Menachot Daf 99 (מנחות דף צ״ט)
Daf: 99 | Amudim: 99a – 99b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (99a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
Resolution of the spatial question according to the north-south orientation view
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר צָפוֹן וְדָרוֹם, שַׁפִּיר.
English Translation:
The Gemara continues: Granted, according to the one who said the tables were positioned along the width of the Sanctuary, from north to south, it works out well. According to this opinion there was enough room on the east and the west of the Table for the two priests arranging the new loaves to stand on one side of the Table and for the two priests removing the old loaves to stand on the other side.
קלאוד על הדף:
Continuing the discussion from 98b, the Gemara notes that if Solomon’s ten tables were oriented north-south (aligned across the Sanctuary’s width), the logistics of the shewbread replacement ceremony function smoothly. Two priests could stand to the east of each table and two to the west, giving ample room for the coordinated transfer of old loaves out and new loaves in. This sets up a contrast with the alternative view which the Gemara will now challenge.
Key Terms:
- בִּשְׁלָמָא = “Granted” or “it works out well” — a standard Talmudic idiom introducing the easier side of a comparative question before raising difficulty on the other view
Segment 2
TYPE: קושיא
The spatial difficulty for the east-west orientation view
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִזְרָח וּמַעֲרָב, מִכְּדֵי שֻׁלְחָן כַּמָּה מָשׁוּךְ מִן הַכּוֹתֶל? שְׁתֵּי אַמּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה, וְאַמָּה דִּידֵיהּ, וּשְׁתֵּי אַמּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה דְּבֵינֵי בֵּינֵי.
English Translation:
But according to the one who said the tables were positioned along the length of the Sanctuary, from east to west, in which case the priests arranging and removing the shewbread would stand at the north and south of the Table, this is difficult. Now, consider how much space was taken up by the tables: How far was the Table removed from the northern wall of the Sanctuary? It was two and a half cubits away from the wall, as this is the space necessary for the two priests to pass. And to this one must add one cubit for the width of the northern row of tables itself, and another two and a half cubits that were between the northern row of five tables and Moses’ Table, as space for two priests to pass is required here as well.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now pushes back on the east-west view. With tables oriented along the Sanctuary’s length, priests must stand to the north and south of each table, and the width of the Sanctuary (10 cubits) must accommodate multiple passageways and rows of tables. The Gemara begins a careful measurement: 2.5 cubits clearance from the north wall, plus 1 cubit for the northern row of tables, plus 2.5 cubits between that row and Moses’ Table. These measurements will soon produce a contradiction with the Torah’s mandate that the Table sit in the north of the Sanctuary.
Key Terms:
- מָשׁוּךְ מִן הַכּוֹתֶל = Distance removed from the wall — the measurement used to determine sacred furniture placement
- בֵּינֵי בֵּינֵי = “Between them” — the gap between adjacent rows or objects
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא
Completion of the calculation — 10.5 cubits exceeds the Sanctuary width
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאַמָּה, וּשְׁתֵּי אַמּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה דְּבֵינֵי בֵּינֵי, וְאַמָּה דִּידֵיהּ – אִישְׁתְּכַח דְּקָאָכֵיל שׁוּלְחָן פַּלְגָא דְּאַמְּתָא בְּדָרוֹם.
English Translation:
The Gemara continues to calculate the area occupied by the tables: And then one must add one cubit for the width of the Table of Moses, and two and a half cubits that were between Moses’ Table and the southern row of tables, and another cubit for the width of the southern row itself. This totals ten and a half cubits, according to which it is found that the Table occupies half a cubit in the south of the Sanctuary, although the Table is supposed to be entirely in the north of the Sanctuary.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara completes the arithmetic: 2.5 + 1 + 2.5 + 1 + 2.5 + 1 = 10.5 cubits, exceeding the Sanctuary’s 10-cubit width by half a cubit. Since the southern row of tables would therefore extend half a cubit into the forbidden southern half of the Sanctuary, the east-west orientation seems to violate the Torah’s explicit command that the Shulchan sit in the north (Exodus 26:35). This constitutes a powerful geometric challenge to the east-west view.
Key Terms:
- פַּלְגָא דְּאַמְּתָא = Half a cubit — the problematic overflow into the southern half of the Sanctuary
- שֻׁלְחָן בַּדָּרוֹם = “Table in the south” — a halakhic impossibility since Scripture mandates northern placement
Segment 4
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolution — Moses’ Table sat westward on the raised floor, like a teacher before students
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִי סָבְרַתְּ שֻׁלְחָן דְּמֹשֶׁה בַּהֲדַיְיהוּ הֲוָה יָתֵיב? לָא, דְּמַידְלֵי לֵיהּ, וּמַנַּח לֵיהּ, וּמְיתַתֵּי לְהוּ לְדִידְהוּ פּוּרְתָּא, כְּתַלְמִיד הַיּוֹשֵׁב לִפְנֵי רַבּוֹ.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: Do you maintain that the Table of Moses resided together with the other ten tables, i.e., parallel to them? It was not so. The Table of Moses was situated to the west of the other tables, in the space corresponding to the space between the two rows of tables, and its width should not be added to the width of the two rows of Solomon’s tables. All the tables were therefore situated in the north of the Sanctuary. Since the Temple was built on terrain that sloped downward from west to east, this means that the Table of Moses was raised above the tables of Solomon. The Table of Moses was placed to the west and the tables of Solomon were lowered slightly toward the east. Solomon’s tables therefore appeared in relation to Moses’ Table as a student who sits on a lower level before his teacher.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara resolves the difficulty by revising the geometric assumption: Moses’ Table was not in the same east-west line as Solomon’s ten tables, but rather set to the west of them, in the gap between the two rows. Only 10 of Solomon’s tables occupy the 10-cubit width, and Moses’ Table sits independently to the west on the naturally higher floor of the sloped Temple terrain. The striking image is that of Solomon’s tables arranged before Moses’ Table “like a student sitting before his teacher” — honoring the original Mosaic vessel by placing it on higher ground.
Key Terms:
- מַידְלֵי = “Raised” — the western portion of the Temple floor was elevated due to the natural slope
- כְּתַלְמִיד הַיּוֹשֵׁב לִפְנֵי רַבּוֹ = “Like a student sitting before his teacher” — a metaphor for the honor given to Moses’ original vessel
Segment 5
TYPE: ברייתא
Baraita teaching that only Moses’ Table was used for the shewbread despite Solomon’s ten
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: עֲשָׂרָה שֻׁלְחָנוֹת עָשָׂה שְׁלֹמֹה, וְלֹא הָיוּ מְסַדְּרִין אֶלָּא עַל שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאֶת הַשֻּׁלְחָן אֲשֶׁר עָלָיו לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים זָהָב״.
English Translation:
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: Solomon built ten tables that were situated in the Sanctuary, in addition to Moses’ Table, but the priests would arrange the shewbread only upon the Table of Moses. This is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “And Solomon made all the vessels that were in the House of the Lord, the golden altar, and the Table upon which the shewbread was, of gold” (I Kings 7:48), indicating that the shewbread was placed on only one Table.
קלאוד על הדף:
A baraita raises a striking question: if Solomon built ten additional tables, what function did they serve? The Sages derive from the singular form “the Table” in I Kings 7:48 that the shewbread was placed on only one — Moses’ original Table. The other ten were evidently built for honor and for the sanctity of the Temple’s furnishings, but not for active service. This reading preserves the primacy of Moses’ vessels while accounting for Solomon’s added structures.
Key Terms:
- תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן = “The Sages taught” — standard formula introducing a tannaitic baraita
- לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים = Shewbread (literally “bread of the faces/presence”) — the twelve loaves arranged weekly on the Table
Segment 6
TYPE: ברייתא
Parallel teaching about Solomon’s ten Menorahs — only Moses’ was kindled
Hebrew/Aramaic:
עֶשֶׂר מְנוֹרוֹת עָשָׂה שְׁלֹמֹה, וְלֹא הָיוּ מַדְלִיקִין אֶלָּא בְּשֶׁל מֹשֶׁה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֶת מְנוֹרַת הַזָּהָב וְנֵרֹתֶיהָ לְבָעֵר בָּעֶרֶב״.
