Menachot 28
Share this shiur:
This month’s learning is dedicated to the refuah shleima of our dear friend, Phyllis Hecht, גיטל פעשא בת מאשה רחל by all her many friends who love and admire her. Phyllis’ emuna, strength, and positivity are an inspiration.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
There are two contradictory braitot regarding the oil of the leper that was sprinkled for the sake of the wrong sacrifice. One rules that it is disqualified, and the other rules that it is valid. At first, it was suggested that one matches the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer – who disqualifies a guilt offering (which the oil of the leper is brought with) that is brought with the wrong intent – but this suggestion is rejected. They conclude by saying that each relates to a different issue: the one that permits is referring to permitting the remainder of the oil to be eaten, while the one that disqualifies relates to the owner receiving purification.
The Mishna discusses elements of the Menora, mezuza, tefillin, and tzitzit that are essential. In the Menora, the seven branches are essential.
The Gemara brings a braita that explains other elements of the Menora that are essential. It must be made from one chunk of gold; however, while the “chunk” is essential, it could be made from metals other than gold if gold is unavailable. How is this derived from the verses? How does this differ from the trumpets?
Rav Papa, son of Rav Chanin, brought a braita with a debate between two Tannaim about whether all other metals could be used or only silver. However, Rav Yosef brings an alternative braita stating that the debate was about wood, but all agree that all other metals can be used. Rav Yosef further proves from two other braitot that his version is correct.
Shmuel quotes an elder who described the height of the Menora and what could be found at every level. He also listed how many of the decorative elements were to be found on the Menora and ruled that each one is an essential part of the Menora.
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is dedicated to the refuah shleima of our dear friend, Phyllis Hecht, גיטל פעשא בת מאשה רחל by all her many friends who love and admire her. Phyllis’ emuna, strength, and positivity are an inspiration.
Menachot 28
הָא דְּקָאֵי מִזְרָח וּמַעֲרָב וְאַדִּי, הָא דְּקָאֵי צָפוֹן וְדָרוֹם וְאַדִּי.
This baraita, which teaches that the sprinklings are valid only when performed precisely toward the entrance 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.
אָמַר מָר: וְשֶׁבִּפְנִים וְשֶׁבִּמְצוֹרָע, שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן – פְּסוּלוֹת, שֶׁלֹּא מְכוָּּונוֹת – כְּשֵׁרוֹת. וְהָתַנְיָא: בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא מְכוָּּונוֹת – כְּשֵׁרוֹת!
§ 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 isn’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?
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְהָא רַבָּנַן. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר דְּמַקֵּישׁ אָשָׁם לְחַטָּאת – מַקֵּישׁ נָמֵי לוֹג לְאָשָׁם, רַבָּנַן לָא מַקְּשִׁי.
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 leper’s guilt offering, is disqualified when sacrificed not for its sake, as it is written: “As is the sin offering, so is the guilt offering; there is one law for them” (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 leper’s log of oil that is performed not for its own sake.
וּלְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וְכִי דָּבָר הַלָּמֵד בְּהֶיקֵּשׁ חוֹזֵר וּמְלַמֵּד בְּהֶיקֵּשׁ?
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.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: הָא וְהָא רַבָּנַן, כָּאן לְהַכְשִׁיר הַקׇּרְבָּן, כָּאן לְהַרְצוֹת, שֶׁלֹּא עָלוּ לַבְּעָלִים לְשׁוּם חוֹבָה.
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.
מַתְנִי׳ שִׁבְעָה קְנֵי מְנוֹרָה מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, שִׁבְעָה נֵרוֹתֶיהָ מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, שְׁתֵּי פָּרָשִׁיּוֹת שֶׁבַּמְּזוּזָה מְעַכְּבוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ, אֲפִילּוּ כְּתָב אֶחָד מְעַכְּבָן.
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 6:1–9) and second (Deuteronomy 11:13–21) 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.
אַרְבַּע פָּרָשִׁיּוֹת שֶׁבַּתְּפִילִּין מְעַכְּבִין זוֹ אֶת זוֹ, אֲפִילּוּ כְּתָב אֶחָד מְעַכְּבָן. אַרְבַּע צִיצִיּוֹת מְעַכְּבוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ, שֶׁאַרְבַּעְתָּן מִצְוָה אַחַת. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: אַרְבַּעְתָּן אַרְבַּע מִצְוֹת.
With regard to the four passages that are in the phylacteries, which are the two passages in the mezuza and two additional passages (Exodus 13:1–10, 11–16), 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.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא? הֲוָיָה כְּתִיב בְּהוּ.
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: “Their knobs and their branches shall be of one piece with it” (Exodus 25:36), and a term of being indicates an indispensable requirement.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מְנוֹרָה הָיְתָה בָּאָה מִן הָעֶשֶׁת וּמִן הַזָּהָב. עֲשָׂאָהּ מִן הַגְּרוּטָאוֹת – פְּסוּלָה, מִשְּׁאָר מִינֵי מַתָּכוֹת – כְּשֵׁרָה. מַאי שְׁנָא מִן הַגְּרוּטָאוֹת פְּסוּלָה? דִּכְתִיב ״מִקְשָׁה״ וַהֲוָיָה, שְׁאָר מִינֵי מַתָּכוֹת נָמֵי זָהָב וַהֲוָיָה!
The Sages taught (Tosefta, Ḥullin 1:18): The Candelabrum was fashioned from a complete block [ha’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: “Their knobs and their branches shall be of one piece with it, the whole of it one beaten work of pure gold” (Exodus 25:36), employing the term “beaten [miksha]” 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.
אָמַר קְרָא ״תֵּיעָשֶׂה״, לְרַבּוֹת שְׁאָר מִינֵי מַתָּכוֹת. וְאֵימָא לְרַבּוֹת גְּרוּטָאוֹת? לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דְּאַ״מִּקְשָׁה״ כְּתִיבָה הֲוָיָה.
The Gemara answers: The verse states: “And you shall make a Candelabrum of pure gold; of beaten work will the Candelabrum be made” (Exodus 25:31), to include other types of metal. The Gemara asks: But why not say that the expression “will be made” 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: “Shall be of one beaten work” (Exodus 25:36).
״תֵּיעָשֶׂה״ נָמֵי אַ״מִּקְשָׁה״ כְּתִיב, ״מִקְשָׁה״ ״מִקְשָׁה״ לְעַכֵּב.
The Gemara challenges: But the term “will be made” is also written with regard to the command that the Candelabrum be a beaten work, as it is written: “Of beaten work will the Candelabrum be made” (Exodus 25:31). The Gemara answers: The term “beaten work” appears in Exodus 25:31, and the term “beaten work” appears again in Exodus 25:36, to demonstrate that this requirement is indispensable.
״זָהָב״ ״זָהָב״ נָמֵי לְעַכֵּב!
The Gemara challenges: But the term “gold” appears in Exodus 25:31, and the term “gold” appears again in Exodus 25:36. Why not also say that this as well is to demonstrate that this requirement is indispensable?
הַאי מַאי? אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא מִן הַגְּרוּטָאוֹת פְּסוּלָה, מִשְּׁאָר מִינֵי מַתָּכוֹת כְּשֵׁרָה – הַיְינוּ ״זָהָב״ ״זָהָב״ ״מִקְשָׁה״ ״מִקְשָׁה״ לִדְרָשָׁא. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ מִן הַגְּרוּטָאוֹת כְּשֵׁרָה, מִשְּׁאָר מִינֵי מַתָּכוֹת פְּסוּלָה – ״זָהָב״ ״זָהָב״ ״מִקְשָׁה״ ״מִקְשָׁה״ מַאי דָּרְשַׁתְּ בֵּיהּ?
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 “gold,” “gold” twice, and “a beaten work,” “a beaten work” 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 “gold,” “gold” and “a beaten work,” “a beaten work”?
מַאי דְּרָשָׁא? דְּתַנְיָא: ״כִּכָּר זָהָב טָהוֹר יַעֲשֶׂה אֹתָהּ אֵת כׇּל הַכֵּלִים הָאֵלֶּה״ – בָּאָה זָהָב, בָּאָה כִּכָּר; אֵינָהּ בָּאָה זָהָב, אֵינָהּ בָּאָה כִּכָּר. ״גְּבִיעֶיהָ כַּפְתּוֹרֶיהָ וּפְרָחֶיהָ״ – בָּאָה זָהָב, בָּאָה גְּבִיעִים כַּפְתּוֹרִים וּפְרָחִים; אֵינָהּ בָּאָה זָהָב, אֵינָהּ בָּאָה גְּבִיעִים כַּפְתּוֹרִים וּפְרָחִים.
The Gemara elaborates: What interpretation is referenced above? As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “Of a talent of pure gold will it be made, with all these vessels” (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: “And 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 flowers” (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.
וְאֵימָא נָמֵי: בָּאָה זָהָב – בָּאָה קָנִים, אֵינָהּ בָּאָה זָהָב – אֵינָהּ בָּאָה קָנִים? הָהוּא פָּמוֹט מִיקְּרֵי.
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 “gold,” 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.
״וְזֶה מַעֲשֵׂה הַמְּנֹרָה מִקְשָׁה זָהָב״ – בָּאָה זָהָב, בָּאָה מִקְשָׁה; אֵינָהּ בָּאָה זָהָב, אֵינָהּ בָּאָה מִקְשָׁה.
With regard to the second derivation mentioned, the Gemara elaborates: The verse states: “And this was the work of the Candelabrum, beaten work of gold, to the base thereof, and to the flowers thereof, it was beaten work” (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.
״מִקְשָׁה״ דְּסֵיפָא לְמַאי אֲתָא? לְמַעוֹטֵי חֲצוֹצְרוֹת, דְּתַנְיָא: חֲצוֹצְרוֹת הָיוּ בָּאִים מִן הָעֶשֶׁת, מִן הַכֶּסֶף. עֲשָׂאָם מִן הַגְּרוּטָאוֹת – כְּשֵׁרִים, מִשְּׁאָר מִינֵי מַתָּכוֹת – פְּסוּלִים.
The Gemara asks: For what purpose does the term “beaten work” 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.
וּמַאי שְׁנָא מִשְּׁאָר מִינֵי מַתָּכוֹת פְּסוּלִים, דִּכְתִיב ״כֶּסֶף״ וַהֲוָיָה, מִן הַגְּרוּטָאוֹת נָמֵי ״מִקְשָׁה״ וַהֲוָיָה? מִיעֵט רַחֲמָנָא גַּבֵּי מְנוֹרָה ״מִקְשָׁה הִיא״ – ״הִיא״, וְלָא חֲצוֹצְרוֹת.
