Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Menachos, 98

1) MEASURING THE "KERANOS" OF THE MIZBE'ACH

OPINIONS: The Gemara (97b) says that the Amah measurement used in the Mishkan was comprised of 6 Tefachim, except for certain measurements of the Mizbe'ach, for which an Amah of 5 Tefachim was used, as described in the verse in Yechezkel (43:13), "And these are the measurements of the altar by Amos: the Amah is an Amah and a Tefach; the foundation ('Cheik,' or the Yesod) shall be an Amah, and the breadth ('Rochav,' or the Sovev) an Amah, and its border by its edge all around (the Keranos) shall be a Zeres (the span of a hand)."

The Gemara says that the "Cheik ha'Amah," the first measurement of the Mizbe'ach for which an Amah of 5 Tefachim was used, refers to the Yesod. The Gemara first assumes that this refers to the width of the part of the Yesod that protrudes beyond the wall of the middle section of the Mizbe'ach. According to the Gemara's conclusion, this refers to the height of the Yesod.

The "Amah Rochav," the second measurement of the Mizbe'ach for which an Amah of 5 Tefachim was used, refers to the Sovev, the middle section of the Mizbe'ach. The Gemara first assumes that this refers to the height of the Mizbe'ach from the Yesod until the Sovev, but it concludes that this refers to the width of the Sovev that protrudes past the upper platform.

The "Gevulah Al Sefasah Saviv" ("its border by its edge all around") refers to the Keranos that were also measured with an Amah of 5 Tefachim. What part of the Keranos was measured with an Amah of 5 Tefachim? The Gemara says "it does not matter this way, and it does not matter that way" ("Lo Shena Hachi v'Lo Shena Hachi"). What does the Gemara mean?

(a) RASHI (DH Lo Shena) explains that the length of the side ("Kenisah") of the Keranos could be either 5 Tefachim or 6 Tefachim. If the length of the side of the Keranos was 6 Tefachim, then that leaves 150 Tefachim (24 Amos and 4 Tefachim) for the length of the side of the area at the top of the Mizbe'ach. The height, though, of the Keranos was 5 Tefachim.

(b) RABEINU GERSHOM explains that the Gemara means that the Keranos were 5 Tefachim in each dimension, both in height and in width (and length, as they were square).

(c) The RAMBAM seems to have a different understanding of the Gemara. We showed earlier (see previous Insight) that the Rambam maintains that the length of the side of the Keranos was 6 Tefachim, since he holds that the width of the extension of the Yesod was 5 Tefachim, and thus he must compensate for the extra Tefach by adding a Tefach to the length of each Keren. What does the Gemara mean when it says with regard to measuring the Keranos with an Amah of 5 Tefachim, "it does not matter this way, and it does not matter that way"? Some Acharonim suggest that the Rambam had a different Girsa in the Gemara (KEREN ORAH, MISHNEH L'MELECH).

The CHAFETZ CHAYIM in LIKUTEI HALACHOS (Zevachim 54a) suggests that the Rambam's Girsa was, "Lo Shena *Hacha*, v'Lo Shena *Hacha*" -- "it does not matter *here*, and it does not matter *here*." The Gemara is saying that the *height* of the Keranos is uniform; it is the same regardless of the place at the base of the Keranos from which one measures it. The "Kenisah," or width of the Keranos, however, was a regular Amah of 6 Tefachim.

According to the Rambam, the verse is not left ambiguous (as Rashi understands it), nor is the verse teaching *both* dimensions (height and width) of the Keranos. The verse is clearly saying that from the edge of the Mizbe'ach until the tip of the Keranos was 5 Tefachim "all around." This description fits only the height of the Keranos, and not the width. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)

QUESTION: The Gemara (97b) explains that the words, "Gevulah Al Sefasah Saviv" -- "Its border by its edge all around" (Yechezkel 43:13) -- refers to the Keranos that were also measured with an Amah of 5 Tefachim, and not with the regular Amah of 6 Tefachim. What part of the Keranos was measured with an Amah of 5 Tefachim? The Gemara says "it does not matter this way, and it does not matter that way" ("Lo Shena Hachi v'Lo Shena Hachi"; see previous Insight). RASHI DH Lo Shena) explains that the length of the side ("Kenisah") of the Keranos could be either 5 Tefachim or 6 Tefachim. If the length of the side of the Keranos was 6 Tefachim, then that leaves 150 Tefachim (24 Amos and 4 Tefachim) for the length of the side of the area at the top of the Mizbe'ach. Accordingly, when the verse in Yechezkel (43:16) describes the length of each side at the top of the Mizbe'ach as being 12 Amos from the center toward each direction, making each side 24 Amos long, it is not being exact. The Navi does not mention the remaining 4 Tefachim, since they do not amount to a full Amah. (See Insights to Menachos 97:2 for a detailed description of the dimensions of the Mizbe'ach according to Rashi.)

The RASHASH questions this from the Gemara earlier (97b) that proves from this verse (43:16) that the Navi gives exact measurements. Rashi there (DH veha'Ari'el) explains that the measurement in the verse must be exact, "because the verse would not give an inexact measurement." How, then, can Rashi here (98a) say that the verse *is* giving an inexact measurement?

ANSWER: The answer is that the Gemara earlier is proving from the verse that the measurements in *Amos* are always exact. The Gemara is saying that if the side of the top of the Mizbe'ach was 25 Amos long, then the verse would not say that it was 24 Amos! The verse is inexact, though, with regard to units that it is not enumerating. If the exact measurement is 24 Amos and 4 Tefachim, then the verse will say that it was 24 Amos, and that is not considered being inexact, since the verse is discussing only Amos and not Tefachim.

However, there is still a problem, as the Rashash points out. If the verse would have said that the length of the side of the top of the Mizbe'ach is 24 Amos, then we would understand that the Navi is being exact only with regard to the number of Amos. However, the verse does not say that the measurement is 24 Amos. Rather, it says that the measurement from the center to the edge is 12 Amos, and we know that the total length is 24 Amos. The Gemara earlier is asking that if one says that the total length is 25 Amos, then the verse is not exact. However, the verse *is* exact with regard to the number of Amos! The verse says that *half* of the length was 12 Amos. Perhaps the total length *is* 25, and the verse *is* being exact -- with regard to the measure of *Amos*! The verse does not say 12 Amos and 3 Tefachim (half an Amah), because it is discussing only the number of Amos!

There are a number of answers to this question.

1. The Rashash suggests two answers to this question. First, he answers that since the measure of 12 Amos is given with the obvious intent that it be doubled in order to arrive at the full length, the Navi would not be inexact with regard to the Tefachim, since the Tefachim add up to a full Amah.

2. Second, the Rashash says that although the Navi is not being inexact when he does not mention units of Tefachim, he is being inexact when he does not mention *halves* of Amos. We find in a number of places that the Torah itself gives measurements in terms of halves of Amos (such as in Shemos 25:10).

3. The RA'AVAD answers this question based on his approach to where the Keranos were situated (see Insights to Menachos 97:2). The RA'AVAD (Hasagos, Hilchos Beis ha'Bechirah 2:8) suggests that the Keranos were each recessed 2 Tefachim from the actual corners at the top of the Mizbe'ach (for a total of 4 Tefachim), thus making the distance from one Keren to the other exactly 24 Amos.

However, according to Ra'avad, if there was space between the edge of the Mizbe'ach and the beginning of the Keren, then what is the Gemara's question earlier (97b)? The Gemara there asks that if the 5-Tefach Amos were used only for the "Kenisos," then there would be an extra Amah on top of the Mizbe'ach, totaling 25 Amos instead of 24. According to Ra'avad, why does the Gemara not answer simply that the extra Amah was accounted for by the space between the edge of the Mizbe'ach and the beginning of the Keranos?

It must be that it is not possible that the Keranos would be so far from the edge of the Mizbe'ach, such that the total distance (from the space on two opposite sides) would equal an entire Amah. If there was so much space between the edge of the Mizbe'ach and the Keranos, then there would be no need to have a full Amah for the path for the Kohanim. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)

98b

QUESTION: The Gemara proves that the Badim of the Aron were on the width of the Aron, and not on the length of the Aron, from the fact that the Aron was carried by four people. Two people stood on each side of the Aron between the Badim. If the Badim were on the width of the Aron, then that would leave only one and a half Amos of space for them to stand, and two people cannot fit in one and a half Amos of space.

Why, though, does the Gemara assume that the Kohanim who carried the Aron stood on the inside of the poles? Perhaps they stood on the outside of the poles, leaving the space between the poles empty! (SEFAS EMES)

ANSWER: The MALBIM (Shemos 30:4) answers this question by asking several other questions on the words of the Gemara.