English Translation:
Likewise, Solomon built ten candelabra, but the priests would kindle the lamps only on the Candelabrum of Moses. This is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “And they burn unto the Lord every morning and every evening burnt offerings and sweet incense; the shewbread also they arrange in order upon the pure Table, and the Candelabrum of gold with its lamps, to burn every evening” (II Chronicles 13:11). The singular form indicates that the lamps were kindled on only one Candelabrum.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita extends the same principle to the Menorah: Solomon built ten candelabra, but only Moses’ Menorah was actually kindled for the daily lighting. The proof-text from II Chronicles 13:11 uses the singular “the Candelabrum of gold,” paralleling the earlier derivation about the Table. The symmetry reinforces a consistent view: Moses’ originals held functional primacy while Solomon’s additions served as honorific duplicates.
Key Terms:
- מְנוֹרַת הַזָּהָב = The golden Menorah — the seven-branched candelabrum fashioned by Moses (Exodus 25:31-40)
- מַדְלִיקִין = “They would kindle” — the daily priestly service of lighting the lamps at twilight
Segment 7
TYPE: מחלוקת
R’ Elazar ben Shammua’s dissenting view — all tables and candelabra were used
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן שַׁמּוּעַ אוֹמֵר: עַל כּוּלָּם הָיוּ מְסַדְּרִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֶת הַשֻּׁלְחָנוֹת וַעֲלֵיהֶם לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים״, וּבְכוּלָּן הָיוּ מַדְלִיקִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֶת הַמְּנֹרוֹת וְנֵרֹתֵיהֶם לְבַעֲרָם כַּמִּשְׁפָּט לִפְנֵי הַדְּבִיר זָהָב סָגוּר״.
English Translation:
Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua says: They would arrange the shewbread upon all the tables, as it is stated: “And Solomon made all the vessels that were in the House of God, the golden altar as well, and the tables upon which was the shewbread” (II Chronicles 4:19). The plural form indicates that the shewbread was arranged on all the tables. And they would kindle the lamps on all the candelabra, as it is stated in the subsequent verse: “And the candelabra with their lamps, which they should burn according to the ordinance before the Sanctuary, of pure gold” (II Chronicles 4:20).
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua directly contests the anonymous baraita. He marshals II Chronicles 4:19-20 which uses plural forms — “the tables” and “the candelabra” — to prove that all eleven tables and all eleven candelabra (Moses’ plus Solomon’s ten) were actively used for the shewbread and kindling. This creates a classic machloket in which each side points to different verses supporting opposite readings of the Temple’s actual practice.
Key Terms:
- עַל כּוּלָּם הָיוּ מְסַדְּרִין = “They would arrange upon all of them” — the position that all tables were functional
- מַחְלוֹקֶת = A halakhic dispute — here between the Sages of the first baraita and R’ Elazar ben Shammua
Segment 8
TYPE: מחלוקת
R’ Yosei b’Rabbi Yehuda reinterprets the plural — three tables, not eleven
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לֹא הָיוּ מְסַדְּרִין אֶלָּא עַל שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה, אֶלָּא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״וְאֶת הַשֻּׁלְחָנוֹת אֲשֶׁר עֲלֵיהֶם לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים זָהָב״? אֵלּוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה שֻׁלְחָנוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ: שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהָיוּ בְּאוּלָם מִבִּפְנִים לְפֶתַח הַבַּיִת, אֶחָד שֶׁל כֶּסֶף וְאֶחָד שֶׁל זָהָב.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: They would arrange the shewbread only upon the Table of Moses. Rather, how do I realize the meaning of the verse: “And the tables upon which was the shewbread…of pure gold” (II Chronicles 4:19-20)? These are the three tables that were in the Temple, of which there were two that were situated in the Entrance Hall to the Sanctuary, on the inside near to the entrance to the Temple, i.e., near the entrance to the Sanctuary. One of these tables was made of silver, and the other one was made of gold.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yosei b’Rabbi Yehuda offers a middle position defending the first baraita’s view (only Moses’ Table was used for the shewbread) while reinterpreting the plural “tables” in II Chronicles. He reads the plural as referring to three specific tables: the gold shewbread Table inside the Sanctuary plus two auxiliary tables in the Ulam (Entrance Hall), one silver and one gold. This reconciles the textual plural with the functional singularity of Moses’ Table.
Key Terms:
- אוּלָם = Ulam, the Entrance Hall at the front of the Temple, between the Azarah (Courtyard) and the Heichal (Sanctuary)
- מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים = “How do I realize [this verse]?” — formula used to reinterpret a text that seems to contradict one’s position
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא
The function of the silver and gold tables — and the principle maalin bakodesh
Hebrew/Aramaic:
עַל שֶׁל כֶּסֶף נוֹתֵן לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים בִּכְנִיסָתוֹ, וְעַל שֶׁל זָהָב בִּיצִיאָתוֹ, שֶׁמַּעֲלִין בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ וְלֹא מוֹרִידִין. אֶחָד שֶׁל זָהָב בִּפְנִים, שֶׁעָלָיו לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים תָּמִיד.
English Translation:
On the table of silver the priest places the new shewbread that has been baked, before its entrance into the Sanctuary, so that the loaves may cool a little from the heat of the oven. And when the old shewbread is removed from the shewbread Table it is placed on the table of gold upon its exit from the Sanctuary, until the frankincense is burned on the altar. The reason the shewbread is placed on a silver table before it is brought into the Sanctuary and on a gold one when it is removed is that one elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity and one does not downgrade. Since it is set on the gold shewbread Table all week, it cannot be downgraded to a silver table upon its removal. The Gemara concludes: The third of the three tables is the one Table of gold inside the Sanctuary upon which the shewbread is always found.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara explains the practical functions of the two Ulam tables in an elegantly asymmetric system. The incoming fresh loaves rest on the silver table to cool from the oven’s heat before entering sanctity; the outgoing old loaves rest on the gold table while awaiting the burning of their frankincense. The principle determining the metals — maalin bakodesh v’ein moridin (“one elevates in holiness but does not downgrade”) — means that loaves that have already been on the gold Shulchan cannot subsequently be placed on silver. This principle becomes a foundational halakhic axiom invoked throughout the Talmud.
Key Terms:
- מַעֲלִין בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ וְאֵין מוֹרִידִין = “One elevates in holiness and does not downgrade” — a core halakhic principle
- בִּכְנִיסָתוֹ / בִּיצִיאָתוֹ = “Upon its entry / upon its exit” — referring to the movement of the shewbread into and out of the Sanctuary
Segment 10
TYPE: דרשה
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s derivation — Moses himself erected the entire Mishkan
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמְנָא לַן דְּאֵין מוֹרִידִין? אָמַר רַבִּי: דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וַיָּקֶם מֹשֶׁה אֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן וַיִּתֵּן אֶת אֲדָנָיו וַיָּשֶׂם אֶת קְרָשָׁיו וַיִּתֵּן אֶת בְּרִיחָיו וַיָּקֶם אֶת עַמּוּדָיו״.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that one does not downgrade in matters of sanctity? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: This is derived from a verse, as the verse states: “And Moses erected the Tabernacle, and he laid its sockets, and set up its boards, and put in its bars, and erected its pillars” (Exodus 40:18). This teaches that once Moses, who was at a greater level of sanctity than the rest of the people, began the work of erecting the Tabernacle, he alone completed it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara seeks a scriptural source for the principle that one does not downgrade in holiness. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi (called simply “Rabbi”) points to Exodus 40:18, where Moses is described as personally performing every step of erecting the Mishkan. Since Moses possessed a higher level of sanctity than the Levites who could have assisted, once he began the holy work he could not hand it off to someone of lesser sanctity — to do so would constitute a downgrade. This becomes the paradigm for the general rule.
