Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 7, 2018 | ื›ืดื– ื‘ืืœื•ืœ ืชืฉืขืดื—

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Menachot 28

Study Guide Menachot 28. Other laws that must be done in a particular manner are discussed in the mishna. The gemaraย delves intoย details regarding the Menora.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

ื”ื ื“ืงืื™ ืžื–ืจื— ื•ืžืขืจื‘ ื•ืื“ื™ ื”ื ื“ืงืื™ ืฆืคื•ืŸ ื•ื“ืจื•ื ื•ืื“ื™

This baraita, which teaches that the sprinklings are valid only when performed precisely toward the entran ce of the Tent of Meeting, is referring to a case where the priest is standing with his back to the east and his front facing west and he sprinkles the blood. In this case, although the priest does not direct the sprinklings precisely toward the entrance of the Sanctuary, they are valid since he himself is facing the Sanctuary. That baraita, which teaches that the sprinklings are not valid when performed not precisely toward the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, is referring to a case where the priest is standing facing north or south and he sprinkles the blood. In this case, since he is facing the wrong direction they are not valid.

ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื•ืฉื‘ืคื ื™ื ื•ืฉื‘ืžืฆื•ืจืข ืฉืœื ืœืฉืžืŸ ืคืกื•ืœื•ืช ืฉืœื ืžื›ื•ื•ื ื•ืช ื›ืฉืจื•ืช ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ืœืฉืžืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ืžื›ื•ื•ื ื•ืช ื›ืฉืจื•ืช

ยง The Master says in the baraita: But with regard to the sprinkling of the blood that takes place inside the Sanctuary and the sprinkling of the oil that takes place during the purification of the leper, if these are performed not for their own sake, then they are not valid. But if they were performed not precisely toward the Holy of Holies, they are valid. The Gemara asks: But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita that with regard to the sprinklings of oil during the purification of the leper, whether they were performed not for their own sake or whether they were performed not precisely toward the Holy of Holies, they are valid?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื•ื”ื ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื“ืžืงื™ืฉ ืืฉื ืœื—ื˜ืืช ืžืงื™ืฉ ื ืžื™ ืœื•ื’ ืœืืฉื ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœื ืžืงืฉื™

Rav Yosef said: This is not difficult. This first baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, and that second baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. He explains: Rabbi Eliezer is the tanna who juxtaposes the guilt offering to a sin offering, teaching that just as a sin offering is disqualified when sacrificed not for its sake, so too, the guilt offering, such as the leperโ€™s guilt offering, is disqualified when sacrificed not for its sake, as it is written: โ€œAs is the sin offering, so is the guilt offering; there is one law for themโ€ (Leviticus 7:7). He also juxtaposes the log of oil of the leper to the guilt offering of the leper in the same verse, teaching that if the sprinkling from the log of oil was performed not for its own sake, it is not valid. In contrast, the Rabbis do not juxtapose the guilt offering to the sin offering, and therefore they have no reason to invalidate the sprinkling from the leperโ€™s log of oil that is performed not for its own sake.

ื•ืœืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื•ื›ื™ ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืœืžื“ ื‘ื”ื™ืงืฉ ื—ื•ื–ืจ ื•ืžืœืžื“ ื‘ื”ื™ืงืฉ

The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi Eliezer, is it so that a matter derived via juxtaposition then teaches a halakha to another case via juxtaposition? There is a principle that with regard to consecrated matters, a halakha derived via juxtaposition cannot subsequently teach a halakha via juxtaposition. Therefore, the necessity for the sprinklings of the log of oil to be performed for its own sake cannot be derived from juxtaposition between the guilt offering of the leper and the sprinkling of the oil.

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื”ื ื•ื”ื ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื›ืืŸ ืœื”ื›ืฉื™ืจ ื”ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื›ืืŸ ืœื”ืจืฆื•ืช ืฉืœื ืขืœื• ืœื‘ืขืœื™ื ืœืฉื•ื ื—ื•ื‘ื”

Rather, Rava said: Both this baraita and that baraita are in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Here, where the baraita teaches that the sprinklings are valid, it means that they were effective in rendering the offering valid and allowing the priests to partake of the remainder of the log, whereas there, where the baraita teaches that the sprinklings are not valid, it means that they do not effect acceptance, as they do not satisfy the obligation of the owner, and therefore the leper is still prohibited from partaking of sacrificial meat.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืฉื‘ืขื” ืงื ื™ ืžื ื•ืจื” ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืช ื–ื” ืฉื‘ืขื” ื ืจื•ืชื™ื” ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืช ื–ื” ืฉืชื™ ืคืจืฉื™ื•ืช ืฉื‘ืžื–ื•ื–ื” ืžืขื›ื‘ื•ืช ื–ื• ืืช ื–ื• ืืคื™ืœื• ื›ืชื‘ ืื—ื“ ืžืขื›ื‘ืŸ

MISHNA: With regard to the seven branches of the Candelabrum (see Exodus 25:32), the absence of each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others. With regard to its seven lamps atop the branches, the absence of each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others. With regard to the two passages that are in the mezuza, which are the first (Deuteronomy 6:1โ€“9) and second (Deuteronomy 11:13โ€“21) paragraphs of Shema, the absence of each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. Furthermore, the absence of even one letter prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the rest of them.

ืืจื‘ืข ืคืจืฉื™ื•ืช ืฉื‘ืชืคื™ืœื™ืŸ ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื• ืืช ื–ื• ืืคื™ืœื• ื›ืชื‘ ืื—ื“ ืžืขื›ื‘ืŸ ืืจื‘ืข ืฆื™ืฆื™ื•ืช ืžืขื›ื‘ื•ืช ื–ื• ืืช ื–ื• ืฉืืจื‘ืขืชืŸ ืžืฆื•ื” ืื—ืช ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ืืจื‘ืขืชืŸ ืืจื‘ืข ืžืฆื•ืช

With regard to the four passages that are in the phylacteries, which are the two passages in the mezuza and two additional passages (Exodus 13:1โ€“10, 11โ€“16), the absence of each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others. Furthermore, the absence of even one letter prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the rest of them. With regard to the four ritual fringes on a garment, the absence of each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others, as the four of them constitute one mitzva. Rabbi Yishmael says: The four of them are four discrete mitzvot, and the absence of one does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva with the rest.

ื’ืžืณ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื”ื•ื™ื” ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื”ื•

GEMARA: What is the reason that the absence of any of the seven branches of the Candelabrum prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others? The Gemara answers: It is written concerning them a term of being: โ€œTheir knobs and their branches shall be of one piece with itโ€ (Exodus 25:36), and a term of being indicates an indispensable requirement.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžื ื•ืจื” ื”ื™ืชื” ื‘ืื” ืžืŸ ื”ืขืฉืช ื•ืžืŸ ื”ื–ื”ื‘ ืขืฉืื” ืžืŸ ื”ื’ืจื•ื˜ืื•ืช ืคืกื•ืœื” ืžืฉืืจ ืžื™ื ื™ ืžืชื›ื•ืช ื›ืฉืจื” ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืžืŸ ื”ื’ืจื•ื˜ืื•ืช ืคืกื•ืœื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืžืงืฉื” ื•ื”ื•ื™ื” ืฉืืจ ืžื™ื ื™ ืžืชื›ื•ืช ื ืžื™ ื–ื”ื‘ ื•ื”ื•ื™ื”

The Sages taught (Tosefta, แธคullin 1:18): The Candelabrum was fashioned from a complete block [haโ€™eshet] and from gold. If they fashioned it from fragments [hagerutaot] of gold then it is unfit, but if they fashioned it from other types of metal rather than gold, it is fit. The Gemara asks: What is different about a Candelabrum made from fragments of gold, that it is rendered unfit? As it is written with regard to it: โ€œTheir knobs and their branches shall be of one piece with it, the whole of it one beaten work of pure goldโ€ (Exodus 25:36), employing the term โ€œbeaten [miksha]โ€ and a term of being, indicating that it is an indispensable requirement. But accordingly, a Candelabrum fashioned from other types of metal should be rendered unfit as well, since the verse states that it is made from gold and uses a term of being.

ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืชื™ืขืฉื” ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืฉืืจ ืžื™ื ื™ ืžืชื›ื•ืช ื•ืื™ืžื ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ื’ืจื•ื˜ืื•ืช ืœื ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ื“ืืžืงืฉื” ื›ืชื™ื‘ื” ื”ื•ื™ื”

The Gemara answers: The verse states: โ€œAnd you shall make a Candelabrum of pure gold; of beaten work will the Candelabrum be madeโ€ (Exodus 25:31), to include other types of metal. The Gemara asks: But why not say that the expression โ€œwill be madeโ€ serves to include a Candelabrum fashioned from fragments of gold? The Gemara answers: It cannot enter your mind to say this, as the term of being, which indicates an indispensable requirement, is written with regard to the command that the Candelabrum be a beaten work, i.e., fashioned from a single block and not from different fragments, as it is stated: โ€œShall be of one beaten workโ€ (Exodus 25:36).