First, the Gemara proves that four Kohanim carried the Aron from the verse, "v'Nas'u ha'Kehasim Nos'ei ha'Mikdash" -- "and the Kehasim shall travel, those who carry the holy [Aron]" (Bamidbar 10:21). "Kehasim" refers to two Kohanim, and "Nos'ei ha'Mikdash" refers to another two. Why, though, does the Gemara need a verse to prove that four Kohanim were needed to carry the Aron? Since the width between the two poles was more than the shoulder width of even a large person, it was not possible for one person to carry the Aron on each side. It could be carried only by two people on each side, and thus it is obvious that four Kohanim were necessary!

Second, how does the Gemara infer from the verse, "v'Nas'u ha'Kehasim Nos'ei ha'Mikdash," that four Kohanim were necessary? The words "Nos'ei ha'Mikdash" are not adding to the number of people who must carry the Aron. They are merely describing what the "Kehasim" are supposed to do!

The Malbim explains that the when the Gemara asks how we know that four Kohanim carried the Aron, it is not asking for the source for the number of Kohanim who carry it. Rather, it is asking for the source for *how* the four Kohanim carried the Aron. The Gemara is asking how we know that the four Kohanim who carried the Aron all stood between the Badim when they carried it. Perhaps they carried the Aron with the Badim across the width of the path (that is, with the Badim facing in the direction perpendicular to the path). If they carried it in this manner, then the Kohanim in the front placed the front Bad across their upper back, while they stood in front of the Bad (and not between the Badim). The Kohanim in the back carried the second Bad across their upper back as well, and, they, too, thus stood in front of that Bad (between the front and back Badim).

The Gemara answers that the verse says that those who carried the Aron were "Nos'ei ha'Mikdash." This means that they had to carry the Aron in a way fit for carrying an item of Kedushah. How is an item of Kedushah supposed to be carried? The proper way to carry an item of Kedushah is by facing the item at all times. The RAMBAM (Hilchos Kli ha'Mikdash 2:13) writes, "When they carry it upon their shoulders, they carry it facing each other (Panim k'Neged Panim), with their backs facing the outside (v'Achoreihem la'Chutz) and their faces towards the inside (u'Feneihem Lifnim)."

The Malbim writes that the source for the Rambam's ruling is this Gemara. The Gemara derives from the words, "Nos'ei ha'Mikdash," that the Aron must be carried by four Kohanim in such a way that all four are in the same area -- between the Badim, facing the Aron. This is the Gemara's proof that they carried the Aron while standing between the Badim, and thus the Badim must have been on the Aron with the width of the Aron between them.

(It seems from the Malbim that the Kohanim face the Aron directly only when they stand between the Badim, but when they stand outside of the Badim, they are not facing the Aron directly when they walk. The YAD BINYAMIN quotes the KIRYAS SEFER who says that the source for the Rambam's words is the verse, "Ki Avodas ha'Kodesh Aleihem" -- "for the holy service is upon them" (Bamidbar 7:9). This verse implies that they must have in mind at all times that they are performing the Avodas ha'Kodesh. This requirement is fulfilled by having them carry the Aron in such a way that it is situated directly in front of their eyes. The only way to accomplish this is by having them stand between the Badim. This is how the Gemara here knows that there must have been enough room between the Badim for two Kohanim to stand.)

Based on this approach, the Malbim answers the question of the SEFER MA'ASEH CHOSHEV, who asks that the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav also had Badim with which the Mizbe'ach was carried. RASHI (in Shemos 30:4) maintains that the Mizbe'ach had two Badim that were held to the Mizbe'ach by four rings, just as the Aron had. However, if the Mizbe'ach (which was one Amah long and one Amah wide) had two Badim, then that leaves a width of only one Amah between the Badim. How could two Kohanim fit between the Badim to carry the Mizbe'ach? (Some learn that there were only two rings for the Badim on the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav, and they were placed on the corners so that the Mizbe'ach was carried diagonally. This, however, does not sufficiently resolve the problem, because the diagonal would still not provide a space larger than one and a half Amos.)

The Malbim answers that the requirement of "Nos'ei ha'Mikdash" -- to carry the Aron in the manner in which an object of Kedushah should be carried -- is written only with regard to the Aron. It does not say that those who carry the Mizbe'ach are "Nos'ei ha'Mikdash," and therefore there was no requirement to stand in the space between the Badim and face the Mizbe'ach when carrying it. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)