Key Terms:
- רַבִּי = Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, redactor of the Mishnah, often simply called “Rabbi”
- אֵין מוֹרִידִין = “One does not downgrade” — the negative formulation of the sanctity principle
Segment 11
TYPE: דרשה
R’ Acha bar Yaakov’s derivation — Korach’s coal pans were elevated from kli sharet to altar
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמְנָלַן דְּמַעֲלִין? אָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״אֵת מַחְתּוֹת הַחַטָּאִים הָאֵלֶּה בְּנַפְשֹׁתָם וְעָשׂוּ אֹתָם רִקֻּעֵי פַחִים צִפּוּי לַמִּזְבֵּחַ כִּי הִקְרִיבֻם לִפְנֵי ה׳ וַיִּקְדָּשׁוּ וְיִהְיוּ לְאוֹת לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״ – בַּתְּחִילָּה תַּשְׁמִישֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ, וְעַכְשָׁיו גּוּפוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that one elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity? Rabbi Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: This is derived from a verse, as the verse states with regard to the coal pans of the men of Korah’s assembly, in which they burned incense before they were consumed by a fire: “The coal pans of these men who have sinned at the cost of their lives, and let them be made beaten plates for a covering of the altar, for they have become sacred because they were brought before the Lord, that they may be a sign to the children of Israel” (Numbers 17:3). Initially the coal pans had the status of articles used in the service of the altar, as they contained the incense, and now that they have been made into a covering for the altar their status has been elevated to that of the altar itself.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Acha bar Yaakov supplies the complementary source for the positive side of the principle — that we elevate in holiness. Korach’s 250 coal pans, initially mere kli sharet (service vessels), were hammered into a covering for the altar itself and thereby absorbed into the altar’s higher sanctity. The movement from service vessel to altar-body is a paradigmatic elevation of sanctity, and the Torah’s explicit statement that “they have become sacred” anchors the rule. Together with the previous segment, the Gemara has now provided both halves of the maalin bakodesh v’ein moridin principle.
Key Terms:
- מַחְתּוֹת = Coal pans — the incense pans used by Korach’s 250 followers
- תַּשְׁמִישֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ = Service articles of the altar — vessels used in altar service, of lower sanctity than the altar itself
- גּוּפוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ = “The body of the altar itself” — the highest sanctity-class in this hierarchy
Segment 12
TYPE: אגדתא
Rav Yosef’s teaching — broken tablets in the Ark and the forgetting Torah scholar
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״אֲשֶׁר שִׁבַּרְתָּ וְשַׂמְתָּם בָּאָרוֹן״ – תָּנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהַלּוּחוֹת וְשִׁבְרֵי לוּחוֹת מוּנָּחִין בָּאָרוֹן. מִכָּאן לְתַלְמִיד חָכָם שֶׁשָּׁכַח תַּלְמוּדוֹ מֵחֲמַת אוֹנְסוֹ, שֶׁאֵין נוֹהֲגִין בּוֹ מִנְהַג בִּזָּיוֹן.
English Translation:
§ Having mentioned the principle that one does not downgrade in matters of sanctity, the Gemara cites a related issue. The verse states: “At that time the Lord said to me: Hew for yourself two tablets of stone like the first…And I will write on the tablets the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke, and you shall put them in the Ark” (Deuteronomy 10:1-2). Rav Yosef teaches a baraita: This verse teaches that both the tablets of the Covenant and the pieces of the broken tablets are placed in the Ark. One should learn from here that with regard to a Torah scholar who has forgotten his Torah knowledge due to circumstances beyond his control, e.g., illness, one may not behave toward him in a degrading manner. Although the first tablets were broken it is prohibited to treat them with disrespect, due to their sanctity. A Torah scholar who forgot the Torah knowledge he once possessed is likened to these broken tablets.
קלאוד על הדף:
In a beautiful associative move, the Gemara extends the sanctity principle from ritual objects to human beings. Rav Yosef derives from Deuteronomy 10:1-2 that both the whole second tablets and the shattered fragments of the first tablets were placed together in the Aron, despite the fragments’ broken state. From this he draws an ethical-halakhic lesson: a Torah scholar who has lost his learning through circumstances beyond his control (illness, aging, trauma) retains his full sanctity and must be treated with the same respect as before. The broken tablets and the forgetful scholar alike embody the principle that once holiness has been acquired, it is not downgraded by loss of function.
Key Terms:
- לוּחוֹת וְשִׁבְרֵי לוּחוֹת = “The tablets and the broken tablets” — both the intact second set and shards of the first
- תַּלְמִיד חָכָם שֶׁשָּׁכַח תַּלְמוּדוֹ מֵחֲמַת אוֹנְסוֹ = A Torah scholar who forgot his learning due to circumstances beyond his control
- מִנְהַג בִּזָּיוֹן = Degrading treatment — prohibited toward such a scholar
Segment 13
TYPE: סימן
Mnemonic for the three upcoming teachings of Reish Lakish
Hebrew/Aramaic:
(סִימָן ״בִּיטֵּל״ ״סָרַח״ ״וְשָׁכַח״).
English Translation:
The Gemara notes a mnemonic for the following three statements of Reish Lakish, which are all related to the concept stated by Rav Yosef: One who caused dereliction of the study of Torah for the sake of a mitzva, a Torah scholar who sinned, and a Torah scholar who forgot his studies.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara inserts a simana — a memory aid for the three Reish Lakish teachings that follow. The three key verbs are bitel (interrupted/dereliction of Torah), sarach (sinned), and shakhach (forgot). Such mnemonics are commonly embedded in the Talmud to help students preserve the order and subject of a series of related statements. The three teachings themselves, all touching the honor due to Torah and Torah scholars, begin in the next segment and continue into 99b.
Key Terms:
- סִימָן = Simana, a mnemonic device — a brief list of keywords to help recall a sequence of teachings
- רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ = Reish Lakish (R’ Shimon ben Lakish), major second-generation Amora of Eretz Yisrael, chavruta of Rabbi Yochanan
Segment 14
TYPE: ממרא
Reish Lakish begins his first teaching — continues on 99b
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: פְּעָמִים
English Translation:
Reish Lakish says: Sometimes
קלאוד על הדף:
The amud closes with the opening word of the first of the three Reish Lakish teachings previewed by the simana. The word “peamim” (“sometimes”) hints that a counterintuitive principle is about to be stated — that interrupting Torah study can in certain cases actually be its foundation. The completion of this striking teaching, along with the other two, spills over into 99b, leaving the learner in suspense precisely at a moment of homiletic drama.
Key Terms:
- פְּעָמִים = “Sometimes” — opening word flagging a paradoxical or conditional teaching
- אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ = “Reish Lakish said” — the standard formula introducing an amoraic statement
Amud Bet (99b)
Segment 1
TYPE: אגדה / דרשה
Reish Lakish’s paradoxical teaching: breaking the tablets was itself the foundation of Torah.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שֶׁבִּיטּוּלָהּ שֶׁל תּוֹרָה זֶהוּ יִסּוּדָהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״אֲשֶׁר שִׁבַּרְתָּ״, אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמֹשֶׁה: יִישַׁר כֹּחֲךָ שֶׁשִּׁבַּרְתָּ.
English Translation:
the apparent dereliction of the study of Torah is its foundation, e.g., if one breaks off his studies in order to participate in a funeral or a wedding procession. This is derived from a verse, as it is written: “And the Lord said to Moses: Hew for yourself two tablets of stone like the first, and I will write upon the tablets the words that were on the first tablets, which [asher] you broke” (Exodus 34:1). The word “asher” is an allusion to the fact that that the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Moses: Your strength is true [yishar koḥakha] in that you broke the tablets, as the breaking of the first tablets led to the foundation of the Torah through the giving of the second tablets.
