Talmud Yerushalmi
Yerushalmi Chagigah 3:8 ירושלמי חגיגה ג׳:ח׳
Part of: Chapter 3
Reading: Hebrew · Simple EnglishHebrew · Faithful translationHebrew onlyHebrew · Simple EnglishHebrew · Faithful translationHebrew onlySimple English onlyFaithful translation onlySide by side
משנה: כֵּיצַד מַעֲבִירִין עַל טַהֲרַת הָעֲזָרָה. מַטְבִּילִין אֶת הַכֵּלִים שֶׁהָיוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ. הָיוּ לָהֶן שְׁנִיִּים וּשְׁלִישִׁים שֶׁאִם נִטְמְאוּ הָרִאשׁוֹנִים יָבִיאוּ שְׁנִיִּים תַּחְתֵּיהֶן. כָּל הַכֵּלִים שֶׁהָיוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ טְעוּנִין טְבִילָה חוּץ מִמִּזְבַּח הַזָּהָב וּמִזְבַּח הַנְּחֹשֶׁת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן כַּקַּרְקַע דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן מְצוּפִּין.
MISHNAH: How does one proclaim the purity of the courtyard188One alerts the Cohanim and Levites that following the Sages, all utensils which were used during the holiday must be purified by immersion in a miqweh after the holiday.? One immerses all vessels in the Temple197After the end of the holiday. The Mishnah in the Babli makes it clear that the purification is because of the impurity of the vulgar which only was suspended, not eliminated during the holiday. Since the Mishnah in the printed Yerushalmi is not from the ms. on which the text of the Halakhah is based, one cannot infer too much from differences in the text of the Mishnah. However, since the Halakhah strictly follows the text of the Mishnah here and its first paragraph makes it clear that the reason for the purification is that one suspects that in the throng of holiday traffic a vessel might have become impure by biblical standards it is clear that the Yerushalmi does not accept the argument of the Babli. This supports the thesis that the picture of relations between Pharisees and non-Pharisees given in the Babli cannot be accepted as historical fact; cf. Introduction to Tractate Demay.. There were seconds and thirds, that in case the first ones became impure one would bring the seconds in their place. All vessels in the Temple need immersion except the golden altar and the copper altar since they are like soil198And therefore not susceptible to impurity., the words of Rebbi Eliezer, but the Sages are saying, because they are plated199Therefore one never touches the altar itself but only the cover which cannot transmit impurity to the altar..
MISHNAH: How does one proclaim the purity of the courtyard188One alerts the Cohanim and Levites that following the Sages, all utensils which were used during the holiday must be purified by immersion in a miqweh after the holiday.? One immerses all vessels in the Temple197After the end of the holiday. The Mishnah in the Babli makes it clear that the purification is because of the impurity of the vulgar which only was suspended, not eliminated during the holiday. Since the Mishnah in the printed Yerushalmi is not from the ms. on which the text of the Halakhah is based, one cannot infer too much from differences in the text of the Mishnah. However, since the Halakhah strictly follows the text of the Mishnah here and its first paragraph makes it clear that the reason for the purification is that one suspects that in the throng of holiday traffic a vessel might have become impure by biblical standards it is clear that the Yerushalmi does not accept the argument of the Babli. This supports the thesis that the picture of relations between Pharisees and non-Pharisees given in the Babli cannot be accepted as historical fact; cf. Introduction to Tractate Demay.. There were seconds and thirds, that in case the first ones became impure one would bring the seconds in their place. All vessels in the Temple need immersion except the golden altar and the copper altar since they are like soil198And therefore not susceptible to impurity., the words of Rebbi Eliezer, but the Sages are saying, because they are plated199Therefore one never touches the altar itself but only the cover which cannot transmit impurity to the altar..
הלכה: וְכֵלִים טְעוּנִין טְבִילָה. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא. אֲנִי אוֹמֵר. שֶׁמָּא שֶׁהָיָה שָׁם אֶחָד מִן הַכֵּלִים שֶׁלֹּא הוּזָּה. מֵעַתָּה נָחוּשׁ לְכוּלָּן. אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה. אֲנִי אוֹמֵר. שֶׁהָיָה שָׁם אֶחָד מִן הַכֹּהֲנִים שֶׁיָּצָא לְדַבֵּר עִם הָאִשָּׁה עַל עִיסְקֵי קִינָּהּ וְנִתְזָה צִינּוֹרָה שֶׁלְרוֹק מִתּוֹךְ פִּיהָ עַל בְּגָדָיו וְטִימָּתוֹ. מֵעַתָּה נָחוּשׁ לְכוּלָּם. תִּיפְתָּר בְּשֶׁנִּיטְמָא בִסְפֵק מַשְׁקִין. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. סְפֵק מַשְׁקִין לִטַּמֵּא טָמֵא. וּלְטַמֵּא טָהוֹר. תַּמָּן בִּתְרוּמָה וְכָאן בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ. חוֹמֶר הוּא בַקּוֹדֶשׁ.
HALAKHAH: Do vessels need immersion? Rebbi Abba said, I am saying that possibly one of the vessels there was not sprinkled upon200While the expression “sprinkled upon” refers to water with the ashes of the Red Cow needed to purify the impurity of the dead, clearly here it cannot refer to a procedure that extends for a week but is taken as general expression for purifying biblical impurity. However, if the immersion is for biblical impurity, the vessel returns to a status of purity only after the following sundown. Then the question arises, how was the Temple service performed for the remainder of the day of immersion if there were no pure vessels available? The answer is given in the Mishnah, that there were reserve vessels available which had not been used during the holiday.. Then should we not suspect all of them201The answer given in the preceding Note seems to be invalid since one refers to pre-existing biblical impurity. Then the second and third vessels should also be immersed and not only after a holiday but every day of the year. While the second objection may answered that daily immersion clearly is impractical, the first objection remains unanswered.? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, I am saying that there was one of the Cohanim who left to speak with a woman about her nest and a drop of spittle fell on his clothing from her mouth and made him impure202A woman after childbirth or after an extended period of menstrual impurity regains her right to participate in sacra only by a sacrifice of a couple of birds, a “nest”. These sacrifices have to be brought after the woman was purified by immersion in a way which shields the Cohanim (Mishnah Šeqalim 6:8), here one refers to a Cohen who counsels a woman still impure as zavah, whose body fluids are primary sources of biblical impurities, on the ways of purification.. Then should we not suspect all of them? Explain it if it became impure by fluids of uncertain status203Which are impure in the first degree by rabbinical convention only. Then it is reasonable to restrict the general immersion to holidays since at all other days precautions can be taken that such a case does not occur in the Temple.. There we have stated204Mishnah Taharot 4:9. The Mishnah seems to imply that the case envisaged by R. Abun bar Ḥiyya cannot occur since possible rabbinic impurity does not cause certain impurity of implements known to be pure.: “Fluids of uncertain status, to become impure they are impure, to make impure they are pure.” There about heave, here about sancta. One is restrictive for sancta.
HALAKHAH: Do vessels need immersion? Rebbi Abba said, I am saying that possibly one of the vessels there was not sprinkled upon200While the expression “sprinkled upon” refers to water with the ashes of the Red Cow needed to purify the impurity of the dead, clearly here it cannot refer to a procedure that extends for a week but is taken as general expression for purifying biblical impurity. However, if the immersion is for biblical impurity, the vessel returns to a status of purity only after the following sundown. Then the question arises, how was the Temple service performed for the remainder of the day of immersion if there were no pure vessels available? The answer is given in the Mishnah, that there were reserve vessels available which had not been used during the holiday.. Then should we not suspect all of them201The answer given in the preceding Note seems to be invalid since one refers to pre-existing biblical impurity. Then the second and third vessels should also be immersed and not only after a holiday but every day of the year. While the second objection may answered that daily immersion clearly is impractical, the first objection remains unanswered.? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, I am saying that there was one of the Cohanim who left to speak with a woman about her nest and a drop of spittle fell on his clothing from her mouth and made him impure202A woman after childbirth or after an extended period of menstrual impurity regains her right to participate in sacra only by a sacrifice of a couple of birds, a “nest”. These sacrifices have to be brought after the woman was purified by immersion in a way which shields the Cohanim (Mishnah Šeqalim 6:8), here one refers to a Cohen who counsels a woman still impure as zavah, whose body fluids are primary sources of biblical impurities, on the ways of purification.. Then should we not suspect all of them? Explain it if it became impure by fluids of uncertain status203Which are impure in the first degree by rabbinical convention only. Then it is reasonable to restrict the general immersion to holidays since at all other days precautions can be taken that such a case does not occur in the Temple.. There we have stated204Mishnah Taharot 4:9. The Mishnah seems to imply that the case envisaged by R. Abun bar Ḥiyya cannot occur since possible rabbinic impurity does not cause certain impurity of implements known to be pure.: “Fluids of uncertain status, to become impure they are impure, to make impure they are pure.” There about heave, here about sancta. One is restrictive for sancta.
