Table/Tisch

The Gemara challenges: Why does the verse begin with the word “altar” and conclude with the word “Table,” even though both terms are referring to the same item? Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar both say the following interpretation: When the Temple is standing, the altar effects atonement for the transgressions of a person, but now that the Temple is not standing, a person’s table effects atonement for his transgressions, if he provides for the poor and needy from the food on his table.

Rabbi Shimon said: if three have eaten at one table and have not spoken there words of Torah, [it is] as if they had eaten sacrifices [offered] to the dead, as it is said, “for all tables are full of filthy vomit, when the All-Present is absent” (Isaiah 28:8). But, if three have eaten at one table, and have spoken there words of Torah, [it is] as if they had eaten at the table of the All-Present, blessed be He, as it is said, “And He said unto me, ‘this is the table before the Lord’” (Ezekiel 41:22).

(24) Overlay it with pure gold, and make a gold molding around it. (25) Make a rim of a hand’s breadth around it, and make a gold molding for its rim round about. (26) Make four gold rings for it, and attach the rings to the four corners at its four legs. (27) The rings shall be next to the rim, as holders for poles to carry the table. (28) Make the poles of acacia wood, and overlay them with gold; by these the table shall be carried. (29) Make its bowls, ladles, jars and jugs with which to offer libations; make them of pure gold. (30) And on the table you shall set the bread of display, to be before Me always.