קלאוד על הדף:
Reish Lakish continues his paradoxical reading with a striking example: sometimes the very interruption of Torah is what establishes it. Moses smashing the tablets at the Golden Calf appeared to be an act of destruction, yet the word “asher shibarta” — “which you broke” — is read by the Sages as a Divine endorsement: “yishar kochacha,” you did the right thing. Discontinuity becomes foundation: the shattered first tablets cleared the way for the second, enduring covenant. Stepping away from the beit midrash to bury the dead or escort a bride is thus not a negation of Torah but, at the right moment, its deepest expression.
Key Terms:
- יִישַׁר כֹּחֲךָ (yishar kochacha) = “May your strength be firm” — an idiom of approbation, which the Sages read into the word “asher.”
- בִּיטּוּלָהּ שֶׁל תּוֹרָה (bittulah shel Torah) = suspension of Torah study, normally grave but sometimes mandated by another mitzva.
Segment 2
TYPE: אגדה
A Torah scholar who sins may not be publicly disgraced — his offense is concealed like night.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: תַּלְמִיד חָכָם שֶׁסָּרַח, אֵין מְבַזִּין אוֹתוֹ בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְכָשַׁלְתָּ הַיּוֹם וְכָשַׁל גַּם נָבִיא עִמְּךָ לָיְלָה״ – כַּסֵּהוּ כַּלַּיְלָה.
English Translation:
And Reish Lakish says: With regard to a Torah scholar who sinned, he is not disgraced in public, as it is stated: “Therefore, you shall stumble in the day, and the prophet also shall stumble with you in the night” (Hosea 4:5). One can derive from the verse that if a prophet or any other Torah scholar stumbles and sins, one should conceal his offense like the night and not punish him in public.
קלאוד על הדף:
The second Reish Lakish teaching flows directly from the first. Just as the broken tablets were preserved in the Ark and not treated with contempt, so too a Torah scholar who has sinned retains his dignity; his offense is to be kept from public view. Reish Lakish reads Hosea’s juxtaposition of “stumble in the day” with “the prophet in the night” as a directive: the failure of one who bears Torah must be covered with the discretion of night rather than exposed by daylight. Public shaming of a talmid chacham damages not only him but the Torah he embodies.
Key Terms:
- תַּלְמִיד חָכָם שֶׁסָּרַח (talmid chacham she-sarach) = a Torah scholar who has sinned or behaved inappropriately.
- פַּרְהֶסְיָא (parhesya) = public view — the opposite of private, discreet correction.
- כַּסֵּהוּ כַּלַּיְלָה (kassehu ka-laila) = “cover him like night” — the rabbinic directive for discreet handling.
Segment 3
TYPE: דרשה / הלכה
Reish Lakish: willfully forgetting Torah violates a Biblical prohibition.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: כׇּל הַמְשַׁכֵּחַ דָּבָר אֶחָד מִתַּלְמוּדוֹ עוֹבֵר בְּלָאו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ וּשְׁמֹר נַפְשְׁךָ מְאֹד פֶּן תִּשְׁכַּח אֶת הַדְּבָרִים״, וְכִדְרַבִּי אָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״הִשָּׁמֶר״, ״פֶּן״, וְ״אַל״ – אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה.
English Translation:
And Reish Lakish says: Anyone who causes himself to forget even one matter from his studies violates a prohibition, as it is stated with regard to the receiving of the Torah on Mount Sinai: “Only observe for yourself, and guard your soul diligently, lest you forget the matters that your eyes saw, and lest they depart from your heart all the days of your life, but you should make them known to your children and to your children’s children” (Deuteronomy 4:9). And this is in accordance with the principle that Rabbi Avin says that Rabbi Ile’a says, as Rabbi Avin says that Rabbi Ile’a says: Wherever it is stated: Observe, or: Lest, or: Do not, it is nothing other than a prohibition.
קלאוד על הדף:
The third Reish Lakish statement shifts from scholarly decorum to personal obligation: allowing oneself to forget even a single item of learning violates an actual negative commandment. The verse “hishamer lecha u’shmor nafshecha me’od pen tishkach” is not mere exhortation but formal legislation, per R. Avin quoting R. Ile’a: any of the three lashon — “hishamer,” “pen,” “al” — signals a lav (prohibition). What was read as poetic advice becomes binding halacha: preserving Torah learning is itself a mitzvah backed by the force of a biblical prohibition.
Key Terms:
- הִשָּׁמֶר / פֶּן / אַל (hishamer / pen / al) = three Biblical warning words that the Sages decode as markers of formal prohibitions.
- לָאו (lav) = a negative commandment in the Torah.
- מְשַׁכֵּחַ תַּלְמוּדוֹ (meshakeach talmudo) = one who causes himself to forget his learning.
Segment 4
TYPE: מחלוקת אמוראים
How many prohibitions are violated by forgetting Torah — two (Ravina) or three (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak)?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רָבִינָא אָמַר: ״הִשָּׁמֶר״ וּ״פֶן״ שְׁנֵי לָאוִין נִינְהוּ. רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר: בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה לָאוִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ וּשְׁמֹר נַפְשְׁךָ מְאֹד פֶּן תִּשְׁכַּח אֶת הַדְּבָרִים״.
English Translation:
Ravina says: One who forgets his studies violates two prohibitions, as the verse uses both the term “observe” and the term “lest,” and these are two prohibitions. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: He violates three prohibitions, as it is stated: “Only observe for yourself, and guard your soul diligently, lest you forget the matters that your eyes saw.” The term “Guard your soul” is derived from the same root as “observe” and is considered an additional prohibition.
קלאוד על הדף:
Two Amoraim sharpen Reish Lakish’s ruling by counting the exact number of negative commandments in the verse. Ravina finds two: “hishamer” and “pen.” Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak counts three, noting that “u’shmor nafshecha” shares the root שׁמ”ר with “hishamer” and therefore counts independently. The technical count matters halachically — the more prohibitions, the heavier the violation — and demonstrates the care with which the Sages extract layered obligations from the same verse.
Key Terms:
- שְׁנֵי לָאוִין / שְׁלֹשָׁה לָאוִין (shnei la’vin / shloshah la’vin) = two / three negative commandments.
- וּשְׁמֹר נַפְשְׁךָ (u’shmor nafshecha) = “and guard your soul” — counted by Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak as a third prohibition since it derives from the same root as “hishamer.”
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא / דרשה
Qualifications: the prohibition applies only to willful forgetting, not to forgetting due to circumstances or inability.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ מֵחֲמַת אוֹנְסוֹ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וּפֶן יָסוּרוּ מִלְּבָבְךָ״ – בִּמְסִירָם מִלִּבּוֹ הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. רַבִּי דּוֹסְתַּאי בְּרַבִּי יַנַּאי אָמַר: יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ תָּקְפָה עָלָיו מִשְׁנָתוֹ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״רַק״.
English Translation:
The Gemara qualifies this statement: One might have thought this applies even to one who forgot his Torah knowledge due to circumstances beyond his control. Therefore, the verse states: “And lest they depart from your heart.” This indicates that the verse is speaking of one who willingly causes them to depart from his heart. Rabbi Dostai, son of Rabbi Yannai, says: One might have thought that this applies even if his studies were too hard for him to remember. Therefore, the verse states: “Only,” which excludes one who is unable to recall his studies.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara carefully limits the scope of the prohibition. Not every case of forgetting is culpable: “u-fen yasuru mi-levavecha” — “lest they depart from your heart” — implies active removal, not passive loss, so one who forgot due to ones (circumstances beyond his control) is exempt. R. Dostai ben R. Yannai adds a second exclusion: the word “rak” (only) at the verse’s opening excludes one whose studies simply proved too difficult to retain. The halacha thus targets the deliberate discarder of Torah, not the diligent student whose memory failed him.
