## Menachot Daf 96b

###### Menachot 96b:1
[Menachot 96b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/96b:1)

וְהָאִיכָּא מִסְגַּרְתּוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But isn’t there** the Table’s decorated **frame,** which ran around its perimeter and was one handbreadth wide, as the verse states: “And you shall make for it a frame of a handbreadth” (Exodus 25:25)? Since the arrangements are placed on the Table’s frame, they rise one additional handbreadth above the Table.


###### Menachot 96b:2
[Menachot 96b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/96b:2)

כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר מִסְגַּרְתּוֹ לְמַטָּה הָיְתָה, וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִסְגַּרְתּוֹ לְמַעְלָה הָיְתָה – פַּרְקוֹדֵי הֲוָה מְפַרְקְדָא, וְלֶחֶם בְּגַוֵּיהּ דְּשֻׁלְחָן הֲוָה יָתֵיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement is **in accordance with the** opinion of the **one who said** the Table’s **frame was** not above the Table’s surface but **below** it, and therefore it did not add any height to the arrangements on the Table. **And** furthermore, even **according to the one who said** the Table’s **frame was above** the Table’s surface, it did not add to the height of the arrangements. This is because the frame **was tilted** outward, **but** the **bread was set within** the area **of** the **Table’s** surface.


###### Menachot 96b:3
[Menachot 96b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/96b:3)

כִּדְתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: לֹא הָיָה שָׁם סְנִיפִין, אֶלָּא מִסְגַּרְתּוֹ שֶׁל שֻׁלְחָן מַעֲמֶדֶת אֶת הַלֶּחֶם. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: מִסְגַּרְתּוֹ לְמַטָּה הָיְתָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites the dispute with regard to the location of the frame: **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Yosei says: There were no panels there** at all, as they were not required in order to support the loaves. **Rather, the Table’s frame supported the bread,** as the frame was above the Table’s surface. The Rabbis **said to** Rabbi Yosei: The Table’s **frame was below** the Table’s surface, and therefore the panels were required to support the loaves.


###### Menachot 96b:4
[Menachot 96b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/96b:4)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר מִסְגַּרְתּוֹ לְמַטָּה הָיְתָה, טַבְלָא הַמִּתְהַפֶּכֶת טְמֵאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: According to the statement of the one who says** that the Table’s **frame was below** the Table’s surface, the surface was merely a flat board. It is a halakhic principle with regard to wooden utensils that only rounded utensils are susceptible to ritual impurity, but not flat utensils. It is known that the shewbread Table was susceptible to impurity. One may therefore infer from this that a flat **board is susceptible to impurity,** provided **that** it **can be turned over** and used on both sides. This is because the wide surface of the board renders it functionally similar to a concave receptacle.


###### Menachot 96b:5
[Menachot 96b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/96b:5)

לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר מִסְגַּרְתּוֹ לְמַעְלָה הָיְתָה, טַבְלָא הַמִּתְהַפֶּכֶת תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yoḥanan continues: **According to the statement of the one who says** that the Table’s **frame was above** the Table’s surface, the Table served as a receptacle. One therefore cannot infer the *halakha* with regard to a flat **board that can be turned over** from the case of the Table, and **you must** still **raise the dilemma** as to whether it is susceptible to ritual impurity.


###### Menachot 96b:6
[Menachot 96b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/96b:6)

מִכְּלָל דְּשֻׁלְחָן בַּר קַבּוֹלֵי טוּמְאָה הוּא? כְּלִי עֵץ הֶעָשׂוּי לְנַחַת הוּא, וְכׇל כְּלִי עֵץ הֶעָשׂוּי לְנַחַת – אֵין מְקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: One can conclude **by inference** from Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement **that** the **Table is susceptible to ritual impurity.** But **it is a wooden vessel designated to rest** in a fixed place, **and any wooden vessel** that is **designated to rest** in a fixed place **is not susceptible to impurity.**


###### Menachot 96b:7
[Menachot 96b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/96b:7)

מַאי טַעְמָא? דּוּמְיָא דְּשַׂק בָּעֵינַן – מָה שַׂק מִטַּלְטֵל מָלֵא וְרֵיקָן, אַף כֹּל מִטַּלְטֵל מָלֵא וְרֵיקָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **What is the reason** for this *halakha*? The verse states with regard to items that are rendered impure by the carcasses of creeping animals: “And anything upon which any of them fall when they are dead shall be impure, whether it is any vessel of wood, or cloth, or leather, or sack” (Leviticus 11:32). The verse juxtaposes wooden vessels with sacks, indicating that **we require** a wooden vessel to be **similar to a sack** in order to be susceptible to ritual impurity. **Just as a sack is carried** both when it is **full and** when it is **empty, so too, any** wooden vessel that is **carried** both **full and empty** is susceptible to impurity. Since the Table is designated to rest in a fixed place and not to be carried, it should not be susceptible to impurity.


