## Menachot Daf 29a

###### Menachot 29a:1
[Menachot 29a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/29a:1)

וְתַמְנֵי סְרֵי דְּקָנִים, הָא עֶשְׂרִין וְתַרְתֵּין. כַּפְתּוֹרִין נָמֵי אַחַד עָשָׂר כַּפְתּוֹרִין: תְּרֵי דִּידַהּ, וְשִׁשָּׁה דְּקָנִים, וְכַפְתֹּר וְכַפְתֹּר וְכַפְתֹּר, הָא חַד סָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and** the **eighteen of the** six **branches; this** equals **twenty-two** goblets. Concerning the **knobs as well,** it is clear how the number **eleven** was reached. The Candelabrum contains the **two knobs of its** main shaft, as the verse states: “Its knobs” (Exodus 25:34), with the plural “knobs” indicating that there were two, **and** the **six of** the six **branches,** as it is written: “In one branch, a knob and a flower” (Exodus 25:33). In addition to these eight knobs, the verse states: **“And a knob** under two branches of one piece with it, **and a knob** under two branches of one piece with it, **and a knob** under two branches of one piece with it” (Exodus 25:35); **this** equals **eleven** knobs.


###### Menachot 29a:2
[Menachot 29a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/29a:2)

אֶלָּא פְּרָחִים תִּשְׁעָה מְנָלַן? פְּרָחִים תְּרֵי דִּידַהּ, וְשִׁשָּׁה דְּקָנִים – תְּמָנְיָא הָווּ! אָמַר רַב שַׁלְמָן: כְּתִיב ״עַד יְרֵכָהּ עַד פִּרְחָהּ מִקְשָׁה הִיא״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But from where do we** derive that the Candelabrum contained **nine flowers?** According to the verse there are the **two flowers of its** main shaft, as it is written: “And its flowers” (Exodus 25:34), **and the six of** the six **branches,** as it is written: “In one branch, a knob and a flower” (Exodus 25:33), meaning that **there are eight,** not nine, flowers on the Candelabrum. **Rav Shalman said** in response: **It is written: “It was a beaten work, from the base to the flower”** (Numbers 8:4), which teaches that there was a ninth flower near the base.


###### Menachot 29a:3
[Menachot 29a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/29a:3)

אָמַר רַב: גּוֹבְהָהּ שֶׁל מְנוֹרָה תִּשְׁעָה טְפָחִים. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב שִׁימִי בַּר חִיָּיא לְרַב: אֶבֶן הָיְתָה לִפְנֵי מְנוֹרָה וּבָהּ שָׁלֹשׁ מַעֲלוֹת, שֶׁעָלֶיהָ הַכֹּהֵן עוֹמֵד וּמֵטִיב אֶת הַנֵּרוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav says: The height of** the **Candelabrum** is **nine handbreadths. Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya raised an objection to** the statement of **Rav:** We learned in a mishna (*Tamid* 30b): **There was a stone before** the **Candelabrum and it had three steps, upon which the priest** would **stand and prepare the lamps** for kindling. If the Candelabrum was only nine handbreadths high, why would it be necessary for the priest to stand on an elevated surface to reach the lamps?


###### Menachot 29a:4
[Menachot 29a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/29a:4)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ שִׁימִי: אַתְּ? כִּי קָאָמֵינָא מִשְּׂפַת קָנִים וּלְמַעְלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav **said to him: Shimi,** is it **you** who is asking me such a question? **When I said** that the height of the Candelabrum is nine handbreadths, I was referring not to the total height, which is eighteen handbreadths; rather, I meant that the Candelabrum is nine handbreadths **from the point** at which the **branches** extend from the main shaft **and above.**


