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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 6, 2018 | 讻状讞 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖注状讟

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

Menachot 88


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

讗转 诪讬 讗讘讬讗 转讞转讬讜 讗诇讗 诪讚讛 讬转讬专讛 砖诇 诇讜讙 讜诪讞爪讛 讛讬转讛 砖诐 砖讘讜 讛讬讛 诪讜讚讚 诇讞讘讬转讬 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诇讜讙 讜诪讞爪讛 讘讘拽专 诇讜讙 讜诪讞爪讛 讘讬谉 讛注专讘讬诐

If so, which size vessel shall I bring in its stead to complete the tally of seven vessels? Rather, there was an additional measuring vessel of one and a half log there in the Temple, with which one would measure the oil used for the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest; one and a half log were used in the morning and one and a half log in the afternoon.

讗诪专讜 诇讜 讞爪讬 诇讜讙 讛讬转讛 砖诐 讜讗驻砖专 诇砖注专 讘讞爪讬 诇讜讙

The Rabbis said to Rabbi Shimon: There is no need for a dedicated vessel for the one and a half log for the High Priest鈥檚 offering, as there was a vessel of one-half of a log there, in the Temple, and it is possible to calculate the required one and a half log by using the vessel of one-half of a log three times.

讗诪专 诇讛诐 讗祝 诇讚讘专讬讻诐 讞爪讬 诇讜讙 讜诇讜讙 诇讗 讬注砖讛 专讘讬注讬转 讛讬转讛 砖诐 讜讗驻砖专 诇砖注专 讘专讘讬注讬转 讗诇讗 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讛讬讛 讘诪拽讚砖 讻诇讬 砖诪砖诪砖 诪讚讛 讝讜 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诪砖 诪讚讛 讗讞专转

Rabbi Shimon said to them: But according to your statement as well, one should not fashion a vessel of one-half of a log or of one log, as there was a vessel of one-quarter of a log there, and it is possible to calculate whatever quantity is required by repeatedly using the vessel of one-quarter of a log. Rather, this was the principle with regard to measuring vessels in the Temple: A measuring vessel that was used for measuring this quantity was not used to measure a different quantity.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 讗讜诪专 砖谞转讜转 讛讬讜 讘讛讬谉 讜讻讜壮

The baraita concludes with an opinion that is also stated in the mishna: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: There were graduations on the vessel that held one hin, indicating the respective quantities needed for the bull, the ram, and the lamb.

`诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讬专讜爪讬 诪讚讜转 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara analyzes the baraita. What difference is there between the opinions of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda? They both list the same seven vessels, but in a different order. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The practical difference between them concerns whether the vessels consecrate the overflow [beirutzei] of the measuring vessels, i.e., the liquid that flows down over the outer walls of the vessel when it is filled beyond capacity.

诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪诪讟讛 诇诪注诇讛 拽住讘专 讘讬专讜爪讬 讛诪讚讜转 谞转拽讚砖讜 讜专讘讬注讬转 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪砖讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖注专 讚拽讗 注讬讬诇讬 诇讛讜 讘讬专讜爪讬谉

According to the one who said that the vessels should be listed in ascending order of size, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda, he holds that the overflow of measuring vessels is consecrated. His reasoning is as follows: When Moses was commanded to fashion these vessels, the Merciful One initially gave Moses a measuring vessel of one-quarter of a hin and said to him: With this vessel calculate the various quantities needed and fashion vessels accordingly. So, for example, to calculate one-half of a hin, Moses would twice fill up the vessel of one-quarter of a hin, each time pouring it into a larger vessel. When pouring from a small vessel into a larger one, the overflow also enters the larger one and so it is included in the calculation. Evidently, the overflow is also consecrated.

诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪诪注诇讛 诇诪讟讛 拽住讘专 讘讬专讜爪讬 诪讚讜转 诇讗 谞转拽讚砖讜 讜讛讬谉 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪砖讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖注专 讘讛讗 讚拽讗 谞驻拽讬 讘讬专讜爪讬谉

According to the one who said that the vessels should be listed in descending order of size, i.e., Rabbi Meir, he holds that the overflow of measuring vessels is not consecrated. His reasoning is as follows: When Moses was commanded to fashion these vessels for the Temple, the Merciful One initially gave Moses a measuring vessel of one hin and said to him: With this vessel calculate the various quantities needed and fashion vessels accordingly. So, for example, to calculate one-half of a hin, Moses filled the vessel of one hin and divided it equally into two vessels. Then, to calculate one-quarter of a hin, he would equally divide the liquid in one of those vessels into another two vessels. When pouring from a large vessel into a smaller one, the overflow on the outer walls of the larger vessel does not enter the smaller vessel but instead falls to the ground. Therefore, the overflow is excluded from the calculation. Accordingly, there is no basis to say that the overflow is consecrated.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讘讬专讜爪讬 讛诪讚讜转 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 谞转拽讚砖讜 讜讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诇讗 谞转拽讚砖讜 讜讛讻讗 讘诪诇讗讬诐 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬

Abaye said: Everyone, both Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir, agrees that with regard to the overflow of measuring vessels, one could say that they are consecrated and one could say that they are not consecrated, i.e., their dispute is unrelated to this issue. But here they disagree with regard to the meaning of the term 鈥渇ull鈥 in the verse: 鈥淎nd his offering was one silver dish, its weight was one hundred and thirty shekels, one silver basin of seventy shekels, after the shekel of the Sanctuary; both of them full of fine flour mixed with oil for a meal offering鈥 (Numbers 7:13).

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪诇诪注诇讛 诇诪讟讛 拽讗 住讘专 诪诇讗讬诐 砖诇讗 讬讞住专 讜砖诇讗 讬讜转讬专

The one who said that the vessels should be listed in descending order of size, i.e., Rabbi Meir, holds that the term 鈥渇ull鈥 indicates that the size of each vessel should be exact, i.e., that it should hold neither less nor more than the prescribed amount. If one calculates the various sizes by first filling a vessel of the largest size, one hin, and then dividing its contents carefully between two smaller vessels and so on, one will arrive at accurate measurements. By contrast, if one starts with the smallest size and uses it multiple times to calculate larger quantities, then each time one pours he includes the overflow of the smaller vessel, and so the quantities calculated are slightly larger than prescribed.

讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪诪讟讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪诇讗讬诐 砖诇讗 讬讞住专 讗讘诇 讬讜转讬专 诪诇讗讬诐 拽专讬谞讗 讘讬讛

And the one who said that the vessels should be listed in ascending order of size, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda, holds that the intention of the term 鈥渇ull鈥 is that the size of each vessel should not hold less than the prescribed amount, but if it holds more, that is still called full. Accordingly, the various quantities can be calculated by starting with the smallest vessel.

