Study Guide Menachot 28. Other laws that must be done in a particular manner are discussed in the mishna. The gemara delves into details regarding the Menora.
Menachot 28
09.07.2018 | כ״ז באלול תשע״ח
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:
0:00
0:00
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 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.
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,
Follow
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.
Menahot 4: Grain-Offerings That Pave the Way for Other Things
01.15.2026 | כ״ו בטבת תשפ״ו
Menahot 3: Torat Ha-Minhah, the Law of the Grain-Offering
01.14.2026 | כ״ה בטבת תשפ״ו
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.
Jill Shames
Jerusalem, Israel
I heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .
Martha Tarazi
Panama, Panama
I’ve been wanting to do Daf Yomi for years, but always wanted to start at the beginning and not in the middle of things. When the opportunity came in 2020, I decided: “this is now the time!” I’ve been posting my journey daily on social media, tracking my progress (#DafYomi); now it’s fully integrated into my daily routines. I’ve also inspired my partner to join, too!
Joséphine Altzman
Teaneck, United States
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Laura Shechter
Lexington, MA, United States
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Miriam Pollack
Honolulu, Hawaii, 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!
Anne Mirsky
Maale Adumim, 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.
Talia Haykin
Denver, United States
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
Cindy Dolgin
HUNTINGTON, United States
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Laura Warshawsky
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Emma Rinberg
Raanana, Israel
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Michelle Lewis
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I was inspired to start learning after attending the 2020 siyum in Binyanei Hauma. It has been a great experience for me. It’s amazing to see the origins of stories I’ve heard and rituals I’ve participated in my whole life. Even when I don’t understand the daf itself, I believe that the commitment to learning every day is valuable and has multiple benefits. And there will be another daf tomorrow!
Khaya Eisenberg
Jerusalem, Israel
I have joined the community of daf yomi learners at the start of this cycle. I have studied in different ways – by reading the page, translating the page, attending a local shiur and listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcasts, depending on circumstances and where I was at the time. The reactions have been positive throughout – with no exception!
Silke Goldberg
Guildford, United Kingdom
See video
Susan Fisher
Raanana, Israel
I began learning with Rabbanit Michelle’s wonderful Talmud Skills class on Pesachim, which really enriched my Pesach seder, and I have been learning Daf Yomi off and on over the past year. Because I’m relatively new at this, there is a “chiddush” for me every time I learn, and the knowledge and insights of the group members add so much to my experience. I feel very lucky to be a part of this.
Julie Landau
Karmiel, Israel
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
Rhona Fink
San Diego, 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.
Shira Krebs
Minnesota, United States
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Lisa S. Malik
Wynnewood, United States
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Shira Jacobowitz
Jerusalem, Israel
While vacationing in San Diego, Rabbi Leah Herz asked if I’d be interested in being in hevruta with her to learn Daf Yomi through Hadran. Why not? I had loved learning Gemara in college in 1971 but hadn’t returned. With the onset of covid, Daf Yomi and Rabbanit Michelle centered me each day. Thank-you for helping me grow and enter this amazing world of learning.
Meryll Page
Minneapolis, MN, United States
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 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.
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,
Follow