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: “Make for yourself two trumpets of silver; of beaten work you shall make them; and they shall be for you for the calling of the congregation” (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: “It was beaten work” (Numbers 8:4), indicating that it alone, but not the trumpets, was beaten work.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כׇּל הַכֵּלִים
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: All of the vessels
שֶׁעָשָׂה מֹשֶׁה, כְּשֵׁרִים לוֹ וּכְשֵׁרִים לְדוֹרוֹת. חֲצוֹצְרוֹת, כְּשֵׁרוֹת לוֹ וּפְסוּלוֹת לְדוֹרוֹת.
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.
חֲצוֹצְרוֹת מַאי טַעְמָא? אִילֵימָא דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״עֲשֵׂה לְךָ״, לְךָ וְלֹא לְדוֹרוֹת, אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה ״וְעָשִׂיתָ לְּךָ אֲרוֹן עֵץ״, הָכִי נָמֵי דִּלְךָ וְלֹא לְדוֹרוֹת?
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: “Make for you two silver trumpets” (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: “Make for you an Ark of wood” (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.
אֶלָּא, אִי לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: ״לְךָ״ – מִשֶּׁלְּךָ, אִי לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: כִּבְיָכוֹל בְּשֶׁלְּךָ אֲנִי רוֹצֶה יוֹתֵר מִשֶּׁלָּהֶם, הַאי נָמֵי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְהָכִי. שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״לְךָ״ ״לְךָ״ תְּרֵי זִימְנֵי: ״עֲשֵׂה לְךָ״ ״וְהָיוּ לְךָ״.
Rather, the term “for you” that is written with regard to the fashioning of the Ark should be understood either according to the one who says that “for you” 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 “for you” should be understood in this manner. The Gemara responds: There, with regard to the trumpets, it is different, as the verse states “for you” twice: “Make for you two trumpets of silver, of beaten work you shall make them, and they shall be for you for the calling of the congregation” (Numbers 10:2).
תָּנֵי רַב פָּפָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב חָנִין קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף: מְנוֹרָה הָיְתָה בָּאָה מִן הָעֶשֶׁת מִן הַזָּהָב, עֲשָׂאָהּ שֶׁל כֶּסֶף – כְּשֵׁרָה, שֶׁל בַּעַץ וְשֶׁל אֲבָר וְשֶׁל גִּיסְטְרוֹן – רַבִּי פּוֹסֵל וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר, שֶׁל עֵץ וְשֶׁל עֶצֶם וְשֶׁל זְכוּכִית – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פְּסוּלָה.
§ The Gemara relates: Rav Pappa, son of Rav Ḥanin, 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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי דַּעְתָּךְ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בֵּין מָר וּבֵין מָר כְּלָלֵי וּפְרָטֵי דָּרְשִׁי.
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 Ḥanin, said to him: Both this Sage and that Sage interpret the verse: “And you will make a Candelabrum of pure gold; of beaten work will the Candelabrum be made” (Exodus 25:31), by means of the principle of generalizations and details. The verse begins with a generalization: “And you will make a Candelabrum,” followed by a detail: “Of pure gold,” which is then followed by a generalization: “Will the Candelabrum be made.” According to the hermeneutic principle of generalizations and details, this teaches that any item that is similar to the detail is also deemed fit.
מִיהוּ, מָר סָבַר: מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת – אַף כֹּל שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת, וּמָר סָבַר: מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ דָּבָר חָשׁוּב – אַף כׇּל דָּבָר חָשׁוּב. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: סְמִי דִּידָךְ מִקַּמֵּי דִּידִי.
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.
דְּתַנְיָא: כְּלֵי שָׁרֵת שֶׁעֲשָׂאָן שֶׁל עֵץ, רַבִּי פּוֹסֵל, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר. בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי? רַבִּי דָּרֵישׁ כְּלָלֵי וּפְרָטֵי, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דָּרֵישׁ רִיבּוּיֵי וּמִיעוּטֵי.
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.
רַבִּי דָּרֵישׁ כְּלָלֵי וּפְרָטֵי, ״וְעָשִׂיתָ מְנֹרַת״ – כָּלַל, ״זָהָב טָהוֹר״ – פָּרַט, ״מִקְשָׁה תֵּיעָשֶׂה הַמְּנוֹרָה״ – חָזַר וְכָלַל, כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל, אִי אַתָּה דָן אֶלָּא כְּעֵין הַפְּרָט: מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת, אַף כֹּל שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת.
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi interprets the verse: “And you will make a Candelabrum of pure gold; of beaten work will the Candelabrum be made” (Exodus 25:31), by means of the principle of generalizations and details. “And you will make a Candelabrum of” is a generalization, as the material of the Candelabrum is not specified; “pure gold” is a detail, limiting the material exclusively to gold; and by then stating: “Of beaten work will the Candelabrum be made,” 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.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דָּרֵישׁ רִיבּוּיֵי וּמִיעוּטֵי: ״וְעָשִׂיתָ מְנוֹרַת״ – רִיבָּה, ״זָהָב טָהוֹר״ – מִיעֵט, ״מִקְשָׁה תֵּיעָשֶׂה הַמְּנוֹרָה״ – חָזַר וְרִיבָּה. רִיבָּה וּמִיעֵט וְרִיבָּה – רִיבָּה הַכֹּל, וּמַאי רַבִּי? רַבִּי כֹּל מִילֵּי, וּמַאי מַיעֵט? מַיעֵט שֶׁל חֶרֶס.