Key Terms:
- אוֹנֶס (ones) = forgetting due to circumstances beyond one’s control, which exempts from the prohibition.
- תָּקְפָה עָלָיו מִשְׁנָתוֹ (takfah alav mishnato) = “his learning was too hard for him” — material he could not master.
- רַק (rak) = “only” — a limiting word used by R. Dostai to exclude the cognitively-limited student.
Segment 6
TYPE: אגדה
R. Yochanan and R. Elazar: Torah given in 40 days, the soul formed in 40 days — preserving one preserves the other.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר דְאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: תּוֹרָה נִיתְּנָה בְּאַרְבָּעִים, וּנְשָׁמָה נוֹצְרָה בְּאַרְבָּעִים. כׇּל הַמְשַׁמֵּר תּוֹרָתוֹ – נִשְׁמָתוֹ מִשְׁתַּמֶּרֶת, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְשַׁמֵּר אֶת הַתּוֹרָה – אֵין נִשְׁמָתוֹ מִשְׁתַּמֶּרֶת.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar both say: The Torah was given in forty days, when Moses ascended to Mount Sinai to receive it, and similarly the soul of man is formed in forty days, as the formation of the fetus in the womb takes forty days from the time of conception. This teaches that anyone who preserves his Torah studies, his soul is likewise preserved, and anyone who does not preserve his Torah studies, his soul is not preserved either.
קלאוד על הדף:
R. Yochanan and R. Elazar ground the obligation to preserve Torah in a striking numerological parallel: Moses received the Torah over forty days on Sinai, and rabbinic embryology teaches that the human soul takes form in its body over forty days. The shared number links Torah and neshama as parallel Divine gifts. The moral inference is potent: one who guards his Torah learning preserves his very soul; one who lets Torah slip loses something far more than information — his spiritual essence itself erodes.
Key Terms:
- אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם (arba’im yom) = forty days — the period for receiving Torah and, per rabbinic tradition, for the initial formation of the fetus.
- הַמְשַׁמֵּר תּוֹרָתוֹ (ha-meshamer Torato) = one who guards/preserves his Torah learning.
Segment 7
TYPE: מדרש / משל
Parable from the school of R. Yishmael: losing Torah is like losing a sparrow entrusted to a slave — the forfeit is one’s soul.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: מָשָׁל לְאָדָם שֶׁמָּסַר צִפּוֹר דְּרוֹר לְעַבְדּוֹ, אָמַר: כִּמְדוּמֶּה אַתָּה שֶׁאִם אַתָּה מְאַבְּדָהּ שֶׁאֲנִי נוֹטֵל מִמְּךָ אִיסָּר בְּדָמֶיהָ? נִשְׁמָתְךָ אֲנִי נוֹטֵל מִמְּךָ!
English Translation:
The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: This can be illustrated by a parable, as it is comparable to a person who delivered a sparrow to his slave for safekeeping, and said to him: Are you under the impression that if you lose it I will take from you an issar, a small coin, which is the value of the bird? It is not so; I will take your soul from you as punishment, meaning I will kill you. Similarly, one who fails to preserve the Torah entrusted to him will be severely punished.
קלאוד על הדף:
The school of R. Yishmael dramatizes the previous teaching with a pointed mashal. A master hands his slave a small bird — a tzippor d’ror, worth only an issar — and warns: “If you lose it, don’t imagine the penalty will match the bird’s paltry price. Your very life is forfeit.” The point is that Torah is not valued by market logic: its loss carries a cost utterly disproportionate to the apparent “item” lost. Every forgotten mishnah is, in Heaven’s accounting, a matter of nefesh.
Key Terms:
- צִפּוֹר דְּרוֹר (tzippor d’ror) = a free/wild sparrow — the cheap object entrusted to the slave.
- אִיסָּר (issar) = a small coin of minimal value.
- נִשְׁמָתְךָ אֲנִי נוֹטֵל (nishmatcha ani notel) = “I will take your soul” — the disproportionate real cost of negligence with Torah.
Segment 8
TYPE: משנה
New Mishna: Two tables in the Ulam near the Sanctuary entrance — one of marble (for incoming bread) and one of gold (for outgoing bread).
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ שְׁנֵי שׁוּלְחָנוֹת הָיוּ בָּאוּלָם מִבִּפְנִים, עַל פֶּתַח הַבַּיִת, אֶחָד שֶׁל שַׁיִישׁ וְאֶחָד שֶׁל זָהָב. עַל שֶׁל שַׁיִישׁ נוֹתְנִים לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים בִּכְנִיסָתוֹ, וְעַל שֶׁל זָהָב בִּיצִיאָתוֹ.
English Translation:
MISHNA: There were two tables in the Entrance Hall, on the inside of the Entrance Hall, next to the entrance to the Temple, i.e., next to the entrance to the Sanctuary. One was of marble and one was of gold. On the table of marble, the priests place the new shewbread that has been baked, before its entrance into the Sanctuary, so that the loaves may cool a little from the heat of the oven and not spoil. And when the old shewbread is removed from the shewbread Table it is placed on the table of gold upon its exit from the Sanctuary, where it remains until the frankincense is burned on the altar.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new Mishna turns from the aggadic digression back to the physical choreography of the shewbread. Two tables stood in the Ulam (the Entrance Hall), one of marble and one of gold, each with a specific function. Fresh loaves came in hot from the oven and rested on the cooler marble table; once the old loaves were removed from the inner Shulchan, they were placed on the outer golden table until the frankincense was burned. The contrast of marble and gold prepares the Gemara for a halachic principle stated in the next segment.
Key Terms:
- אוּלָם (Ulam) = the Entrance Hall of the Temple, directly in front of the Heichal.
- שַׁיִישׁ (shayish) = marble — cooler stone on which the hot new loaves rested.
- בִּכְנִיסָתוֹ / בִּיצִיאָתוֹ (bi-knisato / bi-tzitzato) = at its entry / at its exit (from the Sanctuary).
Segment 9
TYPE: משנה / כלל
Principle: ma’alin ba-kodesh v’ein moridin — one elevates in sanctity and does not descend. Plus the single gold Shulchan inside the Heichal.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שֶׁמַּעֲלִין בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ וְלֹא מוֹרִידִין. וְאֶחָד שֶׁל זָהָב מִבִּפְנִים, שֶׁעָלָיו לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים תָּמִיד.
English Translation:
The reason the shewbread is placed on a gold table when it is removed, rather than on a marble or silver table, is that one elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity and one does not downgrade. Since it is set on the gold shewbread Table all week, it cannot be downgraded to a marble or silver table upon its removal. And there was one Table of gold within the Sanctuary, upon which the shewbread is always found.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Mishna justifies the use of gold on exit with the foundational principle ma’alin ba-kodesh v’ein moridin — matters of sanctity move upward, never downward. Since the loaves sat all week on the gold inner Shulchan, downgrading them to marble or silver on exit would violate this rule; gold is therefore matched on exit as well. The Mishna closes with a structural summary: aside from the two outer tables, there stood a single inner Shulchan of gold — the true Table of the shewbread — on which the loaves are “tamid” (always) present.
Key Terms:
- מַעֲלִין בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ וְלֹא מוֹרִידִין (ma’alin ba-kodesh v’ein moridin) = one elevates in sanctity and does not lower — a foundational halachic principle.
- לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים תָּמִיד (lechem ha-panim tamid) = “Shewbread always” — the Torah’s requirement that the Table never be empty (Exodus 25:30).
Segment 10
TYPE: משנה
Four priests enter carrying the new arrangements and frankincense bowls; four others precede them to remove the old.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאַרְבָּעָה כֹּהֲנִים נִכְנָסִין, שְׁנַיִם בְּיָדָם שְׁנֵי סְדָרִים, וּשְׁנַיִם בְּיָדָם שְׁנֵי בָּזִיכִין, וְאַרְבָּעָה מַקְדִּימִין לִפְנֵיהֶם, שְׁנַיִם לִיטּוֹל שְׁנֵי סְדָרִים, וּשְׁנַיִם לִיטּוֹל שְׁנֵי בָּזִיכִין.
