Talmud zu Schemot 26:78

MISHNAH: They brought him the cup and the pan¹Other Cohanim bring him an empty cup and the censer full of the incense specially prepared for this day.; he took his full fistfuls and put it into the cup, a big person according to his bigness, and a small person according to his smallness, this was their measure. He took the fire-pan²With the hot coals, which he had deposited on the uppermost step at the entrance to the Temple. into his right hand and the cup in his left, went into the Temple until he reached the space between the two gobelins which separate between the Holy and the Holiest of Holies with one cubit between them. Rebbi Yose says, there was only one gobelin as it was said³Ex. 26:33., and the gobelin shall separate for you between the Holy and the Holiest of Holies.

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: One who threw four cubits in the public domain is liable⁴⁷He denies that throwing is a derivative of transporting (Note 24). Babli 97b.. Rebbi Jehudah considers four cubits in the public domain a separate category of work⁴⁸If he transported from a domain to another by throwing he is twice liable, Babli 97b.. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion there are 40 categories of work: should we not state this? We come to state only things about which everybody agrees. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Joshia in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Jehudah learned this from those who were sewing the gobelins, for those sewing the gobelins were throwing the needles one to another⁴⁹Babli 96b., Ex. 26:1–6. R. Jehudah must hold that throwing within 10 hand-breadths from the soil is transporting in the public domain.. Is that not karmelit⁵⁰Since the camp was organized as a private domain only after the Tabernacle was in service (Num. 2:1), in the period of construction of the Tabernacle they were dwelling in the desert; the space between the tents was karmelit. If the argument is correct then carrying in karmelit should be biblically prohibited and causing liability. This contradicts practice (Chapter 1, Note 73).? Rebbi Ḥinena said, they were throwing sideways⁵¹They threw outside of the tents in the public domain. The Babli 96b rejects the entire argument as impossible..

“With one cubit between them.” Rebbi Hila said, this⁵⁴That in contrast to the First temple, the Second had two gobelins, the interior one belonging to the Holiest of Holies and the exterior one belonging to the Temple Hall, with a cubit in between. The problem whether the cubit between interior and exterior gobelins belongs to the Temple Hall or the Holies of Holies is quoted as undecidable in Kilaim 8:5 where part of the text is found (Notes 93–95) and Babli 52a. is hinted at as we have stated there⁵⁵Mishnah Middot 4:7., “One cubit taraqsin, twenty cubits for the building of the Holiest of Holies.” What is “one cubit taraqsin”? Rebbi Jonah from Bostra said, “confusion”, what is inside-outside⁵⁶Jastrow’s conjecture that טרקסין is Greek τάραξιν, accusative of τάραξις, “confusion”; cf. Kilaim 8:5 Note 93.. Rebbi Yose said, since it is written⁵⁷1K. 6:17., forty cubits was the House, that is the inner Temple, it means that it is counted inside. Rebbi Mana said to him, but it is written⁵⁸2Chr. 3:8. Since the reports about the first Temple do not mention the cubit in between, all they prove is that the interior gobelin belongs to the Holiest of Holies and the exterior one to the Temple Hall., he made the building of the Holiest of Holies,…, twenty cubits, it means that it is counted outside. What is the rabbis’ reason? The gobelin shall separate for you⁵⁹Ex. 26:33. This is R. Yose’s (the Tanna) reason that only one gobelin is possible between the Temple Hall and the Holiest of Holies. How can the rabbis explain the verse?, etc.? What does Rebbi Yose do with this⁶⁰In this and the next sentence, the places of “R. Yose” and “the rabbis” have to be switched since the simple meaning of the verse supports R. Yose. Tosephta 2:12. Between the Holiest of Holies above and the Holiest of Holies below⁶¹The rabbis will dispute that even in the first Temple there was only one gobelin. Since there must be an opening for the High Priest to enter the Holiest of Holies, a complete separation so that the Holiest of Holies cannot be seen from the Temple Hall requires a minimum of two gobelins, one being closed at the place where the other is open. But on the roof of the building there was only one separating line.. Do the rabbis not have this? They have it as we have stated⁶²Mishnah Middot 4:5., “the impression of pebbles⁶³Greek ψῆφος. distinguish above between holy and the Holiest of Holies.”

HALAKHAH: If it had said “thread”, one, “double”, two, “twisted”, three, “entwined”, six³⁷One tries to explain why the expression entwined used in the biblical text for all woven textiles used in the Temple (except the garments of the simple priests) means a multiply twisted string. Since there are other words available for small numbers of threads, entwined must designate heavy strings.. There are four kinds, this makes 24. It was stated 32. If it had said “thread”, one, “double”, two, “twisted”, four, “entwined”, eight. There are four kinds, this makes 32. It was stated 48. If it had said “thread”, one, “double”, two, “plaited” three, “twisted”, six, “entwined”, twelve. There are four kinds, this makes 48.