By contrast, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, interprets the verse by means of the principle of amplifications and restrictions. “And you will make a Candelabrum of” is an amplification, as the material of the Candelabrum is not specified; “pure gold” is a restriction, limiting the material exclusively to gold; and by then stating: “Of beaten work will the Candelabrum be made,” 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.
אַדְּרַבָּה, סְמִי דִּידָךְ מִקַּמֵּי דִּידִי! לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דְּתַנְיָא: אֵין לוֹ זָהָב מֵבִיא אַף שֶׁל כֶּסֶף, שֶׁל נְחֹשֶׁת, שֶׁל בַּרְזֶל, וְשֶׁל בְּדִיל, וְשֶׁל עוֹפֶרֶת. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר אַף בְּשֶׁל עֵץ.
Rav Pappa, son of Rav Ḥanin, 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.
וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: לֹא יַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בַּיִת תַּבְנִית הֵיכָל, אַכְסַדְרָה כְּנֶגֶד אוּלָם, חָצֵר כְּנֶגֶד עֲזָרָה, שֻׁלְחָן כְּנֶגֶד שֻׁלְחָן, מְנוֹרָה כְּנֶגֶד מְנוֹרָה, אֲבָל עוֹשֶׂה הוּא שֶׁל חֲמִשָּׁה וְשֶׁל שִׁשָּׁה וְשֶׁל שְׁמֹנָה, וְשֶׁל שִׁבְעָה לֹא יַעֲשֶׂה, וַאֲפִילּוּ מִשְּׁאָר מִינֵי מַתָּכוֹת.
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.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף שֶׁל עֵץ לֹא יַעֲשֶׂה, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁעָשׂוּ מַלְכֵי בֵּית חַשְׁמוֹנַאי. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: מִשָּׁם רְאָיָה? שַׁפּוּדִים שֶׁל בַּרְזֶל הָיוּ, וְחִיפּוּם בְּבַעַץ. הֶעֱשִׁירוּ – עֲשָׂאוּם שֶׁל כֶּסֶף, חָזְרוּ וְהֶעֱשִׁירוּ – עֲשָׂאוּם שֶׁל זָהָב.
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.
אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּסָבָא: גּוֹבְהָהּ שֶׁל מְנוֹרָה שְׁמֹנָה עָשָׂר טְפָחִים, הָרַגְלַיִם וְהַפֶּרַח שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים, וְטִפְחַיִים חָלָק, וְטֶפַח שֶׁבּוֹ גְּבִיעַ וְכַפְתּוֹר וָפֶרַח, וְטִפְחַיִים חָלָק, וְטֶפַח כַּפְתּוֹר.
§ 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.
וּשְׁנֵי קָנִים יוֹצְאִין מִמֶּנּוּ, אֶחָד אֵילָךְ וְאֶחָד אֵילָךְ, וְנִמְשָׁכִין וְעוֹלִין כְּנֶגֶד גּוֹבְהָהּ שֶׁל מְנוֹרָה, וְטֶפַח חָלָק, וְטֶפַח כַּפְתּוֹר וּשְׁנֵי קָנִים יוֹצְאִין מִמֶּנּוּ, אֶחָד אֵילָךְ וְאֶחָד אֵילָךְ, נִמְשָׁכִין וְעוֹלִין כְּנֶגֶד גּוֹבְהָהּ שֶׁל מְנוֹרָה, וְטֶפַח חָלָק, וְטֶפַח כַּפְתּוֹר וּשְׁנֵי קָנִים יוֹצְאִין מִמֶּנּוּ, אֶחָד אֵילָךְ וְאֶחָד אֵילָךְ, וְנִמְשָׁכִין וְעוֹלִין כְּנֶגֶד גּוֹבְהָהּ שֶׁל מְנוֹרָה, וְטִפְחַיִים חָלָק, נִשְׁתַּיְּירוּ שָׁם שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים שֶׁבָּהֶן שְׁלֹשָׁה גְּבִיעִין וְכַפְתּוֹר וָפֶרַח.
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.
וּגְבִיעִין לְמָה הֵן דּוֹמִין? כְּמִין כּוֹסוֹת אֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִיִּים, כַּפְתּוֹרִים לְמָה הֵן דּוֹמִין? כְּמִין תַּפּוּחֵי הַכְּרֵתִיִּים, פְּרָחִים לְמָה הֵן דּוֹמִין? כְּמִין פִּרְחֵי הָעַמּוּדִין, וְנִמְצְאוּ גְּבִיעִין עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁנַיִם, כַּפְתּוֹרִים אַחַד עָשָׂר, פְּרָחִים תִּשְׁעָה.
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.
גְּבִיעִים מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, כַּפְתּוֹרִים מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, פְּרָחִים מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, גְּבִיעִים כַּפְתּוֹרִים וּפְרָחִים מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה.
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.