ืชื™ืขืฉื” ื ืžื™ ืืžืงืฉื” ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืžืงืฉื” ืžืงืฉื” ืœืขื›ื‘

The Gemara challenges: But the term โ€œwill be madeโ€ is also written with regard to the command that the Candelabrum be a beaten work, as it is written: โ€œOf beaten work will the Candelabrum be madeโ€ (Exodus 25:31). The Gemara answers: The term โ€œbeaten workโ€ appears in Exodus 25:31, and the term โ€œbeaten workโ€ appears again in Exodus 25:36, to demonstrate that this requirement is indispensable.

ื–ื”ื‘ ื–ื”ื‘ ื ืžื™ ืœืขื›ื‘

The Gemara challenges: But the term โ€œgoldโ€ appears in Exodus 25:31, and the term โ€œgoldโ€ appears again in Exodus 25:36. Why not also say that this as well is to demonstrate that this requirement is indispensable?

ื”ืื™ ืžืื™ ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืžืŸ ื”ื’ืจื•ื˜ืื•ืช ืคืกื•ืœื” ืžืฉืืจ ืžื™ื ื™ ืžืชื›ื•ืช ื›ืฉืจื” ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื–ื”ื‘ ื–ื”ื‘ ืžืงืฉื” ืžืงืฉื” ืœื“ืจืฉื ืืœื ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืžืŸ ื”ื’ืจื•ื˜ืื•ืช ื›ืฉืจื” ืžืฉืืจ ืžื™ื ื™ ืžืชื›ื•ืช ืคืกื•ืœื” ื–ื”ื‘ ื–ื”ื‘ ืžืงืฉื” ืžืงืฉื” ืžืื™ ื“ืจืฉืช ื‘ื™ื”

The Gemara answers: What is this comparison? Granted, if you say that when the Candelabrum is fashioned from fragments of gold it is unfit but when fashioned from other types of metal it is fit, then this is the reason that it was necessary for the verse to state โ€œgold,โ€ โ€œgoldโ€ twice, and โ€œa beaten work,โ€ โ€œa beaten workโ€ twice, to teach an interpretation, which is explained shortly. But if you say that when the Candelabrum is fashioned from fragments of gold it is fit but when fashioned from other types of metal it is unfit, what do you interpret from the repeated terms โ€œgold,โ€ โ€œgoldโ€ and โ€œa beaten work,โ€ โ€œa beaten workโ€?

ืžืื™ ื“ืจืฉื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื›ื›ืจ ื–ื”ื‘ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื™ืขืฉื” ืืชื” ืืช ื›ืœ ื”ื›ืœื™ื ื”ืืœื” ื‘ืื” ื–ื”ื‘ ื‘ืื” ื›ื›ืจ ืื™ื ื” ื‘ืื” ื–ื”ื‘ ืื™ื ื” ื‘ืื” ื›ื›ืจ ื’ื‘ื™ืขื™ื” ื›ืคืชื•ืจื™ื” ื•ืคืจื—ื™ื” ื‘ืื” ื–ื”ื‘ ื‘ืื” ื’ื‘ื™ืขื™ื ื›ืคืชื•ืจื™ื ื•ืคืจื—ื™ื ืื™ื ื” ื‘ืื” ื–ื”ื‘ ืื™ื ื” ื‘ืื” ื’ื‘ื™ืขื™ื ื›ืคืชื•ืจื™ื ื•ืคืจื—ื™ื

The Gemara elaborates: What interpretation is referenced above? As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: โ€œOf a talent of pure gold will it be made, with all these vesselsโ€ (Exodus 25:39); this verse teaches that if the Candelabrum is fashioned of gold, it must be fashioned with the precise weight of a talent; and if it is not fashioned of gold but of other types of metal, then it does not need to be fashioned with the precise weight of a talent. Similarly, the verse: โ€œAnd you will make a Candelabrum of pure gold; of beaten work shall the Candelabrum be made, even its base, its shaft, its goblets, its knobs, and its flowersโ€ (Exodus 25:31), teaches that if the Candelabrum is fashioned of gold it must be fashioned with goblets, knobs, and flowers, and if it is not fashioned of gold but of other types of metal, then it does not need to be fashioned with goblets, knobs, and flowers.

ื•ืื™ืžื ื ืžื™ ื‘ืื” ื–ื”ื‘ ื‘ืื” ืงื ื™ื ืื™ื ื” ื‘ืื” ื–ื”ื‘ ืื™ื ื” ื‘ืื” ืงื ื™ื ื”ื”ื•ื ืคืžื•ื˜ ืžื™ืงืจื™

The Gemara asks: But then why not also say with regard to the branches of the Candelabrum, which are described in Exodus 25:31 along with the term โ€œgold,โ€ that if the Candelabrum is fashioned of gold it must be fashioned with branches, but if it is not fashioned of gold but of other types of metal, then it does not need to be fashioned with branches? The Gemara answers: A vessel like that is called a candlestick [pamot], not a candelabrum.

ื•ื–ื” ืžืขืฉื” ื”ืžื ืจื” ืžืงืฉื” ื–ื”ื‘ ื‘ืื” ื–ื”ื‘ ื‘ืื” ืžืงืฉื” ืื™ื ื” ื‘ืื” ื–ื”ื‘ ืื™ื ื” ื‘ืื” ืžืงืฉื”

With regard to the second derivation mentioned, the Gemara elaborates: The verse states: โ€œAnd this was the work of the Candelabrum, beaten work of gold, to the base thereof, and to the flowers thereof, it was beaten workโ€ (Numbers 8:4). This teaches that if the Candelabrum is fashioned of gold it must be fashioned as a beaten work, but if it is not fashioned of gold but of other types of metal, then it does not need to be fashioned as a beaten work and may be made from fragments.

ืžืงืฉื” ื“ืกื™ืคื ืœืžืื™ ืืชื ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ื—ืฆื•ืฆืจื•ืช ื“ืชื ื™ื ื—ืฆื•ืฆืจื•ืช ื”ื™ื• ื‘ืื™ื ืžืŸ ื”ืขืฉืช ืžืŸ ื”ื›ืกืฃ ืขืฉืื ืžืŸ ื”ื’ืจื•ื˜ืื•ืช ื›ืฉืจื™ื ืžืฉืืจ ืžื™ื ื™ ืžืชื›ื•ืช ืคืกื•ืœื™ื

The Gemara asks: For what purpose does the term โ€œbeaten workโ€ that is repeated again in the latter clause of the verse come? The Gemara answers: It comes to exclude the trumpets, teaching that they are fit even if they were not fashioned from a single block. As it is taught in a baraita: The silver trumpets that Moses was commanded to fashion in the wilderness were to be fashioned from a complete block and from silver. If one fashioned them from fragments they are fit, but if he fashioned them from other types of metal then they are unfit.

ื•ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืžืฉืืจ ืžื™ื ื™ ืžืชื›ื•ืช ืคืกื•ืœื™ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ืกืฃ ื•ื”ื•ื™ื” ืžืŸ ื”ื’ืจื•ื˜ืื•ืช ื ืžื™ ืžืงืฉื” ื•ื”ื•ื™ื” ืžื™ืขื˜ ืจื—ืžื ื ื’ื‘ื™ ืžื ื•ืจื” ืžืงืฉื” ื”ื™ื ื”ื™ื ื•ืœื ื—ืฆื•ืฆืจื•ืช

The Gemara asks: And what is different about trumpets made from other types of metal that they are rendered unfit? As it is written with regard to the trumpets: โ€œMake for yourself two trumpets of silver; of beaten work you shall make them; and they shall be for you for the calling of the congregationโ€ (Numbers 10:2). The verse employs the terms silver and being, indicating that it is an indispensable requirement. But accordingly, trumpets fashioned from fragments should be rendered unfit as well, since the verse employs the terms beaten work and being. The Gemara answers: The Merciful One excludes the trumpets when it states with regard to the Candelabrum: โ€œIt was beaten workโ€ (Numbers 8:4), indicating that it alone, but not the trumpets, was beaten work.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื›ืœ ื”ื›ืœื™ื

ยง The Sages taught in a baraita: All of the vessels

ืฉืขืฉื” ืžืฉื” ื›ืฉืจื™ื ืœื• ื•ื›ืฉืจื™ื ืœื“ื•ืจื•ืช ื—ืฆื•ืฆืจื•ืช ื›ืฉืจื•ืช ืœื• ื•ืคืกื•ืœื•ืช ืœื“ื•ืจื•ืช

that Moses fashioned were fit for his generation and were fit for future generations. Yet the trumpets that Moses fashioned were fit for his generation but were unfit for future generations.

ื—ืฆื•ืฆืจื•ืช ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืื™ืœื™ืžื ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืขืฉื” ืœืš ืœืš ื•ืœื ืœื“ื•ืจื•ืช ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ื•ืขืฉื™ืช ืœืš ืืจื•ืŸ ืขืฅ ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ืœืš ื•ืœื ืœื“ื•ืจื•ืช

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the trumpets were unfit for future generations? If we say that it is because the verse states: โ€œMake for you two silver trumpetsโ€ (Numbers 10:2), meaning that they are fit for you, but not for future generations, that is difficult; if that is so, then the verse: โ€œMake for you an Ark of woodโ€ (Deuteronomy 10:1), should also teach that the Ark is fit only for you, but not for future generations. This cannot be the halakha, as the baraita stated explicitly that all vessels, other than the trumpets, that were fashioned by Moses were fit for future generations.