HALAKHAH: If it had said “thread”, one, “double”, two, “twisted”, three, “entwined”, six³⁷One tries to explain why the expression entwined used in the biblical text for all woven textiles used in the Temple (except the garments of the simple priests) means a multiply twisted string. Since there are other words available for small numbers of threads, entwined must designate heavy strings.. There are four kinds, this makes 24. It was stated 32. If it had said “thread”, one, “double”, two, “twisted”, four, “entwined”, eight. There are four kinds, this makes 32. It was stated 48. If it had said “thread”, one, “double”, two, “plaited” three, “twisted”, six, “entwined”, twelve. There are four kinds, this makes 48.

³⁸Tosephta 3:14; explained differently in Babli Yoma72b.“One verse says embroidered work³⁹Ex. 26:36., and one verse says, intelligent work⁴⁰Ex. 26:31.. Embroidered work, one face⁴¹Greek προσώπον, τό. The scribe originally wrote correctly פרוסיף., intelligent work, two faces.” Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Nehemiah, one said embroidered work, a lion on each side, intelligent work, a lion on one side and nothing on the other side. The other one said, embroidered work, a lion on one side and nothing on the other side, intelligent work, a lion on one side and an eagle on the other side.

³⁸Tosephta 3:14; explained differently in Babli Yoma72b.“One verse says embroidered work³⁹Ex. 26:36., and one verse says, intelligent work⁴⁰Ex. 26:31.. Embroidered work, one face⁴¹Greek προσώπον, τό. The scribe originally wrote correctly פרוסיף., intelligent work, two faces.” Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Nehemiah, one said embroidered work, a lion on each side, intelligent work, a lion on one side and nothing on the other side. The other one said, embroidered work, a lion on one side and nothing on the other side, intelligent work, a lion on one side and an eagle on the other side.

“Who dyes it.” What kind of dying was in the Tabernacle? They were clobbering an animal for red skins of rams³⁷⁹Ex. 25:5, 26:14.. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that he is liable who causes a wound which results in echymosis³⁸⁰If the blue spot stays blue more than 24 hours.. He who colors his lips red is liable³⁷⁴In the Babli 95a this is characterized as R. Eliezer’s opinion and is not practice since it is only temporary painting.. He who causes bleeding, because of taking away life force at that place³⁸¹Lev. 17:11. This does not refer to slaughter which is mentioned separately in Mishnah 3, but to a non-lethal wound. Babli 75a/b.. He who makes a shape, the first one is liable because of writing and the second one because of dying³⁸²Assuming that the first person draws an outline and the second fills it with color. The Babli 75b notes that if the object is decoration of the vessel, he also is liable because of “hitting with a hammer”.. If he left out a limb and another came and finished it, he is liable because of hitting with a hammer⁷A name for the formal end of any production process.. Wringing and washing are the same category of work. It was stated: Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, the dyers in Jerusalem made wringing a separate category of work. In the opinion of Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa, there are 40 categories of work³⁸³Since it is not listed separately in the Mishnah.. Should we state this? We come to state only items to which everybody agrees.

“He who weaves two rows, who hits two threads, who ties, and who unties.” ³⁹⁴This paragraph and the next are also in Chapter 15, on Mishnah 15:1 (15), What tying was in the Tabernacle? They were tying down the ropes³⁹⁵Needed to tie the gobelins which formed the lowest part of the roof to the posts. Mentioned Ex. 35:18. Babli 74b.. But was this not temporarily³⁹⁶Tying a knot or untying is a Sabbath violation if the knot is intended to be permanent. Since the ropes had to be untied when the Tabernacle was transported, tying and untying could not be Sabbath violations.? Rebbi Yose says, because they were camping and travelling by the Word³⁹⁷By Divine order. Since tying and untying was not a decision humans could make; it could as well be considered permanent. In 15 this is a declarative sentence; it is the equivalent of being permanent. Babli Eruvin 55b., was it like temporarily? Rebbi Yose [ben Rebbi Abun]³⁹⁸From G and 15, confirmed by Or zaruaˋ Šabbat 67. said, since the Holy One, praise to Him, has promised them that he will bring them into the Land, it is as if it were (temporary) [permanent]³⁹⁹The text in (parentheses) is that of the corrector of the Leiden ms. and the scribe in 15, the one in [brackets] is of the original scribe here, the corrector in 15, and G. Since the Tabernacle was finally fixed at Shilo, there the ties were permanent. The other argument notes that while the times of disassembly of the Tabernacle were not predictable, the fact of future disassembly was a certainty; these ties were not permanent.. Rebbi Phineas said, they learned it from the gobelin sewers. If [a thread] broke, he was tying it. If it broke again, it was impossible to make many knots but he would untie the first one⁴⁰⁰Therefore both tying and untying happened during the construction of the Tabernacle and are correctly mentioned in the list of Sabbath prohibitions.. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, an expert tailor merges the two heads⁴⁰¹The previous argument is not convincing. An expert in invisible mending can connect the threads without a knot being noticeable.. And where was this said? As Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, they learned it from the weavers of the gobelins. What is the reason? The length of one gobelin⁴⁰²Ex. 26:2. To form a single unit, a gobelin could not have a broken thread even temporarily., that it should be an entity⁴⁰³For reasons of chronology, the [reading] of G is to be preferred over that of the (Leiden ms.) here and in Chapter 15.. If [a thread] broke, he was tying it. When he came to the weave, he untied it and brought it in. Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of (Rav) [Rebbi]⁴⁰⁴For the purposes of the construction of the Sanctuary everything had to be perfect; no broken threads to be repaired. The only possible explanation remains the first one. Ḥuna: Even on its warp there was neither knot nor connection⁴⁰⁵A scribal error..