English Translation:
The mishna describes the manner in which it is ensured that the shewbread is constantly on the Table: And four priests enter, two with the two arrangements of the new shewbread in their hands and two with the two bowls of frankincense in their hands. And four priests precede them, entering the Sanctuary before them, two to take the two arrangements of the old shewbread from the Table, and two to take the two bowls of frankincense.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Mishna describes a carefully choreographed eight-priest operation. Four priests enter first to take out the two old arrangements of shewbread and the two bowls of frankincense; four others follow carrying the replacement arrangements and bowls. This division of labor — combined with the simultaneous movement described in the next segment — ensures that the Table is never seen empty. The ceremony is a piece of sacred engineering designed to satisfy the Torah’s “lefanai tamid” requirement.
Key Terms:
- סְדָרִים (sedarim) = the two arrangements (stacks of six) of the twelve shewbread loaves.
- בָּזִיכִין (bazikhin) = the two bowls of frankincense placed on the Shulchan alongside the loaves.
Segment 11
TYPE: משנה
The priests stand north/south facing each other and draw/place simultaneously — tefach for tefach — so the Table is never empty. Derivation: “lefanai tamid.”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הַמַּכְנִיסִים עוֹמְדִים בַּצָּפוֹן, וּפְנֵיהֶם לַדָּרוֹם, וְהַמּוֹצִיאִין עוֹמְדִים בַּדָּרוֹם, וּפְנֵיהֶם בַּצָּפוֹן. אֵלּוּ מוֹשְׁכִין, וְאֵלּוּ מַנִּיחִין, וְטִפְחוֹ שֶׁל זֶה כְּנֶגֶד טִפְחוֹ שֶׁל זֶה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לְפָנַי תָּמִיד״.
English Translation:
Those bringing the new shewbread into the Sanctuary stand in the north and their faces are to the south, and those removing the old shewbread stand in the south and their faces are to the north. These priests draw the old shewbread from the Table and those priests place the new shewbread on the Table, and for each handbreadth of this old shewbread that is removed from the Table a handbreadth of that new shewbread is placed upon the Table, so that the Table is never without loaves upon it, as it is stated: “And you shall set upon the Table shewbread before Me always” (Exodus 25:30).
קלאוד על הדף:
The Mishna now gives the exact spatial choreography. The incoming priests stand on the north side of the Shulchan facing south; the outgoing priests stand on the south side facing north. They work in perfect synchrony: as the old loaves are drawn off, the new are laid down, “tefach for tefach,” handbreadth matched to handbreadth. The entire maneuver is anchored in the verse “lefanai tamid” (Exodus 25:30), which the first Tanna understands as an uninterrupted, continuous presence of bread — not even a moment’s gap.
Key Terms:
- הַמַּכְנִיסִים / הַמּוֹצִיאִין (ha-makhnisim / ha-motzi’in) = the priests bringing in (the new) and those taking out (the old).
- טִפְחוֹ שֶׁל זֶה כְּנֶגֶד טִפְחוֹ שֶׁל זֶה (tifcho shel zeh keneged tifcho shel zeh) = “handbreadth against handbreadth” — the synchronized tit-for-tat replacement.
- לְפָנַי תָּמִיד (lefanai tamid) = “before Me always” (Exodus 25:30) — the scriptural basis.
Segment 12
TYPE: מחלוקת תנאים
R. Yosei disagrees: even removing entirely and then replacing fulfills “tamid,” so long as the Table is not empty overnight.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ אֵלּוּ נוֹטְלִין וְאֵלּוּ מַנִּיחִין, אַף הִיא הָיְתָה ״תָּמִיד״.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yosei says: Even if these priests were to remove the shewbread from the Table entirely, and only afterward those priests were to place the new shewbread upon the Table, this too would fulfill the requirement that the shewbread always be on the Table. It is unnecessary to ensure the uninterrupted presence of the shewbread upon the Table, as long as it does not remain a single night without shewbread upon it.
קלאוד על הדף:
R. Yosei offers a radically more lenient reading of “tamid.” In his view, the word does not require moment-to-moment continuity: the priests may remove the entire old arrangement and then place the new arrangement without halachic defect. “Tamid” is satisfied so long as the Shulchan is not left without bread for an entire night. This machloket anchors a major principle — how strictly the word “tamid” must be construed — and becomes the springboard for R. Ami’s Torah-study application in segment 16.
Key Terms:
- תָּמִיד (tamid) = “continually” — understood strictly by the first Tanna, more loosely by R. Yosei.
- שֶׁלֹּא יָלִין בְּלֹא לֶחֶם (shelo yalin b’lo lechem) = “that it not pass the night without bread” — R. Yosei’s minimum threshold.
Segment 13
TYPE: משנה
Old bread placed on the gold table in the Ulam, frankincense burned, loaves distributed to the priests (both watches, since Shabbat changeover).
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יָצְאוּ וּנְתָנוּם עַל שֻׁלְחָן הַזָּהָב שֶׁהָיָה בָּאוּלָם, הִקְטִירוּ הַבָּזִיכִין, וְהַחַלּוֹת מִתְחַלְּקוֹת לַכֹּהֲנִים.
English Translation:
The mishna describes the manner in which the shewbread is distributed: The priests who carried the old shewbread loaves came out of the Sanctuary and placed them on the table of gold that was in the Entrance Hall. The priests then burned on the altar the frankincense that was in the bowls. And the loaves were subsequently distributed to the priests. This occurred on Shabbat, the day that the priestly watch that served in the Temple during the preceding week was replaced by the priestly watch that would serve during the following week. The shewbread was distributed to the priests of both watches.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Mishna now traces what happens after the removal: the outgoing priests place the old loaves on the gold table of the Ulam; the frankincense is burned on the altar (which is what permits the loaves to be eaten); and only then are the loaves distributed among the priests. Since the shewbread service takes place on Shabbat — the changing of the mishmarot (priestly watches) — the loaves are shared between both the incoming and outgoing watches. The carefully ordered sequence ensures that each step of sanctity is completed before the priestly consumption begins.
Key Terms:
- הִקְטִירוּ הַבָּזִיכִין (hiktiru ha-bazikhin) = they burned the frankincense bowls (on the altar) — the act that permits the loaves to be eaten.
- מִשְׁמָר (mishmar) = priestly watch — one of 24 rotating groups that served in the Temple.
Segment 14
TYPE: משנה / בבלי בני דעת יפה
Special cases when Yom Kippur coincides with Shabbat or Friday — and the Babylonian priests eating the YK goat raw.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
חָל יוֹם כִּיפּוּרִים לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת, הַחַלּוֹת מִתְחַלְּקוֹת לָעֶרֶב. חָל לִהְיוֹת בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת, שָׂעִיר שֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים נֶאֱכָל לָעֶרֶב, וְהַבַּבְלִיִּים אוֹכְלִין אוֹתוֹ כְּשֶׁהוּא חַי, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדַּעְתָּן יָפָה.
English Translation:
If Yom Kippur occurs on Shabbat, the loaves are distributed at night, at the conclusion of the fast, since they may not be eaten during the day. If Yom Kippur occurs on Friday, i.e., when the holy day begins on Thursday evening, the goat sin offering of Yom Kippur is eaten by the priests at night, i.e., on Friday night, as it may be eaten only on the day that it is sacrificed or during the following night, until midnight. And since there is no possibility of cooking the meat, as one may not cook on Yom Kippur or Shabbat, the Babylonians, i.e., priests who had emigrated from Babylonia, eat it when it is raw, due to the fact that they are broad-minded with regard to their food, i.e., they are not particular and will eat meat even when it is not cooked.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Mishna addresses two unusual calendrical cases. When Yom Kippur falls on Shabbat, the shewbread distribution must be deferred until nightfall, because eating is forbidden all day. When Yom Kippur falls on Friday, the Yom Kippur chatat goat must be eaten Friday night (within its time limit), yet cooking is impossible — cooking is forbidden both on YK and on the immediately-following Shabbat. The Mishna remarks with affection (and perhaps a touch of wry humor) that the Babylonian-born priests in Jerusalem ate the sacred meat raw, “mipnei she-da’atan yafeh” — because their palates were undiscriminating enough to handle it.
