ledge one can infer that the previous term is referring not to the width but to the height. The Gemara concludes: One may conclude from the language of the verse that this is the correct interpretation.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara provides textual reinforcement for the interpretation just established. The verse in Ezekiel uses two distinct terms: “cheik ha’amah” (the bottom cubit) for the base and “amah rochav” (a cubit of breadth) for the sovev. The fact that “rochav” (breadth/width) appears only with the sovev implies that the base measurement (“cheik”) refers to height, not width. This is a classic diyuka (precise inference from wording), confirming the measurement framework used in the preceding calculation.
Key Terms:
- חֵיק (Cheik) = Literally “bosom” or “bottom”; here referring to the base of the altar and its height measurement
- רֹחַב (Rochav) = Width or breadth; used to indicate the sovev’s horizontal dimension
- דַּיְקָא נָמֵי (Dayka nami) = “The language is also precise” — a formulaic phrase introducing a textual proof
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא
Defining the “medium cubit” as 6 tefachim, with support from the Table’s dimensions
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְכַמָּה אַמָּה בֵּינוֹנִית? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שִׁשָּׁה טְפָחִים. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר אָבִין: אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: הַשֻּׁלְחָן אׇרְכּוֹ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר וְרׇחְבּוֹ שִׁשָּׁה.
English Translation:
§ The Gemara (97a) cited a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda. According to Rabbi Meir all the cubits mentioned with regard to the Temple were medium cubits, except for the measurements of the golden altar, the corners of the external altar, its surrounding ledge, and its base. The Gemara asks: And how many handbreadths is a medium cubit? Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is six handbreadths. Rabbi Yosei bar Avin says: We learn in a mishna (96a), as well: Rabbi Meir says: The Table, its length is twelve handbreadths and its width is six handbreadths. Since the Torah states that the length of the Table was two cubits and its width one cubit (see Exodus 25:23), this indicates that the cubit is six handbreadths.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara opens a new topic by defining the “medium cubit” (amah beinonit) that Rabbi Meir considers the standard for most Temple measurements. Rabbi Yochanan states it is 6 tefachim. Rabbi Yosei bar Avin provides Tannaitic support: Rabbi Meir himself taught that the Table (Shulchan) is 12 tefachim long and 6 wide, and since the Torah specifies its length as 2 cubits, each cubit must equal 6 tefachim. This is significant because the existence of a “medium” cubit implies there are also larger cubits, which the Gemara will explore next.
Key Terms:
- אַמָּה בֵּינוֹנִית (Amah beinonit) = The medium or standard cubit, equal to 6 handbreadths (approximately 48 cm)
- שֻׁלְחָן (Shulchan) = The Table of the Showbread (lechem hapanim) in the Temple
Segment 6
TYPE: משנה
Two measuring rods in the Shushan HaBirah chamber — cubits larger than Moses’ standard
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִכְּלָל דְּהָוְיָא אַמָּה דִּנְפִישָׁא מִינַּהּ? אִין, וְהָא תְּנַן: שְׁתֵּי אַמּוֹת הָיוּ בְּשׁוּשַׁן הַבִּירָה, אַחַת עַל קֶרֶן מִזְרָחִית צְפוֹנִית וְאַחַת עַל קֶרֶן מִזְרָחִית דְּרוֹמִית. שֶׁעַל קֶרֶן מִזְרָחִית צְפוֹנִית יְתֵירָה עַל שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה חֲצִי אֶצְבַּע, שֶׁעַל קֶרֶן מִזְרָחִית דְּרוֹמִית הָיְתָה יְתֵירָה עָלֶיהָ חֲצִי אֶצְבַּע, נִמְצֵאת יְתֵירָה עַל שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה אֶצְבַּע.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: May one derive from the fact that the cubit of six handbreadths is referred to as a medium cubit that there is a cubit that is larger than the medium cubit? The Gemara answers: Yes, there is a larger cubit, and so we learned in a mishna (Kelim 17:9): There were two rods for measuring cubits in the chamber of Shushan the capital, which was located above the eastern gate of the Temple Mount, one in the northeast corner and one in the southeast corner. The one that was in the northeast corner was longer than the cubit used by Moses in the building of the Tabernacle, which was of six handbreadths, by half a fingerbreadth, and the one that was in the southeast corner was longer than the other one by another half a fingerbreadth. One therefore finds it longer than Moses’ cubit by a full fingerbreadth.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara confirms that cubits larger than the standard 6-tefach measure existed in the Temple. The mishna in Kelim describes two measuring rods stored in the Shushan HaBirah chamber above the Temple Mount’s eastern gate. One rod exceeded Moses’ cubit by half a fingerbreadth, the other by a full fingerbreadth. These were not arbitrary — they served a precise halachic function to prevent me’ilah (misuse of sanctified property), as the next segment explains.
Key Terms:
- שׁוּשַׁן הַבִּירָה (Shushan HaBirah) = The chamber of “Shushan the Capital,” located above the eastern gate of the Temple Mount, where standard measures were kept
- אֶצְבַּע (Etzba) = A fingerbreadth, the smallest standard unit of measurement (approximately 2 cm)
Segment 7
TYPE: משנה
Why two cubit sizes: artisans take payment by the smaller, return work by the larger
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלָמָה אָמְרוּ אַחַת גְּדוֹלָה וְאַחַת קְטַנָּה? כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהוּ הָאוּמָּנִין נוֹטְלִין בַּקְּטַנָּה, וּמַחְזִירִין בַּגְּדוֹלָה, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יָבוֹאוּ לִידֵי מְעִילָה.
English Translation:
The mishna continues: And why did the Sages say that there should be two measures of a cubit, one large and one small? It was so that the artisans who were working in the Temple would take payment according the amount of work they did, as measured by the small cubit, and return it to the Temple through their work, as measured by the large cubit, so they would not come to misuse consecrated property. If they would accept any payment that they did not deserve, they would be misusing consecrated property.
קלאוד על הדף:
This mishna reveals a remarkable institutional safeguard against me’ilah. Artisans contracted for Temple work were paid based on the smaller cubit measurement but required to deliver work measured by the larger cubit. The net effect: they always provided slightly more material or labor than they were compensated for, ensuring they never inadvertently benefited from hekdesh (consecrated property). This illustrates the Sages’ pragmatic approach to preventing even unintentional transgression — building a buffer into the very measuring system itself.
Key Terms:
- מְעִילָה (Me’ilah) = Misuse or unauthorized benefit from consecrated Temple property; a serious transgression requiring a guilt offering
- אוּמָּנִין (Ummanin) = Artisans or craftsmen employed in Temple construction and maintenance
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא
Two large cubits: the smaller difference for precious metals, the larger for construction
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְתַרְתֵּי לְמָה לִי? חֲדָא – לְכַסְפָּא וְדַהֲבָא, וַחֲדָא – לְבִנְיָינָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And why do I need two large cubits? The Gemara answers: One, the shorter of the two, was used to measure silver and gold. Since silver and gold were valuable, the difference between the two measurements was set at only half a fingerbreadth, so that the artisans would not suffer too great a loss. And the other one, which was longer than Moses’ cubit by a full fingerbreadth, was used in the construction of wood and stone structures.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara explains the practical rationale for having two oversized cubits rather than one. For work with precious metals (silver and gold), where even a small excess represents significant cost, the markup over Moses’ cubit was only half a fingerbreadth — minimizing the artisan’s loss while still preventing me’ilah. For construction with wood and stone, where materials are less costly, the full fingerbreadth differential applied. This tiered system balances the need to protect hekdesh against the fairness owed to the workers.
Key Terms:
- כַּסְפָּא וְדַהֲבָא (Kaspa v’dahava) = Silver and gold; precious metals requiring finer measurement tolerances
- בִּנְיָינָא (Binyana) = Construction; referring to building work with wood and stone
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא
New topic: why was Shushan HaBirah depicted on the Temple Mount’s eastern gate?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תְּנַן הָתָם: שַׁעַר הַמִּזְרָח, עָלָיו שׁוּשַׁן הַבִּירָה צוּרָה. מַאי טַעְמָא?
