Menachos 29
Summary
- Today’s *daf* is Menachos 29, resuming at “אמר שמואל” on כט עמוד ב, and it continues the theme that a *hedyot* may not make replicas of *mikdash* vessels, especially a seven-branched *menorah*, which the *poskim* treat as broadly prohibited even if it would not be *kasher* for the *Beis HaMikdash*. The *Gemara* gives a detailed measurement-and-design blueprint of the *menorah* and then derives the required counts of *gevi’im*, *kaftorim*, and *perachim*, alongside major interpretive debates in later sources about what is *me’akev* the *menorah’s* *hechsher*. The sugya then moves to Shlomo HaMelech’s ten *menoros* and the meaning of “זהב סגור,” to the phrase “המנורה הטהורה” and the parallel “השולחן הטהור,” including the miracle of *lechem hapanim* shown to *olei regalim*. The *daf* closes with halachos of *kesivah* in *mezuzah/tefillin* (including *kotzo shel yud*, *mukaf gevil*, and letter-breakage tests using a child) and with the famous *aggadah* of Moshe seeing Hashem tying crowns on letters for Rabbi Akiva, plus practical scribal forms and the idea that one who “hangs” his trust in Hashem has refuge in this world and the next.
- Today continues the earlier point that one may not make replicas of parts of the *Mikdash*, and one may not make a replica of the *menorah*. The פתחי תשובה rules that not only is שמונה מתכות forbidden, but any *menorah* with seven branches is problematic even if the branches are not perfectly aligned and regardless of the material, and it is forbidden even if it would not be *kasher* for the *menorah* in the *Beis HaMikdash*. The summary notes that many people build *shuls* or *batei midrash* with seven-branched *menoros* out of lack of awareness and that this is not appropriate.
- Shmuel says in the name of סבא that the height of the *menorah* is eighteen *tefachim*, and the *Gemara* lays out the vertical segments: three *tefachim* for the *raglayim* and *perach*, then alternating blank sections and sections containing *gevia*, *kaftor*, and *perach*, with three tiers where a *kaftor* sends out two branches that rise to the height of the *menorah*, and the top three *tefachim* containing three *gevi’im*, a *kaftor*, and a *perach*. The Shulchan Aruch rules that even a *menorah* that is not eighteen *tefachim* high is still *assur* for a *hedyot* to make, and the *Acharonim* explain that since the שיעור of eighteen *tefachim* is not *me’akev*, it remains included in the prohibition of making a replica. The Meiri gives a *remez* from “וזה מעשה המנורה,” with ו ז ה as *gematria* 18, as the Torah hint to the height.
- The *Gemara* defines *gevi’im* as resembling Alexandrian cups, *kaftorim* as resembling תפוחי הכרתיים, and *perachim* as resembling decorative forms on pillars. It states the totals as twenty-two *gevi’im*, eleven *kaftorim*, and nine *perachim*, and it says *gevi’im* are *me’akev* each other, *kaftorim* are *me’akev* each other, and *perachim* are *me’akev* each other. It then records that in ליקוטי הלכות the Chofetz Chaim cites הר המוריה’s doubt whether this *ikuv* applies only to the mitzvah of making the designs or to the *hechsher* of the *menorah* itself, and the Chofetz Chaim asserts it is *pashut* that the *gevi’im*, *kaftorim*, and *perachim* are *me’akev* the *hechsher* of the *menorah*. The Ramban on the Torah reads “וזה מעשה המנורה מקשה היא” as a *remez* that *mikshah* is *me’akev* for all generations, and he adds that the verse does not make the *gevi’im*, *kaftorim*, *perachim*, and other features *me’akev* the *menorah’s* *kashrus*.
- The *Gemara* derives twenty-two *gevi’im* from ארבעה גביעים on the central shaft plus eighteen on the six side branches (three per branch), and it derives eleven *kaftorim* through the breakdown of those on the central shaft and those associated with the branches. It then asks how nine *perachim* are derived, since two on the central shaft plus six on the branches totals only eight. Rav Shimi bar Chiya answers from “עד ירכה עד פרחה מקשה היא,” where “עד פרחה” yields an additional *perach* to make nine.
