Menachot 29a — the Talmud in English

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

four

goblets

belonging to it

of the body of the menorah,

and eighteen

goblets

of the branches. This

gives us a source for

twenty-two

goblets.

As for the knobs, likewise,

we find

eleven of its knobs: two belonging to it

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

And six

knobs

were in the branches.

As it is stated: “Three decorated goblets in one branch, a knob and a flower,” and in each branch there was one knob. Thus, in all the branches there were six knobs.

And a knob, and a knob, and a knob

—there are three knobs, from each one of which two branches of the menorah emerged, as it is stated three times in the verse: “And a knob beneath two branches,”

this is eleven,

eleven knobs!

But from where do we derive nine flowers?

For we have found only

two belonging to it

of the body of the menorah, as it is stated: “And on the menorah four decorated goblets, its knobs and its flowers.” And we expound: “its knobs,” two, and “its flowers,” two. Thus, we have two flowers on the body of the menorah.

And six of the branches,

for in each branch there was a knob and a flower, as it is stated: “In one branch, a knob and a flower.” Thus, we have six flowers in the six branches of the menorah. And if so,

eight

eight

were,

and not nine?

Rav Shalman said:

It is stated in the section of Behaalotekha: “And this is the workmanship of the menorah: hammered gold

from its base to its flower, it is hammered work,”

the verse added an additional flower for you [and this was the first flower, which was near the base of the menorah, within the first three handbreadths of the menorah]. Thus, we have nine flowers on the menorah.

Rav said: The height of the menorah 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 menorah ,

with three steps

steps ,

upon which the priest stood and prepared the lamps!

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

Rav said to him: Are you Shimi?

You are Shimi; a great sage like you raises this matter as an objection to me?

For when I said

that the height of the menorah was nine handbreadths

from the edge of the branches

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

and upward

to the end of the menorah. And from the ground to the branches there were another nine handbreadths, and together the menorah was eighteen handbreadths.

It is written

in Chronicles, chapter 4, concerning the menorah that Solomon made: “And the flower, and the lamps, and the tongs, were gold of perfect gold.”

“And the flower, and the lamps, and the tongs, were gold of perfect gold.”

The Gemara explains:

What is “perfect gold”?

Rav Ami said:

Because of the great quantity of gold that they put into the menorah,

it consumed

which was used up

all the finest gold

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

of Solomon.

For Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: Solomon made ten menorahs.

[As it is stated in the Book of Kings]

and for each and every one

of the menorahs

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

[the one thousand talents]

one thousand times into the furnace

in order to refine it. And after the refining

they set it at one talent

of gold.

And we raised the difficulty:

Is that so? For it is written

in the Book of Kings,

“Silver was not considered in the days of Solomon as anything.”

And it is proved that Solomon was wealthy; how is it possible to say that the gold put into the menorah consumed all the gold of Solomon?

And we answer: What we said, that it consumed the gold of Solomon,

we said it concerning the finest gold!

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

And we refute:

Was it lacking

the gold

so greatly,

such a great quantity, that they put one thousand talents into the furnace one thousand times until it was reduced to one talent? It implies that each time they put it into the furnace, the gold was diminished by a talent.

And it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda says: It once happened that the menorah of the Temple was greater in weight

in weight

than

the menorah

of Moses

by the size of

a gold dinar

[from a place called]

Kordiniky, and they put it eighty times into the furnace, and they set

its weight

at one talent

like the weight of the menorah that Moses made 21 .

And it follows from this that the gold does not diminish so greatly in the furnace!?

And we answer:

Since it was standing

since that gold had already been burned in the furnace in Solomon’s days,

it was standing

therefore now it was diminished by only one dinar.

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

in the section of Emor,

“Upon the pure menorah

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

that its workmanship descended from a place of purity!

For they showed Moses a menorah from Heaven, and he made one according to its likeness.

And we refute:

But from now,

according to your words, regarding what is stated, “Six rows upon

the pure table,”

will we also interpret there

that its workmanship descended from a pure place? [And if so, it is difficult why this was expounded only concerning the menorah] 22 .

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

Rather,

certainly the meaning of the verse is thus: the table must be

pure,

and

by implication it is impure,

that is, it is susceptible to impurity! And if so,

here too

let us expound concerning the menorah:

“pure,”

by implication

that it is impure,

that is, that it is fit to become susceptible to impurity. And from where do you derive that its workmanship descended from a place of purity!?

And we answer:

Granted, there

in the case of the table, there is a novelty—that it is susceptible to impurity—and the Torah needed to make this known because of the difficulty of

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

and we derive from this

by implication that it is impure

? But the table was

a wooden vessel made for stationary use,

for the table was placed permanently in its place and was not carried.

And

we maintain that

every wooden vessel made for stationary use,

which is not carried,

is not susceptible to impurity!

As it is stated in the section concerning the impurity of creeping creatures: “And everything upon which any of them falls when they are dead shall be impure, of any wooden vessel or garment or skin or sack,” and we expound: Just as a sack is carried when full and when empty, so too everything that is carried when full and when empty. But a wooden vessel that is not carried, but is intended to stand permanently, is not susceptible to impurity. If so, how was the table susceptible to impurity?