English Translation:
§ The Gemara discusses the depiction of Shushan the capital: We learned in a mishna there (Middot 1:3): One of the five gates of the Temple Mount was the eastern gate upon which Shushan the capital was depicted. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Shushan the capital was depicted on a gate of the Temple Mount?
קלאוד על הדף:
The discussion of the Shushan HaBirah chamber (which houses the measuring rods) naturally leads to a broader question: why was the Persian capital depicted on the Temple Mount at all? This is striking because the Temple is the holiest Jewish space, yet it bore the image of a foreign capital. The Gemara’s question reflects the tension between Jewish sovereignty and the reality of Persian imperial authority during the Second Temple period.
Key Terms:
- שַׁעַר הַמִּזְרָח (Sha’ar HaMizrach) = The eastern gate of the Temple Mount
- צוּרָה (Tzurah) = Image or depiction; here referring to a carved or painted representation of the Persian capital
Segment 10
TYPE: מחלוקת
Rav Chisda vs. Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi: gratitude to Persia or fear of the empire
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב חִסְדָּא וְרַב יִצְחָק בַּר אַבְדִּימִי, חַד אָמַר: כְּדֵי שֶׁיֵּדְעוּ מֵהֵיכָן בָּאוּ, וְחַד אָמַר: כְּדֵי שֶׁתְּהֵא אֵימַת מַלְכוּת עֲלֵיהֶן.
English Translation:
There is a dispute with regard to this matter between Rav Ḥisda and Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi. One said that Shushan was depicted so that those who passed through the gate would know from where it was that they had come back to Jerusalem. The Jews returned once Persia had conquered Babylonia, and therefore they should give thanks to the Persian Empire for releasing them from exile. And one said that it was depicted so that the fear of the Persian Empire would be upon them, to prevent them from rebelling.
קלאוד על הדף:
Two profoundly different readings of the same symbol. One view sees the depiction as an expression of gratitude — a reminder that Persian benevolence made the return to Zion and the rebuilding of the Temple possible. The other view sees it as a political warning — a constant visual reminder of imperial authority to discourage rebellion. The Gemara does not resolve which Amora held which view, preserving the ambiguity. Both readings reflect historical realities of the Second Temple era.
Key Terms:
- אֵימַת מַלְכוּת (Eimat malkhut) = Fear of the government or empire; a concept the Gemara considers an important social principle
- מֵהֵיכָן בָּאוּ (Me’heikhan ba’u) = “From where they came” — a reminder of origins in exile
Segment 11
TYPE: אגדתא
Rabbi Yannai: always maintain fear of kingship — proof from Moses before Pharaoh
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: לְעוֹלָם תְּהֵא אֵימַת מַלְכוּת עָלֶיךָ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְיָרְדוּ כׇל עֲבָדֶיךָ אֵלֶּה אֵלַי וְהִשְׁתַּחֲווּ לִי לֵאמֹר״, וְאִילּוּ לְדִידֵיהּ לָא קָאָמַר לֵיהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara continues to discuss giving a king his due: Rabbi Yannai says: The fear of kingship should always be upon you, even when the king does not deserve it, as it is stated that Moses said to Pharaoh, when he warned him about the forthcoming plague of the firstborn: “And all these, your servants, shall come down to me, and bow down to me, saying: Get out, you and all the people who follow you, and after that I will go out” (Exodus 11:8). Although ultimately Pharaoh would himself come to Moses, Moses mentioned only that Pharaoh’s servants would come to him, whereas he did not say this to Pharaoh about Pharaoh himself, because of giving a king his due.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yannai extracts a universal principle from Moses’ careful language before Pharaoh. When warning of the final plague, Moses said “your servants shall come down to me” — but the Torah later records that Pharaoh himself came. Moses diplomatically omitted that detail out of respect for royal dignity, even though Pharaoh was an oppressive tyrant. The principle is striking in its breadth: respect for governmental authority applies even when the ruler is undeserving.
Key Terms:
- אֵימַת מַלְכוּת (Eimat malkhut) = Fear/respect for governmental authority; a principle maintained even toward unjust rulers
- כְּבוֹד מַלְכוּת (Kevod malkhut) = Honor due to royalty; the underlying value behind Moses’ diplomatic language
Segment 12
TYPE: אגדתא
Rabbi Yochanan: Elijah ran before the wicked King Ahab out of respect for kingship
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: מֵהָכָא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְיַד ה׳ הָיְתָה אֶל אֵלִיָּהוּ וַיְשַׁנֵּס מׇתְנָיו וַיָּרׇץ לִפְנֵי אַחְאָב עַד בֹּאֲכָה יִזְרְעֶאלָה״.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yoḥanan said this principle may be derived from here, as it is stated: “And the hand of the Lord was on Elijah, and he girded up his loins, and ran before Ahab to the entrance of Jezreel” (I Kings 18:46). Despite Ahab’s wickedness, Elijah acted in this manner out of respect for the king.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yochanan offers an even more dramatic proof. After the great showdown at Mount Carmel — where Elijah had just publicly humiliated the prophets of Baal and demonstrated God’s supremacy — Elijah nonetheless ran on foot before Ahab’s chariot as a royal escort. Ahab was among the most wicked kings in Israel’s history, yet Elijah honored the office of kingship. The phrase “the hand of God was upon Elijah” suggests that this act of deference was itself divinely guided.
Key Terms:
- וַיָּרׇץ לִפְנֵי אַחְאָב (Vayaratz lifnei Achav) = “And he ran before Ahab” — Elijah serving as a runner before the king’s chariot, a gesture of royal honor
Segment 13
TYPE: אגדתא
Aggadic tangent: Ezekiel 47:12 — “its leaf for healing” interpreted as “to unlock the mouth”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״וְעָלֵהוּ לִתְרוּפָה״ – רַב חִסְדָּא וְרַב יִצְחָק בַּר אַבְדִּימִי,
English Translation:
§ The Gemara cites another dispute between Rav Ḥisda and Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi: With regard to the fruit trees that in the future will grow on either side of a river that will emerge from the Temple, the verse states: “And by the river upon its bank, on this side and on that side, shall grow every tree for food, whose leaf shall not wither, neither shall its fruit fail. It shall bring forth new fruit every month, because its waters issue out of the Sanctuary, and its fruit shall be for food, and its leaf for healing [litrufa]” (Ezekiel 47:12). The Gemara interprets the term “litrufa” as a contraction of lehatir peh, meaning: To unlock the mouth, and there is a dispute between Rav Ḥisda and Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi with regard to the meaning of this term.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara pivots to another dispute between the same pair of Amoraim, this time on an eschatological topic. Ezekiel’s vision of the future Temple includes miraculous trees whose leaves serve “litrufa” (for healing). Through a characteristic wordplay, the Gemara reads “litrufa” as “lehatir peh” — “to unlock the mouth.” This sets up a dispute about which “mouth” is being unlocked. The derasha typifies aggadic methodology, where prophetic imagery becomes a springboard for homiletical interpretation.
Key Terms:
- לִתְרוּפָה (Litrufa) = For healing; the Gemara reads this as a contraction of “lehatir peh” (to unlock the mouth)
- לְהַתִּיר פֶּה (Lehatir peh) = To unlock or open the mouth; interpreted either literally (speech) or metaphorically (the womb)
Segment 14
TYPE: מחלוקת
Upper mouth (healing the mute) vs. lower mouth (healing the barren)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
חַד אָמַר לְהַתִּיר פֶּה שֶׁלְּמַעְלָה, וְחַד אָמַר לְהַתִּיר פֶּה שֶׁלְּמַטָּה. אִיתְּמַר: חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר לְהַתִּיר פֶּה אִלְּמִים, בַּר קַפָּרָא אָמַר לְהַתִּיר פֶּה עֲקָרוֹת.
English Translation:
One said the leaf shall serve to unlock the mouth that is above, i.e., in the person’s head. The leaves will unlock the mouths of the mute and they will be capable of speech. And one said the leaf shall serve to unlock the mouth that is below, i.e., the womb, enabling barren women to give birth. It was likewise stated that Ḥizkiyya says: The leaf shall serve to unlock the mouth of the mute, whereas bar Kappara says: It shall serve to unlock the mouth, i.e., the womb, of the barren women.
קלאוד על הדף:
The dispute is resolved into named positions: Chizkiyah says the miraculous leaves will heal the mute (the “upper mouth”), while Bar Kappara says they will heal the barren (the “lower mouth,” i.e., the womb). Both views share the messianic expectation that the future Temple will bring healing to conditions currently beyond remedy. Notably, both interpretations envision the eschatological era as one where the most fundamental human capacities — speech and procreation — will be restored to those who lack them.
Key Terms:
- אִלְּמִים (Ilmim) = Mute people; those unable to speak
- עֲקָרוֹת (Akarot) = Barren women; those unable to bear children
Segment 15
TYPE: ברייתא
Why all three phrases (“twelve cakes,” “two arrangements,” “six per arrangement”) are needed
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אִילּוּ נֶאֱמַר ״וְלָקַחְתָּ סֹלֶת וְאָפִיתָ אֹתָהּ שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה חַלּוֹת וְשַׂמְתָּ אוֹתָם שְׁתַּיִם מַעֲרָכוֹת״ וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר ״שֵׁשׁ״, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר אַחַת שֶׁל אַרְבַּע וְאַחַת שֶׁל שְׁמוֹנֶה, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר ״שֵׁשׁ״.
English Translation:
§ The Torah states with regard to the shewbread: “And you shall take fine flour, and bake twelve cakes from it; two-tenths of an ephah shall be in one cake. And you shall set them in two arrangements, six in an arrangement, upon the pure Table before the Lord” (Leviticus 24:5-6). The Sages taught: Had the Torah stated: “And you shall take fine flour, and bake twelve cakes from it…And you shall set them in two arrangements,” but had it not stated the continuation “six in an arrangement,” I would have said there may be one arrangement of four loaves and one of eight loaves, i.e., the arrangements do not have to be of equal size. Therefore, it is stated: “Six in an arrangement.”
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara opens a new sugya demonstrating why each element of the shewbread verse is indispensable. This baraita uses the classic “if the Torah had only said X” methodology. Without the specification “six in an arrangement,” knowing only that there are “twelve cakes” in “two arrangements” would allow unequal stacks — perhaps 4 in one and 8 in the other. The word “six” forecloses this possibility. This is the first of three such demonstrations, showing that the Torah’s apparent redundancy is in fact essential precision.
Key Terms:
- לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים (Lechem HaPanim) = The shewbread or “bread of the presence”; twelve loaves displayed on the Table in the Temple
- מַעֲרָכוֹת (Ma’arakhot) = Arrangements or stacks; the two piles of six loaves each placed on the Table
Segment 16
TYPE: ברייתא
Without “twelve” — could mean three arrangements of six (total 18)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִילּוּ נֶאֱמַר ״שְׁתַּיִם מַעֲרָכוֹת שֵׁשׁ הַמַּעֲרָכֶת״, וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר ״שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה״ – הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר שָׁלֹשׁ שֶׁל שֵׁשׁ שֵׁשׁ, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר ״שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה״.
English Translation:
The baraita continues: And had the Torah stated: “Two arrangements, six in an arrangement,” but had it not stated: “Twelve cakes,” I would have said that the total number of loaves may be more than twelve, and the phrase “six in an arrangement” teaches that one may bring another arrangement of six loaves in addition to the two mentioned in the verse, so that there are three arrangements of six loaves each. Therefore, it is stated: “Twelve cakes.”
קלאוד על הדף:
The second demonstration addresses a different potential misreading. If the Torah specified “two arrangements, six per arrangement” without a total count, one might read “two” as a minimum rather than an exclusive number. This would allow adding a third arrangement of six, yielding 18 loaves total. The explicit number “twelve” caps the total and prevents this expansion. The baraita reveals how carefully the Sages parsed each word, assuming that without explicit limitation, expansive readings remain possible.
Key Terms:
- שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה (Shteim esreh) = Twelve; the total number of shewbread loaves, which limits the possible arrangements
Segment 17
TYPE: ברייתא
Without “two” and “six” — could mean three arrangements of four (total 12)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִילּוּ נֶאֱמַר ״שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה חַלּוֹת״ וּ״מַעֲרָכוֹת״, וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר ״שְׁתַּיִם״ וְ״שֵׁשׁ״ – הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר שָׁלֹשׁ שֶׁל אַרְבַּע אַרְבַּע, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר ״שְׁתַּיִם״ וְ״שֵׁשׁ״. הָא עַד שֶׁלֹּא יֵאָמְרוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה מִקְרָאוֹת הַלָּלוּ לֹא לָמַדְנוּ.
English Translation:
And had the Torah stated: Twelve cakes…And you shall set them in arrangements, but had it not stated: “Two” and “Six,” I would have said that the twelve loaves should be divided into three arrangements of four loaves each. Therefore, it is stated: “Two arrangements,” and: “Six in an arrangement.” Therefore, until these three phrases in the verses were stated we could not learn how to set the shewbread on the Table.
קלאוד על הדף:
The third and final demonstration completes the proof. If the Torah said only “twelve cakes” and “arrangements” (plural), one could divide twelve into three groups of four. Only the explicit “two” and “six” fix both the number of arrangements and their size. The baraita’s conclusion is powerful: all three specifications are mutually necessary, and removing any one of them opens the door to an incorrect arrangement. This is a textbook example of how halachic exegesis establishes that the Torah contains no superfluous language.
Key Terms:
- שְׁלֹשָׁה מִקְרָאוֹת (Shelosha mikra’ot) = Three scriptural phrases; the three specifications (twelve, two, six) that together define the shewbread arrangement
Segment 18
TYPE: ברייתא
Practical application: must be 2x6. Rabbi permits 7+7 — but what about frankincense?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָא כֵּיצַד? נוֹתֵן שְׁתַּיִם מַעֲרָכוֹת שֶׁל שֵׁשׁ שֵׁשׁ, וְאִם נָתַן אַחַת שֶׁל אַרְבַּע וְאַחַת שֶׁל שְׁמוֹנֶה – לֹא יָצָא, שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁל שֶׁבַע שֶׁבַע, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: רוֹאִין אֶת הָעֶלְיוֹנָה כְּאִילּוּ אֵינָהּ. וְהָא בָּעֵינַן ״וְנָתַתָּ עַל״?
English Translation:
How are these arrangements actually set on the Table? The priest places on the Table two arrangements of six loaves each. And if he placed one arrangement of four loaves and one arrangement of eight loaves he has not fulfilled the obligation. If he added two loaves, so that there were two arrangements of seven loaves each, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: One views the upper loaf of each arrangement as though it is not there, and he has fulfilled the obligation. The Gemara asks: But don’t we require that the frankincense be placed upon the shewbread, as it is stated: “And you shall place pure frankincense upon [al] each arrangement, that it may be for the bread as a memorial part” (Leviticus 24:7)? If the priest places an additional, non-sacred loaf upon the arrangement, it interposes between the frankincense and the shewbread.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita moves from theory to practice. While 4+8 is categorically invalid (it violates the “six” requirement), Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi offers a lenient ruling for 7+7: view the extra top loaf “as if it is not there,” leaving a valid arrangement of six beneath. The Gemara immediately challenges this: the frankincense must be placed “upon” (al) the arrangement, and if the extra loaf sits on top, the frankincense is no longer upon the consecrated shewbread but upon a superfluous loaf. This challenge forces Rabbi to clarify his understanding of the word “al.”
Key Terms:
- רַבִּי (Rabbi) = Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the redactor of the Mishna, commonly referred to simply as “Rabbi”
- לְבֹנָה זַכָּה (Levonah zakah) = Pure frankincense; placed in bowls upon (or adjacent to) each arrangement of shewbread
Segment 19
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolution: Rabbi holds “al” means “adjacent to,” proven from the parochet verse
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא לְרַב הַמְנוּנָא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַב הַמְנוּנָא לְרַב חִסְדָּא: רַבִּי לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר ״עַל״ בְּסָמוּךְ, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אוֹמֵר ״וְנָתַתָּ עַל הַמַּעֲרֶכֶת לְבֹנָה זַכָּה״ – ״עַל״ בְּסָמוּךְ. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר ״עַל״ בְּסָמוּךְ, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא ״עַל״ מַמָּשׁ? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״וְסַכֹּתָ עַל הָאָרֹן אֶת הַפָּרֹכֶת״, הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר ״עַל״ בְּסָמוּךְ.
English Translation:
Rav Ḥisda said to Rav Hamnuna, and some say that Rav Hamnuna said to Rav Ḥisda: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he said that the word “al” means that the frankincense is adjacent to the shewbread. This is as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The verse states: “And you shall place pure frankincense by [al] each arrangement” (Leviticus 24:7). The preposition “al” in this verse means that the frankincense is adjacent to the shewbread. Do you say that al means adjacent to the shewbread, or perhaps it means nothing other than that the frankincense was literally upon the shewbread? When it says: “And you shall place the Curtain as a screen next to [al] the Ark” (Exodus 40:3), it is evident that “al” does not mean upon the Ark, as the Curtain separating the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies was hung in front of the Ark and not placed on top of it. Therefore, you must say that the word al can also mean adjacent to.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is a masterful resolution. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s leniency regarding 7+7 is consistent because he interprets “al” (upon) as “adjacent to” rather than “literally on top of.” The proof is elegant: the Torah says to place the parochet (curtain) “al” the Ark, yet the curtain was hung in front of the Ark, not draped over it. If “al” can mean “next to” in one context, it can mean “next to” for the frankincense as well. Under this reading, the extra loaf creates no problem because the frankincense was never required to be physically atop the bread.
Key Terms:
- עַל בְּסָמוּךְ (Al b’samukh) = “Upon” meaning “adjacent to” rather than “literally on top of”; a hermeneutical principle applied by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi
- פָּרֹכֶת (Parochet) = The curtain separating the Sanctuary (Kodesh) from the Holy of Holies (Kodesh HaKodashim)
Segment 20
TYPE: ברייתא
New topic: all Temple vessels placed east-west except the Ark, which ran north-south
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כׇּל הַכֵּלִים שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּשׁ וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כׇּל הַכֵּלִים שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּשׁ אׇרְכָּן לְאׇרְכּוֹ שֶׁל בַּיִת, חוּץ מֵאָרוֹן שֶׁאׇרְכּוֹ לְרׇחְבּוֹ שֶׁל בַּיִת, וְכָךְ הָיָה מוּנָּח, וְכָךְ הָיוּ בַּדָּיו מוּנָּחִין.
English Translation:
§ The mishna states: All the vessels that were in the Temple were placed so that their length was from east to west, along the length of the Temple. The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to all the vessels that were in the Temple, their length was placed along the length of the Temple, except for the Ark, whose length was placed along the width of the Temple, from north to south. And in this manner the Ark was placed, and in that manner its staves were placed.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara introduces a new sugya about the spatial orientation of Temple vessels. The general rule is straightforward: vessels were aligned with the building’s length (east to west). The Ark, however, was uniquely positioned with its length running north to south — across the width of the Temple. This exception highlights the Ark’s singular status among the Temple furnishings. The baraita adds that the staves’ placement can be used to prove the Ark’s orientation.
Key Terms:
- אׇרְכּוֹ שֶׁל בַּיִת (Orkho shel bayit) = The length of the Temple, running east to west
- רׇחְבּוֹ שֶׁל בַּיִת (Rochbo shel bayit) = The width of the Temple, running north to south
- בַּדִּים (Badim) = The carrying staves of the Ark, which were never removed
Segment 21
TYPE: גמרא
Clarifying the baraita: the Ark’s position is inferred from its staves’ orientation
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי קָאָמַר? הָכִי קָאָמַר: כָּךְ הָיָה מוּנָּח, מִדְּבַדָּיו כָּךְ הָיוּ מוּנָּחִין.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: What is the tanna saying in the last clause of the baraita? The Gemara explains that this is what he is saying: One can infer that in this manner the Ark was placed, i.e., along the width of the Temple, from the fact that its staves were placed in that manner, along the length of the Temple. Since the staves were fixed along the width of the Ark, the Ark itself was necessarily placed along the width of the Temple
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara clarifies the baraita’s somewhat awkward phrasing. The tanna is not stating two independent facts but constructing a proof: we know the Ark’s orientation because we know the staves’ orientation. The staves ran along the Ark’s width (its shorter dimension), and since we can demonstrate that the staves pointed east-west (along the Temple’s length), the Ark’s length must have run north-south (along the Temple’s width). This is a geometric deduction — knowing which axis the staves occupied determines the Ark’s perpendicular orientation.
Key Terms:
- מַאי קָאָמַר (Mai ka’amar) = “What is the tanna saying?” — a standard Gemara formula for clarifying the intent of a tannaitic statement
Segment 22
TYPE: גמרא
Scriptural proof for the staves’ east-west orientation from I Kings 8:8
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּבַדָּיו מְנָלַן? דְּתַנְיָא: ״וַיַּאֲרִכוּ הַבַּדִּים״ – יָכוֹל לֹא הָיוּ נוֹגְעִין בַּפָּרוֹכֶת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וַיֵּרָאוּ״. אִי ״וַיֵּרָאוּ״ – יָכוֹל יְהוּ מְקָרְעִין בַּפָּרוֹכֶת וְיוֹצְאִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לֹא יֵרָאוּ הַחוּצָה״. הָא כֵּיצַד?
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And with regard to its staves, from where do we derive that they were placed along the length of the Temple, from east to west? This is derived as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And the staves were so long that the ends of the staves were seen from the holy place before the Sanctuary, but they could not be seen outside” (I Kings 8:8). One might have thought that the staves did not touch the Curtain separating the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies, and did not protrude at all. Therefore, the verse states: “The ends of the staves were seen.” If the verse had stated only: “The ends of the staves were seen,” one might have thought that the staves tear through the Curtain and emerge into the Sanctuary. Therefore, the verse states: “They could not be seen outside.” How can these texts be reconciled?
קלאוד על הדף:
This is a beautiful piece of scriptural analysis that will be resolved on 98b. The verse in I Kings contains an apparent contradiction: the staves “were seen” yet “could not be seen outside.” The Gemara systematically eliminates extreme interpretations. If they were not visible at all, why say “were seen”? If they fully protruded, why say “could not be seen”? The resolution (given on the next amud) is that the staves pressed against the parochet from behind, creating visible bulges in the curtain without actually penetrating it. This proves the staves ran east-west toward the parochet.
Key Terms:
- וַיַּאֲרִכוּ הַבַּדִּים (Vaya’arikhu habadim) = “And the staves were long” (I Kings 8:8); the key verse proving the staves’ east-west orientation
- פָּרוֹכֶת (Parochet) = The curtain between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies; the staves pressed against it from the west
Amud Bet (98b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
Resolution of the staves question: the staves pressed eastward against the Parochet
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דּוֹחֲקִין וּבוֹלְטִין בַּפָּרוֹכֶת, וְדוֹמִין כְּמִין שְׁנֵי דַּדֵּי אִשָּׁה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״צְרוֹר הַמֹּר דּוֹדִי לִי בֵּין שָׁדַי יָלִין״.
English Translation:
The baraita explains: The staves of the Ark pressed against the Curtain and bulged outward. And they appeared like two breasts of a woman that are discernible through her clothes, as it is stated: “My beloved is to me like a bundle of myrrh that lies between my breasts” (Song of Songs 1:13). Since the staves pressed against the Curtain, they were evidently placed from east to west.
קלאוד על הדף:
This passage resolves the question from 98a about the orientation of the Ark’s staves. The fact that the staves pressed eastward against the Parochet (the curtain separating the Holy of Holies from the Heichal) and created visible bulges proves that the staves ran east-west, extending toward the curtain. The vivid imagery from Song of Songs underscores the intimate relationship between God and Israel — the Ark, containing the Torah, presses outward as if reaching toward the people. This detail also confirms the Ark’s own orientation: its length (2.5 cubits) ran north-south, with the staves along the shorter width pointing east-west.
Key Terms:
- פָּרוֹכֶת (Parochet) = The curtain separating the Holy of Holies from the Sanctuary (Heichal)
- בַּדֵּי הָאָרוֹן (Badei HaAron) = The carrying staves of the Ark, which were never removed (Exodus 25:15)
Segment 2
TYPE: קושיא
Challenge: maybe the staves ran along the Ark’s length, not its width
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמְנָלַן דְּבַדָּיו לְפוּתְיָא דְּאָרוֹן הֲווֹ יָתְבִי? דִּילְמָא לְאׇרְכּוֹ דְּאָרוֹן הֲווֹ יָתְבִי! אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: תְּרֵי גַּבְרֵי בְּאַמְּתָא וּפַלְגָא לָא מִסְתַּגִּי לְהוּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that the Ark’s staves were set along the width of the Ark? Perhaps they were set along the Ark’s length, in which case the Ark was placed along the length of the Temple, not along its width. Rav Yehuda said that this cannot be the case, as the Ark was carried by two men on each side, who stood between the two staves. If the staves were placed along its length, the two men carrying it on each side would be positioned along the width of the Ark, which was one and a half cubits. This is impossible, as two men standing next to each other in the space of only one and a half cubits cannot walk. If the staves were placed along the width of the Ark, the two bearers on each side would be positioned between the staves along the length of the Ark, which was a larger space of two and a half cubits.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges the assumption that the staves ran along the Ark’s width (1.5 cubits) rather than its length (2.5 cubits). Rav Yehuda provides a practical proof: since four men carried the Ark — two on each side standing between the two staves — they needed sufficient space to walk side by side. Two men cannot walk together in a space of only 1.5 cubits, so the staves must have been positioned along the width, with the bearers spread along the 2.5-cubit length. This elegantly combines physical reasoning with the established east-west orientation from Segment 1.
Key Terms:
- לְפוּתְיָא (L’futyah) = Along the width; here referring to the 1.5-cubit dimension of the Ark
- לְאׇרְכּוֹ (L’orkho) = Along the length; here referring to the 2.5-cubit dimension of the Ark
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
Scriptural source that four men carried the Ark
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמְנָא לַן דִּבְאַרְבְּעָה הֲווֹ דָּרוּ לְהוּ? דִּכְתִיב ״וְנָסְעוּ הַקְּהָתִים״ – תְּרֵי, ״נֹשְׂאֵי הַמִּקְדָּשׁ״ – נָמֵי תְּרֵי.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that the Ark was carried by four men? This is derived from a verse, as it is written with regard to the carrying of the Ark by the descendants of Kohath: “And the Kohathites would travel, the bearers of the Holy Ark, that the Tabernacle might be set up before their coming” (Numbers 10:21). The verse uses the plural form twice. The first phrase: “And the Kohathites would travel,” indicates that two people bear the Ark, and the second phrase: “The bearers of the Holy Ark,” also indicates that two people bear the Ark; the total is therefore four bearers.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now provides the scriptural basis for the assumption that four men carried the Ark, which was essential to the previous segment’s argument. Numbers 10:21 uses two plural forms: “the Kohathites would travel” (implying at least two) and “bearers of the Holy Ark” (another two), yielding a total of four bearers. This is a classic example of the hermeneutic principle of deriving practical details from the Torah’s choice of plural forms. With four bearers established — two on each side — the argument that the staves must run along the width (to give each pair of bearers 2.5 cubits of walking space) becomes conclusive.
Key Terms:
- הַקְּהָתִים (HaKehatim) = The Kohathites, descendants of Kehat son of Levi, responsible for carrying the Ark and other holy vessels
- נֹשְׂאֵי הַמִּקְדָּשׁ (Nos’ei HaMikdash) = Bearers of the Holy [Ark], the second plural form in the verse
Segment 4
TYPE: ברייתא
New topic: Solomon’s ten additional tables in the Temple
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: עֲשָׂרָה שׁוּלְחָנוֹת עָשָׂה שְׁלֹמֹה הַמֶּלֶךְ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיַּעַשׂ שֻׁלְחָנוֹת עֲשָׂרָה וַיַּנַּח בַּהֵיכָל חֲמִשָּׁה מִיָּמִין וַחֲמִשָּׁה מִשְּׂמֹאול״.
English Translation:
§ The Sages taught: King Solomon built ten additional tables, modeled after the one that Moses crafted, as it is stated in the description of the Temple constructed by Solomon: “He made also ten tables, and placed them in the Sanctuary, five on the right side, and five on the left” (II Chronicles 4:8).
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara transitions to a new topic: the furnishings that King Solomon added to the First Temple beyond what Moses had made for the Tabernacle. According to II Chronicles, Solomon made ten tables — in addition to the original Table of Moses — and placed them in the Heichal, five on the right and five on the left. This sets up a series of questions about the precise placement of these tables within the Sanctuary. The phrase “five on the right, five on the left” is ambiguous — right and left of what? — and the Gemara will now work to resolve this ambiguity.
Key Terms:
- שׁוּלְחָנוֹת (Shulchanot) = Tables; in the Temple context, used for the lechem hapanim (showbread)
- הֵיכָל (Heichal) = The Sanctuary, the main hall of the Temple (as distinct from the Holy of Holies)
Segment 5
TYPE: קושיא
Problem: “right and left” of the entrance puts tables in the south, violating Torah law
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִם תֹּאמַר: חֲמִשָּׁה מִימִין הַפֶּתַח, וַחֲמִשָּׁה מִשְּׂמֹאל הַפֶּתַח – אִם כֵּן מָצִינוּ שֶׁשּׁוּלְחָן בַּדָּרוֹם, וְהַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה: ״וְהַשֻּׁלְחָן תִּתֵּן עַל צֶלַע צָפוֹן״.
English Translation:
And if you say that the terms “right” and “left” are referring to the two sides of the entrance to the Sanctuary, which was in the center of the eastern wall, this is difficult. According to this interpretation, Solomon placed five tables to the right of the entrance, on the north side, and five tables to the left of the entrance, on the south of the Sanctuary. If so, we find that in the case of the five tables to the left of the entrance, the table was placed in the south of the Sanctuary. But the Torah said: “And you shall put the Table on the north side” (Exodus 26:35).
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara raises a critical problem with the naive reading of “right and left.” If these refer to the right and left sides of the entrance (which was in the eastern wall), then “right” would be north and “left” would be south. But placing five tables in the south of the Sanctuary directly contradicts Exodus 26:35, which explicitly states that the Table must be on the north side. This contradiction forces the Gemara to reinterpret what “right” and “left” refer to in the verse from Chronicles.
Key Terms:
- צֶלַע צָפוֹן (Tzela Tzafon) = The north side; the Torah-mandated location for the Table in the Sanctuary
- יָמִין / שְׂמֹאל (Yamin / Smol) = Right / left; here the Gemara clarifies that these terms do not refer to the entrance
Segment 6
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolution: “right and left” refer to Moses’ Table, not the entrance
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה בָּאֶמְצַע, חֲמִשָּׁה מִימִינוֹ, וַחֲמִשָּׁה מִשְּׂמֹאלוֹ.
English Translation:
Rather, the verse means that the Table of Moses was placed in the middle of the north section of the Sanctuary, while five of Solomon’s tables were placed to the right of Moses’ Table and the other five were placed to the left of Moses’ Table. All of the tables were in the north of the Sanctuary.
קלאוד על הדף:
The resolution is elegant: “right” and “left” in the verse from Chronicles do not refer to the entrance but to Moses’ original Table, which stood in the center of the north wall. Five of Solomon’s tables were placed to its right and five to its left, keeping all eleven tables on the north side of the Sanctuary as required by the Torah. This interpretation preserves both the verse in Chronicles and the Torah’s placement requirement, while also establishing the primacy of Moses’ Table at the center.
