Menachot 28a — the Talmud in English

According to the Rabbis,

this

that is written, “valid,”

refers to

the case in which the priest stood with his back toward the

east and

his face toward the

west ,

and certainly

sprinkled, for that is the manner of its mitzva 172 .

This

that is written, “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

not in the manner of its mitzva.

The master said: And

seven sprinklings

that are inner

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

and those of a leper [

at the Nicanor Gate], which he performed

not for their sake—

are invalid. Those not directed—

are valid!

And we raise an objection:

But it was taught in a beraita: Both those performed not for their sake and those not directed—

are valid?!

And we answer:

Rav Yosef said: It is not difficult. This

that is written, “those performed not for their sake are invalid,”

is Rabbi Eliezer. And this

that is written, “are valid,”

is the Rabbis.

And we explain:

Rabbi Eliezer, who derives by analogy the guilt-offering from the sin-offering,

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

also derives by analogy 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”; and he again learns that the sprinklings of the leper’s log of oil performed not for their sake are invalid.

The Rabbis do not derive by analogy,

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 Shitta Mekubbetzet, 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, the sprinkling of its log performed not for its sake is valid].

And we object:

But according to Rabbi Eliezer,

can a matter learned by analogy,

the guilt-offering, which was learned by analogy from the sin-offering,

go back and teach by analogy

the leper’s log of oil, to invalidate a sprinkling performed not for its sake?! We have the rule that in sacred matters one does not learn a matter learned from another learned matter.

And we answer:

Rather, Rava said: Both this and that

can be reconciled according to

the Rabbis: Here

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

to render fit

the remainder of the log of oil for eating—for the remainder of a leper’s log is eaten—

and here

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

to effect acceptance,

that they do not count for him as fulfillment of his obligation and do not permit the leper to enter the congregation; and therefore they are invalid!

Mishna:

a.

The seven branches of the Menorah invalidate one another.

If one of them is missing, the Menorah is not fit for its mitzva. For it is stated in the passage of the Menorah, “and six branches emerge from its sides,” meaning that he make the body of the Menorah itself, which is in the middle, and another six branches emerging from it.

Its seven lamps,

the seven lamps placed at the head of each and every branch, which were like bowls, and in them they placed the oil and the wicks,

invalidate one another!

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

b.

The two passages in a mezuzah,

the passage “Hear,” and the passage “And it shall be if you surely heed,” in both of which it is stated, “and you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house,”

invalidate one another!

If he omitted one passage, the mezuzah is invalid.

And even one letter,

the writing of one letter not according to its law,

renders them essential,

and invalidates the mezuzah. For it is stated, “and you shall write them upon the doorposts,” and the Sages expounded: “and you shall write them”—a complete and whole writing 2 .

c.

The four passages in tefillin,

the passage “Hear,” the passage “And it shall be if you surely heed,” the passage “Sanctify to Me every firstborn,” and the passage “And it shall be when He brings you,” in all of which it is stated, “for frontlets between your eyes,” or “for a memorial between your eyes,”

invalidate one another!

If he omitted one of them, the tefillin are invalid.

And even one letter,

one letter that was written not according to its law,

renders them essential,

and invalidates the tefillin. For it is stated, “and they shall be for frontlets,” which is an expression of being, indicating essentiality.

d.

The four tzitziyot,

on the four corners of the garment,

invalidate one another!

If one of them is missing, he has not fulfilled his obligation of tzitzit.

For all four of them are one mitzva,

and if he omitted one of them, he did not fulfill the mitzva.

Rabbi Yishmael says:

They do not invalidate one another, because

the four of them are four mitzvot

that are separate. Thus, even if he omitted tzitzit on one of the corners of the garment, in any event he fulfills the mitzva through the other three corners, even though he omitted the mitzva on the fourth corner.

Gemara:

And we inquire:

What is the reason

that the branches of the Menorah invalidate one another?

And we answer:

“They shall be” is written concerning them,

the branches, as it is stated in the passage of the Menorah, “its knobs and its branches shall be from it,” and the expression of being indicates essentiality.

The Sages taught: The Menorah was made from one solid piece,

one piece, and not assembled from several parts , and he would strike it with a hammer until all its components emerged from it.

And

it was made

from gold,

as it is stated, “a Menorah of pure gold.”

If he made it from fragments,

from broken gold, that is, from several pieces of gold,

it is invalid!

But if he made it

from the other kinds of metal, it is valid!

And we inquire:

What is different about fragments

that the Menorah is invalid, because

it is written, “from one solid piece

shall the Menorah be made,” and “from one solid piece” implies one piece , and it is also stated in that passage

“they shall be”, “its knobs and its flowers shall be from it,” which implies essentiality; therefore

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

the other kinds of metal

should also be invalid, since it is stated

also

that the Menorah shall be made

of gold,

and concerning it too the expression

“they shall be”

is stated, indicating essentiality?!

And we answer:

The verse says, “a Menorah of pure gold, from one solid piece,”

“Pure gold, as a single piece,

shall be made

the Menorah; and “shall be made” implies: in any event! And from this we learn:

to include the other kinds of metal!

And we challenge:

Perhaps

we should say that the word “shall be made” comes

to include fragments,

so that even if it was not made from one solid piece, it is valid?!

And we answer:

It cannot enter your mind

to include fragments and exclude the other kinds of metal,

for “from one solid piece” is written with “they shall be”!

The word “they shall be,” whose meaning is an expression of being and essentiality, is closer in the verse to “from one solid piece” than to “gold”! [As it is stated, “pure gold, from one solid piece, shall the Menorah be made ... from it shall they be.” Therefore it is reasonable that the essentiality is required concerning “from one solid piece,” and not concerning “gold”].

And we challenge: But all the inclusion of the other metals is learned from what is stated, “shall be made”—in any event; yet

“shall be made” is also written with “from one solid piece”

as it is stated, “a Menorah of pure gold, from one solid piece shall the Menorah be made.” If so, it is reasonable that “shall be made” comes to include fragments, and not the other metals?!

And we answer: From the fact that the Torah wrote twice

“from one solid piece”—

“from one solid piece”

in the passage of Teruma: “from one solid piece shall the Menorah be made,” and “entirely one solid piece”—we learn that “from one solid piece” is

essential.

And there is no inclusion of fragments from the word “shall be made.”

And we challenge:

“Gold”—

“gold” also

is written twice: first, “and you shall make a Menorah of pure gold”; second, “one solid piece of pure gold.” If so, let us learn from this that gold is

essential

for the Menorah, just as “from one solid piece” is essential?!

And we answer:

What is this?

You cannot include fragments and exclude the other metals. For

if you say,

granted that from fragments it is invalid, because “from one solid piece”—“from one solid piece,” stated in the passage of Teruma, comes to indicate essentiality, and

because the repeated phrase “as a single piece”—“as a single piece,” stated in the passage of Teruma, comes to establish an indispensable requirement, but

from the other kinds of metal it is valid, that is

why the Torah needed to write

“gold”—“gold”

in the passage of Teruma, and

“from one solid piece”—“from one solid piece”

in the passage of Beha'alotekha,

for a derivation, for the derivations explained below. From these derivations it is heard that a Menorah made from the other kinds of metal is valid.

for the derivations explained below. And from these derivations it is understood that a menorah made from other kinds of metal is valid.

But if you say that from fragments it is valid and from the other kinds of metal it is invalid, “gold”—“gold”

stated in the passage of Teruma,

and “from one solid piece”—“from one solid piece”

stated in the passage of Beha'alotekha,

what do you derive from them?

The Gemara explains:

What derivation

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

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

And the word “from one solid piece” is mentioned four times in the passage of the Menorah: twice in the passage of Teruma and twice in the passage of Beha'alotekha [and in the beraita below only three verses in which the word “gold” is mentioned are explained].

For it was taught:

It is written in the passage of Teruma,

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

And they expound the verse: If

the Menorah comes

the Menorah

of gold, then it

then it

comes as a talent!

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

But when it

does not come as gold,

but rather from the other metals,

it does not come as a talent,

but it may be less or more. [

According to the Shitta Mekubbetzet] It is also written in the passage of Teruma,

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

And they expound the verse: If

the Menorah comes

the Menorah

of gold,

there must be in it

goblets, knobs, and flowers,

but when it

does not come as gold,

but rather from the other metals,

it is not

necessary that there be in it

goblets,

knobs, and flowers!

This derivation is possible only if the Menorah can indeed be made from the other metals, and from this the Gemara proves that the derivation “shall be made” includes the other kinds of metal, while “from one solid piece”—“from one solid piece” is expounded to indicate essentiality; for if we expound in the opposite manner, there is no way to establish the derivation of the beraita.

And the Gemara discusses: If we exclude a Menorah that is not of gold from having all the details of the laws of the Menorah,

perhaps also,

we should expound as well that if it

comes as gold,

then it

comes

with

branches,

but when it

does not come

from

gold,

but rather from the other metals,

it does not come with branches,

and it is not necessary that there be branches in it?!

The Gemara explains:

That one,

a Menorah without branches, is not called a Menorah, but

is called a “candelabrum,”

and therefore even when they make the Menorah from the other metals, it must have branches in it!

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

“And this was the workmanship of the Menorah, a Menorah of gold, from one solid piece,”

they expound:

It comes

the Menorah

of gold—it comes from one solid piece!

It must be made from one solid piece. But when it

does not come as gold,

but rather from the other metals,

it does not come from one solid piece! [There are two additional verses in the passage of Teruma in which gold is written: “And you shall make a Menorah of pure gold,” from which they derive below the principle of generalization, specification, and generalization; and “its tongs and its fire-pans of pure gold,” from which they learn that the vessels of the Menorah too were made of pure gold]. [

And from the verses in the passage of Teruma in which “from one solid piece” is written, they learn that the law of “from one solid piece” is essential; since the verse repeated this law, it is essential. And from the verse in the passage of Beha'alotekha, “And this was the workmanship of the Menorah, a Menorah of gold, from one solid piece,” they derive the teaching brought above: if it comes as gold, it comes from one solid piece; if it does not come as gold, it does not come from one solid piece].

And the Gemara continues:

“From one solid piece”

that is stated

in the latter part

of the verse in the passage of Beha'alotekha, “from its base to its flower, it is one solid piece,”

for what does it come?

To exclude the trumpets,

for concerning them “from one solid piece” is not essential: if he made them from fragments, they are valid.

For it was taught: The trumpets would be made from one solid piece

one piece

and from silver .

If he made them

the trumpets

from fragments, they are valid.

But

from other kinds of metal they are disqualified!

The Gemara raises an objection: Is it not written in the verse in the portion of the trumpets, “Make for yourself two silver trumpets; of hammered work you shall make them”?

And what is different

if he made them

from other kinds of metal,

because it is stated in the verse

“silver, and being”

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

from scrap metal as well

it is written concerning them

“hammered work, and being.”

And just as other kinds of metal disqualify them, so too scrap metal should disqualify them.

The Gemara answers:

The Merciful One excluded

and wrote

with regard to the menorah, “It is hammered work”

to teach us:

it,

the hammered work of the menorah alone is indispensable,

but not

the hammered work of the

trumpets!