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.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Menachot 28
הא דקאי מזרח ומערב ואדי הא דקאי צפון ודרום ואדי
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.
אמר מר ושבפנים ושבמצורע שלא לשמן פסולות שלא מכוונות כשרות והתניא בין שלא לשמן בין שלא מכוונות כשרות
§ 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?
אמר רב יוסף לא קשיא הא רבי אליעזר והא רבנן רבי אליעזר דמקיש אשם לחטאת מקיש נמי לוג לאשם רבנן לא מקשי
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.
ולרבי אליעזר וכי דבר הלמד בהיקש חוזר ומלמד בהיקש
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.
אלא אמר רבא הא והא רבנן כאן להכשיר (הקרבן) כאן להרצות (שלא עלו לבעלים לשום חובה):
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.
מתני׳ שבעה קני מנורה מעכבין זה את זה שבעה נרותיה מעכבין זה את זה שתי פרשיות שבמזוזה מעכבות זו את זו אפילו כתב אחד מעכבן
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.
ד’ פרשיות שבתפילין מעכבין זו את זו אפילו כתב אחד מעכבן ד’ ציציות מעכבות זו את זו שארבעתן מצוה אחת רבי ישמעאל אומר ארבעתן ארבע מצות:
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.
גמ׳ מ”ט הויה כתיב בהו
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.
תנו רבנן מנורה היתה באה מן העשת ומן הזהב עשאה מן הגרוטאות פסולה משאר מיני מתכות כשרה מאי שנא מן הגרוטאות פסולה דכתיב (שמות כה, לא) מקשה והויה שאר מיני מתכות נמי זהב והויה
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.
אמר קרא תיעשה לרבות שאר מיני מתכות ואימא לרבות גרוטאות לא ס”ד דאמקשה כתיבה הויה
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).
תיעשה נמי אמקשה כתיב מקשה מקשה לעכב
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.
זהב זהב נמי לעכב
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?
האי מאי אי אמרת בשלמא מן הגרוטאות פסולה משאר מיני מתכות כשרה היינו זהב זהב מקשה מקשה לדרשא אלא אי אמרת מן הגרוטאות כשרה משאר מיני מתכות פסולה זהב זהב מקשה מקשה מאי דרשת ביה
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”?
מאי דרשא דתניא (שמות כה, לט) ככר זהב טהור יעשה אותה את כל הכלים האלה באה זהב באה ככר אינה באה זהב אינה באה ככר (שמות כה, לא) גביעיה כפתוריה ופרחיה באה זהב באה גביעים כפתורים ופרחים אינה באה זהב אינה באה גביעים כפתורים ופרחים
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.
ואימא נמי באה זהב באה קנים אינה באה זהב אינה באה קנים ההוא פמוט מיקרי
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.
(במדבר ח, ד) וזה מעשה המנורה מקשה זהב באה זהב באה מקשה אינה באה זהב אינה באה מקשה
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.
מקשה דסיפא למאי אתא למעוטי חצוצרות דתניא חצוצרות היו באים מן העשת מן הכסף עשאם מן הגרוטאות כשרים משאר מיני מתכות פסולים
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.
ומאי שנא משאר מיני מתכות פסולים דכתיב כסף והויה מן הגרוטאות נמי מקשה והויה מיעט רחמנא גבי מנורה מקשה היא היא ולא חצוצרות
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.
תנו רבנן כל הכלים
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: All of the vessels
שעשה משה כשרים לו וכשרים לדורות חצוצרות כשרות לו ופסולות לדורות
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.
חצוצרות מ”ט אילימא דאמר קרא (במדבר י, ב) עשה לך לך ולא לדורות אלא מעתה (דברים י, א) ועשית לך ארון עץ הכי נמי דלך ולא לדורות
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.
אלא אי למאן דאמר לך משלך אי למ”ד כביכול בשלך אני רוצה יותר משלהם האי נמי מיבעי ליה להכי שאני התם דאמר קרא לך לך תרי זימני עשה לך והיו לך
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).
תני רב פפא בריה דרב חנין קמיה דרב יוסף מנורה היתה באה מן העשת מן הזהב עשאה של כסף כשרה של בעץ ושל אבר ושל גיסטרון רבי פוסל ור’ יוסי ברבי יהודה מכשיר של עץ ושל עצם ושל זכוכית דברי הכל פסולה
§ 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.
א”ל מאי דעתך א”ל בין מר ובין מר כללי ופרטי דרשי
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.
מיהו מר סבר מה הפרט מפורש של מתכת אף כל של מתכת ומר סבר מה הפרט מפורש דבר חשוב אף כל דבר חשוב אמר ליה סמי דידך מקמי דידי
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.
דתניא כלי שרת שעשאן של עץ רבי פוסל ורבי יוסי ברבי יהודה מכשיר במאי קא מיפלגי רבי דריש כללי ופרטי ורבי יוסי בר’ יהודה דריש ריבויי ומיעוטי
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.
רבי דריש כללי ופרטי (שמות כה, לא) ועשית מנורת כלל זהב טהור פרט מקשה תיעשה המנורה חזר וכלל כלל ופרט וכלל אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט מה הפרט מפורש של מתכת אף כל של מתכת
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.
ר’ יוסי בר’ יהודה דריש ריבויי ומיעוטי ועשית מנורת ריבה זהב טהור מיעט מקשה תיעשה המנורה חזר וריבה ריבה ומיעט וריבה ריבה הכל ומאי רבי רבי כל מילי ומאי מיעט מיעט של חרס
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.
אדרבה סמי דידך מקמי דידי לא ס”ד דתניא אין לו זהב מביא אף של כסף של נחשת של ברזל ושל בדיל ושל עופרת רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה מכשיר אף בשל עץ
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.
ותניא אידך לא יעשה אדם בית תבנית היכל אכסדרה כנגד אולם חצר כנגד עזרה שלחן כנגד שלחן מנורה כנגד מנורה אבל עושה הוא של חמשה ושל ששה ושל שמנה ושל שבעה לא יעשה ואפילו משאר מיני מתכות
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.
ר’ יוסי בר רבי יהודה אומר אף של עץ לא יעשה כדרך שעשו מלכי בית חשמונאי אמרו לו משם ראיה שפודים של ברזל היו וחיפום בבעץ העשירו עשאום של כסף חזרו והעשירו עשאום של זהב
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.
אמר שמואל משמיה דסבא גובהה של מנורה שמנה עשר טפחים הרגלים והפרח ג’ טפחים וטפחיים חלק וטפח שבו גביע וכפתור ופרח וטפחיים חלק וטפח כפתור
§ 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.
ושני קנים יוצאין ממנו אחד אילך ואחד אילך ונמשכין ועולין כנגד גובהה של מנורה וטפח חלק וטפח כפתור ושני קנים יוצאין ממנו אחד אילך ואחד אילך נמשכין ועולין כנגד גובהה של מנורה וטפח חלק וטפח כפתור ושני קנים יוצאין ממנו אחד אילך ואחד אילך ונמשכין ועולין כנגד גובהה של מנורה וטפחיים חלק נשתיירו שם ג’ טפחים שבהן ג’ גביעין וכפתור ופרח
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.
וגביעין למה הן דומין כמין כוסות אלכסנדריים כפתורים למה הן דומין כמין תפוחי הכרתיים פרחים למה הן דומין כמין פרחי העמודין ונמצאו גביעין עשרים ושנים כפתורים אחד עשר פרחים תשעה
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.
גביעים מעכבין זה את זה כפתורים מעכבין זה את זה פרחים מעכבין זה את זה גביעים כפתורים ופרחים מעכבין זה את זה
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.
בשלמא גביעים עשרים ושנים דכתיב (שמות כה, לד) ובמנורה ארבעה גביעים וגו’ וכתיב (שמות כה, לג) שלשה גביעים משוקדים בקנה האחד כפתור ופרח וגו’ ארבעה דידה
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 
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I graduated college in December 2019 and received a set of shas as a present from my husband. With my long time dream of learning daf yomi, I had no idea that a new cycle was beginning just one month later, in January 2020. I have been learning the daf ever since with Michelle Farber… Through grad school, my first job, my first baby, and all the other incredible journeys over the past few years!
Sigal Spitzer Flamholz
Bronx, United States
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Shoshana Shinnar
Jerusalem, Israel
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Anne Rubin
Elkins Park, United States
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Debbie Engelen-Eigles
Minnesota, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi to fill what I saw as a large gap in my Jewish education. I also hope to inspire my three daughters to ensure that they do not allow the same Talmud-sized gap to form in their own educations. I am so proud to be a part of the Hadran community, and I have loved learning so many of the stories and halachot that we have seen so far. I look forward to continuing!
Dora Chana Haar
Oceanside NY, 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 started learning at the beginning of this cycle more than 2 years ago, and I have not missed a day or a daf. It’s been challenging and enlightening and even mind-numbing at times, but the learning and the shared experience have all been worth it. If you are open to it, there’s no telling what might come into your life.
