Menachos 98
Summary
- Today's text continues the effort to reconcile the מזבח measurements derived from יחזקאל with a ברייתא about squeezing דם עולת העוף relative to the חוט הסיקרא, and it resolves the difficulty by proposing a third model in which only specific אמות are five טפחים while the rest are six. It then defines the אמה בינונית as six טפחים and proves that additional, slightly larger אמות existed in שושן הבירה to prevent error and מעילה in הקדש. It explains why an image of שושן הבירה appeared on the שער המזרח and derives from משה and אליהו the principle of אימת מלכות. It derives why three Torah details are needed to fix the arrangement of לחם הפנים as two stacks of six and records רבי’s view that extra loaves do not necessarily invalidate because על can mean בסמוך. It then lays out how מקדש vessels are oriented, proves the ארון’s north-south placement from the בדים and the verses about their visibility, and describes how שלמה המלך’s additional שולחנות and מנורות are positioned and how the orientation of שולחנות depends on a מחלוקת about whether the מנורה runs מזרח ומערב or צפון ודרום.
- The text rejects the idea that the מזבח’s 32 אמות width includes a mix of six-tפח and five-טפח אמות, because that would disrupt the fixed total of 187 אמות for the עזרה given in מידות: 11 for מקום דריסת רגלי ישראל, 11 for מקום דריסת רגלי הכהנים, 32 for the מזבח, 22 between אולם ולמזבח, 100 for the היכל, and 11 behind בית הכפורת. The third model reads חיק האמה as the יסוד’s height of five טפחים, reads אמה רוחב as the סובב’s width of five טפחים, and reads גבולה אל שפתה סביב as the קרנות’ height of five טפחים regardless of their width. The חשבון yields a מזבח height of 58 טפחים, with a midpoint at 29, and the distance from קרנות to סובב at 23, leaving exactly six טפחים below the כהן’s feet on the סובב as the ברייתא requires for placing דם עולת העוף still in the upper half. The change in the פסוק’s language from חיק to רוחב supports that the five-טפח measure applies to height in the יסוד but to width in the סובב.
- Rabbi Yoḥanan defines an אמה בינונית as six טפחים, and Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Avin proves it from the שולחן being 12 by 6 טפחים while the תורה calls it אמתים by אמה. The designation אמה בינונית implies a larger אמה exists, and the משנה in כלים states that two such larger אמות stood in שושן הבירה: one on the קרן מזרחית צפונית that exceeds משה’s אמה by חצי אצבע, and one on the קרן מזרחית דרומית that exceeds the first by חצי אצבע and thus exceeds משה’s by an אצבע. The reason for having a “גדולה” and a “קטנה” is that אומנים take measurements for contracting with the smaller and return work by the larger so that the הקדש is not shortchanged and to avoid מעילה. The two larger standards serve different uses, with one for כסף וזהב and one for בניינא.
- The משנה in מידות says the שער המזרח bears a צורה of שושן הבירה, and one explanation is that it reminds Israel of “מהיכן באו.” The other explanation is that it instills אימת מלכות. Rabbi Yannai teaches that a person must always maintain אימת מלכות, deriving it from משה telling פרעה “וירדו כל עבדיך אלה אלי” rather than addressing פרעה directly, and Rabbi Yoḥanan derives it from אליהו running before אחאב to Yizreʿel as an act of honor to kingship.
- Rav Ḥisda and Yitzḥak bar Avdimi dispute the meaning of לתרופה in the verse about trees by the future stream from the מקדש, reading it as *lehatir* “פה.” One view says it opens the “פה של מעלה,” enabling those who cannot speak to speak, and the other says it opens the “פה של מטה,” enabling עקרות to bear children. The same dispute appears as Ḥizkiya saying it is for *illemim* and bar Kappara saying it is for *akarot*.
- The ברייתא derives from the Torah’s three specifications that there are 12 חלות, arranged in שתים מערכות, with שש in each, and it explains what errors would remain possible if any detail were omitted. Without שש, the two stacks could be divided unevenly such as ארבע and שמונה; without שתים עשרה, the phrasing could be read to allow three stacks of six; without שתים and שש, 12 could be arranged as three stacks of four. The ברייתא concludes that the valid arrangement is שתים מערכות of שש and שש, and if one makes אחת על ארבע and אחת על שמונה, לא יצא. רבי rules that if one sets two stacks of seven, one treats the top loaf as if it is not there, and this fits רבי’s view that “ונתתה על המערכת” means על בסמוך rather than על ממש, proven from “וסכות על הארון את הפרוכת” where על means adjacent.
- A ברייתא states that all מקדש vessels are placed with their length along the בית’s length, except the ארון whose length runs along the בית’s width, meaning the ארון lies צפון ודרום. The inference comes from the בדים being oriented along the בית’s length, established by the verses “ויאריכו הבדים” and “ויראו ראשי הבדים,” while “ולא יראו החוצה” teaches that they do not pierce the פרוכת but rather press it outward. The protrusions are described as “דומים כשני דדי אשה,” tied to “דודי בין שדי ילין.” The bדים are assumed to run along the ארון’s width because two carriers cannot fit within an אמה וחצי if the poles followed the ארון’s length, and four carriers are derived from the plurals in “ונסעו” and “נושאי.”
- A ברייתא teaches that שלמה המלך made ten שולחנות and placed five “מימין” and five “משמאל,” and this cannot mean relative to the היכל doorway because that would place a שולחן בדרום against “והשולחן תתן על צלע צפון.” The placement is instead relative to משה’s שולחן in the middle, with five to its right and five to its left. The same structure applies to the ten מנורות, since placing them relative to the doorway would yield a מנורה בצפון against “ואת המנורה נוכח השולחן,” and the פתרון is that משה’s מנורה stands in the middle with five on each side. Two ברייתות stating the tables were placed from “מחצי הבית ולפנים” or from “משליש הבית ולפנים” are reconciled by whether the calculation includes בית קדשי הקדשים with the היכל.
- A ברייתא records that רבי holds the שולחנות run מזרח ומערב, while רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון holds they run צפון ודרום. רבי derives from the מנורה, asserting the מנורה runs מזרח ומערב because “את נר המערבי” implies only one lamp is distinctly “לפני ה׳,” which would not be true if the lamps ran צפון ודרום. רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון derives from the ארון and also claims the מנורה itself is צפון ודרום, interpreting the distinct “נר המערבי” as the wick being tilted westward. A supporting teaching from “אל מול פני המנורה יאירו שבעת הנרות” says the lamps face the central lamp, and רבי נתן infers that the middle is משובח.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions