## Menachot Daf 28a

###### Menachot 28a:1
[Menachot 28a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/28a:1)

הָא דְּקָאֵי מִזְרָח וּמַעֲרָב וְאַדִּי, הָא דְּקָאֵי צָפוֹן וְדָרוֹם וְאַדִּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**This** *baraita*, which teaches that the sprinklings are valid only when performed precisely toward the entrance 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.


###### Menachot 28a:2
[Menachot 28a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/28a:2)

אָמַר מָר: וְשֶׁבִּפְנִים וְשֶׁבִּמְצוֹרָע, שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן – פְּסוּלוֹת, שֶׁלֹּא מְכוָּּונוֹת – כְּשֵׁרוֹת. וְהָתַנְיָא: בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא מְכוָּּונוֹת – כְּשֵׁרוֹת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **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?**


###### Menachot 28a:3
[Menachot 28a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/28a:3)

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְהָא רַבָּנַן. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר דְּמַקֵּישׁ אָשָׁם לְחַטָּאת – מַקֵּישׁ נָמֵי לוֹג לְאָשָׁם, רַבָּנַן לָא מַקְּשִׁי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Menachot 28a:4
[Menachot 28a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/28a:4)

וּלְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וְכִי דָּבָר הַלָּמֵד בְּהֶיקֵּשׁ חוֹזֵר וּמְלַמֵּד בְּהֶיקֵּשׁ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 28a:5
[Menachot 28a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/28a:5)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: הָא וְהָא רַבָּנַן, כָּאן לְהַכְשִׁיר הַקׇּרְבָּן, כָּאן לְהַרְצוֹת, שֶׁלֹּא עָלוּ לַבְּעָלִים לְשׁוּם חוֹבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Menachot 28a:6
[Menachot 28a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/28a:6)

**מַתְנִי׳** שִׁבְעָה קְנֵי מְנוֹרָה מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, שִׁבְעָה נֵרוֹתֶיהָ מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, שְׁתֵּי פָּרָשִׁיּוֹת שֶׁבַּמְּזוּזָה מְעַכְּבוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ, אֲפִילּוּ כְּתָב אֶחָד מְעַכְּבָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Menachot 28a:7
[Menachot 28a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/28a:7)

אַרְבַּע פָּרָשִׁיּוֹת שֶׁבַּתְּפִילִּין מְעַכְּבִין זוֹ אֶת זוֹ, אֲפִילּוּ כְּתָב אֶחָד מְעַכְּבָן. אַרְבַּע צִיצִיּוֹת מְעַכְּבוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ, שֶׁאַרְבַּעְתָּן מִצְוָה אַחַת. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: אַרְבַּעְתָּן אַרְבַּע מִצְוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 28a:8
[Menachot 28a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/28a:8)

**גְּמָ׳** מַאי טַעְמָא? הֲוָיָה כְּתִיב בְּהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Menachot 28a:9
[Menachot 28a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/28a:9)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מְנוֹרָה הָיְתָה בָּאָה מִן הָעֶשֶׁת וּמִן הַזָּהָב. עֲשָׂאָהּ מִן הַגְּרוּטָאוֹת – פְּסוּלָה, מִשְּׁאָר מִינֵי מַתָּכוֹת – כְּשֵׁרָה. מַאי שְׁנָא מִן הַגְּרוּטָאוֹת פְּסוּלָה? דִּכְתִיב ״מִקְשָׁה״ וַהֲוָיָה, שְׁאָר מִינֵי מַתָּכוֹת נָמֵי זָהָב וַהֲוָיָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Menachot 28a:10
[Menachot 28a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/28a:10)

אָמַר קְרָא ״תֵּיעָשֶׂה״, לְרַבּוֹת שְׁאָר מִינֵי מַתָּכוֹת. וְאֵימָא לְרַבּוֹת גְּרוּטָאוֹת? לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דְּאַ״מִּקְשָׁה״ כְּתִיבָה הֲוָיָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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).


###### Menachot 28a:11
[Menachot 28a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/28a:11)

״תֵּיעָשֶׂה״ נָמֵי אַ״מִּקְשָׁה״ כְּתִיב, ״מִקְשָׁה״ ״מִקְשָׁה״ לְעַכֵּב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Menachot 28a:12
[Menachot 28a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/28a:12)

״זָהָב״ ״זָהָב״ נָמֵי לְעַכֵּב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?**


###### Menachot 28a:13
[Menachot 28a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/28a:13)

הַאי מַאי? אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא מִן הַגְּרוּטָאוֹת פְּסוּלָה, מִשְּׁאָר מִינֵי מַתָּכוֹת כְּשֵׁרָה – הַיְינוּ ״זָהָב״ ״זָהָב״ ״מִקְשָׁה״ ״מִקְשָׁה״ לִדְרָשָׁא. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ מִן הַגְּרוּטָאוֹת כְּשֵׁרָה, מִשְּׁאָר מִינֵי מַתָּכוֹת פְּסוּלָה – ״זָהָב״ ״זָהָב״ ״מִקְשָׁה״ ״מִקְשָׁה״ מַאי דָּרְשַׁתְּ בֵּיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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”?**


###### Menachot 28a:14
[Menachot 28a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/28a:14)

מַאי דְּרָשָׁא? דְּתַנְיָא: ״כִּכָּר זָהָב טָהוֹר יַעֲשֶׂה אֹתָהּ אֵת כׇּל הַכֵּלִים הָאֵלֶּה״ – בָּאָה זָהָב, בָּאָה כִּכָּר; אֵינָהּ בָּאָה זָהָב, אֵינָהּ בָּאָה כִּכָּר. ״גְּבִיעֶיהָ כַּפְתּוֹרֶיהָ וּפְרָחֶיהָ״ – בָּאָה זָהָב, בָּאָה גְּבִיעִים כַּפְתּוֹרִים וּפְרָחִים; אֵינָהּ בָּאָה זָהָב, אֵינָהּ בָּאָה גְּבִיעִים כַּפְתּוֹרִים וּפְרָחִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Menachot 28a:15
[Menachot 28a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/28a:15)

וְאֵימָא נָמֵי: בָּאָה זָהָב – בָּאָה קָנִים, אֵינָהּ בָּאָה זָהָב – אֵינָהּ בָּאָה קָנִים? הָהוּא פָּמוֹט מִיקְּרֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 28a:16
[Menachot 28a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/28a:16)

״וְזֶה מַעֲשֵׂה הַמְּנֹרָה מִקְשָׁה זָהָב״ – בָּאָה זָהָב, בָּאָה מִקְשָׁה; אֵינָהּ בָּאָה זָהָב, אֵינָהּ בָּאָה מִקְשָׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 28a:17
[Menachot 28a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/28a:17)

״מִקְשָׁה״ דְּסֵיפָא לְמַאי אֲתָא? לְמַעוֹטֵי חֲצוֹצְרוֹת, דְּתַנְיָא: חֲצוֹצְרוֹת הָיוּ בָּאִים מִן הָעֶשֶׁת, מִן הַכֶּסֶף. עֲשָׂאָם מִן הַגְּרוּטָאוֹת – כְּשֵׁרִים, מִשְּׁאָר מִינֵי מַתָּכוֹת – פְּסוּלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Menachot 28a:18
[Menachot 28a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/28a:18)

וּמַאי שְׁנָא מִשְּׁאָר מִינֵי מַתָּכוֹת פְּסוּלִים, דִּכְתִיב ״כֶּסֶף״ וַהֲוָיָה, מִן הַגְּרוּטָאוֹת נָמֵי ״מִקְשָׁה״ וַהֲוָיָה? מִיעֵט רַחֲמָנָא גַּבֵּי מְנוֹרָה ״מִקְשָׁה הִיא״ – ״הִיא״, וְלָא חֲצוֹצְרוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 28a:19
[Menachot 28a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/28a:19)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כׇּל הַכֵּלִים

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **All of the vessels**