Menachot 98

Sugya Map

• Core Issue: The geometric reconciliation of the Altar’s dimensions (base, ledge, corners) via varied cubit standards (5 vs. 6 handbreadths) and the subsequent metaphysical justification for the architectural design of the Temple (e.g., the depiction of Shushan, the "healing" leaves of the future Temple, and the orientation of the Ark and Tables).
• Primary Sources: Menachot 97b–98a; Exodus 25, 26, 27; Ezekiel 47; Kelim 17:9; Middot 1:3.
• Nafka Mina(s):
  • Halachic: The validity of the kemitzah (squeezing of the flour) performed at varying heights on the altar.
  • Conceptual: Whether architectural "depictions" (Shushan) serve a mnemonic (gratitude) or deterrent (fear) function.
  • Exegetical: The definition of al (upon vs. adjacent to) regarding the frankincense on the Lechem HaPanim.

Text Snapshot

"לא שנא הכי ולא שנא הכי — כלומר כניסתן דקרנות אי בעי למימר נמי באמה בת חמש לא איכפת לן כיון דכניסת יסוד באמה בת שש לא פש ליה בין קרן לקרן אלא כ"ו וארבעה טפחים שתים מכניסה דסובב ושתים מכניסה דקרנות וכיון דלא הוי אמה לא חשיב לה" (Rashi, Menachot 98a s.v. Lo Shana Hachi).

Leshon Nuance: Rashi’s use of lo shana ("there is no difference") underscores a rigorous standardization of the amoh (cubit). The text pivots from technical measurement to the yishuv (resolution) of the Altar's "shrunken" dimensions, where the 5-handbreadth cubit effectively forces a calculation where the remainder (the knesah) is treated as negligible (lo chashiv lei).

Readings

1. Rabbeinu Gershom (on Menachot 97b/98a)

Rabbeinu Gershom provides the crucial structural chiddush regarding the discrepancy between the 5 and 6-handbreadth cubits. He argues that the Torah’s mention of the "cubit" of the yesod (base) at 5 handbreadths is not a global standard but a localized architectural necessity to navigate the knesah (recess). His chiddush is that these measurements are interdependent: the "width" of the ledge and the "height" of the corners are tethered. He explains: “Tiritz hachi: cheik ha-amah... b'govah ha-mizbe'ach ka'amar.” By linking the base measurement to the elevation, he avoids the trap of viewing the Altar as an abstract geometric object; it is a functional machine where the "remnants" (the t'fachim left over) are structurally insignificant precisely because they do not constitute a full amah.

2. Steinsaltz (on Menachot 98a)

The Steinsaltz commentary provides a pedagogical expansion on the Shushan depiction. He focuses on the machloket between Rav Chisda and Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi. His chiddush lies in the synthesis of the political and the spiritual. While Rashi focuses on the gratitude for the Persian release (hoda'ah), Steinsaltz highlights the "fear of kingship" (eimat malchut). He notes that the depiction of Shushan on the Temple gate transforms the architectural space into a site of historical memory, forcing the Jew to constantly mediate between the sanctity of the Beit HaMikdash and the reality of the earthly geopolitical order.

Friction

The Kushya: The "Impossible" Table Placement

The Gemara struggles with the placement of Solomon’s ten tables. If we follow Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Shimon, the tables are placed north-to-south. But this creates a spatial paradox: if the sanctuary is 20 cubits wide and the tables occupy that space, how does the Kohen Gadol pass through to the Holy of Holies? Furthermore, this violates the halacha that the Table must remain on the north side.

The Terutz

The Gemara’s resolution is elegant: the tables were not a single wall of furniture, but two rows with Moses’ original Table positioned in the center, acting as a structural anchor. The terutz relies on the principle of b’emtza (the middle)—the original Table serves as the halachic "North," and the auxiliary tables are subordinated to that central point. This resolves the conflict by moving from a static view of "filling space" to a hierarchical view of "radiating sanctity" from the original Mosaic vessel.

Intertext

• Exodus 40:3 vs. Leviticus 24:7: The Gemara performs a gezerah shavah or, at minimum, a contextual comparison of the preposition al. While al usually means "upon," the placement of the curtain al the Ark proves it can mean "adjacent to." This is a classic lomdus maneuver: defining a term not by its primary dictionary definition but by its physical, architectural referent in the Torah.
• I Kings 18:46 (Elijah running before Ahab): The Gemara invokes this to support the eimat malchut thesis. Even an active prophet, arguably the most important man in the world, must bow to the office of the King. This parallel elevates the technical discussion of Temple gates to a wider theological statement on the necessity of civil order.

Psak/Practice

In modern psak, the Menachot 98 methodology—reconciling divergent texts via hierarchical placement (the center/original vessel)—is the foundational logic for Hanhagot in a synagogue. Just as the ten tables of Solomon did not displace the Table of Moses, new minhagim or architectural additions in a Beit Knesset must be positioned such that they do not obscure or "interpose" (the chatzitzah issue regarding the frankincense) the central authority of the original Aron or Bimah. The meta-psak is clear: add, but never obscure the hierarchy of the original.

Takeaway

The Altar’s measurements are not merely engineering; they are a precise language where the "remnant" of a measurement defines the limits of the holy. Architecture in the Temple is a dialogue between the divine command (the 5-hand cubit) and the reality of human movement (the need for space to walk).