ืืœื ืื™ ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœืš ืžืฉืœืš ืื™ ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื›ื‘ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื‘ืฉืœืš ืื ื™ ืจื•ืฆื” ื™ื•ืชืจ ืžืฉืœื”ื ื”ืื™ ื ืžื™ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื”ื›ื™ ืฉืื ื™ ื”ืชื ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืœืš ืœืš ืชืจื™ ื–ื™ืžื ื™ ืขืฉื” ืœืš ื•ื”ื™ื• ืœืš

Rather, the term โ€œfor youโ€ that is written with regard to the fashioning of the Ark should be understood either according to the one who says that โ€œfor youโ€ means from your own property, or according to the one who says that God said to Moses: I desire, as it were, that the Ark be fashioned from your property more than I desire that it be fashioned from the property of the rest of the nation (see Yoma 3b). Accordingly, here too, with regard to the trumpets, the term โ€œfor youโ€ should be understood in this manner. The Gemara responds: There, with regard to the trumpets, it is different, as the verse states โ€œfor youโ€ twice: โ€œMake for you two trumpets of silver, of beaten work you shall make them, and they shall be for you for the calling of the congregationโ€ (Numbers 10:2).

ืชื ื™ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื—ื ื™ืŸ ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืžื ื•ืจื” ื”ื™ืชื” ื‘ืื” ืžืŸ ื”ืขืฉืช ืžืŸ ื”ื–ื”ื‘ ืขืฉืื” ืฉืœ ื›ืกืฃ ื›ืฉืจื” ืฉืœ ื‘ืขืฅ ื•ืฉืœ ืื‘ืจ ื•ืฉืœ ื’ื™ืกื˜ืจื•ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืคื•ืกืœ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžื›ืฉื™ืจ ืฉืœ ืขืฅ ื•ืฉืœ ืขืฆื ื•ืฉืœ ื–ื›ื•ื›ื™ืช ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ืคืกื•ืœื”

ยง The Gemara relates: Rav Pappa, son of Rav แธคanin, taught a baraita before Rav Yosef: The Candelabrum could be fashioned from a complete block and from gold. If one fashioned it from silver, it is fit. If one fashioned it from tin, or from lead, or from other types of metal [gisteron], Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems it unfit, and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, deems it fit. If one fashioned it from wood, or from bone, or from glass, everyone agrees that it is unfit.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืื™ ื“ืขืชืš ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืจ ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืจ ื›ืœืœื™ ื•ืคืจื˜ื™ ื“ืจืฉื™

Rav Yosef said to him: What, in your opinion, is the explanation of the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda? Rav Pappa, son of Rav แธคanin, said to him: Both this Sage and that Sage interpret the verse: โ€œAnd you will make a Candelabrum of pure gold; of beaten work will the Candelabrum be madeโ€ (Exodus 25:31), by means of the principle of generalizations and details. The verse begins with a generalization: โ€œAnd you will make a Candelabrum,โ€ followed by a detail: โ€œOf pure gold,โ€ which is then followed by a generalization: โ€œWill the Candelabrum be made.โ€ According to the hermeneutic principle of generalizations and details, this teaches that any item that is similar to the detail is also deemed fit.

ืžื™ื”ื• ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืžื” ื”ืคืจื˜ ืžืคื•ืจืฉ ืฉืœ ืžืชื›ืช ืืฃ ื›ืœ ืฉืœ ืžืชื›ืช ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืžื” ื”ืคืจื˜ ืžืคื•ืจืฉ ื“ื‘ืจ ื—ืฉื•ื‘ ืืฃ ื›ืœ ื“ื‘ืจ ื—ืฉื•ื‘ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืกืžื™ ื“ื™ื“ืš ืžืงืžื™ ื“ื™ื“ื™

But one Sage, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds that just as the item mentioned in the detail is clearly defined as a type of metal, so too, all other types of metal may be used in fashioning the Candelabrum. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds that just as the item mentioned in the detail is clearly defined as an item of substantial value, so too, all items of substantial value may be used in fashioning the Candelabrum. Rav Yosef said to him: Remove your baraita in light of my baraita.

ื“ืชื ื™ื ื›ืœื™ ืฉืจืช ืฉืขืฉืืŸ ืฉืœ ืขืฅ ืจื‘ื™ ืคื•ืกืœ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžื›ืฉื™ืจ ื‘ืžืื™ ืงื ืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื“ืจื™ืฉ ื›ืœืœื™ ื•ืคืจื˜ื™ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื“ืจื™ืฉ ืจื™ื‘ื•ื™ื™ ื•ืžื™ืขื•ื˜ื™

Rav Yosef continued: As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to Temple service vessels that one fashioned from wood, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems them unfit and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, deems them fit. According to this baraita, their dispute was with regard to a Candelabrum fashioned from wood, not from metal. Rav Yosef explains: With regard to what principle do they disagree? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi interprets verses by means of the principle of generalizations and details, and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, interprets verses by means of the principle of amplifications and restrictions.

ืจื‘ื™ ื“ืจื™ืฉ ื›ืœืœื™ ื•ืคืจื˜ื™ ื•ืขืฉื™ืช ืžื ืจืช ื›ืœืœ ื–ื”ื‘ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืคืจื˜ ืžืงืฉื” ืชื™ืขืฉื” ื”ืžื ื•ืจื” ื—ื–ืจ ื•ื›ืœืœ ื›ืœืœ ื•ืคืจื˜ ื•ื›ืœืœ ืื™ ืืชื” ื“ืŸ ืืœื ื›ืขื™ืŸ ื”ืคืจื˜ ืžื” ื”ืคืจื˜ ืžืคื•ืจืฉ ืฉืœ ืžืชื›ืช ืืฃ ื›ืœ ืฉืœ ืžืชื›ืช

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi interprets the verse: โ€œAnd you will make a Candelabrum of pure gold; of beaten work will the Candelabrum be madeโ€ (Exodus 25:31), by means of the principle of generalizations and details. โ€œAnd you will make a Candelabrum ofโ€ is a generalization, as the material of the Candelabrum is not specified; โ€œpure goldโ€ is a detail, limiting the material exclusively to gold; and by then stating: โ€œOf beaten work will the Candelabrum be made,โ€ the verse then makes a generalization. The result is a generalization and a detail and a generalization, from which you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail, leading to this conclusion: Just as the item mentioned in the detail is clearly defined as a type of metal, so too, all other types of metal may be used in fashioning the Candelabrum.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื“ืจื™ืฉ ืจื™ื‘ื•ื™ื™ ื•ืžื™ืขื•ื˜ื™ ื•ืขืฉื™ืช ืžื ื•ืจืช ืจื™ื‘ื” ื–ื”ื‘ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืžื™ืขื˜ ืžืงืฉื” ืชื™ืขืฉื” ื”ืžื ื•ืจื” ื—ื–ืจ ื•ืจื™ื‘ื” ืจื™ื‘ื” ื•ืžื™ืขื˜ ื•ืจื™ื‘ื” ืจื™ื‘ื” ื”ื›ืœ ื•ืžืื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื›ืœ ืžื™ืœื™ ื•ืžืื™ ืžื™ืขื˜ ืžื™ืขื˜ ืฉืœ ื—ืจืก

By contrast, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, interprets the verse by means of the principle of amplifications and restrictions. โ€œAnd you will make a Candelabrum ofโ€ is an amplification, as the material of the Candelabrum is not specified; โ€œpure goldโ€ is a restriction, limiting the material exclusively to gold; and by then stating: โ€œOf beaten work will the Candelabrum be made,โ€ the verse repeated and amplified. There is a hermeneutical principle that when a verse amplified and then restricted and then amplified, it amplified the relevant category to include everything except the specific matter excluded in the restriction. And what did the verse include? It includes all materials, even wood. And what did the verse exclude with this restriction? It excluded a Candelabrum fashioned from earthenware, which is furthest in quality from gold.

ืื“ืจื‘ื” ืกืžื™ ื“ื™ื“ืš ืžืงืžื™ ื“ื™ื“ื™ ืœื ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ื“ืชื ื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ื–ื”ื‘ ืžื‘ื™ื ืืฃ ืฉืœ ื›ืกืฃ ืฉืœ ื ื—ืฉืช ืฉืœ ื‘ืจื–ืœ ื•ืฉืœ ื‘ื“ื™ืœ ื•ืฉืœ ืขื•ืคืจืช ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžื›ืฉื™ืจ ืืฃ ื‘ืฉืœ ืขืฅ

Rav Pappa, son of Rav แธคanin, said to him: On the contrary, remove your baraita in light of my baraita. Rav Yosef responded: That cannot enter your mind, as it is taught in another baraita: If the one who is fashioning the Candelabrum has no gold, he may bring even a Candelabrum made of silver, of copper, of iron, of tin, or of lead. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, deems it fit even if it was fashioned from wood. It is evident from this baraita that the dispute pertains only to a Candelabrum fashioned from wood, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi agrees that it may be fashioned from other types of metal.

ื•ืชื ื™ื ืื™ื“ืš ืœื ื™ืขืฉื” ืื“ื ื‘ื™ืช ืชื‘ื ื™ืช ื”ื™ื›ืœ ืื›ืกื“ืจื” ื›ื ื’ื“ ืื•ืœื ื—ืฆืจ ื›ื ื’ื“ ืขื–ืจื” ืฉืœื—ืŸ ื›ื ื’ื“ ืฉืœื—ืŸ ืžื ื•ืจื” ื›ื ื’ื“ ืžื ื•ืจื” ืื‘ืœ ืขื•ืฉื” ื”ื•ื ืฉืœ ื—ืžืฉื” ื•ืฉืœ ืฉืฉื” ื•ืฉืœ ืฉืžื ื” ื•ืฉืœ ืฉื‘ืขื” ืœื ื™ืขืฉื” ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืฉืืจ ืžื™ื ื™ ืžืชื›ื•ืช

And it is taught in another baraita: A person may not construct a house in the exact form of the Sanctuary, nor a portico [akhsadra] corresponding to the Entrance Hall of the Sanctuary, nor a courtyard corresponding to the Temple courtyard, nor a table corresponding to the Table in the Temple, nor a candelabrum corresponding to the Candelabrum in the Temple. But one may fashion a candelabrum of five or of six or of eight branches. And one may not fashion a candelabrum of seven branches, and this is the halakha even if he constructs it from other kinds of metal rather than gold, since the Candelabrum used in the Temple may be fashioned from other metals.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ืฉืœ ืขืฅ ืœื ื™ืขืฉื” ื›ื“ืจืš ืฉืขืฉื• ืžืœื›ื™ ื‘ื™ืช ื—ืฉืžื•ื ืื™ ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืžืฉื ืจืื™ื” ืฉืคื•ื“ื™ื ืฉืœ ื‘ืจื–ืœ ื”ื™ื• ื•ื—ื™ืคื•ื ื‘ื‘ืขืฅ ื”ืขืฉื™ืจื• ืขืฉืื•ื ืฉืœ ื›ืกืฃ ื—ื–ืจื• ื•ื”ืขืฉื™ืจื• ืขืฉืื•ื ืฉืœ ื–ื”ื‘

The baraita continues: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: One may not even fashion a candelabrum from wood, in the manner that the kings of the Hasmonean monarchy did in the Temple. The Candelabrum used in the Temple in the time of the Hasmonean kings was fashioned from wood. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda: You seek to bring a proof from there? In the time of the Hasmoneans the Candelabrum was not fashioned from wood but from spits [shappudim] of iron, and they covered them with tin. Later, when they grew richer and could afford to fashion a Candelabrum of higher-quality material, they fashioned the Candelabrum from silver. When they again grew richer, they fashioned the Candelabrum from gold.

ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืกื‘ื ื’ื•ื‘ื”ื” ืฉืœ ืžื ื•ืจื” ืฉืžื ื” ืขืฉืจ ื˜ืคื—ื™ื ื”ืจื’ืœื™ื ื•ื”ืคืจื— ืฉืœืฉื” ื˜ืคื—ื™ื ื•ื˜ืคื—ื™ื™ื ื—ืœืง ื•ื˜ืคื— ืฉื‘ื• ื’ื‘ื™ืข ื•ื›ืคืชื•ืจ ื•ืคืจื— ื•ื˜ืคื—ื™ื™ื ื—ืœืง ื•ื˜ืคื— ื›ืคืชื•ืจ

ยง Shmuel says in the name of a certain elder: The height of the Candelabrum was eighteen handbreadths. The base and the flower that was upon the base were a height of three handbreadths; and two handbreadths above that were bare; and there was above that one handbreadth, which had a goblet, knob, and flower on it. And two handbreadths above that were bare, and there was above that one handbreadth that had a knob.

ื•ืฉื ื™ ืงื ื™ื ื™ื•ืฆืื™ืŸ ืžืžื ื• ืื—ื“ ืื™ืœืš ื•ืื—ื“ ืื™ืœืš ื•ื ืžืฉื›ื™ืŸ ื•ืขื•ืœื™ืŸ ื›ื ื’ื“ ื’ื•ื‘ื”ื” ืฉืœ ืžื ื•ืจื” ื•ื˜ืคื— ื—ืœืง ื•ื˜ืคื— ื›ืคืชื•ืจ ื•ืฉื ื™ ืงื ื™ื ื™ื•ืฆืื™ืŸ ืžืžื ื• ืื—ื“ ืื™ืœืš ื•ืื—ื“ ืื™ืœืš ื ืžืฉื›ื™ืŸ ื•ืขื•ืœื™ืŸ ื›ื ื’ื“ ื’ื•ื‘ื”ื” ืฉืœ ืžื ื•ืจื” ื•ื˜ืคื— ื—ืœืง ื•ื˜ืคื— ื›ืคืชื•ืจ ื•ืฉื ื™ ืงื ื™ื ื™ื•ืฆืื™ืŸ ืžืžื ื• ืื—ื“ ืื™ืœืš ื•ืื—ื“ ืื™ืœืš ื•ื ืžืฉื›ื™ืŸ ื•ืขื•ืœื™ืŸ ื›ื ื’ื“ ื’ื•ื‘ื”ื” ืฉืœ ืžื ื•ืจื” ื•ื˜ืคื—ื™ื™ื ื—ืœืง ื ืฉืชื™ื™ืจื• ืฉื ืฉืœืฉื” ื˜ืคื—ื™ื ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ืฉืœืฉื” ื’ื‘ื™ืขื™ืŸ ื•ื›ืคืชื•ืจ ื•ืคืจื—

And two branches emerge from the knob, one toward this direction and one toward that direction, and they extend and rise up to the height of the Candelabrum. And one handbreadth above that was bare, and there was above that one handbreadth that had a knob. And two branches emerge from the knob, one toward this direction and one toward that direction, and they extend and rise up to the height of the Candelabrum. And one handbreadth above that was bare, and there was above that one handbreadth that had a knob. And two branches emerge from the knob, one toward this direction and one toward that direction, and they extend and rise up to the height of the Candelabrum. And two handbreadths above that were bare. There then remained there three handbreadths in which there were three goblets, and a knob, and a flower.

ื•ื’ื‘ื™ืขื™ืŸ ืœืžื” ื”ืŸ ื“ื•ืžื™ืŸ ื›ืžื™ืŸ ื›ื•ืกื•ืช ืืœื›ืกื ื“ืจื™ื™ื ื›ืคืชื•ืจื™ื ืœืžื” ื”ืŸ ื“ื•ืžื™ืŸ ื›ืžื™ืŸ ืชืคื•ื—ื™ ื”ื›ืจืชื™ื™ื ืคืจื—ื™ื ืœืžื” ื”ืŸ ื“ื•ืžื™ืŸ ื›ืžื™ืŸ ืคืจื—ื™ ื”ืขืžื•ื“ื™ืŸ ื•ื ืžืฆืื• ื’ื‘ื™ืขื™ืŸ ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ืฉื ื™ื ื›ืคืชื•ืจื™ื ืื—ื“ ืขืฉืจ ืคืจื—ื™ื ืชืฉืขื”

And the goblets of the Candelabrum, to what are they similar? They were like Alexandrian goblets, which are long and narrow. The knobs, to what are they similar? They were like the shape of the apples of the Cherethites. The flowers, to what are they similar? They were like the ornaments that are etched in columns. And there are found to be a total of twenty-two goblets, eleven knobs, and nine flowers on the Candelabrum.

ื’ื‘ื™ืขื™ื ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืช ื–ื” ื›ืคืชื•ืจื™ื ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืช ื–ื” ืคืจื—ื™ื ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืช ื–ื” ื’ื‘ื™ืขื™ื ื›ืคืชื•ืจื™ื ื•ืคืจื—ื™ื ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืช ื–ื”

With regard to the goblets, the absence of each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others; with regard to the knobs, the absence of each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others; with regard to the flowers, the absence of each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others. With regard to the goblets, knobs, and flowers, the absence of each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others.

ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื’ื‘ื™ืขื™ื ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ืฉื ื™ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื‘ืžื ืจื” ืืจื‘ืขื” ื’ื‘ืขื™ื ื•ื’ื•ืณ ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืฉืœืฉื” ื’ื‘ืขื™ื ืžืฉืงื“ื™ื ื‘ืงื ื” ื”ืื—ื“ ื›ืคืชื•ืจ ื•ืคืจื— ื•ื’ื•ืณ ืืจื‘ืขื” ื“ื™ื“ื”

The Gemara asks: Granted, there were twenty-two goblets on the Candelabrum, as it is written: โ€œAnd in the Candelabrum four goblets made like almond blossomsโ€ (Exodus 25:34), and it is written: โ€œThree goblets made like almond blossoms in one branch, a knob, and a flower; and three goblets made like almond blossoms in the other branch, a knob, and a flower; so for the six branches going out of the Candelabrumโ€ (Exodus 25:33). Therefore, the Candelabrum contains the four goblets of its main shaft,

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Menachot 28

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 28

ื”ื ื“ืงืื™ ืžื–ืจื— ื•ืžืขืจื‘ ื•ืื“ื™ ื”ื ื“ืงืื™ ืฆืคื•ืŸ ื•ื“ืจื•ื ื•ืื“ื™

This baraita, which teaches that the sprinklings are valid only when performed precisely toward the entran ce of the Tent of Meeting, is referring to a case where the priest is standing with his back to the east and his front facing west and he sprinkles the blood. In this case, although the priest does not direct the sprinklings precisely toward the entrance of the Sanctuary, they are valid since he himself is facing the Sanctuary. That baraita, which teaches that the sprinklings are not valid when performed not precisely toward the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, is referring to a case where the priest is standing facing north or south and he sprinkles the blood. In this case, since he is facing the wrong direction they are not valid.

ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื•ืฉื‘ืคื ื™ื ื•ืฉื‘ืžืฆื•ืจืข ืฉืœื ืœืฉืžืŸ ืคืกื•ืœื•ืช ืฉืœื ืžื›ื•ื•ื ื•ืช ื›ืฉืจื•ืช ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ืœืฉืžืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ืžื›ื•ื•ื ื•ืช ื›ืฉืจื•ืช

ยง The Master says in the baraita: But with regard to the sprinkling of the blood that takes place inside the Sanctuary and the sprinkling of the oil that takes place during the purification of the leper, if these are performed not for their own sake, then they are not valid. But if they were performed not precisely toward the Holy of Holies, they are valid. The Gemara asks: But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita that with regard to the sprinklings of oil during the purification of the leper, whether they were performed not for their own sake or whether they were performed not precisely toward the Holy of Holies, they are valid?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื•ื”ื ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื“ืžืงื™ืฉ ืืฉื ืœื—ื˜ืืช ืžืงื™ืฉ ื ืžื™ ืœื•ื’ ืœืืฉื ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœื ืžืงืฉื™

Rav Yosef said: This is not difficult. This first baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, and that second baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. He explains: Rabbi Eliezer is the tanna who juxtaposes the guilt offering to a sin offering, teaching that just as a sin offering is disqualified when sacrificed not for its sake, so too, the guilt offering, such as the leperโ€™s guilt offering, is disqualified when sacrificed not for its sake, as it is written: โ€œAs is the sin offering, so is the guilt offering; there is one law for themโ€ (Leviticus 7:7). He also juxtaposes the log of oil of the leper to the guilt offering of the leper in the same verse, teaching that if the sprinkling from the log of oil was performed not for its own sake, it is not valid. In contrast, the Rabbis do not juxtapose the guilt offering to the sin offering, and therefore they have no reason to invalidate the sprinkling from the leperโ€™s log of oil that is performed not for its own sake.

ื•ืœืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื•ื›ื™ ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืœืžื“ ื‘ื”ื™ืงืฉ ื—ื•ื–ืจ ื•ืžืœืžื“ ื‘ื”ื™ืงืฉ

The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi Eliezer, is it so that a matter derived via juxtaposition then teaches a halakha to another case via juxtaposition? There is a principle that with regard to consecrated matters, a halakha derived via juxtaposition cannot subsequently teach a halakha via juxtaposition. Therefore, the necessity for the sprinklings of the log of oil to be performed for its own sake cannot be derived from juxtaposition between the guilt offering of the leper and the sprinkling of the oil.

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื”ื ื•ื”ื ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื›ืืŸ ืœื”ื›ืฉื™ืจ ื”ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื›ืืŸ ืœื”ืจืฆื•ืช ืฉืœื ืขืœื• ืœื‘ืขืœื™ื ืœืฉื•ื ื—ื•ื‘ื”

Rather, Rava said: Both this baraita and that baraita are in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Here, where the baraita teaches that the sprinklings are valid, it means that they were effective in rendering the offering valid and allowing the priests to partake of the remainder of the log, whereas there, where the baraita teaches that the sprinklings are not valid, it means that they do not effect acceptance, as they do not satisfy the obligation of the owner, and therefore the leper is still prohibited from partaking of sacrificial meat.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืฉื‘ืขื” ืงื ื™ ืžื ื•ืจื” ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืช ื–ื” ืฉื‘ืขื” ื ืจื•ืชื™ื” ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืช ื–ื” ืฉืชื™ ืคืจืฉื™ื•ืช ืฉื‘ืžื–ื•ื–ื” ืžืขื›ื‘ื•ืช ื–ื• ืืช ื–ื• ืืคื™ืœื• ื›ืชื‘ ืื—ื“ ืžืขื›ื‘ืŸ

MISHNA: With regard to the seven branches of the Candelabrum (see Exodus 25:32), the absence of each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others. With regard to its seven lamps atop the branches, the absence of each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others. With regard to the two passages that are in the mezuza, which are the first (Deuteronomy 6:1โ€“9) and second (Deuteronomy 11:13โ€“21) paragraphs of Shema, the absence of each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. Furthermore, the absence of even one letter prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the rest of them.

ืืจื‘ืข ืคืจืฉื™ื•ืช ืฉื‘ืชืคื™ืœื™ืŸ ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื• ืืช ื–ื• ืืคื™ืœื• ื›ืชื‘ ืื—ื“ ืžืขื›ื‘ืŸ ืืจื‘ืข ืฆื™ืฆื™ื•ืช ืžืขื›ื‘ื•ืช ื–ื• ืืช ื–ื• ืฉืืจื‘ืขืชืŸ ืžืฆื•ื” ืื—ืช ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ืืจื‘ืขืชืŸ ืืจื‘ืข ืžืฆื•ืช

With regard to the four passages that are in the phylacteries, which are the two passages in the mezuza and two additional passages (Exodus 13:1โ€“10, 11โ€“16), the absence of each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others. Furthermore, the absence of even one letter prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the rest of them. With regard to the four ritual fringes on a garment, the absence of each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others, as the four of them constitute one mitzva. Rabbi Yishmael says: The four of them are four discrete mitzvot, and the absence of one does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva with the rest.

ื’ืžืณ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื”ื•ื™ื” ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื”ื•

GEMARA: What is the reason that the absence of any of the seven branches of the Candelabrum prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others? The Gemara answers: It is written concerning them a term of being: โ€œTheir knobs and their branches shall be of one piece with itโ€ (Exodus 25:36), and a term of being indicates an indispensable requirement.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžื ื•ืจื” ื”ื™ืชื” ื‘ืื” ืžืŸ ื”ืขืฉืช ื•ืžืŸ ื”ื–ื”ื‘ ืขืฉืื” ืžืŸ ื”ื’ืจื•ื˜ืื•ืช ืคืกื•ืœื” ืžืฉืืจ ืžื™ื ื™ ืžืชื›ื•ืช ื›ืฉืจื” ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืžืŸ ื”ื’ืจื•ื˜ืื•ืช ืคืกื•ืœื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืžืงืฉื” ื•ื”ื•ื™ื” ืฉืืจ ืžื™ื ื™ ืžืชื›ื•ืช ื ืžื™ ื–ื”ื‘ ื•ื”ื•ื™ื”

The Sages taught (Tosefta, แธคullin 1:18): The Candelabrum was fashioned from a complete block [haโ€™eshet] and from gold. If they fashioned it from fragments [hagerutaot] of gold then it is unfit, but if they fashioned it from other types of metal rather than gold, it is fit. The Gemara asks: What is different about a Candelabrum made from fragments of gold, that it is rendered unfit? As it is written with regard to it: โ€œTheir knobs and their branches shall be of one piece with it, the whole of it one beaten work of pure goldโ€ (Exodus 25:36), employing the term โ€œbeaten [miksha]โ€ and a term of being, indicating that it is an indispensable requirement. But accordingly, a Candelabrum fashioned from other types of metal should be rendered unfit as well, since the verse states that it is made from gold and uses a term of being.

ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืชื™ืขืฉื” ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืฉืืจ ืžื™ื ื™ ืžืชื›ื•ืช ื•ืื™ืžื ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ื’ืจื•ื˜ืื•ืช ืœื ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ื“ืืžืงืฉื” ื›ืชื™ื‘ื” ื”ื•ื™ื”

The Gemara answers: The verse states: โ€œAnd you shall make a Candelabrum of pure gold; of beaten work will the Candelabrum be madeโ€ (Exodus 25:31), to include other types of metal. The Gemara asks: But why not say that the expression โ€œwill be madeโ€ serves to include a Candelabrum fashioned from fragments of gold? The Gemara answers: It cannot enter your mind to say this, as the term of being, which indicates an indispensable requirement, is written with regard to the command that the Candelabrum be a beaten work, i.e., fashioned from a single block and not from different fragments, as it is stated: โ€œShall be of one beaten workโ€ (Exodus 25:36).

ืชื™ืขืฉื” ื ืžื™ ืืžืงืฉื” ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืžืงืฉื” ืžืงืฉื” ืœืขื›ื‘

The Gemara challenges: But the term โ€œwill be madeโ€ is also written with regard to the command that the Candelabrum be a beaten work, as it is written: โ€œOf beaten work will the Candelabrum be madeโ€ (Exodus 25:31). The Gemara answers: The term โ€œbeaten workโ€ appears in Exodus 25:31, and the term โ€œbeaten workโ€ appears again in Exodus 25:36, to demonstrate that this requirement is indispensable.

ื–ื”ื‘ ื–ื”ื‘ ื ืžื™ ืœืขื›ื‘

The Gemara challenges: But the term โ€œgoldโ€ appears in Exodus 25:31, and the term โ€œgoldโ€ appears again in Exodus 25:36. Why not also say that this as well is to demonstrate that this requirement is indispensable?

ื”ืื™ ืžืื™ ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืžืŸ ื”ื’ืจื•ื˜ืื•ืช ืคืกื•ืœื” ืžืฉืืจ ืžื™ื ื™ ืžืชื›ื•ืช ื›ืฉืจื” ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื–ื”ื‘ ื–ื”ื‘ ืžืงืฉื” ืžืงืฉื” ืœื“ืจืฉื ืืœื ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืžืŸ ื”ื’ืจื•ื˜ืื•ืช ื›ืฉืจื” ืžืฉืืจ ืžื™ื ื™ ืžืชื›ื•ืช ืคืกื•ืœื” ื–ื”ื‘ ื–ื”ื‘ ืžืงืฉื” ืžืงืฉื” ืžืื™ ื“ืจืฉืช ื‘ื™ื”

The Gemara answers: What is this comparison? Granted, if you say that when the Candelabrum is fashioned from fragments of gold it is unfit but when fashioned from other types of metal it is fit, then this is the reason that it was necessary for the verse to state โ€œgold,โ€ โ€œgoldโ€ twice, and โ€œa beaten work,โ€ โ€œa beaten workโ€ twice, to teach an interpretation, which is explained shortly. But if you say that when the Candelabrum is fashioned from fragments of gold it is fit but when fashioned from other types of metal it is unfit, what do you interpret from the repeated terms โ€œgold,โ€ โ€œgoldโ€ and โ€œa beaten work,โ€ โ€œa beaten workโ€?

ืžืื™ ื“ืจืฉื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื›ื›ืจ ื–ื”ื‘ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื™ืขืฉื” ืืชื” ืืช ื›ืœ ื”ื›ืœื™ื ื”ืืœื” ื‘ืื” ื–ื”ื‘ ื‘ืื” ื›ื›ืจ ืื™ื ื” ื‘ืื” ื–ื”ื‘ ืื™ื ื” ื‘ืื” ื›ื›ืจ ื’ื‘ื™ืขื™ื” ื›ืคืชื•ืจื™ื” ื•ืคืจื—ื™ื” ื‘ืื” ื–ื”ื‘ ื‘ืื” ื’ื‘ื™ืขื™ื ื›ืคืชื•ืจื™ื ื•ืคืจื—ื™ื ืื™ื ื” ื‘ืื” ื–ื”ื‘ ืื™ื ื” ื‘ืื” ื’ื‘ื™ืขื™ื ื›ืคืชื•ืจื™ื ื•ืคืจื—ื™ื

The Gemara elaborates: What interpretation is referenced above? As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: โ€œOf a talent of pure gold will it be made, with all these vesselsโ€ (Exodus 25:39); this verse teaches that if the Candelabrum is fashioned of gold, it must be fashioned with the precise weight of a talent; and if it is not fashioned of gold but of other types of metal, then it does not need to be fashioned with the precise weight of a talent. Similarly, the verse: โ€œAnd you will make a Candelabrum of pure gold; of beaten work shall the Candelabrum be made, even its base, its shaft, its goblets, its knobs, and its flowersโ€ (Exodus 25:31), teaches that if the Candelabrum is fashioned of gold it must be fashioned with goblets, knobs, and flowers, and if it is not fashioned of gold but of other types of metal, then it does not need to be fashioned with goblets, knobs, and flowers.

ื•ืื™ืžื ื ืžื™ ื‘ืื” ื–ื”ื‘ ื‘ืื” ืงื ื™ื ืื™ื ื” ื‘ืื” ื–ื”ื‘ ืื™ื ื” ื‘ืื” ืงื ื™ื ื”ื”ื•ื ืคืžื•ื˜ ืžื™ืงืจื™

The Gemara asks: But then why not also say with regard to the branches of the Candelabrum, which are described in Exodus 25:31 along with the term โ€œgold,โ€ that if the Candelabrum is fashioned of gold it must be fashioned with branches, but if it is not fashioned of gold but of other types of metal, then it does not need to be fashioned with branches? The Gemara answers: A vessel like that is called a candlestick [pamot], not a candelabrum.

ื•ื–ื” ืžืขืฉื” ื”ืžื ืจื” ืžืงืฉื” ื–ื”ื‘ ื‘ืื” ื–ื”ื‘ ื‘ืื” ืžืงืฉื” ืื™ื ื” ื‘ืื” ื–ื”ื‘ ืื™ื ื” ื‘ืื” ืžืงืฉื”

With regard to the second derivation mentioned, the Gemara elaborates: The verse states: โ€œAnd this was the work of the Candelabrum, beaten work of gold, to the base thereof, and to the flowers thereof, it was beaten workโ€ (Numbers 8:4). This teaches that if the Candelabrum is fashioned of gold it must be fashioned as a beaten work, but if it is not fashioned of gold but of other types of metal, then it does not need to be fashioned as a beaten work and may be made from fragments.

ืžืงืฉื” ื“ืกื™ืคื ืœืžืื™ ืืชื ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ื—ืฆื•ืฆืจื•ืช ื“ืชื ื™ื ื—ืฆื•ืฆืจื•ืช ื”ื™ื• ื‘ืื™ื ืžืŸ ื”ืขืฉืช ืžืŸ ื”ื›ืกืฃ ืขืฉืื ืžืŸ ื”ื’ืจื•ื˜ืื•ืช ื›ืฉืจื™ื ืžืฉืืจ ืžื™ื ื™ ืžืชื›ื•ืช ืคืกื•ืœื™ื

The Gemara asks: For what purpose does the term โ€œbeaten workโ€ that is repeated again in the latter clause of the verse come? The Gemara answers: It comes to exclude the trumpets, teaching that they are fit even if they were not fashioned from a single block. As it is taught in a baraita: The silver trumpets that Moses was commanded to fashion in the wilderness were to be fashioned from a complete block and from silver. If one fashioned them from fragments they are fit, but if he fashioned them from other types of metal then they are unfit.

ื•ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืžืฉืืจ ืžื™ื ื™ ืžืชื›ื•ืช ืคืกื•ืœื™ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ืกืฃ ื•ื”ื•ื™ื” ืžืŸ ื”ื’ืจื•ื˜ืื•ืช ื ืžื™ ืžืงืฉื” ื•ื”ื•ื™ื” ืžื™ืขื˜ ืจื—ืžื ื ื’ื‘ื™ ืžื ื•ืจื” ืžืงืฉื” ื”ื™ื ื”ื™ื ื•ืœื ื—ืฆื•ืฆืจื•ืช

The Gemara asks: And what is different about trumpets made from other types of metal that they are rendered unfit? As it is written with regard to the trumpets: โ€œMake for yourself two trumpets of silver; of beaten work you shall make them; and they shall be for you for the calling of the congregationโ€ (Numbers 10:2). The verse employs the terms silver and being, indicating that it is an indispensable requirement. But accordingly, trumpets fashioned from fragments should be rendered unfit as well, since the verse employs the terms beaten work and being. The Gemara answers: The Merciful One excludes the trumpets when it states with regard to the Candelabrum: โ€œIt was beaten workโ€ (Numbers 8:4), indicating that it alone, but not the trumpets, was beaten work.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื›ืœ ื”ื›ืœื™ื

ยง The Sages taught in a baraita: All of the vessels

ืฉืขืฉื” ืžืฉื” ื›ืฉืจื™ื ืœื• ื•ื›ืฉืจื™ื ืœื“ื•ืจื•ืช ื—ืฆื•ืฆืจื•ืช ื›ืฉืจื•ืช ืœื• ื•ืคืกื•ืœื•ืช ืœื“ื•ืจื•ืช

that Moses fashioned were fit for his generation and were fit for future generations. Yet the trumpets that Moses fashioned were fit for his generation but were unfit for future generations.

ื—ืฆื•ืฆืจื•ืช ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืื™ืœื™ืžื ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืขืฉื” ืœืš ืœืš ื•ืœื ืœื“ื•ืจื•ืช ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ื•ืขืฉื™ืช ืœืš ืืจื•ืŸ ืขืฅ ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ืœืš ื•ืœื ืœื“ื•ืจื•ืช

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the trumpets were unfit for future generations? If we say that it is because the verse states: โ€œMake for you two silver trumpetsโ€ (Numbers 10:2), meaning that they are fit for you, but not for future generations, that is difficult; if that is so, then the verse: โ€œMake for you an Ark of woodโ€ (Deuteronomy 10:1), should also teach that the Ark is fit only for you, but not for future generations. This cannot be the halakha, as the baraita stated explicitly that all vessels, other than the trumpets, that were fashioned by Moses were fit for future generations.