בִּשְׁלָמָא גְּבִיעִים עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁנַיִם, דִּכְתִיב: ״וּבַמְּנֹרָה אַרְבָּעָה גְבִעִים וְגוֹ׳״, וּכְתִיב: ״שְׁלֹשָׁה גְבִעִים מְשֻׁקָּדִים בַּקָּנֶה הָאֶחָד כַּפְתּוֹר וָפֶרַח וְגוֹ׳״, אַרְבְּעָה דִּידַהּ
The Gemara asks: Granted, there were twenty-two goblets on the Candelabrum, as it is written: “And in the Candelabrum four goblets made like almond blossoms” (Exodus 25:34), and it is written: “Three 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 Candelabrum” (Exodus 25:33). Therefore, the Candelabrum contains the four goblets of its main shaft,
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started my Daf Yomi journey at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic.
Los Angeles, United States
Raanana, Israel
Ontario, Canada
My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.
Tampa, United States
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Minnesota, United States
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Mitspe, Israel
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
New York, United States
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Bakersfield, United States
I started learning Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!
Maale Adumim, Israel
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Mitspe, Israel
I started learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.
NJ, United States
Minneapolis, MN, United States
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Cambridge, United Kingdom
Ive been learning Gmara since 5th grade and always loved it. Have always wanted to do Daf Yomi and now with Michelle Farber’s online classes it made it much easier to do! Really enjoying the experience thank you!!
Neve Daniel, Israel
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I heard about the syium in January 2020 & I was excited to start learning then the pandemic started. Learning Daf became something to focus on but also something stressful. As the world changed around me & my family I had to adjust my expectations for myself & the world. Daf Yomi & the Hadran podcast has been something I look forward to every day. It gives me a moment of centering & Judaism daily.
Denver, United States
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Toronto, Canada
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Houston, United States
After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Bet Shemesh, Israel
Menachot 28
הָא דְּקָאֵי מִזְרָח וּמַעֲרָב וְאַדִּי, הָא דְּקָאֵי צָפוֹן וְדָרוֹם וְאַדִּי.
This baraita, which teaches that the sprinklings are valid only when performed precisely toward the entrance 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.
אָמַר מָר: וְשֶׁבִּפְנִים וְשֶׁבִּמְצוֹרָע, שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן – פְּסוּלוֹת, שֶׁלֹּא מְכוָּּונוֹת – כְּשֵׁרוֹת. וְהָתַנְיָא: בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא מְכוָּּונוֹת – כְּשֵׁרוֹת!
§ 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 isn’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?
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְהָא רַבָּנַן. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר דְּמַקֵּישׁ אָשָׁם לְחַטָּאת – מַקֵּישׁ נָמֵי לוֹג לְאָשָׁם, רַבָּנַן לָא מַקְּשִׁי.
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 leper’s guilt offering, is disqualified when sacrificed not for its sake, as it is written: “As is the sin offering, so is the guilt offering; there is one law for them” (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 leper’s log of oil that is performed not for its own sake.
וּלְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וְכִי דָּבָר הַלָּמֵד בְּהֶיקֵּשׁ חוֹזֵר וּמְלַמֵּד בְּהֶיקֵּשׁ?
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.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: הָא וְהָא רַבָּנַן, כָּאן לְהַכְשִׁיר הַקׇּרְבָּן, כָּאן לְהַרְצוֹת, שֶׁלֹּא עָלוּ לַבְּעָלִים לְשׁוּם חוֹבָה.
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.
מַתְנִי׳ שִׁבְעָה קְנֵי מְנוֹרָה מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, שִׁבְעָה נֵרוֹתֶיהָ מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, שְׁתֵּי פָּרָשִׁיּוֹת שֶׁבַּמְּזוּזָה מְעַכְּבוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ, אֲפִילּוּ כְּתָב אֶחָד מְעַכְּבָן.
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 6:1–9) and second (Deuteronomy 11:13–21) 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.
אַרְבַּע פָּרָשִׁיּוֹת שֶׁבַּתְּפִילִּין מְעַכְּבִין זוֹ אֶת זוֹ, אֲפִילּוּ כְּתָב אֶחָד מְעַכְּבָן. אַרְבַּע צִיצִיּוֹת מְעַכְּבוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ, שֶׁאַרְבַּעְתָּן מִצְוָה אַחַת. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: אַרְבַּעְתָּן אַרְבַּע מִצְוֹת.
With regard to the four passages that are in the phylacteries, which are the two passages in the mezuza and two additional passages (Exodus 13:1–10, 11–16), 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.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא? הֲוָיָה כְּתִיב בְּהוּ.
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: “Their knobs and their branches shall be of one piece with it” (Exodus 25:36), and a term of being indicates an indispensable requirement.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מְנוֹרָה הָיְתָה בָּאָה מִן הָעֶשֶׁת וּמִן הַזָּהָב. עֲשָׂאָהּ מִן הַגְּרוּטָאוֹת – פְּסוּלָה, מִשְּׁאָר מִינֵי מַתָּכוֹת – כְּשֵׁרָה. מַאי שְׁנָא מִן הַגְּרוּטָאוֹת פְּסוּלָה? דִּכְתִיב ״מִקְשָׁה״ וַהֲוָיָה, שְׁאָר מִינֵי מַתָּכוֹת נָמֵי זָהָב וַהֲוָיָה!
The Sages taught (Tosefta, Ḥullin 1:18): The Candelabrum was fashioned from a complete block [ha’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: “Their knobs and their branches shall be of one piece with it, the whole of it one beaten work of pure gold” (Exodus 25:36), employing the term “beaten [miksha]” 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.
אָמַר קְרָא ״תֵּיעָשֶׂה״, לְרַבּוֹת שְׁאָר מִינֵי מַתָּכוֹת. וְאֵימָא לְרַבּוֹת גְּרוּטָאוֹת? לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דְּאַ״מִּקְשָׁה״ כְּתִיבָה הֲוָיָה.