讗诪专 诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讛讬讛 砖诐 讛讬谉 砖驻讬专 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇专讘谞谉 讜专讘谞谉 讛讜讛 讛讬谉 讚注讘讚 诪砖讛 诇砖诪谉 讛诪砖讞讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜砖诪谉 讝讬转 讛讬谉

In the mishna and the baraita cited above the Master said that in contrast to the opinion of the Rabbis, Rabbi Shimon says: There was no vessel there in the Temple that held one hin, as what purpose could a one-hin vessel serve? That volume of liquid was never used in an offering. The Gemara comments: Rabbi Shimon is saying well to the Rabbis, i.e., this is a reasonable objection. And what would the Rabbis say? Why is there a measuring vessel of one hin? The Gemara answers: It was the vessel of one hin that Moses fashioned in the wilderness for measuring the anointing oil with which the Tabernacle, its vessels, and the priests were anointed, as it is written: 鈥淎nd of olive oil a hin. And you shall make it a holy anointing oil鈥 (Exodus 30:24鈥25).

诪专 住讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讚讜专讜转 诇讗 讛讜讛 爪专讬讱 诇驻讬 砖注讛 讛讜讗 讚注讘讚讬讛 讜讗讬讙谞讝 讜讗讬讚讱 讻讬讜谉 讚讛讜讛 讛讜讛

The Gemara explains the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis. One Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds that since there was no further need for the vessel of one hin in future generations, Moses fashioned it only for the sake of that time, and then afterward it was sequestered. And the other Sage, the Rabbis, holds that since it was fashioned and used in the time of Moses, it was kept in the Temple despite the fact there was no longer a need for it.

讗诪专 诪专 讜讗转 诪讬 讗讘讬讗 转讞转讬讜 诇讗 住讙讬讗 讚诇讗 诪注讬讬诇 讻讚讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讙诪讬专讬 砖转讬 住诪讬讻讜转 讘爪讬讘讜专 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讙诪讬专讬 讚砖讘注 诪讚讜转 砖诇 诇讞 讛讬讜 讘诪拽讚砖

The Master said in the baraita that after claiming that there was no vessel of one hin, Rabbi Shimon asked: If so, which size vessel shall I bring in its stead to complete the tally of seven vessels? The Gemara asks: Is it not possible to simply not include a seventh vessel? What compels him to list a seventh? The Gemara explains: It is just as Ravina said with regard to a different matter: It is learned as a tradition that there are two instances in which placing hands on the head of the offering is required for communal offerings. Here too, one must say that it is learned as a tradition that there were seven measuring vessels for liquids in the Temple.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 讗讜诪专 砖谞转讜转 讛讬讜 讘讛讬谉 讜诇讬转 诇讬讛 砖讘注 诪讚讜转 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪讗讬 砖讘注 诪讚讜转 砖讘注 诪讚讬讚讜转

The mishna teaches: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: It was not necessary to have separate vessels for the meal offerings and libations of each type of animal. Rather, there were graduations on the vessel that held one hin indicating the measures for the various offerings. The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, have the tradition that there were seven measuring vessels? The Gemara concedes: He does not have that tradition. And if you wish, say instead that he has that tradition, but he understands that what is meant by seven measuring vessels? It means that seven fixed ways of measuring should exist, but not that there must be seven different vessels.

诪转谞讬壮 专讘讬注讬转 诪讛 讛讬转讛 诪砖诪砖转 专讘讬注讬转 诪讬诐 诇诪爪讜专注 讜专讘讬注讬转 砖诪谉 诇谞讝讬专

MISHNA: What purpose did the quarter-log measuring vessel serve? It was used to measure a quarter-log of water for the purification of the leper, and a quarter-log of oil for the wafers and loaves that the nazirite brings on the day that his term of naziriteship ends.

讞爪讬 诇讜讙 诪讛 讛讬讛 诪砖诪砖 讞爪讬 诇讜讙 诪讬诐 诇住讜讟讛 讜讞爪讬 诇讜讙 砖诪谉 诇转讜讚讛

What purpose did the halflog measuring vessel serve? It was used to measure a half-log of water for the rite of the sota and a half-log of oil for the three types of loaves of matza accompanying the thanks offering.

讜讘诇讜讙 讛讬讛 诪讜讚讚 诇讻诇 讛诪谞讞讜转

And with the vessel of one log, one would measure the oil for all the standard meal offerings.

讗驻讬诇讜 诪谞讞讛 砖诇 砖砖讬诐 注砖专讜谉 谞讜转谉 诇讛 砖砖讬诐 诇讜讙 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪谞讞讛 砖诇 砖砖讬诐 注砖专讜谉 讗讬谉 诇讛 讗诇讗 诇讜讙讛 砖谞讗诪专 诇诪谞讞讛 讜诇讙 砖诪谉

Each tenth of an ephah of flour requires one log of oil. Accordingly, even if one brings a meal offering of sixty tenths of an ephah of flour, one adds to it sixty log of oil. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: Each meal offering, irrespective of its volume, even a meal offering of sixty tenths of an ephah of flour, requires only its single log of oil, as it is stated with regard to the offering brought by a poor leper on the day of his purification: 鈥淎nd a tenth of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil for a meal offering, and a log of oil鈥 (Leviticus 14:21). The juxtaposition of 鈥渁 meal offering鈥 with 鈥渁 log of oil鈥 teaches a principle for all meal offerings: Each offering requires only one log of oil.

砖砖讛 诇驻专 讜讗专讘注讛 诇讗讬诇 讜砖诇砖讛 诇讻讘砖

The mishna lists the quantities of oil and wine that were required for the meal offerings and libations that accompanied the sacrifice of an animal. Six log, i.e., onehalf of a hin, for those of a bull; and four log, i.e., one-third of a hin, for those of a ram; and three log, i.e., one-quarter of a hin, for those of a lamb.

砖诇砖讛 讜诪讞爪讛 诇诪谞讜专讛 讞爪讬 诇讜讙 诇讻诇 谞专

In addition, three and a half log of oil were required for the Candelabrum, as there were seven lamps and a half-log was required for each lamp.

讙诪壮 讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讜拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 专讘讬注讬转 诇诪讛 谞诪砖讞讛 讗讬 诪爪讜专注

GEMARA: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was sitting in study and posed a difficulty: For what purpose was the quarter-log measuring vessel anointed with the anointing oil, thereby consecrating it a service vessel? If you suggest it was necessary in order to measure the water used in the purification of a leper,

讞讜抓 讛讜讗 讜讗讬 谞讝讬专 诇讞诐 谞讝讬专 讘砖讞讬讟转 讗讬诇 讛讜讗 讚拽讚讬砖

one can counter that the rite is performed outside the Temple, and so it does not require a service vessel. And if you suggest it was for measuring the oil for the loaves of a nazirite, one can counter that the loaves of a nazirite are consecrated through the slaughter of the ram he brings, and there is no need for the oil to have been consecrated through a service vessel.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 砖讘讛 讛讬讛 诪讜讚讚 诇讞讘讬转讬 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 专讘讬注讬转 砖诪谉 诇讻诇 讞诇讛 讜讞诇讛 拽专讬 注诇讬讛 诪讗专抓 诪专讞拽 讗讬砖 注爪转讬

Rabbi 岣yya said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: The consecration of the quarter-log measuring vessel was necessary, as with it one would measure oil for the High Priest鈥檚 griddle-cake offering, as a quarterlog of oil is used for each and every loaf. In praise for resolving his difficulty, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi read the verse about Rabbi 岣yya, who had traveled from Babylonia to join Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in Eretz Yisrael: 鈥淭he man of my counsel from a far country鈥 (Isaiah 46:11).