ืืœื ืื™ ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœืš ืžืฉืœืš ืื™ ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื›ื‘ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื‘ืฉืœืš ืื ื™ ืจื•ืฆื” ื™ื•ืชืจ ืžืฉืœื”ื ื”ืื™ ื ืžื™ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื”ื›ื™ ืฉืื ื™ ื”ืชื ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืœืš ืœืš ืชืจื™ ื–ื™ืžื ื™ ืขืฉื” ืœืš ื•ื”ื™ื• ืœืš

Rather, the term โ€œfor youโ€ that is written with regard to the fashioning of the Ark should be understood either according to the one who says that โ€œfor youโ€ means from your own property, or according to the one who says that God said to Moses: I desire, as it were, that the Ark be fashioned from your property more than I desire that it be fashioned from the property of the rest of the nation (see Yoma 3b). Accordingly, here too, with regard to the trumpets, the term โ€œfor youโ€ should be understood in this manner. The Gemara responds: There, with regard to the trumpets, it is different, as the verse states โ€œfor youโ€ twice: โ€œMake for you two trumpets of silver, of beaten work you shall make them, and they shall be for you for the calling of the congregationโ€ (Numbers 10:2).

ืชื ื™ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื—ื ื™ืŸ ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืžื ื•ืจื” ื”ื™ืชื” ื‘ืื” ืžืŸ ื”ืขืฉืช ืžืŸ ื”ื–ื”ื‘ ืขืฉืื” ืฉืœ ื›ืกืฃ ื›ืฉืจื” ืฉืœ ื‘ืขืฅ ื•ืฉืœ ืื‘ืจ ื•ืฉืœ ื’ื™ืกื˜ืจื•ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืคื•ืกืœ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžื›ืฉื™ืจ ืฉืœ ืขืฅ ื•ืฉืœ ืขืฆื ื•ืฉืœ ื–ื›ื•ื›ื™ืช ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ืคืกื•ืœื”

ยง The Gemara relates: Rav Pappa, son of Rav แธคanin, taught a baraita before Rav Yosef: The Candelabrum could be fashioned from a complete block and from gold. If one fashioned it from silver, it is fit. If one fashioned it from tin, or from lead, or from other types of metal [gisteron], Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems it unfit, and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, deems it fit. If one fashioned it from wood, or from bone, or from glass, everyone agrees that it is unfit.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืื™ ื“ืขืชืš ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืจ ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืจ ื›ืœืœื™ ื•ืคืจื˜ื™ ื“ืจืฉื™

Rav Yosef said to him: What, in your opinion, is the explanation of the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda? Rav Pappa, son of Rav แธคanin, said to him: Both this Sage and that Sage interpret the verse: โ€œAnd you will make a Candelabrum of pure gold; of beaten work will the Candelabrum be madeโ€ (Exodus 25:31), by means of the principle of generalizations and details. The verse begins with a generalization: โ€œAnd you will make a Candelabrum,โ€ followed by a detail: โ€œOf pure gold,โ€ which is then followed by a generalization: โ€œWill the Candelabrum be made.โ€ According to the hermeneutic principle of generalizations and details, this teaches that any item that is similar to the detail is also deemed fit.

ืžื™ื”ื• ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืžื” ื”ืคืจื˜ ืžืคื•ืจืฉ ืฉืœ ืžืชื›ืช ืืฃ ื›ืœ ืฉืœ ืžืชื›ืช ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืžื” ื”ืคืจื˜ ืžืคื•ืจืฉ ื“ื‘ืจ ื—ืฉื•ื‘ ืืฃ ื›ืœ ื“ื‘ืจ ื—ืฉื•ื‘ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืกืžื™ ื“ื™ื“ืš ืžืงืžื™ ื“ื™ื“ื™

But one Sage, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds that just as the item mentioned in the detail is clearly defined as a type of metal, so too, all other types of metal may be used in fashioning the Candelabrum. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds that just as the item mentioned in the detail is clearly defined as an item of substantial value, so too, all items of substantial value may be used in fashioning the Candelabrum. Rav Yosef said to him: Remove your baraita in light of my baraita.

ื“ืชื ื™ื ื›ืœื™ ืฉืจืช ืฉืขืฉืืŸ ืฉืœ ืขืฅ ืจื‘ื™ ืคื•ืกืœ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžื›ืฉื™ืจ ื‘ืžืื™ ืงื ืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื“ืจื™ืฉ ื›ืœืœื™ ื•ืคืจื˜ื™ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื“ืจื™ืฉ ืจื™ื‘ื•ื™ื™ ื•ืžื™ืขื•ื˜ื™

Rav Yosef continued: As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to Temple service vessels that one fashioned from wood, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems them unfit and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, deems them fit. According to this baraita, their dispute was with regard to a Candelabrum fashioned from wood, not from metal. Rav Yosef explains: With regard to what principle do they disagree? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi interprets verses by means of the principle of generalizations and details, and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, interprets verses by means of the principle of amplifications and restrictions.

ืจื‘ื™ ื“ืจื™ืฉ ื›ืœืœื™ ื•ืคืจื˜ื™ ื•ืขืฉื™ืช ืžื ืจืช ื›ืœืœ ื–ื”ื‘ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืคืจื˜ ืžืงืฉื” ืชื™ืขืฉื” ื”ืžื ื•ืจื” ื—ื–ืจ ื•ื›ืœืœ ื›ืœืœ ื•ืคืจื˜ ื•ื›ืœืœ ืื™ ืืชื” ื“ืŸ ืืœื ื›ืขื™ืŸ ื”ืคืจื˜ ืžื” ื”ืคืจื˜ ืžืคื•ืจืฉ ืฉืœ ืžืชื›ืช ืืฃ ื›ืœ ืฉืœ ืžืชื›ืช

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi interprets the verse: โ€œAnd you will make a Candelabrum of pure gold; of beaten work will the Candelabrum be madeโ€ (Exodus 25:31), by means of the principle of generalizations and details. โ€œAnd you will make a Candelabrum ofโ€ is a generalization, as the material of the Candelabrum is not specified; โ€œpure goldโ€ is a detail, limiting the material exclusively to gold; and by then stating: โ€œOf beaten work will the Candelabrum be made,โ€ the verse then makes a generalization. The result is a generalization and a detail and a generalization, from which you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail, leading to this conclusion: Just as the item mentioned in the detail is clearly defined as a type of metal, so too, all other types of metal may be used in fashioning the Candelabrum.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื“ืจื™ืฉ ืจื™ื‘ื•ื™ื™ ื•ืžื™ืขื•ื˜ื™ ื•ืขืฉื™ืช ืžื ื•ืจืช ืจื™ื‘ื” ื–ื”ื‘ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืžื™ืขื˜ ืžืงืฉื” ืชื™ืขืฉื” ื”ืžื ื•ืจื” ื—ื–ืจ ื•ืจื™ื‘ื” ืจื™ื‘ื” ื•ืžื™ืขื˜ ื•ืจื™ื‘ื” ืจื™ื‘ื” ื”ื›ืœ ื•ืžืื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื›ืœ ืžื™ืœื™ ื•ืžืื™ ืžื™ืขื˜ ืžื™ืขื˜ ืฉืœ ื—ืจืก

By contrast, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, interprets the verse by means of the principle of amplifications and restrictions. โ€œAnd you will make a Candelabrum ofโ€ is an amplification, as the material of the Candelabrum is not specified; โ€œpure goldโ€ is a restriction, limiting the material exclusively to gold; and by then stating: โ€œOf beaten work will the Candelabrum be made,โ€ the verse repeated and amplified. There is a hermeneutical principle that when a verse amplified and then restricted and then amplified, it amplified the relevant category to include everything except the specific matter excluded in the restriction. And what did the verse include? It includes all materials, even wood. And what did the verse exclude with this restriction? It excluded a Candelabrum fashioned from earthenware, which is furthest in quality from gold.

ืื“ืจื‘ื” ืกืžื™ ื“ื™ื“ืš ืžืงืžื™ ื“ื™ื“ื™ ืœื ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ื“ืชื ื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ื–ื”ื‘ ืžื‘ื™ื ืืฃ ืฉืœ ื›ืกืฃ ืฉืœ ื ื—ืฉืช ืฉืœ ื‘ืจื–ืœ ื•ืฉืœ ื‘ื“ื™ืœ ื•ืฉืœ ืขื•ืคืจืช ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžื›ืฉื™ืจ ืืฃ ื‘ืฉืœ ืขืฅ

Rav Pappa, son of Rav แธคanin, said to him: On the contrary, remove your baraita in light of my baraita. Rav Yosef responded: That cannot enter your mind, as it is taught in another baraita: If the one who is fashioning the Candelabrum has no gold, he may bring even a Candelabrum made of silver, of copper, of iron, of tin, or of lead. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, deems it fit even if it was fashioned from wood. It is evident from this baraita that the dispute pertains only to a Candelabrum fashioned from wood, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi agrees that it may be fashioned from other types of metal.