###### Menachot 29a:5
[Menachot 29a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/29a:5)

כְּתִיב: ״וְהַפֶּרַח וְהַנֵּרוֹת וְהַמֶּלְקַחַיִם זָהָב הוּא מִכְלוֹת זָהָב״. מַאי ״מִיכְלוֹת זָהָב״? אָמַר רַב אַמֵּי: שֶׁכִּילַּתּוּ לְכׇל זָהָב סָגוּר שֶׁל שְׁלֹמֹה, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: עֶשֶׂר מְנוֹרוֹת עָשָׂה שְׁלֹמֹה, וְכׇל אַחַת וְאַחַת הֵבִיא לָהּ אֶלֶף כִּכַּר זָהָב, וְהִכְנִיסוּהוּ אֶלֶף פְּעָמִים לְכוֹר, וְהֶעֱמִידוּהוּ עַל כִּכָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **It is written: “And the flowers, and the lamps, and the tongs, of gold, and that perfect gold [*mikhlot zahav*]”** (II Chronicles 4:21). The Gemara asks: **What** is meant by ***mikhlot zahav*? Rav Ami says:** It is a reference to the fact **that** the Candelabrum and its vessels **exhausted [*kilattu*] all of Solomon’s pure [*sagur*] gold [*zahav*],** which was used in its fashioning in such great quantities. **As Rav Yehuda says** that **Rav said: Solomon made ten Candelabrums, and for each and every one he brought one thousand talents of gold, and they placed** the gold **in the furnace** to refine it **one thousand times, until they reduced** the gold **to** one **talent** for each Candelabrum, as it is stated: “Of a talent of pure gold shall it be made” (Exodus 25:39).


###### Menachot 29a:6
[Menachot 29a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/29a:6)

אִינִי? וְהָכְתִיב: ״וְכׇל כְּלֵי מַשְׁקֵה הַמֶּלֶךְ שְׁלֹמֹה זָהָב וְכֹל כְּלֵי בֵּית יַעַר הַלְּבָנוֹן זָהָב סָגוּר אֵין כֶּסֶף נֶחְשָׁב בִּימֵי שְׁלֹמֹה לִמְאוּמָה״! זָהָב סָגוּר קָא אָמְרִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Is that so** that all of Solomon’s gold was exhausted for the fashioning of the Candelabrum and its vessels? **But isn’t it written: “And all King Solomon’s drinking vessels were of gold, and all the vessels of the house of the forest of Lebanon were of pure gold; silver was nothing accounted of in the days of Solomon”** (II Chronicles 9:20)? The Gemara answers: **We are saying** that Solomon’s **pure gold** was exhausted for the fashioning of the Candelabrum, but not all of his gold.


###### Menachot 29a:7
[Menachot 29a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/29a:7)

וּמִי חֲסַר כּוּלֵּי הַאי? וְהָתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מַעֲשֶׂה וְהָיְתָה [מְנוֹרַת] בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ יְתֵירָה עַל שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה בְּדִינַר זָהָב קוּרְדְיָקֵינִי, וְהִכְנִיסוּהָ שְׁמוֹנִים פְּעָמִים לְכוֹר, וְהֶעֱמִידוּהָ עַל כִּכָּר. כֵּיוָן דְּקָאֵי קָאֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And would** refining the gold **reduce** it **to this extent,** that one thousand talents of gold would be reduced to one talent? **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: An incident** occurred where the weight of **the Candelabrum of the Temple was** found to be **greater than** the weight of the Candelabrum **of Moses by** one ***Kordikini* gold dinar, and they placed it in the furnace eighty times until** the weight of the Candelabrum **stood at** precisely one **talent.** Evidently, putting the Candelabrum into a furnace reduces its weight by very little. The Gemara answers: **Once it is standing, it is standing,** i.e., since the gold was refined to such a degree in the time of Solomon, later when it was refined eighty times it was reduced by the weight of only one dinar.


###### Menachot 29a:8
[Menachot 29a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/29a:8)

אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״עַל הַמְּנֹרָה הַטְּהֹרָה״, שֶׁיָּרְדוּ מַעֲשֶׂיהָ מִמְּקוֹם טׇהֳרָה. אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, ״עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן הַטָּהוֹר״ שֶׁיָּרְדוּ מַעֲשָׂיו מִמָּקוֹם טָהוֹר? אֶלָּא טָהוֹר – מִכְּלָל שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא, הָכָא נָמֵי טְהוֹרָה – מִכְּלָל שֶׁהִיא טְמֵאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says** that **Rabbi Yonatan says: What** is the meaning of that **which is written: “Upon the pure Candelabrum”** (Leviticus 24:4)? It teaches **that** the procedure for **fashioning it descended,** i.e., was shown to Moses, **from the place of purity,** i.e., by God, who showed Moses a model of the Candelabrum. The Gemara asks: **If that is so,** is that to say that phrase **“upon the pure Table”** (Leviticus 24:6) also teaches **that** the procedure for **fashioning it** was shown to Moses **from the place of purity? Rather,** the expression “the **pure** Table” teaches, **by inference, that it is** susceptible to becoming **ritually impure. Here too,** the expression “the **pure** Candelabrum” teaches, **by inference, that it is** susceptible to becoming **ritually impure.**


###### Menachot 29a:9
[Menachot 29a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/29a:9)

בִּשְׁלָמָא הָתָם, כִּדְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן הַטָּהוֹר״, מִכְּלָל שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא? כְּלִי עֵץ הֶעָשׂוּי לְנַחַת הוּא, וְכׇל כְּלִי עֵץ הֶעָשׂוּי לְנַחַת אֵינוֹ מְקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה! אֶלָּא מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמַּגְבִּיהִין אוֹתוֹ לְעוֹלֵי רְגָלִים, וּמַרְאִים לָהֶם לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, וְאוֹמֵר לָהֶם: רְאוּ חִיבַּתְכֶם לִפְנֵי הַמָּקוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **Granted,** the inference drawn **there** with regard to the Table is **in accordance with** that **which Reish Lakish** says; **as Reish Lakish says: What** is the meaning of that **which is written: “Upon the pure Table”** (Leviticus 24:6)? The expression “pure Table” teaches, **by inference, that it is** susceptible to becoming **ritually impure,** but why? Isn’t the Table **a wooden vessel designated to rest** in a fixed place, **and any wooden vessel that is designated to rest** in a fixed place **is not susceptible to** becoming **ritually impure? Rather,** this **teaches that** the Table was not always left in a fixed place; the priests would **lift** the Table with its shewbread **to display the shewbread to the pilgrims** standing in the Temple courtyard, **and** a priest would **say to them: See your affection before the Omnipresent.** For this reason, the Table is susceptible to becoming ritually impure.


###### Menachot 29a:10
[Menachot 29a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/29a:10)

מַאי חִיבַּתְכֶם? כִּדְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: נֵס גָּדוֹל נַעֲשָׂה בְּלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, סִילּוּקוֹ כְּסִידּוּרוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לָשׂוּם לֶחֶם חֹם בְּיוֹם הִלָּקְחוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Parenthetically, the Gemara asks: **What** is meant by: See **your affection** before God? It is **in accordance with** that **which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi** says, **as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: A great miracle was performed with the shewbread:** Its condition at the time of **its removal** from the Table, after having been left there for a week, was **like** its condition at the time of **its arrangement** on the Table, **as it is stated: “To place hot bread on the day when it was taken away”** (I Samuel 21:7), indicating that it was as hot on the day of its removal as it was on the day when it was placed on the Table.


###### Menachot 29a:11
[Menachot 29a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/29a:11)

אֶלָּא הָכָא, ״טְהוֹרָה״ מִכְּלָל שֶׁהִיא טְמֵאָה? פְּשִׁיטָא, כְּלֵי מַתָּכוֹת נִינְהוּ, וּכְלֵי מַתָּכוֹת מְקַבְּלִין טוּמְאָה! אֶלָּא, שֶׁיָּרְדוּ מַעֲשֶׂיהָ מִמְּקוֹם טׇהֳרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara resumes stating its objection: **But here,** with regard to the Candelabrum, there is no reason to explain that the expression “the **pure** Candelabrum” teaches, **by inference, that it is** susceptible to becoming **ritually impure;** this is **obvious,** as the Candelabrums **are metal vessels, and metal vessels are susceptible to** becoming **ritually impure** whether or not they remain in a fixed location. **Rather,** it must be that the expression “the pure Candelabrum” teaches **that** the procedure for **fashioning it descended,** i.e., was shown to Moses, **from the place of purity.**


###### Menachot 29a:12
[Menachot 29a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/29a:12)

תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אָרוֹן שֶׁל אֵשׁ וְשֻׁלְחָן שֶׁל אֵשׁ וּמְנוֹרָה שֶׁל אֵשׁ יָרְדוּ מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְרָאָה מֹשֶׁה וְעָשָׂה כְּמוֹתָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּרְאֵה וַעֲשֵׂה כְּתַבְנִיתָם אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה מׇרְאֶה בָּהָר״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **It is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: An Ark of fire and a Table of fire and a Candelabrum of fire descended from the Heavens, and Moses saw** their format **and fashioned** the vessels for the Tabernacle **in their likeness. As it is stated** after the command to fashion these items: **“And see that you make them after their pattern, which is being shown to you in the mount”** (Exodus 25:40).


###### Menachot 29a:13
[Menachot 29a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/29a:13)

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, ״וַהֲקֵמֹתָ אֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן כְּמִשְׁפָּטוֹ אֲשֶׁר הׇרְאֵיתָ בָּהָר״, הָכִי נָמֵי? הָכָא כְּתִיב ״כְּמִשְׁפָּטוֹ״, הָתָם כְּתִיב ״כְּתַבְנִיתָם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If that is so,** is that to say that the verse: **“And you shall set up the Tabernacle according to its fashion which has been shown to you in the mount”** (Exodus 26:30), **also** indicates that God showed Moses a Tabernacle of fire? The Gemara answers: **Here,** with regard to the Tabernacle, **it is written: “According to its fashion,”** meaning that it should be built according to the instructions given to Moses, whereas **there,** with regard to the Ark, Table, and Candelabrum, **it is written: “After their pattern,”** indicating that an actual model of the items was shown to Moses.


###### Menachot 29a:14
[Menachot 29a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/29a:14)

אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: גַּבְרִיאֵל חָגוּר כְּמִין פְּסִיקְיָא הָיָה, וְהֶרְאָה לוֹ לְמֹשֶׁה מַעֲשֵׂה מְנוֹרָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְזֶה מַעֲשֵׂה הַמְּנֹרָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Apropos this discussion the Gemara relates: **Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** The angel **Gabriel** was **girded with a type of** wide **belt [*pesikiyya*]** in the manner of artisans who tie up their clothes to prevent these clothes from hindering them in their work. **And he showed** the precise **way to fashion the Candelabrum to Moses, as it is written: “And this is the work of the Candelabrum”** (Numbers 8:4), and the term “this” indicates that an exact replica was shown to him.


###### Menachot 29a:15
[Menachot 29a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/29a:15)

תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: שְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים הָיוּ קָשִׁין לוֹ לְמֹשֶׁה, עַד שֶׁהֶרְאָה לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְּאֶצְבָּעוֹ, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: מְנוֹרָה, וְרֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ, וּשְׁרָצִים. מְנוֹרָה – דִּכְתִיב: ״וְזֶה מַעֲשֵׂה הַמְּנֹרָה״, רֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ – דִּכְתִיב: ״הַחֹדֶשׁ הַזֶּה לָכֶם רֹאשׁ חֳדָשִׁים״, שְׁרָצִים – דִּכְתִיב: ״וְזֶה לָכֶם הַטָּמֵא״. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: אַף הִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְזֶה אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשֶׂה עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Three matters were difficult for Moses** to comprehend precisely, **until the Holy One, Blessed be He, showed** them to **him with His finger, and these are** the three matters: The form of the **Candelabrum, and** the exact size of the **new moon, and** the impure **creeping animals.** The **Candelabrum** was shown to him, **as it is written: “And this is the work of the Candelabrum”** (Numbers 8:4). The **new moon** was shown to him, **as it is written: “This month shall be for you the beginning of months”** (Exodus 12:2). The **creeping animals** were shown to him, **as it is written: “And these are they which are unclean for you** among the swarming things” (Leviticus 11:29). **And there are** those **who say** that God **also** showed Moses **the *halakhot* of slaughtering, as it is stated: “Now this is that which you shall sacrifice upon the altar”** (Exodus 29:38), and slaughtering is the first ritual of sacrifice.


###### Menachot 29a:16
[Menachot 29a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/29a:16)

שְׁתֵּי פָּרָשִׁיּוֹת שֶׁבַּמְּזוּזָה מְעַכְּבוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ, וַאֲפִילּוּ כְּתָב אֶחָד מְעַכְּבָן. פְּשִׁיטָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: With regard to the **two passages that are in the *mezuza*,** the absence of **each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others. And** furthermore, the absence of **even one letter prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with** the rest of **them.** The Gemara asks: Isn’t it **obvious** that the absence of even one letter prevents fulfillment of the mitzva, since it is written: “And you shall write them [*ukhtavtam*]” (Deuteronomy 6:9), which teaches that the writing [*ketav*] must be complete [*tam*]?


###### Menachot 29a:17
[Menachot 29a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/29a:17)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, אָמַר רַב: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְקוֹצָהּ שֶׁל יוֹד. וְהָא נָמֵי פְּשִׁיטָא! אֶלָּא לִכְאִידַּךְ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: כׇּל אוֹת שֶׁאֵין גְּוִיל מוּקָּף לָהּ מֵאַרְבַּע רוּחוֹתֶיהָ – פְּסוּלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yehuda says** that **Rav says:** It **was necessary** to state that **only** to teach that even the absence of **the thorn,** i.e., the small stroke, **of** a letter ***yod*** prevents fulfillment of the mitzva. The Gemara asks: **But** isn’t **this also obvious,** since the letter is not formed properly? **Rather,** it is necessary **according to another** statement **that Rav Yehuda says** that **Rav** says, **as Rav Yehuda says** that **Rav says: Any letter that is not encircled with** blank **parchment on** all **four of its sides,** i.e., where its ink connects to the letter above it, below it, preceding it, or succeeding it, is **unfit.** When the mishna makes reference to one letter preventing fulfillment of the mitzva, it is referring to a letter that touches an adjacent letter.


###### Menachot 29a:18
[Menachot 29a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/29a:18)

אָמַר אַשְׁיָאן בַּר נַדְבָּךְ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה: נִיקַּב תּוֹכוֹ שֶׁל הֵ״י כָּשֵׁר, יְרֵיכוֹ פָּסוּל. אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: לְדִידִי מִפָּרְשָׁה לִי מִינֵּיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא, וְרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב אָמַר: לְדִידִי מִפָּרְשָׁה לִי מִינֵּיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה: נִיקַּב תּוֹכוֹ שֶׁל הֵ״י כָּשֵׁר, יְרֵיכוֹ – אִם נִשְׁתַּיֵּיר בּוֹ כְּשִׁיעוּר אוֹת קְטַנָּה כָּשֵׁר, וְאִם לָאו – פָּסוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ashiyan bar Nadbakh says in the name of Rav Yehuda:** If **the inner** part **of** the letter ***heh* was perforated** it is **fit,** but if the perforation was in **the leg of** the letter *heh* it is **unfit. Rabbi Zeira says:** This matter was **explained to me by Rav Huna, and Rabbi Ya’akov says:** This matter was **explained to me by Rav Yehuda:** If **the inner** part **of** the letter ***heh* was perforated** it is **fit.** In a case where the perforation was in **the leg of** the letter *heh*, then **if there remained in** the leg that is attached to the roof of the letter **the equivalent of the measure of a small letter,** i.e., the letter *yod*, then it is **fit. But if not,** it is **unfit.**


###### Menachot 29a:19
[Menachot 29a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/29a:19)

אַגְרָא חֲמוּהּ דְּרַבִּי אַבָּא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: **Agra, the father-in-law of Rabbi Abba,**