Key Terms:
- שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה (Shel Moshe) = Moses’ [Table]; the original Table from the Tabernacle, which retained its central position in Solomon’s Temple
Segment 7
TYPE: ברייתא
Solomon also made ten candelabra, placed five on each side
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: עֶשֶׂר מְנוֹרוֹת עָשָׂה שְׁלֹמֹה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיַּעַשׂ אֶת הַמְּנֹרוֹת הַזָּהָב עֶשֶׂר כַּמִּשְׁפָּט וַיִּתֵּן בַּהֵיכָל חֲמִשָּׁה מִיָּמִין וַחֲמִשָּׁה מִשְּׂמֹאול״.
English Translation:
Similarly, the Sages taught: King Solomon built ten additional candelabra, modeled after the one that Moses crafted, as it is stated: “And he made the ten candelabra of gold according to the ordinance concerning them; and he set them in the Sanctuary, five on the right, and five on the left” (II Chronicles 4:7).
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presents a parallel baraita about the Menorah. Just as Solomon added ten tables, he also made ten golden candelabra modeled after Moses’ original. The verse from II Chronicles uses the identical language — “five on the right and five on the left” — creating the same interpretive challenge. The phrase “according to the ordinance concerning them” indicates that Solomon’s candelabra followed the same design specifications as Moses’ Menorah. The Gemara will now apply the same logic used for the tables to resolve the placement of these candelabra.
Key Terms:
- מְנוֹרוֹת (Menorot) = Candelabra (plural of Menorah); Solomon made ten in addition to Moses’ original
- כַּמִּשְׁפָּט (KaMishpat) = According to the ordinance; indicating they followed the same design as Moses’ Menorah
Segment 8
TYPE: קושיא
Same problem: “right and left” of the entrance puts candelabra in the north, violating Torah law
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִם תֹּאמַר: חֲמִשָּׁה מִימִין הַפֶּתַח וַחֲמִשָּׁה מִשְּׂמֹאל הַפֶּתַח, אִם כֵּן מָצִינוּ מְנוֹרָה בַּצָּפוֹן, וְהַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה: ״וְאֶת הַמְּנוֹרָה נֹכַח הַשֻּׁלְחָן״.
English Translation:
And if you say that the terms “right” and “left” are referring to the two sides of the entrance to the Sanctuary, this is difficult. According to this interpretation, Solomon placed five candelabra to the right of the entrance, on the north side, and five candelabra to the left of the entrance, on the south side. If so, we find that in the case of the five candelabra to the right of the entrance, the candelabrum was placed in the north of the Sanctuary. But the Torah said: “And you shall set the Table outside the Curtain, and the Candelabrum opposite the Table on the side of the Tabernacle toward the south, and you shall put the Table on the north side” (Exodus 26:35).
קלאוד על הדף:
Mirroring the challenge raised about the tables, the Gemara raises the same objection for the candelabra. If “right” means right of the entrance (north), then five candelabra end up on the north side. But the Torah explicitly places the Menorah on the south side, “opposite the Table.” The symmetry of the argument is deliberate — the Gemara is establishing a consistent interpretive principle for how to read “right and left” in the descriptions of Solomon’s Temple furnishings.
Key Terms:
- נֹכַח הַשֻּׁלְחָן (Nokhach HaShulchan) = Opposite the Table; the Torah places the Menorah in the south, facing the Table in the north
Segment 9
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolution: “right and left” refer to Moses’ Menorah, all on the south side
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה בָּאֶמְצַע, חֲמִשָּׁה מִימִינָהּ, וַחֲמִשָּׁה מִשְּׂמֹאלָהּ.
English Translation:
Rather, the verse means that the Candelabrum of Moses was placed in the middle of the south section of the Sanctuary, while five of the candelabra that Solomon crafted were placed to the right of the Candelabrum of Moses, and five to its left, all in the south of the Sanctuary.
קלאוד על הדף:
The identical resolution applies: Moses’ Menorah was placed in the center of the south wall, and Solomon arranged five candelabra to its right and five to its left, all remaining on the south side. The symmetry with the table arrangement is striking — both Moses’ original Table and Menorah held the central, most honored position, with Solomon’s additions flanking them. This preserves the Torah’s spatial requirements while explaining how Solomon’s Temple expanded the Tabernacle’s design.
Key Terms:
- שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה בָּאֶמְצַע (Shel Moshe Ba’emtza) = Moses’ [Menorah] in the center; highlighting its primacy among all eleven candelabra
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא
Two baraitot about where in the Sanctuary the tables and candelabra were placed
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנֵי חֲדָא: מֵחֲצִי בַּיִת וְלִפְנִים הָיוּ מוּנָּחִין, וְתָנֵי חֲדָא: מִשְּׁלִישׁ הַבַּיִת וְלִפְנִים הָיוּ מוּנָּחִין.
English Translation:
§ It is taught in one baraita that these tables and candelabra were set inward of the first half of the length of the structure of the Temple, as measured from east to west. And it is taught in one baraita that they were set inward of the first third of the length of the structure of the Temple.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presents an apparent contradiction between two baraitot about the east-west positioning of the tables and candelabra. One says they were placed “inward of half the Temple,” while the other says “inward of one-third of the Temple.” This contradiction is about how far from the eastern entrance the furnishings were located. Since these are both authoritative tannaitic sources, the Gemara needs to reconcile them rather than choosing one over the other.
Key Terms:
- מֵחֲצִי בַּיִת (MeHatzi Bayit) = Inward of half the Temple structure
- מִשְּׁלִישׁ הַבַּיִת (MiShlish HaBayit) = Inward of one-third of the Temple structure
Segment 11
TYPE: תירוץ
No contradiction: the two baraitot use different baselines for measuring
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלָא קַשְׁיָא, מָר קָא חָשֵׁיב בֵּית קׇדְשֵׁי הַקֳּדָשִׁים בַּהֲדֵי הֵיכָל, מָר לָא קָא חָשֵׁיב בֵּית קׇדְשֵׁי הַקֳּדָשִׁים בַּהֲדֵי הֵיכָל.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains that this is not difficult, as the two baraitot do not disagree with regard to the location of the tables and candelabra. In the second baraita the Sage is reckoning the length of the Hall of the Holy of Holies, which was twenty cubits, together with the length of the Sanctuary, which was forty cubits. Accordingly, the total length of the structure of the Temple was sixty cubits, and the tables and candelabra were set inward of the first third of its length, i.e., twenty cubits from the entrance. Conversely, in the first baraita the Sage is not reckoning the length of the Hall of the Holy of Holies together with the length of the Sanctuary. Since he is referring to the forty cubits of the Sanctuary itself, inward of the first half of the structure of the Temple’s length means twenty cubits from the entrance.
קלאוד על הדף:
The resolution is mathematically elegant. Both baraitot agree on the same physical location — 20 cubits from the entrance — but they measure differently. The baraita that says “one-third” includes the Holy of Holies (20 cubits) with the Heichal (40 cubits), totaling 60 cubits; one-third of 60 is 20. The baraita that says “half” counts only the Heichal’s 40 cubits; half of 40 is 20. Same result, different denominators. This illustrates the Gemara’s characteristic precision in harmonizing apparent contradictions through careful attention to unstated assumptions.
Key Terms:
- בֵּית קׇדְשֵׁי הַקֳּדָשִׁים (Beit Kodshei HaKodashim) = The Holy of Holies, measuring 20 cubits
- הֵיכָל (Heichal) = The Sanctuary proper, measuring 40 cubits in length
Segment 12
TYPE: מחלוקת
Dispute: were Solomon’s tables positioned east-west or north-south?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מִזְרָח וּמַעֲרָב הָיוּ מוּנָּחִין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: צָפוֹן וְדָרוֹם. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי? גָּמַר מִמְּנוֹרָה – מָה מְנוֹרָה מִזְרָח וּמַעֲרָב, אַף הָנֵי נָמֵי מִזְרָח וּמַעֲרָב.