ื•ืชื ื™ื ืื™ื“ืš ืœื ื™ืขืฉื” ืื“ื ื‘ื™ืช ืชื‘ื ื™ืช ื”ื™ื›ืœ ืื›ืกื“ืจื” ื›ื ื’ื“ ืื•ืœื ื—ืฆืจ ื›ื ื’ื“ ืขื–ืจื” ืฉืœื—ืŸ ื›ื ื’ื“ ืฉืœื—ืŸ ืžื ื•ืจื” ื›ื ื’ื“ ืžื ื•ืจื” ืื‘ืœ ืขื•ืฉื” ื”ื•ื ืฉืœ ื—ืžืฉื” ื•ืฉืœ ืฉืฉื” ื•ืฉืœ ืฉืžื ื” ื•ืฉืœ ืฉื‘ืขื” ืœื ื™ืขืฉื” ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืฉืืจ ืžื™ื ื™ ืžืชื›ื•ืช

And it is taught in another baraita: A person may not construct a house in the exact form of the Sanctuary, nor a portico [akhsadra] corresponding to the Entrance Hall of the Sanctuary, nor a courtyard corresponding to the Temple courtyard, nor a table corresponding to the Table in the Temple, nor a candelabrum corresponding to the Candelabrum in the Temple. But one may fashion a candelabrum of five or of six or of eight branches. And one may not fashion a candelabrum of seven branches, and this is the halakha even if he constructs it from other kinds of metal rather than gold, since the Candelabrum used in the Temple may be fashioned from other metals.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ืฉืœ ืขืฅ ืœื ื™ืขืฉื” ื›ื“ืจืš ืฉืขืฉื• ืžืœื›ื™ ื‘ื™ืช ื—ืฉืžื•ื ืื™ ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืžืฉื ืจืื™ื” ืฉืคื•ื“ื™ื ืฉืœ ื‘ืจื–ืœ ื”ื™ื• ื•ื—ื™ืคื•ื ื‘ื‘ืขืฅ ื”ืขืฉื™ืจื• ืขืฉืื•ื ืฉืœ ื›ืกืฃ ื—ื–ืจื• ื•ื”ืขืฉื™ืจื• ืขืฉืื•ื ืฉืœ ื–ื”ื‘

The baraita continues: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: One may not even fashion a candelabrum from wood, in the manner that the kings of the Hasmonean monarchy did in the Temple. The Candelabrum used in the Temple in the time of the Hasmonean kings was fashioned from wood. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda: You seek to bring a proof from there? In the time of the Hasmoneans the Candelabrum was not fashioned from wood but from spits [shappudim] of iron, and they covered them with tin. Later, when they grew richer and could afford to fashion a Candelabrum of higher-quality material, they fashioned the Candelabrum from silver. When they again grew richer, they fashioned the Candelabrum from gold.

ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืกื‘ื ื’ื•ื‘ื”ื” ืฉืœ ืžื ื•ืจื” ืฉืžื ื” ืขืฉืจ ื˜ืคื—ื™ื ื”ืจื’ืœื™ื ื•ื”ืคืจื— ืฉืœืฉื” ื˜ืคื—ื™ื ื•ื˜ืคื—ื™ื™ื ื—ืœืง ื•ื˜ืคื— ืฉื‘ื• ื’ื‘ื™ืข ื•ื›ืคืชื•ืจ ื•ืคืจื— ื•ื˜ืคื—ื™ื™ื ื—ืœืง ื•ื˜ืคื— ื›ืคืชื•ืจ

ยง Shmuel says in the name of a certain elder: The height of the Candelabrum was eighteen handbreadths. The base and the flower that was upon the base were a height of three handbreadths; and two handbreadths above that were bare; and there was above that one handbreadth, which had a goblet, knob, and flower on it. And two handbreadths above that were bare, and there was above that one handbreadth that had a knob.

ื•ืฉื ื™ ืงื ื™ื ื™ื•ืฆืื™ืŸ ืžืžื ื• ืื—ื“ ืื™ืœืš ื•ืื—ื“ ืื™ืœืš ื•ื ืžืฉื›ื™ืŸ ื•ืขื•ืœื™ืŸ ื›ื ื’ื“ ื’ื•ื‘ื”ื” ืฉืœ ืžื ื•ืจื” ื•ื˜ืคื— ื—ืœืง ื•ื˜ืคื— ื›ืคืชื•ืจ ื•ืฉื ื™ ืงื ื™ื ื™ื•ืฆืื™ืŸ ืžืžื ื• ืื—ื“ ืื™ืœืš ื•ืื—ื“ ืื™ืœืš ื ืžืฉื›ื™ืŸ ื•ืขื•ืœื™ืŸ ื›ื ื’ื“ ื’ื•ื‘ื”ื” ืฉืœ ืžื ื•ืจื” ื•ื˜ืคื— ื—ืœืง ื•ื˜ืคื— ื›ืคืชื•ืจ ื•ืฉื ื™ ืงื ื™ื ื™ื•ืฆืื™ืŸ ืžืžื ื• ืื—ื“ ืื™ืœืš ื•ืื—ื“ ืื™ืœืš ื•ื ืžืฉื›ื™ืŸ ื•ืขื•ืœื™ืŸ ื›ื ื’ื“ ื’ื•ื‘ื”ื” ืฉืœ ืžื ื•ืจื” ื•ื˜ืคื—ื™ื™ื ื—ืœืง ื ืฉืชื™ื™ืจื• ืฉื ืฉืœืฉื” ื˜ืคื—ื™ื ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ืฉืœืฉื” ื’ื‘ื™ืขื™ืŸ ื•ื›ืคืชื•ืจ ื•ืคืจื—

And two branches emerge from the knob, one toward this direction and one toward that direction, and they extend and rise up to the height of the Candelabrum. And one handbreadth above that was bare, and there was above that one handbreadth that had a knob. And two branches emerge from the knob, one toward this direction and one toward that direction, and they extend and rise up to the height of the Candelabrum. And one handbreadth above that was bare, and there was above that one handbreadth that had a knob. And two branches emerge from the knob, one toward this direction and one toward that direction, and they extend and rise up to the height of the Candelabrum. And two handbreadths above that were bare. There then remained there three handbreadths in which there were three goblets, and a knob, and a flower.

ื•ื’ื‘ื™ืขื™ืŸ ืœืžื” ื”ืŸ ื“ื•ืžื™ืŸ ื›ืžื™ืŸ ื›ื•ืกื•ืช ืืœื›ืกื ื“ืจื™ื™ื ื›ืคืชื•ืจื™ื ืœืžื” ื”ืŸ ื“ื•ืžื™ืŸ ื›ืžื™ืŸ ืชืคื•ื—ื™ ื”ื›ืจืชื™ื™ื ืคืจื—ื™ื ืœืžื” ื”ืŸ ื“ื•ืžื™ืŸ ื›ืžื™ืŸ ืคืจื—ื™ ื”ืขืžื•ื“ื™ืŸ ื•ื ืžืฆืื• ื’ื‘ื™ืขื™ืŸ ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ืฉื ื™ื ื›ืคืชื•ืจื™ื ืื—ื“ ืขืฉืจ ืคืจื—ื™ื ืชืฉืขื”

And the goblets of the Candelabrum, to what are they similar? They were like Alexandrian goblets, which are long and narrow. The knobs, to what are they similar? They were like the shape of the apples of the Cherethites. The flowers, to what are they similar? They were like the ornaments that are etched in columns. And there are found to be a total of twenty-two goblets, eleven knobs, and nine flowers on the Candelabrum.

ื’ื‘ื™ืขื™ื ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืช ื–ื” ื›ืคืชื•ืจื™ื ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืช ื–ื” ืคืจื—ื™ื ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืช ื–ื” ื’ื‘ื™ืขื™ื ื›ืคืชื•ืจื™ื ื•ืคืจื—ื™ื ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืช ื–ื”

With regard to the goblets, the absence of each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others; with regard to the knobs, the absence of each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others; with regard to the flowers, the absence of each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others. With regard to the goblets, knobs, and flowers, the absence of each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others.

ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื’ื‘ื™ืขื™ื ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ืฉื ื™ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื‘ืžื ืจื” ืืจื‘ืขื” ื’ื‘ืขื™ื ื•ื’ื•ืณ ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืฉืœืฉื” ื’ื‘ืขื™ื ืžืฉืงื“ื™ื ื‘ืงื ื” ื”ืื—ื“ ื›ืคืชื•ืจ ื•ืคืจื— ื•ื’ื•ืณ ืืจื‘ืขื” ื“ื™ื“ื”

The Gemara asks: Granted, there were twenty-two goblets on the Candelabrum, as it is written: โ€œAnd in the Candelabrum four goblets made like almond blossomsโ€ (Exodus 25:34), and it is written: โ€œThree goblets made like almond blossoms in one branch, a knob, and a flower; and three goblets made like almond blossoms in the other branch, a knob, and a flower; so for the six branches going out of the Candelabrumโ€ (Exodus 25:33). Therefore, the Candelabrum contains the four goblets of its main shaft,

Scroll To Top