תַּנֵּי. שׁוּלְחָן שֶׁנִּיטְמָא מַטְבִּילִין אוֹתוֹ בִּזְמַנּוֹ אֶפִילוּ בַשַּׁבָּת. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. מִיָּד. אַשְׁכַּחַת אֲמַר. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. מְטַמֵּא שְׁנֵי לְחָמִים. עַל דַּעְתּוֹן דְּרַבָּנִן אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא אֶלָּא לֶחֶם אֶחָד בִּלְבַד. אָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר סוֹסַי קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. וַאֲפִילוּ עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא אֶלָּא לֶחֶם אֶחָד בִּלְבַד. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁנִּיטְמָא בִסְפֵק מַשְׁקִין. פַּעַם אַחַת הִטְבִּילוּ אֶת הַמְּנוֹרָה. אָמְרוּ צְדוּקִים. רְאוּ פְרוּשִׁים מַטְבִּילִין גַּלְגַּל חַמָּה.
It was stated205Tosephta 3:35.: “If the table became impure one immerses it at its time, even on the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages are saying, immediately.”206The table in the Sanctuary is movable, therefore it is an implement and subject to impurity, e. g., by contact with a dead reptile. In the case of biblical impurity it should be impossible to return it to its place before sundown; this is R. Meïr’s position. The Sages require that it be returned immediately, as soon as it is no longer impure even if it is not yet pure, since the verse requires that the shew-bread be “always” on the table, i. e., every day and certainly at sundown and sunrise. You find to say, in Rebbi Meïr’s opinion it makes two breads impure; in the rabbis’ opinion it only makes one bread impure207The biblically impure table makes the bread it touches biblically impure. For the rabbis the higher degrees of impurity are rabbinic (or rather, conventional), to be disregarded in the Sanctuary. For R. Meïr one accepts at least one degree of conventional impurity (but not all three additional ones.). Rebbi Jacob bar Sosai said before Rebbi Yose, even according to Rebbi Meïr it makes only one bread impure. Explain it if it became impure by fluids of questionable status208If the impurity of the table from the start was not clearly biblical, R. Meïr accepts the rabbis’ point of view.. “Once they immersed the candelabrum. The Sadducees said, look the Pharisees immerse the ball of the sun.205,Tosephta 3:35.209They object to conventional extensions of the notions of impurity.”
It was stated205Tosephta 3:35.: “If the table became impure one immerses it at its time, even on the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages are saying, immediately.”206The table in the Sanctuary is movable, therefore it is an implement and subject to impurity, e. g., by contact with a dead reptile. In the case of biblical impurity it should be impossible to return it to its place before sundown; this is R. Meïr’s position. The Sages require that it be returned immediately, as soon as it is no longer impure even if it is not yet pure, since the verse requires that the shew-bread be “always” on the table, i. e., every day and certainly at sundown and sunrise. You find to say, in Rebbi Meïr’s opinion it makes two breads impure; in the rabbis’ opinion it only makes one bread impure207The biblically impure table makes the bread it touches biblically impure. For the rabbis the higher degrees of impurity are rabbinic (or rather, conventional), to be disregarded in the Sanctuary. For R. Meïr one accepts at least one degree of conventional impurity (but not all three additional ones.). Rebbi Jacob bar Sosai said before Rebbi Yose, even according to Rebbi Meïr it makes only one bread impure. Explain it if it became impure by fluids of questionable status208If the impurity of the table from the start was not clearly biblical, R. Meïr accepts the rabbis’ point of view.. “Once they immersed the candelabrum. The Sadducees said, look the Pharisees immerse the ball of the sun.205,Tosephta 3:35.209They object to conventional extensions of the notions of impurity.”
תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. נִכְנְסוּ לְלִישְׁכַּת הַכֵּלִים וְהוֹצִיאוּ מִשָּׁם תִּשְׁעִים וּשְׁלשָׁה כְלֵי כֶסֶף וּכְלֵי זָהָב. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן. כְּנֶגֶד תִּשְׁעִים וְשָׁלֹשׁ אַזְכָּרוֹת שֶׁכָּתוּב בְּפָרָשַׁת חַגַּי זְכַרְיָה וּמַלְאָכִי. אָמַר רִבִּי חוּנָה. חִישַּׁבְתִּים וְאֵינָן אֶלָּא שְׁמוֹנִים וְשָׁלֹשׁ. כְּנֶגֶד שְׁמוֹנִים וְשָׁלוֹשׁ חוֹתָמוֹת שֶׁכָּתוּב בְּעֶזְרָה שֶׁהָיָה כָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מְיַיחֵד שְׁמוֹ שֶׁלְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא וְחוֹתֵם. אִית דְּבָעֵי מֵימַר. כְּיוֹם מְרוּבֶּה שֶׁלְתָּמִיד כְּנֶגֶד שְׁלשָׁה עָשָׂר פָּרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר כְּבָשִׂים וְאֵילִים שְׁנַיִם וְשָׂעִיר אֶחָד.
There we have stated210Mishnah Tamid 3:4.: “They entered the storage room of the vessels and brought out 93 silver and gold vessels.” Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Corresponding to the 93 Names written in the Chapters of Haggai, Zacharia, and Malachi211“Name” usually is reserved for the Tetragrammaton. Here certainly “Zacharia” should be deleted since his text contains 132 times the Tetragrammaton. The count is correct if one considers only Haggai and Malachi and also allows Elohim as a Name.. Rebbi Ḥuna said, I computed them and they are only 83, corresponding to the 83 signatures written in Ezra212Those mentioned in Nehemiah 10. where each of them declared the Unity of the Name of the Holy One, praise to Him, and signed. Some want to say, corresponding to the day when the daily sacrifices were the most, corresponding to thirteen bulls, fourteen sheep, two rams, and one goat213All 93 vessels are only needed on the first day of Tabernacles..
There we have stated210Mishnah Tamid 3:4.: “They entered the storage room of the vessels and brought out 93 silver and gold vessels.” Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Corresponding to the 93 Names written in the Chapters of Haggai, Zacharia, and Malachi211“Name” usually is reserved for the Tetragrammaton. Here certainly “Zacharia” should be deleted since his text contains 132 times the Tetragrammaton. The count is correct if one considers only Haggai and Malachi and also allows Elohim as a Name.. Rebbi Ḥuna said, I computed them and they are only 83, corresponding to the 83 signatures written in Ezra212Those mentioned in Nehemiah 10. where each of them declared the Unity of the Name of the Holy One, praise to Him, and signed. Some want to say, corresponding to the day when the daily sacrifices were the most, corresponding to thirteen bulls, fourteen sheep, two rams, and one goat213All 93 vessels are only needed on the first day of Tabernacles..
רִבִּי שִׁילֹה דִכְפַר תַּמַּרְתָּה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. טַעֲמֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר וְצִפִּיתָ אוֹתוֹ זָהָב טָהוֹר וגו׳. הַתּוֹרָה קָרָאת אוֹתוֹ קַרְקַע. עַד כְּדוֹן מִזְבַּח הַזָּהָב. מִזְבַּח הָעוֹלָה מְנַיִין. וְדִין הוּא. מָה אִם מִזְבַּח הַזָּהָב שֶׁהוּא אַמָּה עַל אָמַּה אַתְּ אָמַר קַרְקַע. מִזְבַּח הָעוֹלָה שֶׁהוּא חָמֵשׁ עַל חָמֵשׁ לֹא כָל שֶׁכֵּן. אִית דְּבָעֵי מֵימַר. רָבוּעַ רָבוּעַ. מַה כָאן קַרְקַע אַף כָּאן קַרְקַע. אָמַר רִבִּי הִילָא. טַעֲמוֹן דְּרַבָּנִן. הַמִּזְבֵּחַ עֵץ שָׁלֹשׁ אַמּוֹת גּוֹבַה וגו׳. הַתּוֹרָה קָרָאת אוֹתוֹ מִיטַּלְטֵל. עַד כְּדוֹן מִזְבַּח הָעוֹלָה. מִזְבַּח הַזָּהָב מְנַיִין. וְדִין הוּא. מָה אִם מִזְבַּח הָעוֹלָה שֶׁהוּא חָמֵשׁ עַל חָמֵשׁ אַתְּ אָמַר מִיטַּלְטֵל. מִזְבַּח הַזָּהָב שֶׁהוּא אַמָּה עַל אָמַּה לֹא כָל שֶׁכֵּן. אִית דְּבָעֵי מֵימַר. רָבוּעַ רָבוּעַ. מַה כָאן מִיטַּלְטֵל אַף כָּאן מִיטַּלְטֵל. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן מְצוּפִּין. לֹא צִיפּוּי שֶׁהוּא עוֹמֵד מַחְמָתוֹ הוּא. לֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. כְּעוֹבִי דֵינַר גּוֹרְדִּיָינוֹן הָיָה בוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי לָא. לִמְלַכְתּוֹ אֵינוֹ עוֹמֵד מַחְמָתוֹ הוּא. וְאַתָיָיא כַיי דְאָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. וְעָשִׂיתָ מִזְבֵּחַ מִקְטַר קְטוֹרֶת אֵין כָתוּב כָּאן אֶלָּא מַקְטִר קְטוֹרֶת. הַמִּזְבֵּחַ הָיָה מַקְטִיר אֶת הַקְּטוֹרֶת. וִיהֵא כְטַבֻּלָה שֶׁהִיא עֲשׂוּיָה לִילֵךְ וּלְהַנִיחַ. לֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי אִמִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. הַשּׁוּלְחָן לָמָּה טָמֵא. לֹא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמּוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ וּמַרְאִין אוֹתוֹ לְעוֹלֵי רְגָלִים. וְזֶה לֹא בִמְקוֹמוֹ הוּא עוֹמֵד. אַף זֶה שִׁימֵּשׁ כֶּלִי בַמִּקְדָּשׁ. וִיהֵא טָהוֹר. וְלָמָּה טָמֵא. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. כַּיי דְתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. שָׁלשׁ מַשְׁפֵּלוֹת הֵן. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעוּרָה. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמִּשְׁתַּמְּשִׁין בָּהּ עַל גַּב חֲבִילֶיהָ. וְכָא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמִּשְׁתַּמְּשִׁין בּוֹ עַל גַּב חֲבִילָיו.
