Menachot 28a (כח.) — the Talmud in English

According to the Rabbis,

this

that is written as valid

refers to the case

in which the priest stood with his back toward the

east and

his face toward the

west ,

and certainly

he sprinkled, as this is the prescribed manner. 172 .

This

that is written as invalid

refers to the case

in which the priest stood with one side toward the

north and

his other side toward the

south; and certainly

this was not in accordance with the prescribed manner.

The Master said: And

the seven sprinklings

performed inside,

such as those of Yom Kippur, the bull of the anointed priest, the bull for an unwitting communal transgression, and the goats for idolatry,

and those performed in the case of a leper

at the Nikanor Gate, if he performed them

not for their sake—

they are invalid. If they were not properly directed—

they are valid!

And we raise an objection:

But it was taught in a beraita: Whether they were performed not for their sake or whether they were not properly directed—

they are valid?!

And we answer:

Rav Yosef said: This is not difficult. This

statement, which says that sprinklings performed not for their sake are invalid, is the opinion of

Rabbi Eliezer. And this

statement, which says that they are valid, is the opinion of

the Rabbis.

And we explain:

Rabbi Eliezer, who derives the guilt offering from the sin offering

because it is written, “like the sin offering, so is the guilt offering,” and he learns that a leper’s guilt offering performed not for its sake is invalid,

also derives the log from the guilt offering

as it is written, “one lamb as a guilt offering for a waving,” and at the end of the verse, “and one log of oil.” He thus further learns that sprinklings of the leper’s log of oil performed not for their sake are invalid.

The Rabbis do not derive in this manner,

and although the Rabbis agree that a guilt offering performed not for its sake is invalid, they do not derive the leper’s log of oil from the guilt offering. [See the Shיטה Mekubetzet, which writes that the Rabbis do not derive the guilt offering from the sin offering, and even a leper’s guilt offering performed not for its sake is valid; all the more so, sprinkling its log not for its sake is valid].

And we raise an objection:

But according to Rabbi Eliezer—

can a matter learned through a derivation by juxtaposition,

a guilt offering whose invalidity when performed not for its sake is learned through a derivation by juxtaposition from the sin offering,

then teach through a derivation by juxtaposition

concerning the leper’s log of oil, that sprinkling not for its sake is invalid? But we have a principle that in the area of sacrificial law, one may not derive something learned through a derivation from another derivation?!

And we answer:

Rather, Rava said: Both this and that

two beraitot can be reconciled according to

the Rabbis: Here,

where it is written that sprinklings performed not for their sake are valid, this means

to render fit

the remainder of the log of oil for eating, since the remainder of a leper’s log is eaten;

and here,

where it is written that sprinklings performed not for their sake are invalid, this means

to effect acceptance

—that they do not count for him as fulfilling his obligation and do not permit the leper to enter the congregation [in the previous amud and in Yoma, Rashi explained this as permitting him to eat sacrificial food]; and in this respect they are invalid!

Mishna:

a.

The seven branches of the Menora are indispensable to one another.

If one of them is missing, the Menora is not fit for its mitzva. As it is stated in the passage concerning the Menora: “And six branches shall emerge from its sides”—meaning that the body of the Menora itself is to be made in the center, with six additional branches emerging from it.

Its seven lamps

the seven lamps placed atop each of the branches, which were like bowls, into which the oil and wicks were placed,

are indispensable to one another!

If one of the seven lamps is missing, the Menora is invalid. 1 .

b.

The two passages in a mezuza

the passage of “Shema” and the passage of “And it shall be, if you obey,” both of which state, “And you shall write them on the doorposts of your house,”

are indispensable to one another!

If one passage is missing, the mezuza is invalid.

And even one letter

if a single letter is not written according to halakhic requirements,

renders them indispensable,

and invalidates the mezuza. As it is stated, “And you shall write them on the doorposts,” and the Sages expounded: “And you shall write them”—a complete and perfect writing. 2 .

c.

The four passages in phylacteries

the passage of “Shema,” the passage of “And it shall be, if you obey,” the passage of “Sanctify to Me every firstborn,” and the passage of “And it shall be when He brings you”—in all of which it is stated, “for a sign upon your hand,” or “as a memorial between your eyes,”

are indispensable to one another!

If one of them is missing, the phylacteries are invalid.

And even one letter

if a single letter is written not according to halakhic requirements,

renders them indispensable,

and invalidates the phylacteries. As it is stated, “And they shall be as frontlets,” which expresses a condition of being and thus indicates indispensability.

d.

