ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Menachos 98
MENACHOS 96-99 - Two weeks of study material have been dedicated by Mrs.
Estanne Abraham Fawer to honor the fourth Yahrzeit of her father, Reb
Mordechai ben Eliezer Zvi (Weiner), who passed away 18 Teves 5760. May the
merit of supporting and advancing Talmud study during the week of his
Yahrzeit serve as an Iluy for his Neshamah.
(a) Rebbi Yochanan defines an Amah Beinonis as - six Tefachim.
(b) And Rebbi Yossi bar Avin proves this from the fact that Rebbi Meir in
our Mishnah gives the measurements of the Shulchan as six by twelve
Tefachim - which is equivalent to the two by one Amos prescribed by the
(c) We can infer from the fact that the Tana refers to an Amah of six
Tefachim as 'Amah Beinonis' - that there must be an even larger Amah.
(a) The Mishnah in Keilim refers to two 'Amos' on the north and south
eastern corners of Shushan ha'Birah - which was a room that was built on top
of the eastern gate (Sha'ar Nikanor) of the Azarah, and on whose outer wall
was a picture of Shushan the capitol, from where they had come (see Tosfos
(b) These two 'Amos' were - rods of six Tefachim plus an Etzba, and six
Tefachim plus half an Etzba, respectively.
(c) Their function was - to prevent the workers who worked in the
Beis-Hamikash, and who got paid from Hekdesh funds, from committing Me'ilah
(the misappropriation of Hekdesh), by inadvertently getting paid for a
larger area than the work that they actually performed.
(d) So they would measure what they were expected to build with the Amah rod
of Mosheh (six Tefachim), and receive payment after measuring what they had
built, using the first or the second of the two longer rods, causing them to
lose a little out of their own pockets.
(e) It was necessary to have *two* such 'Amos' - the longer one for when
they built in wood or stone, the shorter one for when they built in silver
and gold, where the loss would be much greater.
(a) Rav Chisda and Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi argue about the reason for
'Shushan ha'Birah'. One of them explains that it was to remind them from
where they came - so that they should be grateful to Koresh for allowing
them to return to Eretz Yisrael and rebuild the Beis-Hamikdash.
(b) The other one explains - that it was to inspire them with a fear of the
kingdom, to dispel any thoughts that they may have had of rebelling against
Koresh (presumably, the Shushan ha'Birah was built on the orders of Koresh,
King of Persia).
(c) Rebbi Yanai learns the concept of Eimas Malchus (incorporating respect
for the king) from Moshe's words to Paroh. He derives it from the Pasuk
"Ve'yardu Kol Avadecha Eileh Eilai Ve'hishtachavu Li ... " - where, out of
respect for Paroh, Moshe made no mention of the fact that it was Paroh
himself who would later prostrate himself before him (Moshe).
(d) Rebbi Yochanan learns it from Eliyahu - who afforded the wicked Achav
the unprecedented honor of running on foot on front of his carriage until
the king arrived in Yisrael.
(a) Rav Chisda and Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi argue over the Pasuk "Ve'aleihu
li'Terufah" - with regard to the fountain that will in time to come, flow
from the Kodesh Kodshim, turning first, into a stream, and ultimately, into
a river, and on whose banks will grow fruit-trees.
(b) Chizkiyah and bar Kapara already indulged in the same Machlokes.
According to Chizkiyah, the leaves of those trees will cure the dumb
('Lehatir Peh Ilmin'). bar Kapara says - that it will cure the barren
('Lehatir Peh Aquarius').
(c) The source for both opinions is - the word "ve'Aleihah *li'Terufah*",
which is the acronym of 'Lehatir Peh' (only one learns 'Peh she'Lema'alah',
and the other, 'Peh she'Lematah').
(a) The Torah writes "Ve'lakachta So'les Ve'afisa Osam Sh'teim-Esrei Chalos
Ve'samta Osam Shetayim Ma'arachos, Sheish ha'Ma'araches." We would have
thought, had the Pasuk ...
1. ... omitted "Sheish ha'Ma'araches" - that it is permitted to place eight
loaves in one row, and four in the other.
(b) So if the Kohanim were to place two rows, one of eight loaves, the other
of four, they would not be Yotzei. It they placed two rows of seven, Rebbi
rules - that they would be Yotzei, because we simply consider the top loaf
in each row as if it was not there (see Tosfos DH 'Ro'in Oso').
2. ... omitted "Sh'teim-Esrei" - that they are obligated to arrange two rows
of six loaves, but that they may add a third row of six, should they so
3. ... written "Ve'lakachta So'les Ve'afisa Osam Sh'teim-Esrei Chalos
Ve'samta Osam Ma'arachos al ha'Shulchan" - that they are supposed to arrange
three rows, each consisting of four loaves.
(c) The problem with this is - that the Pasuk writes "Ve'nasata al
ha'Ma'araches Levonah Zakah" - meaning that the Levonah has to be placed in
the top loaf. However, since in this case, the top loaf is not one of the
six required loaves, placing it there would constitute a Chatzitzah.
(d) Rav Chisda, speaking to Rav Hamnuna (or vice-versa) solves the problem -
by reminding us that Rebbi, who explains "al" as 'be'Samuch' (next to, as we
learned in Perek 'Kol ha'Menachos Ba'os'), requires the Bazichin to be
placed on the Shulchan in between the rows (and not in the top loaf).