Rebbi Shiloh from Kefar-Tamarta in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The reason of Rebbi Eliezer: And you shall cover it with pure gold214Ex. 30:3., etc. The Torah called it real estate215Since the Torah mentions its roof and its walls, it is described as a house.. So far the golden altar. From where the altar of the elevation sacrifices? It is a logical argument. Since the golden altar which is one cubit square is called real estate, the altar of elevation sacrifices which is five cubits square not so much more? Some want to say, square, square216Ex.30:3 (the golden altar), 27:1 (the brass altar).. Since here it is real estate, also there it is real estate. Rebbi Hila said, the reason of the rabbis217These rabbis are not mentioned in the Mishnah. The argument is that the Sages mentioned in the Mishnah could use R. Eliezer’s argument in the inverse direction to establish their rule., the altar is of wood, three cubits its height218Ez. 41:22. The altar there is called “table”, a movable implement., etc. The Torah called it movable219In the Torah both altars are movable, to be carried travelling in the desert.. So far the altar of the elevation sacrifices. From where the golden altar? It is a logical argument. Since the the altar of the elevation sacrifices which is five cubit square is called soil, the golden altar which is one cubit square not so much more? Some want to say, square, square. Since here it is movable, also there it is movable. “But the Sages say, because they are covered.” But is it not cover which stands because of it220If the cover could not stand alone it cannot be separated from the implement it covers which is a rectangular box of wood, enclosing a volume and therefore susceptible of impurity.? Did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Its thickness was that of a Gordian denar221The only honest gold denar minted during the military anarchy (in the 240’s by Gordianus III.) The implication is that the gold cover could stand by itself; the objection cannot be sustained. Rebbi La said, for its purpose it does not stand because of it222The previous argument can be reinforced; the gold is the essential carrier of the altar and the wood is ancillary.. This parallels what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, you shall make an altar for incense smoke223Ex. 30:1. is not written here but burning incense; the altar was burning the incense224No fire was used on the golden top of the altar (which if used would have melted the top in no time). The golden top transformed the incense into smoke.. But is it not like a table224aLatin tabula. made to be moved and deposited? Does not Rebbi Immi say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: why is the table impure225In all this arguments, “pure” means “not susceptible to impurity” and “impure” “able to become impure”.? Not because one was removing it and showing it to the pilgrims226The table was not fixed; it cannot be considered a fixed part of the building. In addition, the rim around the table makes it a container which is “impure”. But once a permanent Temple was built, the altars are fixed and should be “pure” as fixtures of the building.? But this one remains in its place. It also served as a vessel in the Sanctuary. Then it should be pure, why is it impure225In all this arguments, “pure” means “not susceptible to impurity” and “impure” “able to become impure”.? Rebbi Mana said, as what we have stated there,227Mishnah Kelim24:9. “there are three baskets228A basket for manure may become impure by body fluids, a box for straw only becomes impure by the impurity of the dead, a cover for camels is pure.”. Rebbi Ze`ira said, because one uses it for its bales; so also here one uses it for its bales229Since the Mishnah classifies the baskets by their use, also here the altar has to be classified by the “impure” incense..