讞爪讬 诇讜讙 诪讛 讛讬讛 诪砖诪砖 讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讜拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讞爪讬 诇讜讙 诇诪讛 谞诪砖讞 讗讬 住讜讟讛 讜讻讬 讞讜诇讬谉 讛讜讗 讚爪专讬讻讬 诇拽讚讜砖讬 诪讬诐 拽讚讜砖讬诐 讻转讬讘 讗讬 转讜讚讛 诇讞诪讬 转讜讚讛 讘砖讞讬讟转 转讜讚讛 讛讜讗 讚拽讚砖讬

搂 The mishna teaches: What purpose did the half-log measuring vessel serve? It was used to measure a half-log of water for the sota and a half-log of oil for the thanks offering. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was sitting in study and posed a difficulty: For what purpose was the half-log measuring vessel anointed with the anointing oil, thereby consecrating it a service vessel? If you suggest it was necessary in order to measure the water used in the rite of the sota, one can counter: Is the water that was used non-sacred such that it is necessary to consecrate it? Isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel鈥 (Numbers 5:17)? And if you suggest that it was for measuring the oil for the loaves of a thanks offering, one can counter that the loaves of a thanks offering are consecrated through the slaughter of the thanks offering, and so there is no need for the oil to have been consecrated through a service vessel.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专讘讬 砖讘讜 讛讬讛 诪讞诇拽 讞爪讬 诇讜讙 砖诪谉 诇讻诇 谞专 讜谞专 讗诪专 诇讜 谞专 讬砖专讗诇 讻讱 讛讬讛

Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, said to his father: The consecration of the half-log measuring vessel was necessary, as with it one would distribute a half-log of oil to each and every lamp of the Candelabrum. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to his son in praise: Lamp of Israel! Indeed, that was its use.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 谞专 砖讻讘转讛 谞讬讚砖谉 讛砖诪谉 谞讬讚砖谞讛 讛驻转讬诇讛 讻讬爪讚 注讜砖讛 诪讟讬讘讛 讜谞讜转谉 讘讛 砖诪谉 讜诪讚诇讬拽讛

搂 Apropos the lamps of the Candelabrum, the Gemara relates that Rabbi Yo岣nan says that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: If there is a lamp whose flame went out during the night, the oil in the lamp is halakhically rendered as ashes and the wick is rendered as ashes, and they may no longer be used. How should the priest act? He removes the ashes, i.e., the oil and wick, from the lamp, and puts new oil and a new wick into it and kindles it.

讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讝专讬拽讗 讜拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讻砖讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 讘讛 砖诪谉 讻诪讚讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讗讜 讻诪讜 砖讞住专讛

Rav Zerika was sitting and studying this halakha and raised a dilemma: When the priest puts oil in the lamp, does he fill it with the same quantity of oil that was initially used, i.e., a half-log, or does he just fill it with an amount equal to what it now lacks, in order to replace the oil that was removed?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讻诪讚讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讚讗讬 讻诪讛 砖讞住专讛 诪谞讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 诪讗讬 讞讬住专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚诪砖注专 诇讬讛 讗诐 讻谉 砖讘注 诪讚讜转 谞驻讬砖 诇讛讜 诪讚讜转 讟讜讘讗

Rabbi Yirmeya said: It is obvious that he fills it with the same quantity of oil that was initially used, as, if he were to fill with an amount equal to what it now lacks, there would be a difficulty: How do we know how much oil it lacks? And if you would say that the priest calculates it using a measuring vessel, one could counter that if so, there would not be only seven measuring vessels for liquids; rather, there would have to be many more measuring vessels of a whole range of volumes.

拽专讬 注诇讬讛 讜讛讚专讱 爪诇讞 专讻讘 注诇 讚讘专 讗诪转 讜注谞讜讛 爪讚拽

In praise for resolving his difficulty, Rabbi Zerika read the verse about Rabbi Yirmeya: 鈥淎nd in your majesty prosper, ride on, on behalf of truth and meekness and righteousness鈥 (Psalms 45:5).

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 谞专 砖讻讘转讛 谞讬讚砖谉 讛砖诪谉 谞讬讚砖谞讛 讛驻转讬诇讛 讻讬爪讚 注讜砖讛 诪讟讬讘讛 讜谞讜转谉 讘讛 砖诪谉 讻诪讚讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讜诪讚诇讬拽讛

An amoraic ruling was also stated in accordance with the explanation of Rabbi Yirmeya: Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says, and some say that Rabbi Abba says that Rabbi 岣nina says that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: If there is a lamp whose flame went out during the night, the oil in the lamp is rendered as ashes and the wick is rendered as ashes, and they may no longer be used. How should the priest act? He removes the ashes, i.e., the oil and wick, from the lamp, and puts into it oil of the same quantity that was initially used, with a new wick, and kindles it.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 谞专 砖讘诪拽讚砖 砖诇 驻专拽讬诐 讛讜讛

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehuda, says that Rav Sheshet says: Each lamp of the Candelabrum in the Temple was movable, as the branches holding it were thin and flexible. They could therefore be bent over in order to tip out any ashes, remaining oil, or wicks from the lamps. The basis for his opinion is the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall make a Candelabrum of pure gold, of beaten work the Candelabrum shall be made, its base, and its shaft; its cups, its knobs, and its flowers, will be from it鈥f a talent of pure gold it shall be made鈥 (Exodus 25:31, 39).

拽住讘专 讻讬 讻转讬讘 讻讻专 讜诪拽砖讛 讗诪谞讜专讛 讜谞专讜转讬讛 讻转讬讘 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讬讘注讬讗 讛讟讘讛 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚驻专拽讬诐 讛讜讬 诇讗 讛讜讛 诪讟讬讬讘讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara explains that Rav Sheshet holds that when it is written that the Candelabrum is to be fashioned from a single talent of gold, and that it be beaten into its form, it is written with regard to both the frame of Candelabrum and each of its lamps, i.e., they must all be fashioned together from a single piece of gold beaten into its form. Perforce, the lamps must have been movable, because since it is necessary to remove the ashes from the lamps, were each lamp not movable, it would not be possible to remove the ashes.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讻讬爪讚 注讜砖讛 诪住诇拽谉 讜诪谞讬讞谉 讘讗讜讛诇 讜诪拽谞讞谉 讘住驻讜讙 讜谞讜转谉 讘讛谉 砖诪谉 讜诪讚诇讬拽谉

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Sheshet鈥檚 opinion from a baraita: How would the priest act when removing the ashes from the lamps? He would remove the lamps from the Candelabrum and place them in the Tent of Meeting, i.e., the Sanctuary, and scrub them with a sponge [bisfog] to remove any remaining oil. And then he would put fresh oil into them and kindle them. Evidently, the lamps and the frame of the Candelabrum were separate parts.

讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讛讬讜 诪讝讬讝讬谉 讗讜转讛 诪诪拽讜诪讛

The Gemara explains that there is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m concerning this issue and Rav Sheshet states his opinion in accordance with the opinion of that tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: The Rabbis say that when removing the ashes, the priest would not move the lamp from its place; rather, he would remove the ashes while the lamp was still attached to the frame.

诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诇讗讜讝讜讝讛 诪爪讬 诪讝讬讝 诇讛 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讛讬转讛 讝讝讛 诪诪拽讜诪讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But from the fact that the baraita states that the priest would not move the lamp from its place, it would appear that if one wanted to move it, he was able to move it from its place. Apparently, then, the lamps were independent parts. The Gemara explains: Rather, emend the baraita to say: The lamp would not move from its place, as the lamps were not independent removable parts but were formed together with the frame from a single piece of gold.

讜诪讗谉 讞讻诪讬诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 讗讜诪专 讻诪讬谉 讟住 砖诇 讝讛讘 讛讬讛 诇讛 注诇 讙讘讛 讻砖讛讜讗 诪讟讬讘讛 讚讜讞拽讜 讻诇驻讬 驻讬讛 讻砖讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 讘讛 砖诪谉 讚讜讞拽讜 讻诇驻讬 专讗砖讛

The Gemara asks: And whose opinion is expressed by the Rabbis in the baraita? It is the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, as it is taught in another baraita: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: There was a kind of gold plate [tas] for each lamp, which was placed on top of it and which served as a cover for the lamp. The plate was attached to one side of the lamp, to the lamp鈥檚 head, and the wick emerged from the other side, from the lamp鈥檚 mouth. When the priest would come to remove the ashes from the lamp, he would first push up on the part of the plate at the mouth of the lamp, thereby exposing its contents. The lamp would then be bent over and its contents tipped out. And when he would come to place fresh oil and a wick in the lamp, he would place the new wick at its mouth and then push down on the plate at the head of the lamp, thereby closing it, then he would straighten it up and pour in the oil through a hole in the middle of the plate.

讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 诪谞讜专讛 讜谞专讜转讬讛 讘讗讜转 诪谉 讛讻讻专 讜讗讬谉 诪诇拽讞讬讛 讜诪讞转讜转讬讛 诪谉 讛讻讻专 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讜诪专 诪谞讜专讛 讛讬转讛 讘讗讛 诪谉 讛讻讻专 讜诇讗 谞专讜转讬讛 讜诪诇拽讞讬讛 讜诪讞转讜转讬讛 讘讗讜转 诪谉 讛讻讻专

The Gemara comments: And whether or not the lamps were independent removable parts is the subject of a dispute between these following tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: Both the frame of the Candelabrum and its lamps are produced together from the same talent of gold. But its tongs and its pans, which were the implements used for removing the ashes, were not fashioned from that same gold talent. Rabbi Ne岣mya says: Only the frame of the Candelabrum is produced from the talent of gold, but its lamps and its tongs and its pans are not produced from that same gold talent; rather, they are formed independently. The lamps are then positioned on the frame, but can still be removed from it.

讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讛讗讬 拽专讗 讚转谞讬讗 讻讻专 讝讛讘 讟讛讜专 讬注砖讛 讗转讛 诇诪讚谞讜 诇诪谞讜专讛 砖讘讗讛 诪谉 讛讻讻专 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 谞专讜转讬讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗转 讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 讛讗诇讛 讬讻讜诇 砖讗谞讬 诪专讘讛 讗祝 诪诇拽讞讬讛 讜诪讞转讜转讬讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗转讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛

The Gemara asks: With regard to what do these tanna鈥檌m disagree? The Gemara explains: They disagree with regard to the exposition of this verse, as it is taught in a baraita: From the verse: 鈥淥f a talent of pure gold it shall be fashioned with all these vessels鈥 (Exodus 25:39), we learned about the frame of the Candelabrum that it is produced from the gold talent. From where is it derived to include its lamps, that they should also be fashioned together with the frame from the same talent? The verse states: 鈥淚t shall be fashioned with all these vessels.鈥 This indicates that not only the frame, but also additional parts should be fashioned from the same talent. If so, one might have thought that I should include even its tongs and its pans. To counter this, the verse states: 鈥淚t shall be fashioned.鈥 The additional word 鈥渋t鈥 teaches that only the frame and the lamps are to be fashioned from the gold talent. This is the statement of Rabbi Ne岣mya.

拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讚专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 转专讬 转谞讗讬 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛

The Gemara interrupts the citation of the baraita and notes that the statement of Rabbi Ne岣mya in this baraita, in which he claims the lamps were fashioned from the talent with the frame, is difficult, as it is contradicted by the statement of Rabbi Ne岣mya in the other baraita, in which he claims the lamps were independent parts. The Gemara explains: There are two tanna鈥檌m, and they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya.

专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讗讜诪专 诪谞讜专讛 讘讗讛 诪谉 讛讻讻专 讜讗讬谉 诪诇拽讞讬讛 讜诪讞转讜转讬讛 讜谞专讜转讬讛 讘讗讛 诪谉 讛讻讻专 讜讗诇讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讗转 讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 讛讗诇讛 砖讛讬讜 讻诇讬诐 砖诇 讝讛讘

The Gemara resumes its citation of the baraita: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 says: Only the frame of the Candelabrum was produced from the talent of gold, but its tongs and its pans and its lamps were not produced from the talent. Rather, how do I realize the meaning of the verse: 鈥淥f a talent of pure gold it shall be fashioned with all these vessels鈥? It teaches only that all the vessels associated with the Candelabrum were made of gold, even though they were not fashioned from the same gold talent from which the Candelabrum and its lamps were.

讝讛讘 讘讛讚讬讗 讻转讬讘 讘讜 讜注砖讬转 讗转 谞专转讬讛 砖讘注讛 讜讛注诇讛 讗转 谞专转讬讛 讜讛讗讬专 讗诇 注讘专 驻谞讬讛 讜诪诇拽讞讬讛 讜诪讞转转讬讛 讝讛讘 讟讛讜专 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇驻讬 谞专讜转 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜驻讬 谞专讜转 讗砖讞讜专讬 诪砖讞专 讛转讜专讛 讞住讛 注诇 诪诪讜谞谉 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇

The Gemara questions the need for the derivation of the baraita: But the requirement that the vessels be made of gold is explicitly written in the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall fashion its lamps seven, and they shall kindle its lamps, and it will enlighten toward its face. And its tongs and its pans shall be of pure gold鈥 (Exodus 25:37鈥38); why then is it necessary for the baraita to derive this from the phrase 鈥渨ith all these vessels鈥? The Gemara explains: This derivation of the baraita is necessary only to teach that the same applies to the mouth of the lamps, where the wicks rest. Otherwise, it might enter your mind to say that since the mouth of the lamps blackens and is damaged by the burning wick, therefore the principle that the Torah spared the money of the Jewish people should be applied,

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

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

Menachot 88

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 88

讗转 诪讬 讗讘讬讗 转讞转讬讜 讗诇讗 诪讚讛 讬转讬专讛 砖诇 诇讜讙 讜诪讞爪讛 讛讬转讛 砖诐 砖讘讜 讛讬讛 诪讜讚讚 诇讞讘讬转讬 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诇讜讙 讜诪讞爪讛 讘讘拽专 诇讜讙 讜诪讞爪讛 讘讬谉 讛注专讘讬诐

If so, which size vessel shall I bring in its stead to complete the tally of seven vessels? Rather, there was an additional measuring vessel of one and a half log there in the Temple, with which one would measure the oil used for the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest; one and a half log were used in the morning and one and a half log in the afternoon.

讗诪专讜 诇讜 讞爪讬 诇讜讙 讛讬转讛 砖诐 讜讗驻砖专 诇砖注专 讘讞爪讬 诇讜讙

The Rabbis said to Rabbi Shimon: There is no need for a dedicated vessel for the one and a half log for the High Priest鈥檚 offering, as there was a vessel of one-half of a log there, in the Temple, and it is possible to calculate the required one and a half log by using the vessel of one-half of a log three times.

讗诪专 诇讛诐 讗祝 诇讚讘专讬讻诐 讞爪讬 诇讜讙 讜诇讜讙 诇讗 讬注砖讛 专讘讬注讬转 讛讬转讛 砖诐 讜讗驻砖专 诇砖注专 讘专讘讬注讬转 讗诇讗 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讛讬讛 讘诪拽讚砖 讻诇讬 砖诪砖诪砖 诪讚讛 讝讜 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诪砖 诪讚讛 讗讞专转

Rabbi Shimon said to them: But according to your statement as well, one should not fashion a vessel of one-half of a log or of one log, as there was a vessel of one-quarter of a log there, and it is possible to calculate whatever quantity is required by repeatedly using the vessel of one-quarter of a log. Rather, this was the principle with regard to measuring vessels in the Temple: A measuring vessel that was used for measuring this quantity was not used to measure a different quantity.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 讗讜诪专 砖谞转讜转 讛讬讜 讘讛讬谉 讜讻讜壮

The baraita concludes with an opinion that is also stated in the mishna: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: There were graduations on the vessel that held one hin, indicating the respective quantities needed for the bull, the ram, and the lamb.

`诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讬专讜爪讬 诪讚讜转 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara analyzes the baraita. What difference is there between the opinions of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda? They both list the same seven vessels, but in a different order. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The practical difference between them concerns whether the vessels consecrate the overflow [beirutzei] of the measuring vessels, i.e., the liquid that flows down over the outer walls of the vessel when it is filled beyond capacity.

诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪诪讟讛 诇诪注诇讛 拽住讘专 讘讬专讜爪讬 讛诪讚讜转 谞转拽讚砖讜 讜专讘讬注讬转 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪砖讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖注专 讚拽讗 注讬讬诇讬 诇讛讜 讘讬专讜爪讬谉

According to the one who said that the vessels should be listed in ascending order of size, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda, he holds that the overflow of measuring vessels is consecrated. His reasoning is as follows: When Moses was commanded to fashion these vessels, the Merciful One initially gave Moses a measuring vessel of one-quarter of a hin and said to him: With this vessel calculate the various quantities needed and fashion vessels accordingly. So, for example, to calculate one-half of a hin, Moses would twice fill up the vessel of one-quarter of a hin, each time pouring it into a larger vessel. When pouring from a small vessel into a larger one, the overflow also enters the larger one and so it is included in the calculation. Evidently, the overflow is also consecrated.

诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪诪注诇讛 诇诪讟讛 拽住讘专 讘讬专讜爪讬 诪讚讜转 诇讗 谞转拽讚砖讜 讜讛讬谉 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪砖讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖注专 讘讛讗 讚拽讗 谞驻拽讬 讘讬专讜爪讬谉

According to the one who said that the vessels should be listed in descending order of size, i.e., Rabbi Meir, he holds that the overflow of measuring vessels is not consecrated. His reasoning is as follows: When Moses was commanded to fashion these vessels for the Temple, the Merciful One initially gave Moses a measuring vessel of one hin and said to him: With this vessel calculate the various quantities needed and fashion vessels accordingly. So, for example, to calculate one-half of a hin, Moses filled the vessel of one hin and divided it equally into two vessels. Then, to calculate one-quarter of a hin, he would equally divide the liquid in one of those vessels into another two vessels. When pouring from a large vessel into a smaller one, the overflow on the outer walls of the larger vessel does not enter the smaller vessel but instead falls to the ground. Therefore, the overflow is excluded from the calculation. Accordingly, there is no basis to say that the overflow is consecrated.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讘讬专讜爪讬 讛诪讚讜转 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 谞转拽讚砖讜 讜讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诇讗 谞转拽讚砖讜 讜讛讻讗 讘诪诇讗讬诐 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬

Abaye said: Everyone, both Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir, agrees that with regard to the overflow of measuring vessels, one could say that they are consecrated and one could say that they are not consecrated, i.e., their dispute is unrelated to this issue. But here they disagree with regard to the meaning of the term 鈥渇ull鈥 in the verse: 鈥淎nd his offering was one silver dish, its weight was one hundred and thirty shekels, one silver basin of seventy shekels, after the shekel of the Sanctuary; both of them full of fine flour mixed with oil for a meal offering鈥 (Numbers 7:13).

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪诇诪注诇讛 诇诪讟讛 拽讗 住讘专 诪诇讗讬诐 砖诇讗 讬讞住专 讜砖诇讗 讬讜转讬专

The one who said that the vessels should be listed in descending order of size, i.e., Rabbi Meir, holds that the term 鈥渇ull鈥 indicates that the size of each vessel should be exact, i.e., that it should hold neither less nor more than the prescribed amount. If one calculates the various sizes by first filling a vessel of the largest size, one hin, and then dividing its contents carefully between two smaller vessels and so on, one will arrive at accurate measurements. By contrast, if one starts with the smallest size and uses it multiple times to calculate larger quantities, then each time one pours he includes the overflow of the smaller vessel, and so the quantities calculated are slightly larger than prescribed.

讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪诪讟讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪诇讗讬诐 砖诇讗 讬讞住专 讗讘诇 讬讜转讬专 诪诇讗讬诐 拽专讬谞讗 讘讬讛

And the one who said that the vessels should be listed in ascending order of size, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda, holds that the intention of the term 鈥渇ull鈥 is that the size of each vessel should not hold less than the prescribed amount, but if it holds more, that is still called full. Accordingly, the various quantities can be calculated by starting with the smallest vessel.

