The Gemara in today's daf says that the reason why they couldn't remove the Shulchan & Menorah was because there were no replacement ones. What about the 10 that Shlomo Hamelech made and according to some opinions they sometimes used others?
Aaron Pacanowski, Melbourne Australia
The reason that the Kohanim were warned not to touch the Shulchan was not because they did not have a replacement for it. Had that been the reason, they could easily have made a replacement Shulchan, just as they made replacements for all of the other Temple vessels. As you - and the Si'ach Yitzchak - pointed out, they could even have used one of the ten Tables that were in the Mikdash (which were even used in the Second Temple, according to the Gemara in Yoma 51b). Rather, the Gemara explains that they could not allow the Shulchan to become Tamei since the Pasuk says it must be in its place "constantly", Tamid, and it could not be moved from its place in order to perform Tevilah. Even if the other 10 tables remained it would not suffice; the "main" table had to be there as well.
The Gemara's words bothered me for another reason, though. Why couldn't they move another Shulchan into the Heichal, and move the Lechem ha'Panim from one to the other. Afterwards they could safely remove the first table for Tevilah. After all, we find in Menachos 99b that the new Lechem was put onto the Shulchan at the very same time that the old one was removed; the same type of practice can be done here, by nudging the Lechem from one table onto the other without the Lechem leaving a Shulchan surface for even a moment.
The best answer I could think of is that the new Shulchan could only be brought into the Heichal after the old one was retired; it was not permitted to have two "main" Shulchanos in the Heichal at once. Therefore, there would have to be a period during which there is no Lechem on a Shulchan, as they removed the Shulchan for Tevilah. However, this does not explain the Mishnah properly according to Rebbi Yosi (Menachos ibid.), who maintains that as long as the bread is not off of the Shulchan overnight it is called "Lefanai Tamid." The Mishnah will have to disagree with Rebbi Yosi.
I did find that Rav Yehonasan mi'Lunil seems to offer a novel explanation for our Gemara. He writes that Tamid teaches that we may only use the original Shulchan, that Moshe or Shlomo made, and it may not be replaced by another. This seems to be the intent of the Rambam and Me'iri here as well. If so, it is clear why no replacement Shulchan could be made. However, Rashi (DH Menorah) does not seem to take this approach.
Best wishes,
Mordecai Kornfeld
Kollel Iyun Hadaf
If the original shulchan becmae tomey then the lechem on it became tomey also, since food becomes tomey in kodshim then if you were to shift it onto shulchan #2 then it would make shulchan #2 tomey as well because of the lechem haponim. so thats another reason why they couldnt have backup shulchan its cause of the lechem (I think)
The Lechem should not be able to be Metamei a Kli, like the Shulchan.
Also, I was presuming that the Taharah of the Regel (Kol Yisrael Chaverim) remained for the Lechem and Shulchan until the moment they removed the Shulchan for Tevilah. If not, how would they light the Menorah, and bring new Lechem ha'Panim on the Shabbos that immediately followed the Regel (when the Taharah was pushed off until Sunday)?
Be well,
Mordecai Kornfeld