Key Terms:
- שָׂעִיר שֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים (se’ir shel Yom ha-Kippurim) = the Yom Kippur goat sin-offering eaten by the priests.
- בַּבְלִיִּים (Bavliyim) = priests of Babylonian origin serving in Jerusalem.
- דַּעְתָּן יָפָה (da’atan yafeh) = “broad-minded” — willing to eat even raw meat without fastidiousness.
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא / ברייתא
Gemara on R. Yosei: even removing in the morning and placing toward evening is valid. “Lefanai tamid” merely means the Table does not sit overnight without bread.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ תַּנְיָא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, אֲפִילּוּ סִילֵּק אֶת הַיְּשָׁנָה שַׁחֲרִית וְסִידֵּר אֶת הַחֲדָשָׁה עַרְבִית – אֵין בְּכָךְ כְּלוּם, אֶלָּא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״לְפָנַי תָּמִיד״? שֶׁלֹּא יָלִין שֻׁלְחָן בְּלֹא לֶחֶם.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that according to Rabbi Yosei, even if the priest first removes the old shewbread entirely, and only then places the new shewbread upon the Table, this fulfills the requirement that the shewbread always be on the Table. Moreover, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: Even if the priest removed the old shewbread on the morning of Shabbat, and arranged the new shewbread toward evening, there is nothing wrong with that. Rather, how do I realize the meaning of the verse: “And you shall set upon the Table shewbread before Me always” (Exodus 25:30)? This means that the Table should not be left overnight without bread upon it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara opens with a baraita that amplifies R. Yosei’s position from the Mishna. He permits an even wider gap — removing the old in the morning and placing the new by evening, with hours of an empty Shulchan in between. The word “tamid” is redefined entirely: it no longer demands moment-to-moment continuity, nor even same-hour replacement, but merely guarantees that the Table never be left bare through a full night. This generous reading sets up the striking application to Torah study which follows.
Key Terms:
- סִילֵּק שַׁחֲרִית וְסִידֵּר עַרְבִית (sileik shacharit ve-sideir arvit) = removed in the morning and arranged toward evening.
- לֹא יָלִין שֻׁלְחָן בְּלֹא לֶחֶם (lo yalin shulchan b’lo lechem) = “the Table should not pass the night without bread” — R. Yosei’s minimum reading of “tamid.”
Segment 16
TYPE: דרשה
R. Ami: from R. Yosei we learn that even one chapter morning and evening fulfills “lo yamush sefer ha-Torah.”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: מִדְּבָרָיו שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹסֵי נִלְמוֹד, אֲפִילּוּ לֹא שָׁנָה אָדָם אֶלָּא פֶּרֶק אֶחָד שַׁחֲרִית וּפֶרֶק אֶחָד עַרְבִית – קִיֵּים מִצְוַת ״לֹא יָמוּשׁ (אֵת) סֵפֶר הַתּוֹרָה הַזֶּה מִפִּיךָ״.
English Translation:
The baraita teaches that according to Rabbi Yosei, even if the old shewbread remained on the Table for a short while in the morning, and the new shewbread was placed on the Table toward evening, and even though it did not reside constantly on the Table, this fulfills the requirement that the shewbread should always be on the Table. Rabbi Ami says: From Rabbi Yosei’s statement we may learn that even if a person learned only one chapter of the Mishna in the morning and one chapter of the Mishna in the evening, he has thereby fulfilled the mitzva of: “This Torah scroll shall not depart from your mouth, and you shall contemplate in it day and night, that you may take heed to do according to all that is written in it, for then you shall make your ways prosperous, and then you shall have good success” (Joshua 1:8).
קלאוד על הדף:
R. Ami performs a breathtaking interpretive leap: he transfers R. Yosei’s lenient reading of “tamid” from the Shulchan to the mitzvah of constant Torah study. If “tamid” with respect to the Shewbread means merely that the Shulchan is not bare overnight, then “lo yamush” — “shall not depart from your mouth” (Joshua 1:8) — correspondingly means that one need only study a single chapter morning and a single chapter evening. The daily bread of the Shulchan becomes a metaphor for the daily bread of Torah — one chapter at either bookend of the day is enough to satisfy the biblical requirement.
Key Terms:
- לֹא יָמוּשׁ (lo yamush) = “shall not depart” (Joshua 1:8) — the command to engage Torah day and night.
- פֶּרֶק אֶחָד שַׁחֲרִית וְעַרְבִית (perek echad shacharit v’arvit) = one chapter in the morning and one in the evening — R. Ami’s minimum.
Segment 17
TYPE: אגדה / מחלוקת
R. Yochanan in name of Rashbi: even reciting Shema morning and evening fulfills “lo yamush.” The debate whether to say this before amei ha’aretz.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי: אֲפִילּוּ לֹא קָרָא אָדָם אֶלָּא קְרִיַּת שְׁמַע שַׁחֲרִית וְעַרְבִית – קִיֵּים ״לֹא יָמוּשׁ״, וְדָבָר זֶה אָסוּר לְאוֹמְרוֹ בִּפְנֵי עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ, וְרָבָא אָמַר: מִצְוָה לְאוֹמְרוֹ בִּפְנֵי עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: Even if a person recited only the recitation of Shema in the morning and in the evening, he has fulfilled the mitzva of: “This Torah scroll shall not depart from your mouth.” And it is prohibited to state this matter in the presence of ignoramuses [amei ha’aretz], as they are likely to get the impression that there is no need to study Torah beyond this. And Rava says: On the contrary, it is a mitzva to state this matter in the presence of ignoramuses, as they will realize that if merely reciting the Shema leads to such a great reward, all the more so how great is the reward of those who study Torah all day and night.
קלאוד על הדף:
R. Yochanan (quoting Rashbi) pushes R. Ami’s leniency even further: even twice-daily Shema recitation technically satisfies “lo yamush.” But this ruling is pedagogically dangerous — an am ha’aretz might conclude that nothing further is required. R. Yochanan therefore declares it forbidden to say in their presence; Rava, in a kal va-chomer reversal, insists it is a mitzvah to say it — let the ignoramus realize that if even minimal practice earns so great a reward, Torah scholars studying all day must be reaping incalculably more. The dispute captures a perennial teacher’s dilemma: does accessible halacha inspire or enable?
Key Terms:
- קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע (keri’at Shema) = the twice-daily recitation of Shema.
- עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ (amei ha’aretz) = common people unschooled in Torah.
- קַל וָחוֹמֶר (kal va-chomer) = the a-fortiori inference by which Rava defends disclosure.
Segment 18
TYPE: מעשה / שאלה
Ben Dama asks R. Yishmael about studying Greek wisdom; R. Yishmael: find an hour that is neither day nor night.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שָׁאַל בֶּן דָּמָה, בֶּן אֲחוֹתוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, אֶת רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: כְּגוֹן אֲנִי, שֶׁלָּמַדְתִּי כׇּל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ, מַהוּ לִלְמוֹד חׇכְמַת יְוָנִית? קָרָא עָלָיו הַמִּקְרָא הַזֶּה: ״לֹא יָמוּשׁ סֵפֶר הַתּוֹרָה הַזֶּה מִפִּיךָ וְהָגִיתָ בּוֹ יוֹמָם וָלַיְלָה״. צֵא וּבְדוֹק שָׁעָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ לֹא מִן הַיּוֹם וְלֹא מִן הַלַּיְלָה, וּלְמוֹד בָּהּ חׇכְמַת יְוָנִית.