The Gemara answers: The verse states: “And you shall make a Candelabrum of pure gold; of beaten work will the Candelabrum be made” (Exodus 25:31), to include other types of metal. The Gemara asks: But why not say that the expression “will be made” 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: “Shall be of one beaten work” (Exodus 25:36).
״תֵּיעָשֶׂה״ נָמֵי אַ״מִּקְשָׁה״ כְּתִיב, ״מִקְשָׁה״ ״מִקְשָׁה״ לְעַכֵּב.
The Gemara challenges: But the term “will be made” is also written with regard to the command that the Candelabrum be a beaten work, as it is written: “Of beaten work will the Candelabrum be made” (Exodus 25:31). The Gemara answers: The term “beaten work” appears in Exodus 25:31, and the term “beaten work” appears again in Exodus 25:36, to demonstrate that this requirement is indispensable.
״זָהָב״ ״זָהָב״ נָמֵי לְעַכֵּב!
The Gemara challenges: But the term “gold” appears in Exodus 25:31, and the term “gold” appears again in Exodus 25:36. Why not also say that this as well is to demonstrate that this requirement is indispensable?
הַאי מַאי? אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא מִן הַגְּרוּטָאוֹת פְּסוּלָה, מִשְּׁאָר מִינֵי מַתָּכוֹת כְּשֵׁרָה – הַיְינוּ ״זָהָב״ ״זָהָב״ ״מִקְשָׁה״ ״מִקְשָׁה״ לִדְרָשָׁא. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ מִן הַגְּרוּטָאוֹת כְּשֵׁרָה, מִשְּׁאָר מִינֵי מַתָּכוֹת פְּסוּלָה – ״זָהָב״ ״זָהָב״ ״מִקְשָׁה״ ״מִקְשָׁה״ מַאי דָּרְשַׁתְּ בֵּיהּ?
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 “gold,” “gold” twice, and “a beaten work,” “a beaten work” 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 “gold,” “gold” and “a beaten work,” “a beaten work”?
מַאי דְּרָשָׁא? דְּתַנְיָא: ״כִּכָּר זָהָב טָהוֹר יַעֲשֶׂה אֹתָהּ אֵת כׇּל הַכֵּלִים הָאֵלֶּה״ – בָּאָה זָהָב, בָּאָה כִּכָּר; אֵינָהּ בָּאָה זָהָב, אֵינָהּ בָּאָה כִּכָּר. ״גְּבִיעֶיהָ כַּפְתּוֹרֶיהָ וּפְרָחֶיהָ״ – בָּאָה זָהָב, בָּאָה גְּבִיעִים כַּפְתּוֹרִים וּפְרָחִים; אֵינָהּ בָּאָה זָהָב, אֵינָהּ בָּאָה גְּבִיעִים כַּפְתּוֹרִים וּפְרָחִים.
The Gemara elaborates: What interpretation is referenced above? As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “Of a talent of pure gold will it be made, with all these vessels” (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: “And 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 flowers” (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.
וְאֵימָא נָמֵי: בָּאָה זָהָב – בָּאָה קָנִים, אֵינָהּ בָּאָה זָהָב – אֵינָהּ בָּאָה קָנִים? הָהוּא פָּמוֹט מִיקְּרֵי.
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 “gold,” 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.
״וְזֶה מַעֲשֵׂה הַמְּנֹרָה מִקְשָׁה זָהָב״ – בָּאָה זָהָב, בָּאָה מִקְשָׁה; אֵינָהּ בָּאָה זָהָב, אֵינָהּ בָּאָה מִקְשָׁה.
With regard to the second derivation mentioned, the Gemara elaborates: The verse states: “And this was the work of the Candelabrum, beaten work of gold, to the base thereof, and to the flowers thereof, it was beaten work” (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.
״מִקְשָׁה״ דְּסֵיפָא לְמַאי אֲתָא? לְמַעוֹטֵי חֲצוֹצְרוֹת, דְּתַנְיָא: חֲצוֹצְרוֹת הָיוּ בָּאִים מִן הָעֶשֶׁת, מִן הַכֶּסֶף. עֲשָׂאָם מִן הַגְּרוּטָאוֹת – כְּשֵׁרִים, מִשְּׁאָר מִינֵי מַתָּכוֹת – פְּסוּלִים.
The Gemara asks: For what purpose does the term “beaten work” 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.
וּמַאי שְׁנָא מִשְּׁאָר מִינֵי מַתָּכוֹת פְּסוּלִים, דִּכְתִיב ״כֶּסֶף״ וַהֲוָיָה, מִן הַגְּרוּטָאוֹת נָמֵי ״מִקְשָׁה״ וַהֲוָיָה? מִיעֵט רַחֲמָנָא גַּבֵּי מְנוֹרָה ״מִקְשָׁה הִיא״ – ״הִיא״, וְלָא חֲצוֹצְרוֹת.
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: “Make for yourself two trumpets of silver; of beaten work you shall make them; and they shall be for you for the calling of the congregation” (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: “It was beaten work” (Numbers 8:4), indicating that it alone, but not the trumpets, was beaten work.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כׇּל הַכֵּלִים
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: All of the vessels
שֶׁעָשָׂה מֹשֶׁה, כְּשֵׁרִים לוֹ וּכְשֵׁרִים לְדוֹרוֹת. חֲצוֹצְרוֹת, כְּשֵׁרוֹת לוֹ וּפְסוּלוֹת לְדוֹרוֹת.