讗诪专 诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讛讬讛 砖诐 讛讬谉 砖驻讬专 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇专讘谞谉 讜专讘谞谉 讛讜讛 讛讬谉 讚注讘讚 诪砖讛 诇砖诪谉 讛诪砖讞讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜砖诪谉 讝讬转 讛讬谉

In the mishna and the baraita cited above the Master said that in contrast to the opinion of the Rabbis, Rabbi Shimon says: There was no vessel there in the Temple that held one hin, as what purpose could a one-hin vessel serve? That volume of liquid was never used in an offering. The Gemara comments: Rabbi Shimon is saying well to the Rabbis, i.e., this is a reasonable objection. And what would the Rabbis say? Why is there a measuring vessel of one hin? The Gemara answers: It was the vessel of one hin that Moses fashioned in the wilderness for measuring the anointing oil with which the Tabernacle, its vessels, and the priests were anointed, as it is written: 鈥淎nd of olive oil a hin. And you shall make it a holy anointing oil鈥 (Exodus 30:24鈥25).

诪专 住讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讚讜专讜转 诇讗 讛讜讛 爪专讬讱 诇驻讬 砖注讛 讛讜讗 讚注讘讚讬讛 讜讗讬讙谞讝 讜讗讬讚讱 讻讬讜谉 讚讛讜讛 讛讜讛

The Gemara explains the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis. One Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds that since there was no further need for the vessel of one hin in future generations, Moses fashioned it only for the sake of that time, and then afterward it was sequestered. And the other Sage, the Rabbis, holds that since it was fashioned and used in the time of Moses, it was kept in the Temple despite the fact there was no longer a need for it.

讗诪专 诪专 讜讗转 诪讬 讗讘讬讗 转讞转讬讜 诇讗 住讙讬讗 讚诇讗 诪注讬讬诇 讻讚讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讙诪讬专讬 砖转讬 住诪讬讻讜转 讘爪讬讘讜专 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讙诪讬专讬 讚砖讘注 诪讚讜转 砖诇 诇讞 讛讬讜 讘诪拽讚砖

The Master said in the baraita that after claiming that there was no vessel of one hin, Rabbi Shimon asked: If so, which size vessel shall I bring in its stead to complete the tally of seven vessels? The Gemara asks: Is it not possible to simply not include a seventh vessel? What compels him to list a seventh? The Gemara explains: It is just as Ravina said with regard to a different matter: It is learned as a tradition that there are two instances in which placing hands on the head of the offering is required for communal offerings. Here too, one must say that it is learned as a tradition that there were seven measuring vessels for liquids in the Temple.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 讗讜诪专 砖谞转讜转 讛讬讜 讘讛讬谉 讜诇讬转 诇讬讛 砖讘注 诪讚讜转 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪讗讬 砖讘注 诪讚讜转 砖讘注 诪讚讬讚讜转

The mishna teaches: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: It was not necessary to have separate vessels for the meal offerings and libations of each type of animal. Rather, there were graduations on the vessel that held one hin indicating the measures for the various offerings. The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, have the tradition that there were seven measuring vessels? The Gemara concedes: He does not have that tradition. And if you wish, say instead that he has that tradition, but he understands that what is meant by seven measuring vessels? It means that seven fixed ways of measuring should exist, but not that there must be seven different vessels.

诪转谞讬壮 专讘讬注讬转 诪讛 讛讬转讛 诪砖诪砖转 专讘讬注讬转 诪讬诐 诇诪爪讜专注 讜专讘讬注讬转 砖诪谉 诇谞讝讬专

MISHNA: What purpose did the quarter-log measuring vessel serve? It was used to measure a quarter-log of water for the purification of the leper, and a quarter-log of oil for the wafers and loaves that the nazirite brings on the day that his term of naziriteship ends.

讞爪讬 诇讜讙 诪讛 讛讬讛 诪砖诪砖 讞爪讬 诇讜讙 诪讬诐 诇住讜讟讛 讜讞爪讬 诇讜讙 砖诪谉 诇转讜讚讛

What purpose did the halflog measuring vessel serve? It was used to measure a half-log of water for the rite of the sota and a half-log of oil for the three types of loaves of matza accompanying the thanks offering.

讜讘诇讜讙 讛讬讛 诪讜讚讚 诇讻诇 讛诪谞讞讜转

And with the vessel of one log, one would measure the oil for all the standard meal offerings.

讗驻讬诇讜 诪谞讞讛 砖诇 砖砖讬诐 注砖专讜谉 谞讜转谉 诇讛 砖砖讬诐 诇讜讙 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪谞讞讛 砖诇 砖砖讬诐 注砖专讜谉 讗讬谉 诇讛 讗诇讗 诇讜讙讛 砖谞讗诪专 诇诪谞讞讛 讜诇讙 砖诪谉

Each tenth of an ephah of flour requires one log of oil. Accordingly, even if one brings a meal offering of sixty tenths of an ephah of flour, one adds to it sixty log of oil. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: Each meal offering, irrespective of its volume, even a meal offering of sixty tenths of an ephah of flour, requires only its single log of oil, as it is stated with regard to the offering brought by a poor leper on the day of his purification: 鈥淎nd a tenth of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil for a meal offering, and a log of oil鈥 (Leviticus 14:21). The juxtaposition of 鈥渁 meal offering鈥 with 鈥渁 log of oil鈥 teaches a principle for all meal offerings: Each offering requires only one log of oil.

砖砖讛 诇驻专 讜讗专讘注讛 诇讗讬诇 讜砖诇砖讛 诇讻讘砖

The mishna lists the quantities of oil and wine that were required for the meal offerings and libations that accompanied the sacrifice of an animal. Six log, i.e., onehalf of a hin, for those of a bull; and four log, i.e., one-third of a hin, for those of a ram; and three log, i.e., one-quarter of a hin, for those of a lamb.

砖诇砖讛 讜诪讞爪讛 诇诪谞讜专讛 讞爪讬 诇讜讙 诇讻诇 谞专

In addition, three and a half log of oil were required for the Candelabrum, as there were seven lamps and a half-log was required for each lamp.

讙诪壮 讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讜拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 专讘讬注讬转 诇诪讛 谞诪砖讞讛 讗讬 诪爪讜专注

GEMARA: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was sitting in study and posed a difficulty: For what purpose was the quarter-log measuring vessel anointed with the anointing oil, thereby consecrating it a service vessel? If you suggest it was necessary in order to measure the water used in the purification of a leper,

讞讜抓 讛讜讗 讜讗讬 谞讝讬专 诇讞诐 谞讝讬专 讘砖讞讬讟转 讗讬诇 讛讜讗 讚拽讚讬砖

one can counter that the rite is performed outside the Temple, and so it does not require a service vessel. And if you suggest it was for measuring the oil for the loaves of a nazirite, one can counter that the loaves of a nazirite are consecrated through the slaughter of the ram he brings, and there is no need for the oil to have been consecrated through a service vessel.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 砖讘讛 讛讬讛 诪讜讚讚 诇讞讘讬转讬 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 专讘讬注讬转 砖诪谉 诇讻诇 讞诇讛 讜讞诇讛 拽专讬 注诇讬讛 诪讗专抓 诪专讞拽 讗讬砖 注爪转讬

Rabbi 岣yya said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: The consecration of the quarter-log measuring vessel was necessary, as with it one would measure oil for the High Priest鈥檚 griddle-cake offering, as a quarterlog of oil is used for each and every loaf. In praise for resolving his difficulty, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi read the verse about Rabbi 岣yya, who had traveled from Babylonia to join Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in Eretz Yisrael: 鈥淭he man of my counsel from a far country鈥 (Isaiah 46:11).