###### Menachot 96b:8
[Menachot 96b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/96b:8)

שֻׁלְחָן נָמֵי מִטַּלְטֵל מָלֵא וְרֵיקָן, כִּדְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן הַטָּהוֹר״? ״טָהוֹר״ – מִכְּלָל דְּאִיכָּא טָמֵא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The **Table is also carried** both **full and empty,** i.e., even when the shewbread is upon it, **in accordance with** the statement **of Reish Lakish.** This is **as Reish Lakish said: What** is the meaning of that **which is written:** “And you shall set them in two arrangements, six in an arrangement, **upon the pure Table** before the Lord” (Leviticus 24:6)? The term “the **pure** Table” teaches **by inference that there is** a case where the Table becomes **impure,** and therefore the Torah states that the Table must be pure when the shewbread is set upon it. This conclusion is difficult, as the principle that a wooden vessel designated to rest in a fixed place is not susceptible to impurity indicates that the Table should not be susceptible to impurity.


###### Menachot 96b:9
[Menachot 96b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/96b:9)

אֶלָּא, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמַּגְבִּיהִין אוֹתוֹ לְעוֹלֵי רְגָלִים, וּמַרְאִין בּוֹ לֶחֶם, וְאוֹמְרִים לָהֶם: רְאוּ חִיבַּתְכֶם לִפְנֵי הַמָּקוֹם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the verse **teaches that** the priests would **lift** the Table with its shewbread **to display the shewbread to the pilgrims** standing in the Temple courtyard, **and** a priest would **say to them: See** how **beloved you** are **before,** i.e., in the eyes of, **the Omnipresent,** Who constantly performs a miracle with regard to the shewbread. For this reason, the Table is susceptible to ritual impurity.


###### Menachot 96b:10
[Menachot 96b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/96b:10)

כְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: נֵס גָּדוֹל נַעֲשָׂה בְּלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, סִילּוּקוֹ כְּסִידּוּרוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לָשׂוּם לֶחֶם חֹם בְּיוֹם הִלָּקְחוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is **in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: A great miracle was performed with the shewbread:** Its condition at the time of **its removal** from the Table, after having been left there for a week, was **like** its condition at the time of **its arrangement** on the Table; **as it is stated: “To place hot bread on the day when it was taken away”** (I Samuel 21:7), indicating that it was as hot on the day of its removal as it was on the day when it was placed on the Table.


###### Menachot 96b:11
[Menachot 96b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/96b:11)

וְתִיפּוֹק לִי מִשּׁוּם צִיפּוּי? מִי לָא תְּנַן: הַשֻּׁלְחָן וְהַדּוּלְבָּקִי שֶׁנִּפְחֲתוּ, אוֹ שֶׁחִיפָּן בְּשַׁיִישׁ, וְשִׁיֵּיר בָּהֶן מְקוֹם הַנָּחַת כּוֹסוֹת – טְמֵאִין. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מְקוֹם הַנָּחַת חֲתִיכוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** why is it necessary to derive that the Table is susceptible to impurity due to the fact that it is not designated to rest in a fixed place? **I may derive** that it is susceptible to impurity **due to** its gold **covering. Didn’t we learn** in a mishna (*Kelim* 22:1): Consider the case of **the table and the *dulbeki*,** a small table upon which the food and drink are placed before being served at the dining table, **that were** partially **broken, or that one covered with marble** stone, which is not susceptible to impurity. If **an area of their** surface large enough for **placing cups** there **was left** unbroken or uncovered with marble they remain **susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Yehuda says:** The remaining surface **area** must be large enough for **placing pieces** of meat and bread as well.


###### Menachot 96b:12
[Menachot 96b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/96b:12)

שִׁיֵּיר – אִין, לֹא שִׁיֵּיר – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One can infer from the mishna that if one **left** part of the surface area of the table without covering it with marble, **yes,** it remains susceptible to impurity. But if **he did not leave** part of the table without covering it with marble it is **not** susceptible to impurity. Evidently, the status of a vessel is determined according to the material of its external covering and not according to its main material. Consequently, since the shewbread Table was covered with gold it should have the status of a metal vessel, which is susceptible to ritual impurity even if it is designated to rest in a fixed place.


###### Menachot 96b:13
[Menachot 96b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/96b:13)

וְכִי תֵּימָא, כָּאן בְּצִיפּוּי עוֹמֵד, כָּאן בְּצִיפּוּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹמֵד, וְהָא בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מֵרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּצִיפּוּי עוֹמֵד, אוֹ בְּצִיפּוּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹמֵד? בְּשֶׁחִיפָּה אֶת

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** the case of the shewbread Table is different, as **here,** with regard to the marble-covered table, the mishna is referring **to a permanent covering** that is fixed to the table with nails, whereas **there,** in the case of the shewbread Table, the discussion is referring **to a covering that is not permanent,** as the gold was not attached to the shewbread Table with nails, this explanation is difficult. **But didn’t Reish Lakish raise a dilemma to Rabbi Yoḥanan:** Is the mishna that discusses the marble-covered table referring only **to a permanent covering, or** even **to a covering that is not permanent?** Is it referring only to a case **where** one **covered**