HALAKHAH: Mishnah⁹⁶Quote from Mishnah 3.. “One does not kindle with any wood product but flax,” etc. Rebbi Simeon⁹⁴Read: R. Samuel ben Rav Isaac. bar Rav Isaac said it is written⁹⁷Ex. 27:20.: to raise permanent light. They estimated to say that nothing makes a flame like flax⁹⁸The wick in the lamp which was burning through the night had to be of flax.. It was stated⁹⁹Babli 26a, Tosephta 2:4. According to Rashi this implies that hemp fibers and cloth are impervious to impurity.: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, no wood product is subject to the three-by-three rule¹⁶Cloth of the minimal size of a handkerchief [which is defined as (3 finger-widths)²] is subject to all kinds of impurity. If the cloth wears out and is shredded to yield thread to make wicks, it is no longer subject to impurity. Once the threads are reassembled into a wick they become susceptible of impurity once the wick is usable. In R. Aqiba’s view, a wick will not burn unless its end has been singed and turned into charcoal; therefore the manufacture of the wick is not complete until it has been singed. Unfinished products do not become impure. except flax and one may use it as roofing¹⁰⁰It is a strict rabbinic rule that the roof of a sukkah may not be made with anything susceptible to impurity. Wooden logs as well as stems of plants may be used but not fruits., except flax.” Rebbi Yose said, they made it like coarse or soft, as we have stated¹⁰¹Mishnah Kelim 28:8. Cloth which is either very coarse or very fine cannot be used as handkerchief. Therefore it cannot become impure in the size of (3 fingers)². The minimum size for such fabric to be susceptible to impurity is that of a towel, (3 handbreadths)².: “the coarse and the soft are not subject to the three-by-three rule.” Rebbi Eleazar said, they learned it¹⁰²The fact that linen textile is called “tent” and therefore brings impurity is implied by the instructions for the building of the Tabernacle. from the Tabernacle as it is written¹⁰³Ex. 26.1., the Sanctuary you shall make ten gobelins, twilled byssus; and it is written¹⁰⁴Ez. 44:16., linen turbansshall be on their heads. You learn byssus from byssus, and byssus from turbans, and turbans from turbans¹⁰⁵There is a quote missing for the chain of reasoning. The gobelins which formed the walls of the Tabernacle were partially made of שֵׁשׁ “byssus”. The problem is to prove that byssus was made of linen. Since the same word was used in Ex. 26.1 and Ex.39:28, speaking of the priestly vestments, the hat-turbans of byssus, one may assume that the same turbans and the same materials are mentioned in Ez. 44:16, where it is explicitly stated that the priests’ turbans are made of linen. Similarly in the Babli Yoma71b; a different derivation in the name of R. Eleazar is in the Babli Šabbat 27b/28a..