讞爪讬 诇讜讙 诪讛 讛讬讛 诪砖诪砖 讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讜拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讞爪讬 诇讜讙 诇诪讛 谞诪砖讞 讗讬 住讜讟讛 讜讻讬 讞讜诇讬谉 讛讜讗 讚爪专讬讻讬 诇拽讚讜砖讬 诪讬诐 拽讚讜砖讬诐 讻转讬讘 讗讬 转讜讚讛 诇讞诪讬 转讜讚讛 讘砖讞讬讟转 转讜讚讛 讛讜讗 讚拽讚砖讬

搂 The mishna teaches: What purpose did the half-log measuring vessel serve? It was used to measure a half-log of water for the sota and a half-log of oil for the thanks offering. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was sitting in study and posed a difficulty: For what purpose was the half-log measuring vessel anointed with the anointing oil, thereby consecrating it a service vessel? If you suggest it was necessary in order to measure the water used in the rite of the sota, one can counter: Is the water that was used non-sacred such that it is necessary to consecrate it? Isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel鈥 (Numbers 5:17)? And if you suggest that it was for measuring the oil for the loaves of a thanks offering, one can counter that the loaves of a thanks offering are consecrated through the slaughter of the thanks offering, and so there is no need for the oil to have been consecrated through a service vessel.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专讘讬 砖讘讜 讛讬讛 诪讞诇拽 讞爪讬 诇讜讙 砖诪谉 诇讻诇 谞专 讜谞专 讗诪专 诇讜 谞专 讬砖专讗诇 讻讱 讛讬讛

Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, said to his father: The consecration of the half-log measuring vessel was necessary, as with it one would distribute a half-log of oil to each and every lamp of the Candelabrum. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to his son in praise: Lamp of Israel! Indeed, that was its use.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 谞专 砖讻讘转讛 谞讬讚砖谉 讛砖诪谉 谞讬讚砖谞讛 讛驻转讬诇讛 讻讬爪讚 注讜砖讛 诪讟讬讘讛 讜谞讜转谉 讘讛 砖诪谉 讜诪讚诇讬拽讛

搂 Apropos the lamps of the Candelabrum, the Gemara relates that Rabbi Yo岣nan says that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: If there is a lamp whose flame went out during the night, the oil in the lamp is halakhically rendered as ashes and the wick is rendered as ashes, and they may no longer be used. How should the priest act? He removes the ashes, i.e., the oil and wick, from the lamp, and puts new oil and a new wick into it and kindles it.

讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讝专讬拽讗 讜拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讻砖讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 讘讛 砖诪谉 讻诪讚讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讗讜 讻诪讜 砖讞住专讛

Rav Zerika was sitting and studying this halakha and raised a dilemma: When the priest puts oil in the lamp, does he fill it with the same quantity of oil that was initially used, i.e., a half-log, or does he just fill it with an amount equal to what it now lacks, in order to replace the oil that was removed?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讻诪讚讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讚讗讬 讻诪讛 砖讞住专讛 诪谞讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 诪讗讬 讞讬住专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚诪砖注专 诇讬讛 讗诐 讻谉 砖讘注 诪讚讜转 谞驻讬砖 诇讛讜 诪讚讜转 讟讜讘讗

Rabbi Yirmeya said: It is obvious that he fills it with the same quantity of oil that was initially used, as, if he were to fill with an amount equal to what it now lacks, there would be a difficulty: How do we know how much oil it lacks? And if you would say that the priest calculates it using a measuring vessel, one could counter that if so, there would not be only seven measuring vessels for liquids; rather, there would have to be many more measuring vessels of a whole range of volumes.

拽专讬 注诇讬讛 讜讛讚专讱 爪诇讞 专讻讘 注诇 讚讘专 讗诪转 讜注谞讜讛 爪讚拽

In praise for resolving his difficulty, Rabbi Zerika read the verse about Rabbi Yirmeya: 鈥淎nd in your majesty prosper, ride on, on behalf of truth and meekness and righteousness鈥 (Psalms 45:5).

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 谞专 砖讻讘转讛 谞讬讚砖谉 讛砖诪谉 谞讬讚砖谞讛 讛驻转讬诇讛 讻讬爪讚 注讜砖讛 诪讟讬讘讛 讜谞讜转谉 讘讛 砖诪谉 讻诪讚讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讜诪讚诇讬拽讛

An amoraic ruling was also stated in accordance with the explanation of Rabbi Yirmeya: Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says, and some say that Rabbi Abba says that Rabbi 岣nina says that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: If there is a lamp whose flame went out during the night, the oil in the lamp is rendered as ashes and the wick is rendered as ashes, and they may no longer be used. How should the priest act? He removes the ashes, i.e., the oil and wick, from the lamp, and puts into it oil of the same quantity that was initially used, with a new wick, and kindles it.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 谞专 砖讘诪拽讚砖 砖诇 驻专拽讬诐 讛讜讛

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehuda, says that Rav Sheshet says: Each lamp of the Candelabrum in the Temple was movable, as the branches holding it were thin and flexible. They could therefore be bent over in order to tip out any ashes, remaining oil, or wicks from the lamps. The basis for his opinion is the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall make a Candelabrum of pure gold, of beaten work the Candelabrum shall be made, its base, and its shaft; its cups, its knobs, and its flowers, will be from it鈥f a talent of pure gold it shall be made鈥 (Exodus 25:31, 39).

拽住讘专 讻讬 讻转讬讘 讻讻专 讜诪拽砖讛 讗诪谞讜专讛 讜谞专讜转讬讛 讻转讬讘 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讬讘注讬讗 讛讟讘讛 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚驻专拽讬诐 讛讜讬 诇讗 讛讜讛 诪讟讬讬讘讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara explains that Rav Sheshet holds that when it is written that the Candelabrum is to be fashioned from a single talent of gold, and that it be beaten into its form, it is written with regard to both the frame of Candelabrum and each of its lamps, i.e., they must all be fashioned together from a single piece of gold beaten into its form. Perforce, the lamps must have been movable, because since it is necessary to remove the ashes from the lamps, were each lamp not movable, it would not be possible to remove the ashes.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讻讬爪讚 注讜砖讛 诪住诇拽谉 讜诪谞讬讞谉 讘讗讜讛诇 讜诪拽谞讞谉 讘住驻讜讙 讜谞讜转谉 讘讛谉 砖诪谉 讜诪讚诇讬拽谉

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Sheshet鈥檚 opinion from a baraita: How would the priest act when removing the ashes from the lamps? He would remove the lamps from the Candelabrum and place them in the Tent of Meeting, i.e., the Sanctuary, and scrub them with a sponge [bisfog] to remove any remaining oil. And then he would put fresh oil into them and kindle them. Evidently, the lamps and the frame of the Candelabrum were separate parts.

讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讛讬讜 诪讝讬讝讬谉 讗讜转讛 诪诪拽讜诪讛

The Gemara explains that there is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m concerning this issue and Rav Sheshet states his opinion in accordance with the opinion of that tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: The Rabbis say that when removing the ashes, the priest would not move the lamp from its place; rather, he would remove the ashes while the lamp was still attached to the frame.

诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诇讗讜讝讜讝讛 诪爪讬 诪讝讬讝 诇讛 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讛讬转讛 讝讝讛 诪诪拽讜诪讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But from the fact that the baraita states that the priest would not move the lamp from its place, it would appear that if one wanted to move it, he was able to move it from its place. Apparently, then, the lamps were independent parts. The Gemara explains: Rather, emend the baraita to say: The lamp would not move from its place, as the lamps were not independent removable parts but were formed together with the frame from a single piece of gold.

讜诪讗谉 讞讻诪讬诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 讗讜诪专 讻诪讬谉 讟住 砖诇 讝讛讘 讛讬讛 诇讛 注诇 讙讘讛 讻砖讛讜讗 诪讟讬讘讛 讚讜讞拽讜 讻诇驻讬 驻讬讛 讻砖讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 讘讛 砖诪谉 讚讜讞拽讜 讻诇驻讬 专讗砖讛

The Gemara asks: And whose opinion is expressed by the Rabbis in the baraita? It is the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, as it is taught in another baraita: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: There was a kind of gold plate [tas] for each lamp, which was placed on top of it and which served as a cover for the lamp. The plate was attached to one side of the lamp, to the lamp鈥檚 head, and the wick emerged from the other side, from the lamp鈥檚 mouth. When the priest would come to remove the ashes from the lamp, he would first push up on the part of the plate at the mouth of the lamp, thereby exposing its contents. The lamp would then be bent over and its contents tipped out. And when he would come to place fresh oil and a wick in the lamp, he would place the new wick at its mouth and then push down on the plate at the head of the lamp, thereby closing it, then he would straighten it up and pour in the oil through a hole in the middle of the plate.

讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 诪谞讜专讛 讜谞专讜转讬讛 讘讗讜转 诪谉 讛讻讻专 讜讗讬谉 诪诇拽讞讬讛 讜诪讞转讜转讬讛 诪谉 讛讻讻专 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讜诪专 诪谞讜专讛 讛讬转讛 讘讗讛 诪谉 讛讻讻专 讜诇讗 谞专讜转讬讛 讜诪诇拽讞讬讛 讜诪讞转讜转讬讛 讘讗讜转 诪谉 讛讻讻专

The Gemara comments: And whether or not the lamps were independent removable parts is the subject of a dispute between these following tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: Both the frame of the Candelabrum and its lamps are produced together from the same talent of gold. But its tongs and its pans, which were the implements used for removing the ashes, were not fashioned from that same gold talent. Rabbi Ne岣mya says: Only the frame of the Candelabrum is produced from the talent of gold, but its lamps and its tongs and its pans are not produced from that same gold talent; rather, they are formed independently. The lamps are then positioned on the frame, but can still be removed from it.

讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讛讗讬 拽专讗 讚转谞讬讗 讻讻专 讝讛讘 讟讛讜专 讬注砖讛 讗转讛 诇诪讚谞讜 诇诪谞讜专讛 砖讘讗讛 诪谉 讛讻讻专 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 谞专讜转讬讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗转 讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 讛讗诇讛 讬讻讜诇 砖讗谞讬 诪专讘讛 讗祝 诪诇拽讞讬讛 讜诪讞转讜转讬讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗转讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛

The Gemara asks: With regard to what do these tanna鈥檌m disagree? The Gemara explains: They disagree with regard to the exposition of this verse, as it is taught in a baraita: From the verse: 鈥淥f a talent of pure gold it shall be fashioned with all these vessels鈥 (Exodus 25:39), we learned about the frame of the Candelabrum that it is produced from the gold talent. From where is it derived to include its lamps, that they should also be fashioned together with the frame from the same talent? The verse states: 鈥淚t shall be fashioned with all these vessels.鈥 This indicates that not only the frame, but also additional parts should be fashioned from the same talent. If so, one might have thought that I should include even its tongs and its pans. To counter this, the verse states: 鈥淚t shall be fashioned.鈥 The additional word 鈥渋t鈥 teaches that only the frame and the lamps are to be fashioned from the gold talent. This is the statement of Rabbi Ne岣mya.

拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讚专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 转专讬 转谞讗讬 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛

The Gemara interrupts the citation of the baraita and notes that the statement of Rabbi Ne岣mya in this baraita, in which he claims the lamps were fashioned from the talent with the frame, is difficult, as it is contradicted by the statement of Rabbi Ne岣mya in the other baraita, in which he claims the lamps were independent parts. The Gemara explains: There are two tanna鈥檌m, and they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya.

专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讗讜诪专 诪谞讜专讛 讘讗讛 诪谉 讛讻讻专 讜讗讬谉 诪诇拽讞讬讛 讜诪讞转讜转讬讛 讜谞专讜转讬讛 讘讗讛 诪谉 讛讻讻专 讜讗诇讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讗转 讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 讛讗诇讛 砖讛讬讜 讻诇讬诐 砖诇 讝讛讘

The Gemara resumes its citation of the baraita: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 says: Only the frame of the Candelabrum was produced from the talent of gold, but its tongs and its pans and its lamps were not produced from the talent. Rather, how do I realize the meaning of the verse: 鈥淥f a talent of pure gold it shall be fashioned with all these vessels鈥? It teaches only that all the vessels associated with the Candelabrum were made of gold, even though they were not fashioned from the same gold talent from which the Candelabrum and its lamps were.

讝讛讘 讘讛讚讬讗 讻转讬讘 讘讜 讜注砖讬转 讗转 谞专转讬讛 砖讘注讛 讜讛注诇讛 讗转 谞专转讬讛 讜讛讗讬专 讗诇 注讘专 驻谞讬讛 讜诪诇拽讞讬讛 讜诪讞转转讬讛 讝讛讘 讟讛讜专 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇驻讬 谞专讜转 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜驻讬 谞专讜转 讗砖讞讜专讬 诪砖讞专 讛转讜专讛 讞住讛 注诇 诪诪讜谞谉 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇

The Gemara questions the need for the derivation of the baraita: But the requirement that the vessels be made of gold is explicitly written in the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall fashion its lamps seven, and they shall kindle its lamps, and it will enlighten toward its face. And its tongs and its pans shall be of pure gold鈥 (Exodus 25:37鈥38); why then is it necessary for the baraita to derive this from the phrase 鈥渨ith all these vessels鈥? The Gemara explains: This derivation of the baraita is necessary only to teach that the same applies to the mouth of the lamps, where the wicks rest. Otherwise, it might enter your mind to say that since the mouth of the lamps blackens and is damaged by the burning wick, therefore the principle that the Torah spared the money of the Jewish people should be applied,

Scroll To Top