(a) The Beraisa states that all the Keilim in the Beis-Hamikdash were placed
lengthwise along the length of the Bayis, with the sole exception of the
(b) And when, after adding that its length was placed across the width (from
north to south), he continues 've'Kach Hayah Munach, ve'Kach Hayu Badav
Munachim', he means - that this was because of its poles, which can only
have run along its width (from east to west), as we shall now see.
(c) And we cite a Beraisa to prove that this was the case. Rebbi Yehudah
there proves that the poles must have been arranged along the width of the
Aron and not along its length - because (based on the fact that four Levi'im
carried the Aron [two at the front and two at the back]), two people would
not have fitted in the one and half Amoh space of the width.
(d) And from the Pasuk "Ve'nas'u ha'Kehasim, Nos'ei ha'Mikdash" he learns -
that four members of Kehas carried the Aron ("Ve'nas'u', 'T'rei', "Nos'ei
(a) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "Va'ya'arichu ha'Badim ... Va'Yera'u" - that the poles protruded into
the Heichal and could be seen there.
(b) The 'Paroches' referred to by the Pasuk is - the curtain that was spread
across the entrance for Tzeniyus.
2. ... "Lo Yera'u Ha'chutzah" - that this does not mean that they tore a
hole in the Paroches, but that they protruded there together with the
(c) Besides the fact that the Pasuk per se, is speaking about the first
Beis-Hamikdash, it could under no circumstances, refer to the two curtains
that divided between the Heichal and the D'vir during the era of the second
Beis-Hamikdash) - because during that period, there was no Aron, and
therefore there were no poles either.
(d) And the Tana learns from the Pasuk "Tz'ror ha'Mor Dodi Li, bein Shadai
Yalin" - that the poles appeared in the Heichal like the breasts of a woman
(the symbol of affection and sustenance, denoting Hashem's relationship with
(a) The Beraisa discusses the ten Tables that Shlomoh Hamelech made. When
the Navi in Melachim refers to "five on the right and five on the left", he
cannot mean five on the right of the entrance (of the Heichal) and five on
the left - because that would place five tables on the south side of the
Heichal, and the Torah writes in Terumah "ve'es ha'Menorah Nochach
ha'Shulchan" (which means that they must be placed in the south).
(b) What he therefore means is - that they were placed on the north, five on
either side of Moshe's Shulchan.
(c) The Beraisa which places them on the inner half of the Bayis conforms
with the Beraisa which places them in the middle third - in that the first
Beraisa is referring to the Heichal (which was forty Amos long) exclusively,
whereas the second Beraisa, includes the D'vir (which was twenty Amos).
(a) According to Rebbi, the Tables were placed from east to west. Rebbi
Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon maintains - that they were placed from north to south.
(b) Rebbi learns his opinion with a 'Binyan Av' from the Menorah. He learn
from the Pasuk "Ya'aroch Oso Aharon ... Lifnei Hashem" - that, if only one
lamp of the Menorah (the Ner ha'Ma'aravi [the westernmost lamp] see Tosfos
DH 'mi'di'Chesiv') is considered "Lifnei Hashem", then the Menorah must be
placed from east to west.
(c) Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon learn that the tables were arranged from
north to south - from the Aron, which was arranged that way, as we explained
(d) Rebbi learns from the Menorah rather than from the Aron - because he
prefers to learn Chutz from Chutz (rather than Chutz from P'nim).
(a) Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon disagrees with Rebbi - because in his
opinion, the Menorah too, was placed from north to south (in which case he
may indeed learn Chutz from Chutz).
(b) He explains the Pasuk "Ya'aroch Oso Aharon ... Lifnei Hashem" to mean -
that Aharon had to arrange the middle wick to face westwards towards the
(c) And he learns from the Pasuk "el Mul P'nei ha'Menorah Ya'iru Shiv'as
ha'Neiros" - that the other six lamps all had to face towards the middle
(d) Rebbi Nasan (or Rebbi Yochanan) learns from here - that when it is a
question of priority, the middle takes precedence over the first and the
(e) Consequently - when Leining the minimum ten Pesukim during the week, it
is the middle Aliyah who ought to Lein four Pesukim, and the other two,
(a) We query Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon on four scores. The problem fitting
the ten tables from north to south - would be that twenty Amos simply cannot
fit into a space of twenty Amos.
(b) The practical problem that remains, even assuming that they could be
squeezed in, is - how the Kohanim would be able to pass (to enter the
Kodshei Kodshim [e.g. the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur])?
(c) The third problem that we have already mentioned before - is that half
the tables will now be in the south side of the Heichal, and the Torah
requires them to be in the north.
(a) The problem that is difficult according to Rebbi as well is - where they
would then place Moshe's Menorah?
(b) The fact that not all the tables will be entirely in the inner half of
the Heichal is not a problem according to Rebbi - because this is not a
Torah-law, and it doesn't really matter if a small fraction of the Tables
extends into the outer section of the Heichal.
(c) We basically answer all the Kashyos on both opinions - by arranging the
tables in two rows, and not just one, as we initially thought.