Rebbi Shiloh from Kefar-Tamarta in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The reason of Rebbi Eliezer: And you shall cover it with pure gold214Ex. 30:3., etc. The Torah called it real estate215Since the Torah mentions its roof and its walls, it is described as a house.. So far the golden altar. From where the altar of the elevation sacrifices? It is a logical argument. Since the golden altar which is one cubit square is called real estate, the altar of elevation sacrifices which is five cubits square not so much more? Some want to say, square, square216Ex.30:3 (the golden altar), 27:1 (the brass altar).. Since here it is real estate, also there it is real estate. Rebbi Hila said, the reason of the rabbis217These rabbis are not mentioned in the Mishnah. The argument is that the Sages mentioned in the Mishnah could use R. Eliezer’s argument in the inverse direction to establish their rule., the altar is of wood, three cubits its height218Ez. 41:22. The altar there is called “table”, a movable implement., etc. The Torah called it movable219In the Torah both altars are movable, to be carried travelling in the desert.. So far the altar of the elevation sacrifices. From where the golden altar? It is a logical argument. Since the the altar of the elevation sacrifices which is five cubit square is called soil, the golden altar which is one cubit square not so much more? Some want to say, square, square. Since here it is movable, also there it is movable. “But the Sages say, because they are covered.” But is it not cover which stands because of it220If the cover could not stand alone it cannot be separated from the implement it covers which is a rectangular box of wood, enclosing a volume and therefore susceptible of impurity.? Did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Its thickness was that of a Gordian denar221The only honest gold denar minted during the military anarchy (in the 240’s by Gordianus III.) The implication is that the gold cover could stand by itself; the objection cannot be sustained. Rebbi La said, for its purpose it does not stand because of it222The previous argument can be reinforced; the gold is the essential carrier of the altar and the wood is ancillary.. This parallels what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, you shall make an altar for incense smoke223Ex. 30:1. is not written here but burning incense; the altar was burning the incense224No fire was used on the golden top of the altar (which if used would have melted the top in no time). The golden top transformed the incense into smoke.. But is it not like a table224aLatin tabula. made to be moved and deposited? Does not Rebbi Immi say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: why is the table impure225In all this arguments, “pure” means “not susceptible to impurity” and “impure” “able to become impure”.? Not because one was removing it and showing it to the pilgrims226The table was not fixed; it cannot be considered a fixed part of the building. In addition, the rim around the table makes it a container which is “impure”. But once a permanent Temple was built, the altars are fixed and should be “pure” as fixtures of the building.? But this one remains in its place. It also served as a vessel in the Sanctuary. Then it should be pure, why is it impure225In all this arguments, “pure” means “not susceptible to impurity” and “impure” “able to become impure”.? Rebbi Mana said, as what we have stated there,227Mishnah Kelim24:9. “there are three baskets228A basket for manure may become impure by body fluids, a box for straw only becomes impure by the impurity of the dead, a cover for camels is pure.”. Rebbi Ze`ira said, because one uses it for its bales; so also here one uses it for its bales229Since the Mishnah classifies the baskets by their use, also here the altar has to be classified by the “impure” incense..