Solomon made ten tables: Solomon made ten tables and deposited them in the Temple Hall, five to the right and five to the left¹¹⁵2Chr. 4:8.. If you would say, five to the North and five to the South, but the table is only qualified in the North, as it is said, and the table put on the North side¹¹⁶Ex. 26:35.. Why does the verse say, five to the right and five to the left? Five to the right of Moses’s table, and five to its left. Nevertheless, only Moses’s alone was used, as it is said¹¹⁷1K. 7:49., the table on which is the shew-bread. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, all of them were used, for it is said¹¹⁸2Chr. 4:19., the tables on which the shew-bread is. It was stated: They were put East and West, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, they were put North and South. He who says East and West is understandable; all of them are proper for Service¹¹⁹As prescribed in Ex. 40:22,, the table at the North side of the Tabernacle, and Ex. 40:24, the candelabrum at the South side, standing East-West, opposite the table.. He who says, North and South, would then not the table be in the South and the candelabrum in the North? But was it not stated, the table was in the middle of the Temple, more to the inside, about two cubits away from the wall to the North, and opposite it the candelabrum in the South¹²⁰If they are all in one line, at the North side of the Temple, the long side oriented East-West, all pentateuchal requirements are satisfied. Babli Menaḥot 99a.. The golden altar was in the middle of the Temple, dividing the Temple, inside, a little bit drawn to the North¹²¹While the center of the golden altar exactly determines the middle of the Temple hall for distances measured East-West, i. e., between the entrance and the gobelins shielding the Holiest of Holies, it does not exactly determine the middle of the center of the distance of North to South walls.. All were put inside of a third of the Temple¹²²The first third of the distance between entrance and the Holiest of Holies was empty..

Solomon made ten candelabra, [as it is said]¹²³Corrector’s insert following B., he made the ten candelabra according to its rules¹²⁴2 Chr. 4:7. In the other two sources correctly “their rules”, and they add the end of the verse, to which the next argument refers: and put them in the Temple Hall, five to the right and five to the left. Cf. Babli Menaḥot98b–99a.. If you would say, five to the North and five to the South, but the candelabrum is only qualified in the South, as it is said, and the candelabrum opposite the table on the South side¹¹⁶Ex. 26:35.. Why does the verse say, five to the right and five to the left? Five to the right of Moses’s candelabrum, and five to its left. Nevertheless, only Moses’s alone was kindled, as it is said¹²⁵2 Chr.13:11, showing actual practice.\, and the golden candelabrum and its lights to kindle evening by evening. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, all of them were kindled, for it is said¹²⁶2 Chr. 4:20–21., the candelabra and their lights, to kindle them regularly in the Temple Hall, closed gold¹²⁷Cf. Yoma4:4, Note 101., and the flower¹²⁸According to Rashi, the ornament of the candelabrum mentioned in Num. 8:4 but not in the original instructions, Ex. 25:31–40., and the lights, and the pincers of gold, this uses up the gold. These used up Solomon’s gold. Rav Jehudah in the name of Assi¹²⁹In B a Tannaitic text, a statement of R. Jehudah in the name of Issy.: Solomon took 1’000 talents of silver, put them repeatedly into the (fire) [smelting furnace]¹³⁰The scribe’s text (in parentheses) is confirmed by the Genizah text; the corrector’s [in brackets] is from B. until they were reduced to one, to fulfill what is written¹³¹Ex. 37:24., from one talent of pure gold he made it. It was stated, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah said, ¹³²The following is from Yoma4:4, Notes 107–108. it happened that the golden candelabrum which Moses made in the desert was in excess of one gold denar, and they returned it to the fire eighty times and it did not lose anything¹³³This seems to contradict the preceding story of Solomon’s refining smelter.. This is correct. Before it is refined it loses a lot, once it is refined it will not miss anything.

Those of Bar Pazi and (Bar) [Rebbi]³²⁸The text of L is in parentheses, the one from B in bracketrs. Since the second family is also called “R. Hoshaia’s” later in L, and the entire story makes sense only if this family was distinguished in learning, the reading from B has to be accepted. Hoshaia went and greeted the Patriarch every day. Those of Rebbi Hoshaia went in first [and left first]³²⁹Ex. 26:30. This argument is a legal argument of R. Immi’s in Šabbat 12:3 (13c l. 60). The Mishnah states that it is a prosecutable sin to write two letters on the Sabbath. Since the Sabbath prohibition is repeated after the instructions for building the Tabernacle (Ex. 31:12–17; 35:1–3) it is concluded that the forbidden actions on the Sabbath are exactly those which were necessary for the construction of the Tabernacle. R. Immi explains that all logs which formed the walls of the Tabernacle carried two letters and that sides bearing the same letters were put together when the Tabernacle was re-assembled after being transported. This is taken here as a sign that nothing should be changed; marrying into the family of the patriarch cannot erase the advantage conferred by learning.. Those of Bar Pazi went and became related by marriage to the patriarchate. They came and wanted to enter first. They went and asked Rebbi Immi. You shall erect the tabernacle according to its ruling³³⁰Ex. 26:30.. Does there exist a ruling for wood? But the log which merited to be put in the North should be put in the North, in the South should be put in the South.