English Translation:
The Sages taught in a baraita: All the tables built by Solomon were placed from east to west, i.e., their length was along the length of the Sanctuary, as was the Table in the Tabernacle; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: They were placed from north to south, along the width of the Sanctuary. The Gemara explains: What is the reason of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? He derives this halakha from a comparison of the tables to the Candelabrum: Just as the Candelabrum was placed from east to west, so too, these tables were positioned from east to west.
קלאוד על הדף:
A major new dispute opens between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Elazar b’Rabbi Shimon about the orientation of Solomon’s tables. Rabbi holds they were east-west (their length running along the length of the Sanctuary), deriving this from the Menorah’s orientation. Rabbi Elazar b’Rabbi Shimon holds north-south, deriving from the Ark. The dispute hinges on a fundamental methodological question: from which Temple vessel should we derive the orientation of the tables? Each Tanna selects a different analogue, producing opposite conclusions.
Key Terms:
- רַבִּי (Rabbi) = Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the compiler of the Mishna, who holds the tables were east-west
- רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן (R. Elazar b’R. Shimon) = Son of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, who holds the tables were north-south
- גָּמַר מִמְּנוֹרָה (Gamar MiMenurah) = He derives from the Menorah; the hermeneutic basis for Rabbi’s position
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא
Source that the Menorah was east-west: the western lamp is singled out as “before the Lord”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמְנוֹרָה גּוּפַהּ מְנָלַן? מִדִּכְתִיב בְּנֵר מַעֲרָבִי ״יַעֲרֹךְ אֹתוֹ [אַהֲרֹן וְגוֹ׳] לִפְנֵי ה׳״ –
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And with regard to the Candelabrum itself, from where do we derive that it was positioned from east to west? This is derived from the fact that it is written with regard to the western lamp of the Candelabrum: “Outside the Curtain of the testimony, in the Tent of Meeting, Aaron shall set it in order, to burn from evening to morning before the Lord continually” (Leviticus 24:3). The phrase “shall set it in order” is written in the singular, referring only to the western lamp.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now provides the foundational proof that the Menorah itself was oriented east-west — the premise for Rabbi’s entire argument. Leviticus 24:3 uses the singular “shall set IT in order” (referring to the western lamp specifically) and describes it as “before the Lord.” The western lamp is singled out because, if the Menorah runs east-west, only the westernmost lamp is closest to the Holy of Holies and thus uniquely “before the Lord.” This is the famous ner ma’aravi (western lamp) that tradition holds miraculously stayed lit.
Key Terms:
- נֵר מַעֲרָבִי (Ner Ma’aravi) = The western lamp of the Menorah, singled out as “before the Lord”
- לִפְנֵי ה׳ (Lifnei Hashem) = Before the Lord; denoting proximity to the Holy of Holies
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא
Inference: the other lamps are NOT “before the Lord,” proving east-west orientation
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִכְּלָל דְּכוּלְּהוּ לָאו ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״, וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ צָפוֹן וְדָרוֹם, כּוּלְּהוּ נָמֵי ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״ נִינְהוּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains: One can infer from the fact that the verse states that the western lamp is set “before the Lord,” i.e., before the Holy of Holies, that the location of all the other lamps of the Candelabrum is not considered “before the Lord,” as they are not situated in the same proximity to the Holy of Holies. This would be the case only if the Candelabrum was positioned from east to west. But if it enters your mind to say that the Candelabrum was positioned from north to south, then all the other lamps should also be considered “before the Lord,” as all the lamps are an equal distance from the Holy of Holies.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment completes the logical proof for an east-west Menorah. The verse singles out the western lamp as “before the Lord,” implying the other lamps are NOT equally “before the Lord.” This distinction only makes sense if the lamps are arranged along an east-west axis, where each lamp is at a different distance from the Holy of Holies. If the Menorah ran north-south, all seven lamps would be equidistant from the western wall and the Holy of Holies, and there would be no reason to single out any one lamp as uniquely “before the Lord.”
Key Terms:
- מִכְּלָל (Mikhlal) = By inference; a hermeneutic move that derives information from what a verse implies by contrast
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא
R. Elazar b’R. Shimon’s reasoning and Rabbi’s counter-argument
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַאי טַעְמָא? גָּמַר מֵאָרוֹן: מָה אָרוֹן צָפוֹן וְדָרוֹם, אַף הָנֵי נָמֵי צָפוֹן וְדָרוֹם. וְרַבִּי נָמֵי לִיגְמַר מֵאָרוֹן? דָּנִין חוּץ מִחוּץ, וְאֵין דָּנִין חוּץ מִבִּפְנִים.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, what is the reason for his opinion? The Gemara replies: He derives this halakha from a comparison of the tables to the Ark: Just as the Ark was placed from north to south, so too, these tables were positioned from north to south. The Gemara challenges: But as for Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, let him also derive from the Ark that the tables were positioned from north to south. The Gemara explains that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, one derives the position of the tables, which are located in the outer area of the Sanctuary, from the Candelabrum, which is also located in the outer area of the Sanctuary. And one does not derive the position of the tables, which are located in the outer area of the Sanctuary, from the Ark, which is located in the inner area of the Sanctuary, the Holy of Holies.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment reveals the deeper methodological disagreement. R. Elazar b’R. Shimon derives from the Ark (which ran north-south), while Rabbi derives from the Menorah (east-west). When challenged why he does not derive from the Ark, Rabbi responds with a powerful hermeneutic principle: one should derive the law of items in the outer area (chuts — the Heichal) from other items in the outer area (the Menorah), not from an item in the inner area (bifnim — the Holy of Holies, where the Ark resides). Like should be compared to like, and spatial context matters for analogical reasoning.
Key Terms:
- דָּנִין חוּץ מִחוּץ (Danin Chuts MiChuts) = We derive [the law of] outer items from outer items; Rabbi’s hermeneutic principle
- אֵין דָּנִין חוּץ מִבִּפְנִים (Ein Danin Chuts MiBifnim) = We do not derive outer items from inner items
Segment 16
TYPE: גמרא
R. Elazar b’R. Shimon’s response: the Menorah itself was also north-south
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, לִיגְמַר מִמְּנוֹרָה? אָמַר לָךְ: מְנוֹרָה גּוּפַהּ צָפוֹן וְדָרוֹם הֲוָה מַנְּחָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges: And as for Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, let him derive from the Candelabrum that the tables were positioned from east to west. The Gemara answers that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, could have said to you: The Candelabrum itself was also placed from north to south.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is a bold counter-move by R. Elazar b’R. Shimon. Rather than accept the premise that the Menorah was east-west (which would undermine his position on the tables), he rejects it entirely: the Menorah itself was also north-south. This eliminates Rabbi’s argument at its root, since if the Menorah was north-south too, then the analogy from the Menorah to the tables supports north-south, not east-west. But this creates a difficulty: how does R. Elazar explain the verse about the western lamp being “before the Lord”?
Key Terms:
- מְנוֹרָה גּוּפַהּ (Menorah Gufah) = The Menorah itself; R. Elazar disputes its orientation, not just the tables’
Segment 17
TYPE: גמרא
How R. Elazar explains the “western lamp” verse: the wick is turned toward the Holy of Holies
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא הָכְתִיב ״יַעֲרֹךְ אֹתוֹ אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו״, דְּמַצְדֵּד לְהוּ אַצְדּוֹדֵי.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written with regard to the western lamp of the Candelabrum: “Aaron and his sons shall set it in order, to burn from evening to morning before the Lord” (Exodus 27:21), indicating that this lamp must be in greater proximity to the Holy of Holies, which is possible only if the Candelabrum is positioned from east to west? The Gemara replies that according to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, the term “before the Lord” means that the wick of the middle lamp is turned toward the Holy of Holies, as the priest who kindles the lamps turns the wicks of the other lamps slightly to the side, whereas the wick of the middle lamp is turned directly toward the Holy of Holies.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges R. Elazar’s north-south Menorah with the verse about “Aaron and his sons shall set IT in order… before the Lord.” If the Menorah runs north-south, what makes one lamp uniquely “before the Lord”? R. Elazar answers creatively: the special status of the “western lamp” is not about its physical position but about the direction its wick faces. The priest turns (matzded) the wicks of the outer lamps to the side, while the middle lamp’s wick points directly toward the Holy of Holies. Thus “before the Lord” refers to wick direction, not lamp position.