Rather,

from the fact that it is proved from the verse that a table is susceptible to impurity,

it teaches

that they would

raise it

during the Festival in order to show it

to those who came up for the Festival, and they would show them

upon it the

showbread

that was upon the table.

And they would say to them: See your affection before the Omnipresent!

And since they would raise the table for those who came up for the Festival, it was therefore considered a vessel that is carried when full and when empty, and it was susceptible to impurity.

And we explain:

What is “your affection,”

which they saw through the showbread?

In accordance with Rabbi Joshua ben Levi. For Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said:

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

its removal,

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

its arrangement

on the table

! As it is stated

in the Book of Samuel: “For it was only showbread, which was removed from before the Lord

to place hot bread on the day

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

And since it was necessary to make known this novelty, that the table was susceptible to impurity because it was carried during the Festival, the Torah needed to write “the pure table.”

But here

concerning the menorah, why did the Torah need to write

“pure”

in order to make known

by implication that it is impure,

that it is susceptible to impurity? For

it is obvious

that it is susceptible to impurity, since

they are metal vessels, and metal vessels

it is obvious to us that they

certainly are susceptible to impurity

even when they are not carried!?

Rather,

certainly that which the Torah wrote, “the pure menorah,” came to teach

that its workmanship descended from a place of purity!

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda says: An ark of fire, and a table of fire, and a menorah of fire descended from Heaven, and Moses saw them and made according to their likeness. As it is stated

at the end of the section concerning the menorah:

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

And we expound that the word “their pattern” was stated concerning the ark, the menorah, and the table as well, for concerning all of them it is stated, “which you are shown on the mountain.”

And we refute:

But from now

what is stated,

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

will

so too

we expound that a Tabernacle of fire descended to Moses from Heaven?

And we answer:

Here,

concerning the Tabernacle,

it is written, “according to its law,”

which implies that the laws of the Tabernacle were told to him on the mountain, whereas

there,

concerning the menorah, table, and ark,

it is written, “according to their pattern,”

which implies that he was shown things like them and according to their form.

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

The angel

Gabriel was girded in the manner of a craftsmen’s belt

—he was girded with a belt, in the manner of craftsmen who gird themselves so that their garments will not drag on them—,

and he showed Moses the workmanship of the menorah

. As it is written, “And this is the workmanship of the menorah,”

which implies that they showed Moses the making of the menorah.

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 they: the menorah, the new moon, and creeping creatures.

The menorah, as it is written, “And this is the workmanship of the menorah.”

And from the word “this” it implies that he needed to show it to him [and Moses found it difficult because they had to make it with its goblets, knobs, and flowers as one 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 implies that He showed it to him. [And Moses found it difficult because at the time of the conjunction the moon is not sufficiently discernible, and therefore He needed to show him in what manner the situation is called that the moon has been seen] 25 .

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

and from the word “these” it implies that He showed him the kinds of creeping creatures that are pure and impure [and since there are many species of creeping creatures, he would not know which was impure and which was pure] , 27 .

And some say: Also the laws of slaughter

He showed him.

As it is stated

in the section of Tetzaveh,

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

And the beginning of the service upon the altar is slaughter. It implies that He showed him the manner of slaughter [and Moses found difficult the precise location of the place of slaughter, and where the place in which slaughter is invalid is].

We learned in the Mishna:

The two passages in a mezuza 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 section concerning mezuza: “And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house.” And we expound in tractate Shabbat: “And you shall write them” is an abbreviation for complete writing, so that the writing must be whole; and if one letter is written not according to its complete law, this is not complete writing.

And we answer:

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

for our Mishna to make known only

the cutting of the

yod,

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

And we refute:

But this too is obvious,

for the letter was not made according to its law, and this letter invalidates it; if so, this is like the letter not having been written at all!?

And we answer: It was necessary

rather for the other

law of

Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav. For Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: Every letter whose blank parchment

unwritten space

does not surround it on its four sides

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

invalid. [There must be blank, empty parchment surrounding the letter on all its sides.] And this is what we learned in the Mishna: that one letter invalidates it; the laws stated concerning a mezuza [namely, being surrounded by blank parchment], if they are not fulfilled even with regard to the laws of one letter, invalidate the mezuza , 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 Nadbakh said in the name of Rav Yehuda: If the inside of the letter is pierced

of the letter

heh

[that is in the sections of tefillin], that is, the short left leg of the heh. And there are those who explain: if the interior of the letter is pierced, that is, the smooth blank parchment inside the letter,

it is valid

the letter is valid.

If

its thigh

the long right leg of the heh is pierced,

it is disqualified

the letter is disqualified.

Rabbi Zeira said: For me, it was explained

I heard it explained

from him

from his mouth

of Rav Huna.

And Rabbi Yaakov said: For me, it was explained

I heard it explained

from Rav Yehuda: If the inside of the heh is pierced

it is valid! [

According to the interpretation that it means the left leg, the innovation is that there is no measure for the length of the left leg, and if any amount remains, the letter is valid. And according to the interpretation that it means the inside of the letter, the reason it is valid is that inside the letter there is no disqualification of being surrounded by blank parchment] 32 .

But if

its thigh

is pierced, then if

there remains 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] then it is

valid ,

but if not

there remains in the thigh less than the size of a small letter

it is disqualified!