Menachos 97
Summary
- Today's learning continues the question of why the Beis HaMikdash *shulchan* is *mekabel tumah* despite the phrase על השולחן הטהור implying *tahor* yet allowing an inference of potential *tumah*. The *Gemara* tests whether the table’s gold plating should classify it as metal, rejects that line by invoking a *gezeiras hakasuv* that the *shulchan* is called עץ, and then explains why a *pasuk* that begins with מזבח and ends with השלחן yields the teaching that today a person’s table brings *kaparah* through acts like feeding guests and *divrei Torah*. The *Gemara* then derives the structures of *s’nifin* and *kanim* from the *pesukim*, clarifies why arranging and removing the *kanim* does not override *Shabbos*, and details the practical method and counts of the *kanim*. The *sugya* then shifts to a *machlokes* about the size of the *amos* used for Mikdash measurements, applies it to reconciling the *mizbeach*’s dimensions, and begins working through the *pesukim* in Yechezkel and the *Mishnayos* describing the *mizbeach*’s height and its stepped widths.
- The *Gemara* challenges the prior explanation that the *shulchan* is *mekabel tumah* because it is lifted for *olei regel* with the question ותיפוק ליה משום ציפוי, asserting that gold plating should render it a כלי מתכות and therefore *mekabel tumah* even if it is not moved. The *Gemara* supports this from a *Mishnah* in *Keilim* that a table covered with marble remains *tamei* if space is left for placing cups, and it infers that complete covering changes the table’s *tumah* status to follow the covering. The *Gemara* rejects distinguishing between ציפוי עומד and ציפוי שאינו עומד by citing Reish Lakish’s question to Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Yochanan’s answer that the *Mishnah* applies in both cases, whether the rims are covered or not.
- The *Gemara* proposes that עצי שטים חשיבי לא בטלי and treats the wood as not nullified to the plating, fitting Reish Lakish’s position that only cheap imported wood becomes nullified while כלי מסמס חשיבי do not. The *Gemara* asks how this works for Rabbi Yochanan, who holds that even כלי מסמס become nullified, and answers that the *shulchan* is different because the Torah calls it עץ. The *Gemara* cites the *pasuk* המזבח עץ and the concluding phrase זה השלחן אשר לפני השם to show that the referenced object is the *shulchan* and is defined as wood even though it is plated.
- Taharas HaKodesh asks why the *Gemara* originally infers from השלחן הטהור that it can become *tamei*, since the very fact that it is called *tahor* could itself be the *chidush* given that ordinary plated wood could be treated as metal and be *mekabel tumah*. Taharas HaKodesh leaves this as a קשיא.
- The *Gemara* explains the anomaly פתח במזבח וסיים בשלחן by teaching in the name of Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish that when the Beis HaMikdash exists the *mizbeach* brings *kaparah*, and now that it is destroyed a person’s table brings *kaparah*. Rashi defines this as giving פרוסה לאורחין and feeding the poor from one’s table, and Tosafos cites the idea of גדולה לגימה as feeding guests. The Maharsha connects this to the teaching that המאריך על שלחנו מאריכין לו ימיו ושנותיו because lingering at the table increases the chance of hosting an עני, and he contrasts this with the *Mishnah* in *Avos* that three who eat and say *divrei Torah* are as if they eat from Hashem’s table, also derived from וידבר אלי זה השלחן אשר לפני השם.
- The Iyun Yaakov reconciles the approaches by citing בחסד ואמת יכופר עון, identifying חסד with מתנות עניים and אמת with תורה, and treating both as sources of *kaparah*. The Zohar in Parshas Terumah says that one who has *divrei Torah* at the table and supports poor people’s needs at the table is זכאי בזה ובזה.
- The Shibolei HaLeket cites a *minhag* to remove the knife from the table at *Birkas Hamazon* based on the table’s role as מזבח and the rule לא תניף עליהם ברזל, since iron shortens life while the *mizbeach* brings *kaparah* and lengthens life. Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim סימן קפא סעיף ה' records a practice not to cover the knife on *Shabbos* and *Yom Tov* but to cover it at other times, and the Magen Avraham explains that since one does not build a *mizbeach* on *Shabbos*, the table is not treated as *domeh* to the *mizbeach* in that respect. The text records the suggestion that knives are covered specifically at *Birkas Hamazon* because the knife is no longer needed then, while also noting other explanations.
- Beis Yosef brings a different reason that a person once stabbed himself with a knife during *bentching* upon reaching רחם and בנה ירושלים due to anguish over the loss of Jerusalem, and knives are covered to prevent such incidents. The text frames this as a reminder of how deeply one person felt the loss and as a prompt to reflect on what was lost.
- The text states that the *minhag* to have salt on the table comes from the table’s resemblance to the *mizbeach*. Rav Aharon Silver in Har Nof is described as noting a family custom from his grandfather Rav Leizer Silver not to use salt on Friday night because the idea of salt follows the burning on the *mizbeach*, and Friday night nothing is being burnt on the *mizbeach*.