Key Terms:
- דְּמַצְדֵּד לְהוּ אַצְדּוֹדֵי (D’matzded lehu atzdudei) = He turns [the wicks] to the side; the priest angles the outer lamps’ wicks away from directly facing the Holy of Holies
- נֵר אֶמְצָעִי (Ner Emtza’i) = The middle lamp; according to R. Elazar, this is the “western lamp” whose wick faces the Holy of Holies
Segment 18
TYPE: ברייתא
The seven lamps face the middle lamp; Rabbi Natan: the middle is preeminent
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּתַנְיָא: ״אֶל מוּל פְּנֵי הַמְּנוֹרָה יָאִירוּ שִׁבְעַת הַנֵּרוֹת״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָיוּ מְצַדְּדִין פְּנֵיהֶם כְּלַפֵּי נֵר אֶמְצָעִי. אָמַר רַבִּי נָתָן: מִכָּאן שֶׁאֶמְצָעִי מְשׁוּבָּח.
English Translation:
This is as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “When you light the lamps, the seven lamps shall give light toward the front of the Candelabrum” (Numbers 8:2). This teaches that the priests would turn the front of each lamp toward the middle lamp, but the middle lamp was turned toward the Holy of Holies. Rabbi Natan says: One can infer from here that the middle position is preeminent.
קלאוד על הדף:
This baraita supports R. Elazar’s interpretation of how the lamps were arranged. Numbers 8:2 says the seven lamps “shall give light toward the front of the Menorah,” which the baraita explains means the outer six lamps’ wicks were turned toward the middle lamp. The middle lamp itself faced the Holy of Holies. Rabbi Natan draws a broader principle: the middle position is inherently preeminent (meshubah). This concept has implications beyond the Menorah — it reflects a general valuation of centrality in Jewish thought.
Key Terms:
- אֶל מוּל פְּנֵי הַמְּנוֹרָה (El Mul Penei HaMenurah) = Toward the front of the Menorah; interpreted as toward the middle lamp
- אֶמְצָעִי מְשׁוּבָּח (Emtza’i Meshubah) = The middle is preeminent; Rabbi Natan’s principle about the special status of centrality
Segment 19
TYPE: קושיא
Practical challenge to north-south tables: ten tables at 2 cubits each exceed the 20-cubit width
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִזְרָח וּמַעֲרָב – הַיְינוּ דַּהֲווֹ יָתְבִי עַשְׂרָה בְּעֶשְׂרִין, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר צָפוֹן וְדָרוֹם – עַשְׂרָה בְּעֶשְׂרִין הֵיכִי הֲווֹ יָתְבִי?
English Translation:
§ The Gemara discusses the different opinions with regard to the position of the tables: The length of each table was two cubits. When the ten tables were placed one alongside the other their overall length would amount to slightly more than twenty cubits. Granted, according to the one who said the tables were positioned along the length of the Sanctuary from east to west, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, this is the way that ten tables resided in an area twenty cubits long; they could extend slightly beyond the twenty cubits, since the entire area was forty cubits long. But according to the one who said the tables were positioned along the width of the Sanctuary from north to south, i.e., Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, how could ten tables reside in an area that was precisely twenty cubits wide?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now raises a practical, spatial objection to R. Elazar b’R. Shimon’s north-south arrangement. Each table was two cubits long, so ten tables in a row would occupy slightly more than twenty cubits. If they ran east-west (Rabbi’s view), there were forty cubits of length to work with — plenty of room. But if they ran north-south, the Sanctuary was only twenty cubits wide, barely enough to fit ten tables with no room to spare. This spatial constraint poses a serious challenge to the north-south position.
Key Terms:
- עֶשְׂרִין (Esrin) = Twenty; the width of the Sanctuary in cubits, which constrains the north-south arrangement
Segment 20
TYPE: קושיא
Additional challenges: priest access, south placement, and Moses’ Table
Hebrew/Aramatic:
וְתוּ, כֹּהֲנִים הֵיכִי הֲווֹ עָיְילִי? וְתוּ, מָצִינוּ חֲמִשָּׁה שֻׁלְחָנוֹת בַּדָּרוֹם! וְתוּ, שֻׁלְחָן דְּמֹשֶׁה הֵיכָא מַנַּח לֵיהּ?
English Translation:
And moreover, if the ten tables occupied the entire width of the Sanctuary, how would the High Priests pass them in order to enter the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur? And moreover, if the tables were positioned in this manner we find that five of the ten tables were located in the south of the Sanctuary, whereas the Torah states that the Table must be in the north of the Sanctuary. And moreover, if the ten tables built by Solomon occupied the entire width of the Sanctuary, where would one place the Table built by Moses?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara piles on three additional challenges to R. Elazar’s north-south view. First, if the tables span the entire 20-cubit width, how would the Kohen Gadol pass through to enter the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur? Second, if the tables run north-south across the full width, five tables would end up in the south half of the Sanctuary, violating the Torah’s requirement that the Table be on the north side. Third, where would Moses’ original Table fit if Solomon’s ten tables already fill the entire width? These cascading difficulties seem to decisively refute the north-south position.
Key Terms:
- כֹּהֲנִים הֵיכִי הֲווֹ עָיְילִי (Kohanim heikhi havu ailei) = How would the priests enter? A practical objection about physical access to the Holy of Holies
Segment 21
TYPE: גמרא
Counter: the Moses’ Table problem applies to the east-west view too
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִזְרָח וּמַעֲרָב נָמֵי, שֻׁלְחָן דְּמֹשֶׁה הֵיכָא הֲוָה מַנַּח לֵיהּ?
English Translation:
The Gemara replies: But according to your reasoning, the last question applies according to the one who said the tables were positioned from east to west as well: Where would one place the Table built by Moses? If the ten tables of Solomon occupied the entire twenty cubits of the inner half of the Sanctuary, how could Moses’ Table be placed in the middle of the ten tables?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara employs the classic retort “according to your reasoning” (l’ta’amikh) to show that the Moses’ Table placement problem is not unique to the north-south view. Even according to Rabbi’s east-west view, if ten tables each measuring two cubits occupy the twenty-cubit inner section, there is no room for Moses’ Table in the center. This levels the playing field — both views face the same spatial difficulty — and signals that the resolution must address both opinions equally.
Key Terms:
- וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ (V’lita’amikh) = According to your reasoning; a Talmudic counter-argument that turns the challenger’s own logic against them
Segment 22
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolution: the tables were arranged in two rows, not one
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, מִי סָבְרַתְּ חַד דָּרָא הוּא?! תְּרֵי דָּרֵי נִינְהוּ!
English Translation:
Rather, do you maintain that there was only one row of tables? It was not so; they were set in two rows, with the Table of Moses between the rows. Therefore, there was room for all the tables and it was also possible for the High Priest to pass by them.
קלאוד על הדף:
The elegant resolution dissolves all the spatial difficulties at once: the tables were not arranged in a single row but in two parallel rows. With two rows of five tables each, each row occupies only about ten cubits, leaving ample room within the 20-cubit width (for north-south) or the 40-cubit length (for east-west). Moses’ Table was placed between the two rows, maintaining its central, honored position. This arrangement also solves the access problem — the Kohen Gadol could walk between the rows. The two-row solution works equally well for both Rabbi and R. Elazar b’R. Shimon, which is why the Gemara presents it as the definitive resolution.
Key Terms:
- תְּרֵי דָּרֵי (Trei Darei) = Two rows; the arrangement that resolves all spatial difficulties
- חַד דָּרָא (Had Dara) = One row; the incorrect assumption that created the spatial problems