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.
חֲצוֹצְרוֹת מַאי טַעְמָא? אִילֵימָא דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״עֲשֵׂה לְךָ״, לְךָ וְלֹא לְדוֹרוֹת, אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה ״וְעָשִׂיתָ לְּךָ אֲרוֹן עֵץ״, הָכִי נָמֵי דִּלְךָ וְלֹא לְדוֹרוֹת?
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: “Make for you two silver trumpets” (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: “Make for you an Ark of wood” (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.
אֶלָּא, אִי לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: ״לְךָ״ – מִשֶּׁלְּךָ, אִי לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: כִּבְיָכוֹל בְּשֶׁלְּךָ אֲנִי רוֹצֶה יוֹתֵר מִשֶּׁלָּהֶם, הַאי נָמֵי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְהָכִי. שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״לְךָ״ ״לְךָ״ תְּרֵי זִימְנֵי: ״עֲשֵׂה לְךָ״ ״וְהָיוּ לְךָ״.
Rather, the term “for you” that is written with regard to the fashioning of the Ark should be understood either according to the one who says that “for you” 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 “for you” should be understood in this manner. The Gemara responds: There, with regard to the trumpets, it is different, as the verse states “for you” twice: “Make for you two trumpets of silver, of beaten work you shall make them, and they shall be for you for the calling of the congregation” (Numbers 10:2).
תָּנֵי רַב פָּפָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב חָנִין קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף: מְנוֹרָה הָיְתָה בָּאָה מִן הָעֶשֶׁת מִן הַזָּהָב, עֲשָׂאָהּ שֶׁל כֶּסֶף – כְּשֵׁרָה, שֶׁל בַּעַץ וְשֶׁל אֲבָר וְשֶׁל גִּיסְטְרוֹן – רַבִּי פּוֹסֵל וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר, שֶׁל עֵץ וְשֶׁל עֶצֶם וְשֶׁל זְכוּכִית – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פְּסוּלָה.
§ The Gemara relates: Rav Pappa, son of Rav Ḥanin, 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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי דַּעְתָּךְ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בֵּין מָר וּבֵין מָר כְּלָלֵי וּפְרָטֵי דָּרְשִׁי.
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 Ḥanin, said to him: Both this Sage and that Sage interpret the verse: “And you will make a Candelabrum of pure gold; of beaten work will the Candelabrum be made” (Exodus 25:31), by means of the principle of generalizations and details. The verse begins with a generalization: “And you will make a Candelabrum,” followed by a detail: “Of pure gold,” which is then followed by a generalization: “Will the Candelabrum be made.” According to the hermeneutic principle of generalizations and details, this teaches that any item that is similar to the detail is also deemed fit.
מִיהוּ, מָר סָבַר: מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת – אַף כֹּל שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת, וּמָר סָבַר: מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ דָּבָר חָשׁוּב – אַף כׇּל דָּבָר חָשׁוּב. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: סְמִי דִּידָךְ מִקַּמֵּי דִּידִי.
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.
דְּתַנְיָא: כְּלֵי שָׁרֵת שֶׁעֲשָׂאָן שֶׁל עֵץ, רַבִּי פּוֹסֵל, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר. בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי? רַבִּי דָּרֵישׁ כְּלָלֵי וּפְרָטֵי, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דָּרֵישׁ רִיבּוּיֵי וּמִיעוּטֵי.
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.
רַבִּי דָּרֵישׁ כְּלָלֵי וּפְרָטֵי, ״וְעָשִׂיתָ מְנֹרַת״ – כָּלַל, ״זָהָב טָהוֹר״ – פָּרַט, ״מִקְשָׁה תֵּיעָשֶׂה הַמְּנוֹרָה״ – חָזַר וְכָלַל, כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל, אִי אַתָּה דָן אֶלָּא כְּעֵין הַפְּרָט: מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת, אַף כֹּל שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת.
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi interprets the verse: “And you will make a Candelabrum of pure gold; of beaten work will the Candelabrum be made” (Exodus 25:31), by means of the principle of generalizations and details. “And you will make a Candelabrum of” is a generalization, as the material of the Candelabrum is not specified; “pure gold” is a detail, limiting the material exclusively to gold; and by then stating: “Of beaten work will the Candelabrum be made,” 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.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דָּרֵישׁ רִיבּוּיֵי וּמִיעוּטֵי: ״וְעָשִׂיתָ מְנוֹרַת״ – רִיבָּה, ״זָהָב טָהוֹר״ – מִיעֵט, ״מִקְשָׁה תֵּיעָשֶׂה הַמְּנוֹרָה״ – חָזַר וְרִיבָּה. רִיבָּה וּמִיעֵט וְרִיבָּה – רִיבָּה הַכֹּל, וּמַאי רַבִּי? רַבִּי כֹּל מִילֵּי, וּמַאי מַיעֵט? מַיעֵט שֶׁל חֶרֶס.
By contrast, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, interprets the verse by means of the principle of amplifications and restrictions. “And you will make a Candelabrum of” is an amplification, as the material of the Candelabrum is not specified; “pure gold” is a restriction, limiting the material exclusively to gold; and by then stating: “Of beaten work will the Candelabrum be made,” 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.