Patti Evans
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Beth Kissileff
Pittsburgh, United States
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Janice Block
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I started the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.
Rookie Billet
Jerusalem, Israel
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
Dena Heller
New Jersey, United States
Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.
Rebecca Stulberg
Ottawa, Canada
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Nancy Kolodny
Newton, United States
Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!
Elisheva Brauner
Jerusalem, Israel
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
linda kalish-marcus
Efrat, Israel
After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Caroline Graham-Ofstein
Bet Shemesh, Israel
I began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Barbara Goldschlag
Silver Spring, MD, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi to fill what I saw as a large gap in my Jewish education. I also hope to inspire my three daughters to ensure that they do not allow the same Talmud-sized gap to form in their own educations. I am so proud to be a part of the Hadran community, and I have loved learning so many of the stories and halachot that we have seen so far. I look forward to continuing!
Dora Chana Haar
Oceanside NY, 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
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
Menachot 28
הא דקאי מזרח ומערב ואדי הא דקאי צפון ודרום ואדי
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.
אמר מר ושבפנים ושבמצורע שלא לשמן פסולות שלא מכוונות כשרות והתניא בין שלא לשמן בין שלא מכוונות כשרות
§ 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?
אמר רב יוסף לא קשיא הא רבי אליעזר והא רבנן רבי אליעזר דמקיש אשם לחטאת מקיש נמי לוג לאשם רבנן לא מקשי
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.
ולרבי אליעזר וכי דבר הלמד בהיקש חוזר ומלמד בהיקש
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.
אלא אמר רבא הא והא רבנן כאן להכשיר (הקרבן) כאן להרצות (שלא עלו לבעלים לשום חובה):
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.
מתני׳ שבעה קני מנורה מעכבין זה את זה שבעה נרותיה מעכבין זה את זה שתי פרשיות שבמזוזה מעכבות זו את זו אפילו כתב אחד מעכבן
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.
ד’ פרשיות שבתפילין מעכבין זו את זו אפילו כתב אחד מעכבן ד’ ציציות מעכבות זו את זו שארבעתן מצוה אחת רבי ישמעאל אומר ארבעתן ארבע מצות:
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.
גמ׳ מ”ט הויה כתיב בהו
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.
תנו רבנן מנורה היתה באה מן העשת ומן הזהב עשאה מן הגרוטאות פסולה משאר מיני מתכות כשרה מאי שנא מן הגרוטאות פסולה דכתיב (שמות כה, לא) מקשה והויה שאר מיני מתכות נמי זהב והויה
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.
אמר קרא תיעשה לרבות שאר מיני מתכות ואימא לרבות גרוטאות לא ס”ד דאמקשה כתיבה הויה
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).
תיעשה נמי אמקשה כתיב מקשה מקשה לעכב
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.
זהב זהב נמי לעכב
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?
האי מאי אי אמרת בשלמא מן הגרוטאות פסולה משאר מיני מתכות כשרה היינו זהב זהב מקשה מקשה לדרשא אלא אי אמרת מן הגרוטאות כשרה משאר מיני מתכות פסולה זהב זהב מקשה מקשה מאי דרשת ביה
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”?
מאי דרשא דתניא (שמות כה, לט) ככר זהב טהור יעשה אותה את כל הכלים האלה באה זהב באה ככר אינה באה זהב אינה באה ככר (שמות כה, לא) גביעיה כפתוריה ופרחיה באה זהב באה גביעים כפתורים ופרחים אינה באה זהב אינה באה גביעים כפתורים ופרחים
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.
ואימא נמי באה זהב באה קנים אינה באה זהב אינה באה קנים ההוא פמוט מיקרי
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.
(במדבר ח, ד) וזה מעשה המנורה מקשה זהב באה זהב באה מקשה אינה באה זהב אינה באה מקשה
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.
מקשה דסיפא למאי אתא למעוטי חצוצרות דתניא חצוצרות היו באים מן העשת מן הכסף עשאם מן הגרוטאות כשרים משאר מיני מתכות פסולים
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.
ומאי שנא משאר מיני מתכות פסולים דכתיב כסף והויה מן הגרוטאות נמי מקשה והויה מיעט רחמנא גבי מנורה מקשה היא היא ולא חצוצרות
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.
תנו רבנן כל הכלים
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: All of the vessels
שעשה משה כשרים לו וכשרים לדורות חצוצרות כשרות לו ופסולות לדורות
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.
חצוצרות מ”ט אילימא דאמר קרא (במדבר י, ב) עשה לך לך ולא לדורות אלא מעתה (דברים י, א) ועשית לך ארון עץ הכי נמי דלך ולא לדורות
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.
אלא אי למאן דאמר לך משלך אי למ”ד כביכול בשלך אני רוצה יותר משלהם האי נמי מיבעי ליה להכי שאני התם דאמר קרא לך לך תרי זימני עשה לך והיו לך
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).
תני רב פפא בריה דרב חנין קמיה דרב יוסף מנורה היתה באה מן העשת מן הזהב עשאה של כסף כשרה של בעץ ושל אבר ושל גיסטרון רבי פוסל ור’ יוסי ברבי יהודה מכשיר של עץ ושל עצם ושל זכוכית דברי הכל פסולה
§ 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.
א”ל מאי דעתך א”ל בין מר ובין מר כללי ופרטי דרשי
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.
מיהו מר סבר מה הפרט מפורש של מתכת אף כל של מתכת ומר סבר מה הפרט מפורש דבר חשוב אף כל דבר חשוב אמר ליה סמי דידך מקמי דידי
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.
דתניא כלי שרת שעשאן של עץ רבי פוסל ורבי יוסי ברבי יהודה מכשיר במאי קא מיפלגי רבי דריש כללי ופרטי ורבי יוסי בר’ יהודה דריש ריבויי ומיעוטי
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.
רבי דריש כללי ופרטי (שמות כה, לא) ועשית מנורת כלל זהב טהור פרט מקשה תיעשה המנורה חזר וכלל כלל ופרט וכלל אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט מה הפרט מפורש של מתכת אף כל של מתכת
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.
ר’ יוסי בר’ יהודה דריש ריבויי ומיעוטי ועשית מנורת ריבה זהב טהור מיעט מקשה תיעשה המנורה חזר וריבה ריבה ומיעט וריבה ריבה הכל ומאי רבי רבי כל מילי ומאי מיעט מיעט של חרס
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.
אדרבה סמי דידך מקמי דידי לא ס”ד דתניא אין לו זהב מביא אף של כסף של נחשת של ברזל ושל בדיל ושל עופרת רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה מכשיר אף בשל עץ
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.
ותניא אידך לא יעשה אדם בית תבנית היכל אכסדרה כנגד אולם חצר כנגד עזרה שלחן כנגד שלחן מנורה כנגד מנורה אבל עושה הוא של חמשה ושל ששה ושל שמנה ושל שבעה לא יעשה ואפילו משאר מיני מתכות
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.
ר’ יוסי בר רבי יהודה אומר אף של עץ לא יעשה כדרך שעשו מלכי בית חשמונאי אמרו לו משם ראיה שפודים של ברזל היו וחיפום בבעץ העשירו עשאום של כסף חזרו והעשירו עשאום של זהב
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.
אמר שמואל משמיה דסבא גובהה של מנורה שמנה עשר טפחים הרגלים והפרח ג’ טפחים וטפחיים חלק וטפח שבו גביע וכפתור ופרח וטפחיים חלק וטפח כפתור
§ 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.
ושני קנים יוצאין ממנו אחד אילך ואחד אילך ונמשכין ועולין כנגד גובהה של מנורה וטפח חלק וטפח כפתור ושני קנים יוצאין ממנו אחד אילך ואחד אילך נמשכין ועולין כנגד גובהה של מנורה וטפח חלק וטפח כפתור ושני קנים יוצאין ממנו אחד אילך ואחד אילך ונמשכין ועולין כנגד גובהה של מנורה וטפחיים חלק נשתיירו שם ג’ טפחים שבהן ג’ גביעין וכפתור ופרח
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.
וגביעין למה הן דומין כמין כוסות אלכסנדריים כפתורים למה הן דומין כמין תפוחי הכרתיים פרחים למה הן דומין כמין פרחי העמודין ונמצאו גביעין עשרים ושנים כפתורים אחד עשר פרחים תשעה
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.
גביעים מעכבין זה את זה כפתורים מעכבין זה את זה פרחים מעכבין זה את זה גביעים כפתורים ופרחים מעכבין זה את זה
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.
בשלמא גביעים עשרים ושנים דכתיב (שמות כה, לד) ובמנורה ארבעה גביעים וגו’ וכתיב (שמות כה, לג) שלשה גביעים משוקדים בקנה האחד כפתור ופרח וגו’ ארבעה דידה
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
