The Gemorah is puzzled as to how they would toivel the Shulchan in the mikveh. Why was it not concerned about the Kapoiress or even the Oroin which was much bigger?
Sholem, UK
1) I think we can answer this question with the help of another question cited by the Ponim Yofos; by the Haflo'oh; in Parshas Terumah DH BiPesochim in the name of the sefer Or Yekoros. He asks why did they not toivel the Shulchan outside the Azorah, where there was a much bigger Mikveh into which the Shulchan would fit comfortably? [see Mishnah Shekalim 8:2 page 42 in the standard editions of Maseches Pesachim where Maseches Shekalim is printed at the end; page 42 (we will be learning it soon bs'd in dafyomi) that if the Paroches became tomei from Av Hatumah, they would toivel it outside].
2) Or Yekoros answers that all week long it was not possible to take the Shulchan outside of the Azora because the Lechem Haponim was placed upon it and could not be taken out. It was only on Shabbos, when the bread was changed, that it would have been possible to toivel it. However, on Shabbos one is not allowed to do tevilah of utensils. It is true that tevilah of utensils is a Rabbinical prohibition and there is a rule that Rabbinical prohbitions do not apply in the Beis Hamikdah [see Rashi Eruvin 102a in Mishnah DH Noalin] but the larger Mikveh was outside the Beis Hamikdash so Rabbinical prohibitions did apply there.
3) At any rate, we learn from Or Yekoros that it was only the shulchan that could not be immersed outide the Beis Hamikdash. In contrast, if necessary, the Oron or Kapores could be toiveled in the larger Mikveh outside.
Chodesh Tov
Dovid Bloom
Follow-up reply:
I found, bs'd, a slightly different reason why the Shulchan could not be taken outside for tevilah, whilst the Oron and Kapores could be. This is from the Gemara Chagigah 26b which notes that the word "Tomid" is written in the Torah (Shemos 25:30) in connection with the Shulchan, but not in connection with the Menorah. Rashi DH Menorah writes that therefore the Menorah could be removed from the Beis Hamikdash to be taken to the Mikveh, but the Shulchan could not, since it must always remain in the Beis Hamikdash.
KOL TUV
Dovid Bloom
Have had a very quick look at your response and thank you for taking the time to answer my question.
On first thoughts, the point of not taking the Shulchan outside is difficult to comprehend. If the Shulchan became tumoh, then the lechem on it would likewise become tumoh. Replacing any loaves with the Shulchan in its tumoh state would be problematic as they would have be metameh kodashim ...
SThe Siach Yitzchak, on Chagigah bottom 26a Rashi DH Hizaharu, writes that clearly if the table became tamei with a definite tumah then it must be immersed in the Mikveh even on Shabbos. However the question is what would happen if the unlearned people were not careful with the table throughout Yomtov and we now have a doubt that it may be that the table is tamei? In such a case, where it is only doubtful whether the table is tamei or not, we cannot transgress the positive Mitzvah that the table should always be there with the bread upon it. To avoid this doubtful case, the Mishnah 26a-b tells us that they warned them not to touch the table.
Yasher Koach
Dovid Bloom