אַדְּרַבָּה, סְמִי דִּידָךְ מִקַּמֵּי דִּידִי! לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דְּתַנְיָא: אֵין לוֹ זָהָב מֵבִיא אַף שֶׁל כֶּסֶף, שֶׁל נְחֹשֶׁת, שֶׁל בַּרְזֶל, וְשֶׁל בְּדִיל, וְשֶׁל עוֹפֶרֶת. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר אַף בְּשֶׁל עֵץ.
Rav Pappa, son of Rav Ḥanin, 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.
וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: לֹא יַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בַּיִת תַּבְנִית הֵיכָל, אַכְסַדְרָה כְּנֶגֶד אוּלָם, חָצֵר כְּנֶגֶד עֲזָרָה, שֻׁלְחָן כְּנֶגֶד שֻׁלְחָן, מְנוֹרָה כְּנֶגֶד מְנוֹרָה, אֲבָל עוֹשֶׂה הוּא שֶׁל חֲמִשָּׁה וְשֶׁל שִׁשָּׁה וְשֶׁל שְׁמֹנָה, וְשֶׁל שִׁבְעָה לֹא יַעֲשֶׂה, וַאֲפִילּוּ מִשְּׁאָר מִינֵי מַתָּכוֹת.
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.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף שֶׁל עֵץ לֹא יַעֲשֶׂה, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁעָשׂוּ מַלְכֵי בֵּית חַשְׁמוֹנַאי. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: מִשָּׁם רְאָיָה? שַׁפּוּדִים שֶׁל בַּרְזֶל הָיוּ, וְחִיפּוּם בְּבַעַץ. הֶעֱשִׁירוּ – עֲשָׂאוּם שֶׁל כֶּסֶף, חָזְרוּ וְהֶעֱשִׁירוּ – עֲשָׂאוּם שֶׁל זָהָב.
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.
אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּסָבָא: גּוֹבְהָהּ שֶׁל מְנוֹרָה שְׁמֹנָה עָשָׂר טְפָחִים, הָרַגְלַיִם וְהַפֶּרַח שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים, וְטִפְחַיִים חָלָק, וְטֶפַח שֶׁבּוֹ גְּבִיעַ וְכַפְתּוֹר וָפֶרַח, וְטִפְחַיִים חָלָק, וְטֶפַח כַּפְתּוֹר.
§ 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.
וּשְׁנֵי קָנִים יוֹצְאִין מִמֶּנּוּ, אֶחָד אֵילָךְ וְאֶחָד אֵילָךְ, וְנִמְשָׁכִין וְעוֹלִין כְּנֶגֶד גּוֹבְהָהּ שֶׁל מְנוֹרָה, וְטֶפַח חָלָק, וְטֶפַח כַּפְתּוֹר וּשְׁנֵי קָנִים יוֹצְאִין מִמֶּנּוּ, אֶחָד אֵילָךְ וְאֶחָד אֵילָךְ, נִמְשָׁכִין וְעוֹלִין כְּנֶגֶד גּוֹבְהָהּ שֶׁל מְנוֹרָה, וְטֶפַח חָלָק, וְטֶפַח כַּפְתּוֹר וּשְׁנֵי קָנִים יוֹצְאִין מִמֶּנּוּ, אֶחָד אֵילָךְ וְאֶחָד אֵילָךְ, וְנִמְשָׁכִין וְעוֹלִין כְּנֶגֶד גּוֹבְהָהּ שֶׁל מְנוֹרָה, וְטִפְחַיִים חָלָק, נִשְׁתַּיְּירוּ שָׁם שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים שֶׁבָּהֶן שְׁלֹשָׁה גְּבִיעִין וְכַפְתּוֹר וָפֶרַח.
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.
וּגְבִיעִין לְמָה הֵן דּוֹמִין? כְּמִין כּוֹסוֹת אֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִיִּים, כַּפְתּוֹרִים לְמָה הֵן דּוֹמִין? כְּמִין תַּפּוּחֵי הַכְּרֵתִיִּים, פְּרָחִים לְמָה הֵן דּוֹמִין? כְּמִין פִּרְחֵי הָעַמּוּדִין, וְנִמְצְאוּ גְּבִיעִין עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁנַיִם, כַּפְתּוֹרִים אַחַד עָשָׂר, פְּרָחִים תִּשְׁעָה.
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.
גְּבִיעִים מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, כַּפְתּוֹרִים מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, פְּרָחִים מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, גְּבִיעִים כַּפְתּוֹרִים וּפְרָחִים מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה.
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.
בִּשְׁלָמָא גְּבִיעִים עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁנַיִם, דִּכְתִיב: ״וּבַמְּנֹרָה אַרְבָּעָה גְבִעִים וְגוֹ׳״, וּכְתִיב: ״שְׁלֹשָׁה גְבִעִים מְשֻׁקָּדִים בַּקָּנֶה הָאֶחָד כַּפְתּוֹר וָפֶרַח וְגוֹ׳״, אַרְבְּעָה דִּידַהּ
The Gemara asks: Granted, there were twenty-two goblets on the Candelabrum, as it is written: “And in the Candelabrum four goblets made like almond blossoms” (Exodus 25:34), and it is written: “Three 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 Candelabrum” (Exodus 25:33). Therefore, the Candelabrum contains the four goblets of its main shaft,