English Translation:
Ben Dama, son of Rabbi Yishmael’s sister, asked Rabbi Yishmael: In the case of one such as I, who has learned the entire Torah, what is the halakha with regard to studying Greek wisdom? Rabbi Yishmael recited this verse about him: “This Torah scroll shall not depart from your mouth, and you shall contemplate in it day and night.” Go and search for an hour that is neither part of the day nor part of the night, and learn Greek wisdom in it.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ben Dama, R. Yishmael’s nephew, poses what sounds like a reasonable post-bekiut question: having mastered the whole Torah, may he now branch into chochmat yevanit (Greek wisdom/philosophy/rhetoric)? R. Yishmael’s answer is a devastating witticism — go find an hour that is neither day nor night, and study in it. Since the verse “lo yamush” demands Torah study yom va-laila, and since there is no moment outside day and night, the answer is effectively “never.” This reading of “lo yamush” treats it as an all-consuming obligation, sharply contradicting the lenient view of R. Ami and R. Yochanan.
Key Terms:
- חׇכְמַת יְוָנִית (chochmat yevanit) = Greek wisdom — secular learning, specifically the philosophical/rhetorical education of the Hellenistic world.
- שָׁעָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ לֹא מִן הַיּוֹם וְלֹא מִן הַלַּיְלָה (sha’ah she-einah lo min ha-yom v’lo min ha-laila) = an hour that is neither day nor night — R. Yishmael’s ironic impossibility.
Segment 19
TYPE: גמרא / דרשה
This view contradicts R. Shmuel bar Nachmani / R. Yonatan: “lo yamush” is not obligation but blessing given to Yehoshua.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: פָּסוּק זֶה אֵינוֹ לֹא חוֹבָה וְלֹא מִצְוָה, אֶלָּא בְּרָכָה. רָאָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֶת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ שֶׁדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה חֲבִיבִים עָלָיו בְּיוֹתֵר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּמְשָׁרְתוֹ יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן נַעַר לֹא יָמִישׁ מִתּוֹךְ הָאֹהֶל״. אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, כׇּל כָּךְ חֲבִיבִין עָלֶיךָ דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה? ״לֹא יָמוּשׁ סֵפֶר הַתּוֹרָה הַזֶּה מִפִּיךָ״.
English Translation:
The Gemara notes: And this statement of Rabbi Yishmael’s disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani, as Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: This verse is neither an obligation nor a mitzva, but a blessing. Rabbi Yonatan explains: The Holy One, Blessed be He, saw Joshua and observed that the words of Torah were very precious to him, as it is stated: “And the Lord spoke to Moses face-to-face…and his servant Joshua, son of Nun, a young man, did not depart from the Tent” (Exodus 33:11). The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Joshua: Joshua, are the words of Torah so precious to you? I bless you that “this Torah scroll shall not depart from your mouth.”
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara flags the dispute: R. Yishmael treats “lo yamush” as iron obligation, but R. Shmuel bar Nachmani (quoting R. Yonatan) reads the same verse as pure blessing. Because Yehoshua clung to the Tent of Meeting with such fierce love (Exodus 33:11, “lo yamish mi-toch ha-ohel”), God responded in kind: “Yehoshua — since Torah is so beloved to you — ‘lo yamush sefer ha-Torah ha-zeh mi-picha’.” On this reading, Joshua 1:8 is not commandment but commendation, a Divine reward for devotion already shown. The question of whether Torah study is a fixed law or a gift of love remains suspended between the two views.
Key Terms:
- בְּרָכָה (berakhah) = blessing — the alternative reading of Joshua 1:8 against “obligation.”
- לֹא יָמִישׁ מִתּוֹךְ הָאֹהֶל (lo yamish mi-toch ha-ohel) = “did not depart from the Tent” (Exodus 33:11) — the proof of Yehoshua’s devotion.
Segment 20
TYPE: ברייתא
School of R. Yishmael: Torah should not be a burden, but you may not exempt yourself either.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה לֹא יְהוּ עָלֶיךָ חוֹבָה, וְאִי אַתָּה רַשַּׁאי לִפְטוֹר עַצְמְךָ מֵהֶן.
English Translation:
The tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael teaches: The words of Torah should not be considered as an obligation upon you, i.e., one should not treat Torah study as a burden, but at the same time you are not permitted to exempt yourself from them.
קלאוד על הדף:
The school of R. Yishmael articulates the balanced position that seems to harmonize the preceding dispute. Torah should not become “chovah” — a crushing burden carried with resentment — yet one is equally forbidden to grant oneself a furlough. It is simultaneously obligation and joy, mitzvah and love. The Tanna thus rejects both extremes: neither the grim coercion that makes Torah a yoke of dread, nor the relaxed posture that treats it as optional spiritual enrichment.
Key Terms:
- חוֹבָה (chovah) = burden/obligation — the oppressive sense Torah should not become.
- אִי אַתָּה רַשַּׁאי לִפְטוֹר עַצְמְךָ (i atah rashai lifto’r atzmecha) = “you are not permitted to exempt yourself” — the counterweight that prevents abandonment.
Segment 21
TYPE: אגדה / דרשה
Chizkiyah on Job 36:16: unlike flesh-and-blood, Hashem allures man from paths of death to life — “mi-pi tzar” = from narrow-mouthed Gehinom.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״וְאַף הֲסִיתְךָ מִפִּי צָר רַחַב לֹא מוּצָק תַּחְתֶּיהָ״? בּוֹא וּרְאֵה שֶׁלֹּא כְּמִדַּת הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מִדַּת בָּשָׂר וְדָם. מִדַּת בָּשָׂר וָדָם אָדָם מֵסִית אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ מִדַּרְכֵי חַיִּים לְדַרְכֵי מִיתָה, וְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מֵסִית אֶת הָאָדָם מִדַּרְכֵי מִיתָה לְדַרְכֵי חַיִּים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וְאַף הֲסִיתְךָ מִפִּי צָר״ מִגֵּיהִנָּם, שֶׁפִּיהָ צָר, שֶׁעֲשָׁנָהּ צָבוּר
English Translation:
Ḥizkiyya said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “He delivers the afflicted due to His affliction, and opens their ear by tribulation; and also He has allured you out of a narrow opening to a broad place without confines below it, and that which is set on your table is full of fatness” (Job 36:15-16)? Come and see that the attribute of flesh and blood is unlike the attribute of the Holy One, Blessed be He. The attribute of flesh and blood is that a person allures another from the paths of life to the paths of death, but the Holy One, Blessed be He, allures the person from the paths of death to the paths of life, as it is stated: “And also He has allured you out of a narrow opening,” i.e., from Gehenna, the opening of which is narrow so that its smoke is collected
קלאוד על הדף:
Chizkiyah closes the daf with a meditation on Divine seduction. The ordinary “mesit” — the enticer described in Deuteronomy — draws a person off the path of life toward death; God, in contrast, entices the person from death back to life. Reading Job 36:16 (“va-af hesitcha mi-pi tzar rachav”), Chizkiyah hears God saying “I have enticed you out of a narrow mouth” — and identifies that narrow mouth as the entrance of Gehinom, deliberately constructed narrow so that its smoke remains trapped within. The teaching frames the preceding pages on forgetting/preserving Torah in cosmic terms: our work in Torah is itself God’s rescue operation, a drawing forth from suffocation to open space. The daf ends mid-thought — the resolution continues on 100a.
Key Terms:
- מֵסִית (mesit) = one who entices or seduces, usually toward death/sin; here inverted to describe God.
- גֵּיהִנָּם / פִּי גֵּיהִנָּם צַר (Gehinom / pi Gehinom tzar) = Gehenna and its narrow mouth — a rabbinic image of hell whose opening constricts its smoke.
- רַחַב לֹא מוּצָק תַּחְתֶּיהָ (rachav lo mutzak tachteha) = “a broad place with no constriction below” (Job 36:16) — the spacious destination to which God allures.