The four ritual fringes

on the four corners of the garment

are indispensable to one another!

If one of them is missing, he has not fulfilled the obligation of ritual fringes.

For all four constitute one mitzva,

and if one is missing, he has not fulfilled the mitzva.

Rabbi Ishmael says:

They are not indispensable to one another, because

the four constitute four mitzvot

—they are separate mitzvot. Thus, even if a ritual fringe is missing from one corner of the garment, he nevertheless fulfills the mitzva through the other three corners, despite lacking the mitzva associated with the fourth corner.

Gemara:

We inquire:

What is the reason

that the branches of the Menora are indispensable to one another?

And we answer:

The expression of being is written concerning them,

concerning the branches, as it is stated in the passage concerning the Menora: “Their knobs and their branches shall be of one piece with it.” The expression of being indicates indispensability.

The Sages taught: The Menora was made from a single mass,

a single piece, rather than being assembled from several parts , and it was hammered with a hammer until all its components emerged from it.

And

it was made

of gold,

as it is stated: “A Menora of pure gold.”

If he made it from scrap metal,

from broken gold, meaning from several pieces of gold,

it is invalid!

But if he made it

from other kinds of metal, it is valid!

We inquire:

What is different about scrap metal

that the Menora is invalid when made from it? It is because

it is written, “From a single mass

shall the Menora be made,” and “from a single mass” indicates a single piece . It is also stated in that passage

the expression of being: “And its knobs and its flowers shall be of one piece with it,” which indicates indispensability. If so,

“And its knobs and its flowers shall be from it,” which indicates that this requirement is indispensable. If so,

other kinds of metal

should likewise be invalid, since it is stated

also

that the Menora shall be made

of gold,

and concerning it too the expression

of being

is stated, indicating indispensability?!

And we answer:

The verse says,

“A Menora of pure gold, from a single mass

shall be made

the Menora,” which indicates: it shall be made, in any event! And from this we learn:

to include other kinds of metal!

We challenge this:

Perhaps

the word “shall be made” comes

to include scrap metal,

so that even if it was not made from a single mass, it is valid?!

And we answer:

This cannot enter your mind

to include scrap metal and exclude other kinds of metal,

because “from a single mass” is written adjacent to the expression of being!

The word “shall be,” whose meaning indicates being and indispensability, is closer in the verse to “from a single mass” than to “gold.” [As it is stated: “A Menora of pure gold, from a single mass shall the Menora be made … of one piece with it shall they be.” It is therefore more reasonable to apply the requirement to “from a single mass” and not to “gold”].

We challenge this: But all the inclusion of other metals is learned from the statement “shall be made”—in any event. Yet

“shall be made” is also written adjacent to “from a single mass,”

as it is stated: “A Menora of pure gold, from a single mass shall the Menora be made.” If so, it is more reasonable that “shall be made” comes to include scrap metal and not other metals?!

And we answer: From the fact that the Torah wrote

“from a single mass”—

“from a single mass”

twice in the passage of Teruma: “From a single mass shall the Menora be made,” and “entirely of one piece,” we learn that “from a single mass” is

indispensable.

There is therefore no basis for including scrap metal from the word “shall be made.”

We challenge this:

“Gold”—

“gold” too

is written twice: first, “You shall make a Menora of pure gold,” and second, “of one piece, pure gold.” If so, we should learn from this that gold is

indispensable

for the Menora, just as “from a single mass” is indispensable?!

And we answer:

What is this?

You cannot include scrap metal and exclude other kinds of metal. For

if you say

it is understandable that scrap metal is invalid,

because “from a single mass”—“from a single mass,” as stated in the passage of Teruma, comes to indicate indispensability, but

other kinds of metal are valid, that is

why the Torah needed to write

“gold”—“gold”

in the passage of Teruma, and

“from a single mass”—“from a single mass”

in the passage of Beha'alotekha

for an exegetical purpose,

for the derivations explained below. From these derivations it is evident that a Menora made from other kinds of metal is valid.

But if you say that scrap metal is valid and other kinds of metal are invalid, “gold”—“gold”

as stated in the passage of Teruma,

and “from a single mass”—“from a single mass”

as stated in the passage of Beha'alotekha,

what will you derive from it?

The Gemara explains:

What derivation

is there from which it is proven that a Menora made from other metals is valid?

The word “gold” is mentioned five times in the passage concerning the Menora: four times in the passage of Teruma and once in the passage of Beha'alotekha.

The word “from a single mass” is mentioned four times in the passage concerning the Menora: twice in the passage of Teruma and twice in the passage of Beha'alotekha [the beraita below discusses only three verses in which the word “gold” is mentioned].

For it was taught in a beraita:

It is written in the passage of Teruma:

“A talent of pure gold shall it be made, with all these vessels.”

And the verse is expounded as follows: If the Menora

comes

as a Menora

of gold,

then it

comes as a talent!

That is, if the Menora is made of gold, it must be made from a talent of gold. 5 .

But when it

does not come as gold

but rather from other metals,

it does not come as a talent,

but one may use less or more. [According to the Shיטה Mekubetzet] It is also written in the passage of Teruma:

“

Its knobs and its branches shall be of one piece with it, entirely of one piece, pure gold.”

And the verse is expounded as follows: If the Menora

comes

as a Menora

of gold,

it must contain

goblets, knobs, and flowers,

but when

it does not come as gold

but rather from other metals,

it is not

necessary for it to contain

goblets,

knobs, and flowers!

It appears from Rashi that if he wishes to make goblets, knobs, and flowers from the other kinds of metal, he may. But in the Rambam it appears that it is forbidden to make goblets, knobs, and flowers from the other kinds of metal, and the reason was explained by the Mishne LaMelekh [there]: for if it had simply been stated, “and you shall make a Menorah,” it would be obvious that he may not independently make things that were not stated. Therefore, concerning the other kinds of metal, it is as though the Torah did not say at all to make them.

This derivation is possible only if the Menora may indeed be made from other metals. From this the Gemara proves that the word “shall be made” includes other kinds of metal, while “from a single mass”—“from a single mass” is expounded to indicate indispensability; for if we expounded the verses in the opposite manner, there would be no way to apply the derivation of the beraita.

The Gemara discusses: If the verse excludes a Menora that is not made of gold from having all the details required for the Menora,

perhaps also

we should expound that if it

comes as gold,

then it

comes

with

branches,

but when it

does not come

from

gold

but rather from other metals,

it does not come with branches;

there is no need for it to have branches?!

The Gemara explains:

That

a Menora without branches is not called a Menora, but rather

is called a “lampstand”;

therefore, even when the Menora is made from other metals, it must have branches!

And from the verse stated in the passage of Beha'alotekha,

“And this was the workmanship of the Menora: hammered gold,”

we derive:

If it comes

as a Menora

of gold, it comes as a single hammered piece! It must be made from a single mass. But when

it does not come as gold

but rather from other metals,

it

does not come as a single hammered piece! [There are two additional verses in the passage of Teruma in which gold is mentioned: “You shall make a Menora of pure gold,” from which the principle of a general rule, particular, and general rule is derived below; and “its tongs and its fire pans shall be pure gold,” from which it is learned that the vessels of the Menora were also made of pure gold]. [From the verses in the passage of Teruma in which “from a single mass” is written, we learn that the requirement of being made from a single mass is indispensable, since when the Torah repeats a law, it indicates that the law is indispensable. From the verse in the passage of Beha'alotekha, “And this was the workmanship of the Menora: hammered gold,” we derive the teaching cited above: If it comes as gold, it comes as a single hammered piece; if it does not come as gold, it does not come as a single hammered piece].

The Gemara continues:

“

From a single mass

that is stated

in the latter clause

of the verse in the passage of Beha'alotekha, ‘from its base to its flower, it is a single hammered piece,’

what does it come for?”

To exclude the trumpets,

for which the requirement of being made from a single mass is not indispensable: if they were made from scrap metal, they are valid.

For it was taught in a beraita: The trumpets were made from a single mass

a single piece

and from silver .

If he made them

as trumpets

from scrap metal, they are valid.

But

they are disqualified if made from other types of metal!

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Is it not written in the passage concerning the trumpets, “Make for yourself two silver trumpets; of a single piece shall you make them”?

And what difference is there

if he made them

from other types of metal, they are disqualified,

because the verse states

“silver,” and the requirement

“you shall make them, and they shall be yours”;

with regard to scraps as well

it is written

“of a single piece” and the requirement “they shall be.”

And just as other types of metal disqualify them, so too scraps should disqualify them.

The Gemara answers:

the Torah excluded

and wrote

with regard to the menorah, “it is of hammered work”

to teach us that

it

the hammered construction of the menorah alone is indispensable,

but not

the hammered construction of the

trumpets!