AND THOU SHALT MAKE ‘KE’AROTHAV VEKAPOTHAV UKSOTHAV UMENAKIYOTHAV.’ Rashi explained: “Ke’arothav are the forms [the moulds that were made to fit the shape of the bread]; vekapothav are spoons in which the incense was put; uksothav are rods in the shape of halves of hollow canes [which were put between one loaf and another so that they would not become mouldy]; umenakiyothav are the trestles which were notched in [five places] to support the canes.” These vessels [that Rashi referred to] are indeed mentioned in the Gemara. And the Rabbi further said: “The word mechilathei [which Onkelos used for the Hebrew menakiyothav] means ‘bearers,’ similar to the expressions: and I weary myself ‘kalkeil’ (to bear it); I am weary ‘hachil’ (bearing it). Now the Sages of Israel have differed on this. For some say that ksothav are the trestles, and menakiyothav are the hollow canes. But Onkelos who translated menakiyothav by [the Aramaic] mechilathei was of the same opinion as he who says that menakiyoth are the trestles [supporting pillars attached to the table].” These are Rashi’s words. But I do not find them to be correct, for the word mechilathei [of Onkelos] in the Aramaic language is but a term meaning measures, such as ephahs and the like. Thus Onkelos rendered, eiphath tzedek — mechilon dikshot (a true measure); Thou shalt not have in thy house ‘eiphah v’eiphah’ — thou shalt not have mechilta umechilta (diverse measures). In a similar sense it is found whenever mentioned in the Talmud and in the Sages’ words: kayal meikal (he was measuring); bimchilta d’kayil inish ba mitkil (with the measure that one measures others, with that he is measured). Similarly, I am weary ‘hachil’ means “I am weary of being a holding measure” [of G-d’s fury], and it is associated with these expressions: alpayim bath yachil (it held two thousand baths); v’chol bashalish aphar ha’aretz (and He comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure); too little ‘meihachil’ (to receive) the burnt offering. Similarly, I am weary ‘hachil’ is in my opinion not an expression of “bearing” but is instead a form of that very same meaning of “holding,” thus saying, “I am weary of holding” [G-d’s fury], similar in usage to these expressions: the land is not able ‘l’hachil’ (to hold) all his words; the spirit of a man ‘y’chalkeil’ his infirmity, meaning that he will be able to hold the pain within himself and not become weary [and broken in spirit] because of it. Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot ‘y’chalkelucha’ — they cannot hold and contain the greatness of Your exaltedness, for there is no limit and measure to You — how much less this house that I have built! 'Y’chalkeil' his words rightfully means that he is not a fool who spendeth all his spirit, but holds his words within himself when necessary, and uses them as necessary. 'Vay’chalkeil Yoseiph' means that Joseph gave them as much food as they could hold; he gave neither too much nor too little, but bread according to the want of their little ones. And such is the explanation of all [other similar expressions].
But Onkelos’ opinion [who translated umenakiyothav — umechilathei] is not clear. Perhaps menakiyothav is in the opinion of Onkelos a term for measures, since they had [in the Tabernacle and later in the Sanctuary] a measure holding two tenth parts [of an ephah] flour, with which to measure one cake, and they did not measure it twice with the one tenth measure of the meal-offering. We must then say that Onkelos differs from the Mishnah which teaches: “There were two dry-measures in the Sanctuary: the tenth, and the half-tenth” [of an ephah], and in his opinion there were three dry-measures: the tenth, the half-tenth, and the two tenths.
The correct interpretation of Onkelos’ opinion appears to me to be that mechila is the form (mould) made for the dough, just as the Rabbis have said: “There were in the Tabernacle three moulds [for the showbread]: he placed it in a mould whilst it was still dough; when baked in the oven it was put in another mould, and when he took it out he placed it in a [third] frame so that it should not spoil.” This [third] frame which was used so that it should not spoil did not have to be shaped to the form of the bread and its size; instead, it was made like a sort of dish to support the sides of the bread, this being the ke’arothav mentioned in the verse. But the first mould for the dough was shaped to the form of the bread and its size, namely, ten [handbreadths] long and five wide, and its horns seven fingerbreadths [high]. Into this mould the dough was put, measured and shaped to fit its form, and for this reason it was called mechila because it was made to “the measure.” The term menakiyoth then [according to Onkelos] is a name just like ephah and s’ah [a third of the ephah measure is a s’ah], similar, to ke’arothav and ksothav and other nouns which are not descriptive. Perhaps those just measures which are called a just ephah, and a just hin, and termed menakiyoth [of the root naki — clean] because they are clean of any falsehood, and thus they clear their owners of any cheating and sin. And ksavoth is a general term covering the canes [which were put between one loaf and another] and the trestles [notched in five places upon which the canes separating the loaves rested]. Perhaps because of their notches they were so called [ksavoth], with the letter tzade [ktzavoth — sides, corners] being used instead of the letter sin [ksavoth], this word [ksavoth] being similar to [the word ktzavoth found in the following verse]: so that they that dwell in ‘ktzavoth’ (the uttermost parts) stand in awe of Thy signs, by interchanging the letter tzade with the sin, just like in the word s’chok [“laughter,” which is the word tzchok].
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote: “There is an error in Chronicles, for in speaking of the vessels of the table in place of ke’aroth [mentioned here] it writes mizrakoth (basins); in place of kapoth [mentioned here] it writes kiporim (bowls); ksavoth is mentioned there as here; and in the place of menakiyoth it speaks of mizlagoth (forks). And all these were made of gold for the purpose of the table [and yet we do not find the mizrakoth, kiporim, and mizlagoth mentioned here in connection with the table in the Tabernacle]! Perhaps these were other vessels which David commanded to be placed on the tables which his son Solomon would make, but the table in the Tent of Meeting did not have these vessels.” The error, however, is in Rabbi Abraham’s words, [not in the Book of Chronicles], for that which Scripture states, and the forks, and the basins, and the jars of pure gold; and for the golden bowls by weight for every bowl, is not connected only with the tables of showbread [mentioned in the preceding verse], but it reverts back to that which Scripture stated [several verses above], and for all the work of the service of the house of the Eternal, and for all the vessels of service in the house of the Eternal. And then it continues, of gold, for all vessels of every kind of service, and then it mentioned, and the forks, and the basins which are vessels of the altar, and the jars for the table, and the bowls for the altar. And finally it stated, and for the altar of incense refined gold by weight, concluding: All this [do I give thee] in writing, as the Eternal hath made me wise by His hand upon me, even all the works of this pattern. Thus David [in speaking to his son Solomon] included all needs of the Sanctuary.

A CROWN OF GOLD ROUND ABOUT. “This is a symbol of the crown of royalty, for the table represents wealth and prominence, just as the Rabbis say ‘the royal table.’” This is Rashi’s language. And this explanation is indeed the truth, for in this lies the secret of the table [in the Tabernacle]. For since the time that the world came into existence, G-d’s blessing did not create something from nothing; instead, the world follows its natural course, for it is written, and G-d saw every thing that He had made, and behold, it was very good. But when the root of the matter already exists, the blessing descends upon it and increases it, just as Elisha said, tell me; what hast thou in the house? and then the blessing came upon the pot of oil that she already had, and she filled all the vessels from it. And in the case of Elijah it is said, The jar of meal was not spent, neither did the cruse of oil fail. And so also was the case with the showbread on the table; upon it rested the blessing, and from it came abundance to all Israel. That is why the Rabbis have said: “Every priest who received even only as much as the size of a bean [of the showbread] ate it and was satisfied.”