- Rav Kattina derives the components of the *shulchan* from ועשית קערותיו וכפותיו וקשותיו ומנקיותיו אשר יוסך בהן. The text identifies קערותיו as דפוסים, כפותיו as בזיכין, קשותיו as סניפין, מנקיותיו as קנים, and אשר יוסך בהן as describing their function of separating between loaves so they do not touch.
- Rava challenges that if *sidur kanin* is *de’oraisa* it should override *Shabbos*, and the text records the question why any prohibition applies if it is only a *shevus* given אין שבות במקדש. Rashi explains the issue as נראה כבונה וסותר, while Tosafos explains it as *muktzah*. Rava retracts his challenge and applies Rabbi Akiva’s rule that any labor that can be done before *Shabbos* does not override *Shabbos*, stating that the purpose of the *kanin* is דלא ליעפש לחמא and that in the short time the bread will not mold.
- The text cites the parallel sugya in *Shabbos* 123 about the initial decree of *muktzah* that restricted even *keilim* used for permitted purposes and notes Rabbi Elazar’s explanation that the restriction on the *kanin* dates from that decree. The text records that Rabbah there rejects this and explains that even after permitting *tiltul* of *keilim* used for היתר, the *kanin* remain restricted because there is no real need, and the Rashba explains this as akin to *tiltul* מחמה לצל. Tosafos in *Sukkah* 42 is cited as holding the *kanin* lack a *shem kli* and are מוקצה מחמת גופו, creating a *nafka mina* about whether later halachic practice would permit moving them.
- A *braisa* describes that on Erev *Shabbos* they enter and remove the *kanin* and place them along the length of the *shulchan*, and on Motzaei *Shabbos* they enter, lift the edge of each loaf, and insert a *kaneh* beneath it. The four middle loaves of each stack require three *kanin* each, the top loaf requires two because there is no weight above it, and the bottom loaf requires none because it rests on טהרו של שולחן. The total becomes fourteen *kanin* per stack and twenty-eight *kanin* for both stacks.
- The text states that אין שבות במקדש is grounded in the principle כהנים זריזים הם. The Rambam in Hilchos Temidim uMusafim פרק ה הלכה יא rules that *sidur* and *netilah* of the *kanin* do not override *Shabbos* because the mitzvah can be fulfilled without overriding the prohibition, even if it is a *shevus*. The Maaseh LaMelech questions this from the Rambam in Hilchos Korban Pesach פרק א הלכה טז allowing flaying the *korban pesach* in the *azarah* with sticks even on *Shabbos* though it could be done differently, and he answers by comparing אין שבות במקדש to טומאה הותרה בציבור in that one avoids the *shevus* only when it can be avoided without needing an on-*Shabbos* שינוי, while in other cases אין שבות במקדש applies.
- A *Mishnah* in *Keilim* records Rabbi Meir that Mikdash *amos* are generally בינוניות of six *tefachim* except for מזבח הזהב and the קרן, סובב, and יסוד which use five-*tefach* *amos*, and Rabbi Yehuda that אמת בנין is six while של כלים is five. Rabbi Yochanan states both derive from ואלה מדות המזבח באמות אמה אמה וטפח, and the text maps חיק האמה to יסוד, אמה רוחב to סובב, גבול אל שפתה סביב זרת האחד to קרנות, and וזה גב המזבח to מזבח הזהב. The *Gemara* initially assumes the five-*tefach* *amah* applies to height from יסוד to סובב and computes a total height of fifty-four *tefachim*, then challenges this from the midpoint line חוט של סיקרא and the *braisa* about עולת העוף allowing placement as much as an *amah* below the כהן’s feet.
- The *Gemara* reinterprets the five-*tefach* *amah* as referring to כניסה, making the *mizbeach* sixty *tefachim* tall with a midpoint at thirty and leaving an *amah* below the כהן’s standing point on the סובב within the upper half. The *Gemara* then challenges this from the *Mishnah* in *Middos* describing the *mizbeach* as thirty-two by thirty-two with successive one-*amah* recesses producing exact dimensions of thirty, twenty-eight, twenty-six, and twenty-four, and it notes that five-*tefach* recesses would yield fractional discrepancies. The *Gemara* rejects dismissing the discrepancy as imprecision because Yechezkel’s *pasuk* about והאריאל imposes precise measurement and forces a further resolution not yet reached.
- The text presents the *Mishnah* that the *mizbeach* begins at thirty-two by thirty-two, rises one *amah* and recesses one *amah* as the יסוד to reach thirty by thirty, rises five and recesses one as the סובב to reach twenty-eight by twenty-eight, rises one and recesses one for מקום הקרנות to reach twenty-six by twenty-six, and rises one and recesses one for מקום המערכה to reach twenty-four by twenty-four. Rabbi Yosi states that originally it was only twenty-eight by twenty-eight and rose with the same proportions until the fire area was twenty by twenty, and that the returning exiles added four *amos* on the south and four on the west in a Gamma shape. The text derives twenty-four by twenty-four for the fire area from והאריאל שתים עשרה אורך בשתים עשרה רוחב and אל ארבעת רבעיו as measuring twelve from the center in each direction.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions