Menachot 29a (כט.) — the Talmud in English

It follows that in all six branches there were eighteen goblets, and therefore we have found

four

goblets

belonging to it

of the body of the menora,

and eighteen

eighteen goblets

of the branches. But

we have a source for

twenty-two

goblets.

The knobs as well:

we find

eleven of its knobs: two belonging to it

of the body of the menora, as it is stated: “Its knobs and its flowers shall be from it.” “Its knobs” means two knobs.

And six

knobs

were on the branches.

As it is stated: “On the one branch, three almond-shaped goblets, a knob and a flower,” and there was one knob on each branch. Thus, there were six knobs on all the branches.

And a knob, and a knob, and a knob

these are the three knobs, from each of which two branches of the menora extended, as it is stated three times in the verse: “And a knob beneath two branches”;

that is eleven,

eleven knobs!

But from where do we derive nine flowers?

We have found only

two belonging to it

of the body of the menora, as it is stated: “And on the menora there were four almond-shaped goblets, its knobs and its flowers.” And we derive that “its knobs” means two and “its flowers” means two; thus, we have two flowers on the body of the menora.

And six of the branches,

as each branch had a knob and a flower, as it is stated: “On the one branch, a knob and a flower.” Thus, we have six flowers on the six branches of the menora. And if so,

there were eight,

eight

were they,

and not nine?

Rav Shalman said:

It is stated in the passage concerning the lighting of the menora: “And this was the work of the menora: hammered gold

from its base to its flower, it was hammered

The verse added an additional flower. [This was the first flower, which was close to the base of the menora, within its first three handbreadths.] Thus, there were nine flowers on the menora.

Rav said: The height of the menora was nine handbreadths!

Rav Shimi bar Hiyya raised an objection to Rav:

We learned in the Mishna in tractate Tamid:

There was a stone before the menora ,

and on it were three steps

stairs ,

on which the priest stood and prepared the lamps!

But if the entire height of the menora was only nine handbreadths [that is, one and a half cubits], why did the priest need to stand on a stone? Even if he stood on the floor, he could have prepared the lamps?

Rav said to him: Are you Shimi?

You are Shimi, and a great sage like you raises this difficulty to me?

For when I said

that the height of the menora was nine handbreadths,

I meant from the edge of the branches

from above the place where the branches emerged from the body of the menora

and upward

to the top of the menora. And from the ground to the branches there were another nine handbreadths; together, the menora was eighteen handbreadths high.

It is written

in Chronicles, in the chapter concerning the menora that Solomon made: “And the flower, and the lamps, and the tongs were gold, perfected gold.”

“The flower, and the lamps, and the tongs were gold, perfected gold.”

The Gemara explains:

What is the meaning of “perfected gold”?

Rav Ami said:

Because of the great quantity of gold that they put into the menora, it

consumed

was used up—

all of Solomon’s fine gold,

the superior gold [and it was called “fine gold” because when it was sold, all the shops selling other gold would close]

of Solomon.

As Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: Solomon made ten menorot. [As it is stated in the book of Kings,]

for each and every one

and for each one

of the menorot,

he brought one thousand talents of gold for it, and they put it

into a crucible weighing one thousand talents

one thousand times in the crucible

in order to refine it. And after the refining,

they set it at one talent

of gold.

And we raise a difficulty:

Is that so? For it is written

in the book of Kings:

“Silver was not accounted for anything in the days of Solomon,”

which proves that Solomon was wealthy; how, then, can it be said that the gold placed into the menora consumed all of Solomon’s gold?

And we answer: When we said that Solomon’s gold was consumed,

we meant his fine gold!

In any event, Solomon remained wealthy, and therefore silver was not accounted for anything in his days.

And we refute this:

Did

the gold

really become deficient to that extent,

such a great amount, that they placed one thousand talents into the crucible one thousand times until it was reduced to one talent? This implies that each time they placed it into the crucible, the gold was reduced by a talent.

But it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: It once happened that the menora of the Temple was heavier

in weight

than

the menora

of Moses

by the weight of

a gold dinar [from a place called]

from a place called]

Kordinaiki, and they placed it into the crucible eighty times, and they set

its weight

at one talent

of gold, like the weight of the menora that Moses made 21 .

This proves that gold does not diminish so greatly in a crucible!?

And we answer:

Since it had already stood

since that gold had already been burned in the crucible in the days of Solomon,

it stood

therefore, now only a dinar was lost.

Rav Shmuel bar Naḥmani said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: What is the meaning of that which is written

in the passage concerning the lamps:

“Upon the pure menora

shall he arrange the lamps”? From the fact that the Torah wrote “pure,” it implies

that its construction descended from a place of purity!

For the menora was shown to Moses from Heaven, and he made one according to its model.

And we refute this:

But if that is so,

according to your statement, with regard to what is stated: “Six loaves in each arrangement upon

the pure table,”

shall we also interpret it there as meaning

that its construction descended from a pure place? [And if so, it is difficult: Why was this exposition applied only to the menora?] 22 .

And if so, why is this exposition made only concerning the menorah?] 22 .

Rather,

the verse certainly means that the table must be

pure,

and

it follows that it is impure,

that is, it can contract impurity! If so,

here too

let us expound the word “pure” with regard to the menora:

“pure,”

it follows

that it is impure,

that is, it is fit to contract impurity. From where, then, do you derive that its construction descended from a place of purity!?

And we answer:

Granted, there

with regard to the table, there is a novelty: it can contract impurity. The Torah needed to teach us this law because of the difficulty raised by

Reish Lakish. For Reish Lakish said: What is the meaning of that which is written, “Upon the pure table”?

And we derive from this

that it is impure.

But this is difficult, for the table was

a wooden vessel made to remain in place,

since the table remained fixed in its place and was not carried.

And

it is an established principle that

any wooden vessel made to remain in place,

which is not carried,

does not contract impurity!

As it is stated in the passage concerning the impurity of creeping animals: “And anything upon which one of them falls when they are dead shall be impure, of any wooden vessel, or garment, or leather, or sack.” And we expound: Just as a sack can be carried when full or empty, so too, anything that can be carried when full or empty contracts impurity. But a wooden vessel that is not carried and is intended to remain permanently in place does not contract impurity. If so, how could the table contract impurity?

Rather,

from the fact that the verse demonstrates that the table can contract impurity,

it teaches

that they would

lift it

during the pilgrimage festivals in order to show it

to those who ascended for the pilgrimage, and they showed them

the

showbread

that was on the table.

And they would say to them: See how beloved you are before the Omnipresent!

And since they would lift the table for those who came for the pilgrimage, it was therefore considered a vessel that could be carried when full or empty and could contract impurity.

And we explain:

What is the meaning of “how beloved you are”

that they saw in the showbread?

It is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi. For Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said:

A great miracle was performed with the showbread: the heat of the bread at the time of

its removal,

after it had remained for a week on the table, was like that at the time of

its arrangement

on the table

as it is stated

in the book of Samuel: “For there was no bread there except the showbread that was removed from before the Lord

to place hot bread on the day

it was taken.” This implies that even when it was taken from the table, the bread was hot.

And since it was necessary to teach this novelty—that the table could contract impurity because it was carried during the pilgrimage festival—the Torah had to write “the pure table.”

But here,

with regard to the menora, why did the Torah need to write

“pure”

in order to teach

that it is impure,

that it can contract impurity? After all,

it is obvious

that it can contract impurity, since

they are metal vessels, and metal vessels

we know plainly that they

certainly contract impurity

even when they are not carried!?

Rather,

the Torah certainly wrote “the pure menora” in order to teach

that its construction descended from a place of purity!

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: A fiery Ark, a fiery table, and a fiery menora descended from Heaven, and Moses saw them and made them accordingly. As it is stated

at the end of the passage concerning the menora:

“And see and make them according to their pattern, which you are shown on the mountain.”

And we expound that the word “pattern” was stated with regard to the Ark, the menora, and the table, for concerning all of them it says: “which you are shown on the mountain.”

And we refute this:

But if that is so,

with regard to what is stated:

“And you shall erect the Tabernacle according to its laws, as you were shown on the mountain,”

shall

we also

expound this to mean that a fiery Tabernacle descended to Moses from Heaven?

And we answer:

Here,

with regard to the Tabernacle,

it is written, “according to its laws,”

which implies that the laws of the Tabernacle were told to him on the mountain. Whereas

there,

with regard to the menora, table, and Ark,

it is written, “according to their pattern,”

which implies that he was shown objects like them and their forms.

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

The angel

Gabriel was girded like an artisan’s belt

He was girded with a belt, as artisans gird themselves so that their garments will not trail upon them,

and he showed Moses the construction of the menora

as it is written: “And this was the work of the menora,”

which implies that he showed Moses the construction of the menora.

The school of Rabbi Ishmael taught: Three things were difficult for Moses

to understand,

until the Holy One, blessed be He, showed them to him with His finger. And these are: the menora, the new moon, and creeping animals.

The menora, as it is written: “And this was the work of the menora.”

And from the word “this” it is implied that he had to show it to him [and Moses found it difficult because it had to be made with its goblets, knobs, and flowers as a single hammered piece. Maharsha] 24 .

The new moon, as it is written: “This month shall be for you the beginning of months.”

And from the word “this” it is implied that He showed it to him. [Moses found it difficult because at the time of the conjunction the moon is not sufficiently visible, and therefore He had to show him under what circumstances the moon’s appearance is considered visible] 25 .

Creeping animals, as it is written: “And these are impure for you,”

and from the word “these” it is implied that He showed him the types of creeping animals that are pure and impure [and since there are many species of creeping animals, he would not have known which was impure and which was pure] , 27 .

And some say: The laws of slaughter as well

were shown to him.

As it is stated

in the passage of Tetzaveh:

“And this is what you shall do upon the altar.”

The first act performed upon the altar is slaughter. This implies that he was shown the manner of slaughter [and Moses found it difficult to know precisely where the slaughtering point was, and where the place at which slaughter is invalid was].

We learned in the Mishna:

The two passages in a mezuzah invalidate one another, and even one letter invalidates them.

And we ask:

It is obvious

that one letter invalidates it, as it is stated in the passage concerning mezuzah: “And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house.” And we expound in tractate Shabbat: “And you shall write them” is a mnemonic for complete writing, meaning that the writing must be intact. If even one letter is not written properly and completely, this is not complete writing.

And we answer:

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: It was necessary

for our Mishna to teach only

with regard to the removal of

the leg of a yod,

that if even the right leg of the yod is missing, it invalidates it. 28 .

And we refute this:

Is this too not obvious,

since the letter was not made according to its proper form, and this letter invalidates it? If so, this is equivalent to the letter not having been written at all!?

And we answer: It was necessary

only for the other matter,

the other law of

Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav. For Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: Any letter that does not have blank parchment

around it, a blank area without writing,

on all four sides,

for example, if the letter next to it touches it, is

invalid. [There must be blank, empty parchment surrounding the letter on all sides.] This is what we learned in the Mishna: that one letter invalidates it. The laws stated with regard to a mezuzah [namely, that it must be surrounded by blank parchment], if they are not fulfilled even with regard to the laws of a single letter, invalidate the mezuzah , 30 .

There must be blank parchment surrounding the letter on every side.] This is what we learned in the Mishna: that one letter invalidates it. The laws stated concerning a mezuzah [namely, that it must be surrounded by blank parchment] invalidate it even when the requirement is not fulfilled with regard to only one letter , 30 .

Rav Ashyan bar Nadbek said in the name of Rav Yehuda: If the interior of the

letter

heh

in the passages of the tefillin was punctured—that is, the short left leg of the heh. And some explain “its interior was punctured” as referring to the interior of the letter, namely, the blank parchment inside the letter—

it is valid

the letter is valid.

If

its thigh

the long right leg of the heh was punctured,

it is invalid

the letter is invalid.

Rabbi Zeira said: For my part, it was explained to me

I heard this interpretation

by him

from his mouth,

by Rav Huna.

And Rabbi Yaakov said: For my part, it was explained to me

I heard this interpretation

by him, by Rav Yehuda: If the interior of the heh was punctured

it is valid! [

According to the interpretation that this means the left leg, the innovation is that there is no required measurement for the length of the left leg, and if any amount remains, the letter is valid. According to the interpretation that this means the interior of the letter, the reason it is valid is that within the letter there is no invalidity of not being surrounded by blank parchment] 32 .

But if

its thigh

was punctured, then if

there remained in it

of the right thigh

the size of a small letter [

that is, the size of the letter yod, according to the Mishna Berura,] it is

valid ,

but if not

if less than the size of a small letter remained in the thigh, it is

invalid!