The Gemara asks: But isn’t there the Table’s decorated frame, which ran around its perimeter and was one handbreadth wide, as the verse states: “And you shall make for it a frame of a handbreadth” (Exodus 25:25)? Since the arrangements are placed on the Table’s frame, they rise one additional handbreadth above the Table.

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement is in accordance with the opinion of the one who said the Table’s frame was not above the Table’s surface but below it, and therefore it did not add any height to the arrangements on the Table. And furthermore, even according to the one who said the Table’s frame was above the Table’s surface, it did not add to the height of the arrangements. This is because the frame was tilted outward, but the bread was set within the area of the Table’s surface.

The Gemara cites the dispute with regard to the location of the frame: As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says: There were no panels there at all, as they were not required in order to support the loaves. Rather, the Table’s frame supported the bread, as the frame was above the Table’s surface. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yosei: The Table’s frame was below the Table’s surface, and therefore the panels were required to support the loaves.

§ Rabbi Yoḥanan says: According to the statement of the one who says that the Table’s frame was below the Table’s surface, the surface was merely a flat board. It is a halakhic principle with regard to wooden utensils that only rounded utensils are susceptible to ritual impurity, but not flat utensils. It is known that the shewbread Table was susceptible to impurity. One may therefore infer from this that a flat board is susceptible to impurity, provided that it can be turned over and used on both sides. This is because the wide surface of the board renders it functionally similar to a concave receptacle.

Rabbi Yoḥanan continues: According to the statement of the one who says that the Table’s frame was above the Table’s surface, the Table served as a receptacle. One therefore cannot infer the halakha with regard to a flat board that can be turned over from the case of the Table, and you must still raise the dilemma as to whether it is susceptible to ritual impurity.

The Gemara asks: One can conclude by inference from Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement that the Table is susceptible to ritual impurity. But it is a wooden vessel designated to rest in a fixed place, and any wooden vessel that is designated to rest in a fixed place is not susceptible to impurity.

The Gemara explains: What is the reason for this halakha? The verse states with regard to items that are rendered impure by the carcasses of creeping animals: “And anything upon which any of them fall when they are dead shall be impure, whether it is any vessel of wood, or cloth, or leather, or sack” (Leviticus 11:32). The verse juxtaposes wooden vessels with sacks, indicating that we require a wooden vessel to be similar to a sack in order to be susceptible to ritual impurity. Just as a sack is carried both when it is full and when it is empty, so too, any wooden vessel that is carried both full and empty is susceptible to impurity. Since the Table is designated to rest in a fixed place and not to be carried, it should not be susceptible to impurity.

The Gemara answers: The Table is also carried both full and empty, i.e., even when the shewbread is upon it, in accordance with the statement of Reish Lakish. This is as Reish Lakish said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And you shall set them in two arrangements, six in an arrangement, upon the pure Table before the Lord” (Leviticus 24:6)? The term “the pure Table” teaches by inference that there is a case where the Table becomes impure, and therefore the Torah states that the Table must be pure when the shewbread is set upon it. This conclusion is difficult, as the principle that a wooden vessel designated to rest in a fixed place is not susceptible to impurity indicates that the Table should not be susceptible to impurity.

Rather, the verse teaches that the priests would lift the Table with its shewbread to display the shewbread to the pilgrims standing in the Temple courtyard, and a priest would say to them: See how beloved you are before, i.e., in the eyes of, the Omnipresent, Who constantly performs a miracle with regard to the shewbread. For this reason, the Table is susceptible to ritual impurity.

This is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: A great miracle was performed with the shewbread: Its condition at the time of its removal from the Table, after having been left there for a week, was like its condition at the time of its arrangement on the Table; as it is stated: “To place hot bread on the day when it was taken away” (I Samuel 21:7), indicating that it was as hot on the day of its removal as it was on the day when it was placed on the Table.

The Gemara asks: But why is it necessary to derive that the Table is susceptible to impurity due to the fact that it is not designated to rest in a fixed place? I may derive that it is susceptible to impurity due to its gold covering. Didn’t we learn in a mishna (Kelim 22:1): Consider the case of the table and the dulbeki, a small table upon which the food and drink are placed before being served at the dining table, that were partially broken, or that one covered with marble stone, which is not susceptible to impurity. If an area of their surface large enough for placing cups there was left unbroken or uncovered with marble they remain susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Yehuda says: The remaining surface area must be large enough for placing pieces of meat and bread as well.

One can infer from the mishna that if one left part of the surface area of the table without covering it with marble, yes, it remains susceptible to impurity. But if he did not leave part of the table without covering it with marble it is not susceptible to impurity. Evidently, the status of a vessel is determined according to the material of its external covering and not according to its main material. Consequently, since the shewbread Table was covered with gold it should have the status of a metal vessel, which is susceptible to ritual impurity even if it is designated to rest in a fixed place.

And if you would say the case of the shewbread Table is different, as here, with regard to the marble-covered table, the mishna is referring to a permanent covering that is fixed to the table with nails, whereas there, in the case of the shewbread Table, the discussion is referring to a covering that is not permanent, as the gold was not attached to the shewbread Table with nails, this explanation is difficult. But didn’t Reish Lakish raise a dilemma to Rabbi Yoḥanan: Is the mishna that discusses the marble-covered table referring only to a permanent covering, or even to a covering that is not permanent? Is it referring only to a case where one covered