- Rav says the *menorah* is nine *tefachim* high, and Rav Shimi bar Chiya challenges him from the teaching that a stone with three steps stood before the *menorah* for the *kohen* to stand on and be *metiv* the lamps. Rav answers that his nine-*tefach* measure refers to משפת קנים ולמעלה, and with the lower portion included the total is eighteen *tefachim*. The presentation adds that several places in *Shas* imply a person’s height of three *amos* means shoulder height, and it raises why steps are needed if the *menorah* is only shoulder-height, and why the source emphasizes *hatavas haneros* rather than *hadlakas haneros*.
- The פנים יפות explains that lighting is easy without steps, while cleaning requires reaching and working inside the lamps, so extra height helps specifically for *hatavah*. The פנים יפות also attributes to Aharon HaKohen a need to use the steps even for lighting because Sotah ל״ח says it is forbidden for the Kohen Gadol to raise his hands above the ציץ. The מנחת קנאות in Sotah questions this because Yoma כ״ד ע״ב says *hadlakas neiros* is not an *avodah*, implying Aharon need not wear the *bigdei kehunah* and would not be wearing the ציץ, and it challenges why the ציץ issue should apply.
- The מהרי״ל דיסקין explains Rashi’s “להגיד שבחו של אהרן שלא שינה” by saying Aharon was extremely tall and nevertheless followed Hashem’s instruction to go up the steps and light and clean the *menorah*, and it connects this to the tradition that Moshe was ten *amos* tall and that Aharon likely inherited tall genes. The ראב״ד on Tamid says he does not know the significance of having specifically three steps. The ברטנורא explains the three steps as corresponding to the three “העלאות” phrases: בהעלותך את הנרות, ובהעלות את נרותיה, and להעלות נר תמיד.
- The מקדש דוד asks how the *kohen* can stand on the stone/steps for *hatavas haneros* if *hatavah* is an *avodah*, since halachah requires no *chatzitzah* between the *kohen’s* feet and the floor during *avodah*. The מקדש דוד cites a *midrash* deriving the steps by *derashah* and suggests a חידוש הקרא that these steps are part of the *tavnis hamikdash* and not a *chatzitzah*. He also suggests, based on the משנה למלך, that *dishun hamenorah* parallels *dishun hamizbe’ach* and may not require *bigdei kehunah*, in which case the standing-on-floor rule may not apply. The Brisker Rav objects that if it is truly an *avodah* it should require *bigdei kehunah*, and then it should require standing on the floor.
- The *Gemara* asks what “מכלות זהב” means and Rav Ami answers that it exhausted Shlomo’s supply of זהב סגור. Rav Yehudah says in the name of Rav that Shlomo made ten *menoros*, each initially using a thousand כיכר of gold and refining it a thousand times until it stood at one כיכר of exceptionally pure gold. The *Gemara* challenges this from the verse describing Shlomo’s golden vessels and that silver was not considered anything in his time, and it answers that the exhaustion refers specifically to זהב סגור. Rashi explains “סגור” as gold so superior that when it is sold all other gold shops “close,” and the notes add that this sugya appears again on צ״ח עמוד ב׳ and צ״ט עמוד א׳ with detail about whether Shlomo lit only Moshe’s *menorah* or all ten, including רבי אלעזר בן שמוע’s view.
- Rashi reads the verse about silver being worthless as proof of Shlomo’s great wealth, creating the question of how his gold could be exhausted. The Rashba argues that exhausting gold does not negate wealth, since Shlomo could still be rich in silver, and it reframes the *Gemara’s* question as implying that silver’s worthlessness indicates an abundance of gold specifically, making it difficult to say all his gold was used up.
- The *Gemara* questions whether refining a thousand כיכר a thousand times could reduce it to one כיכר and brings a baraisa of Rabbi Yosi b’Rabbi Yehudah where the *Beis HaMikdash* *menorah* was overweight by one דינר זהב קורדיקיני and was refined eighty times to reach the proper weight. The *Gemara* answers “כיוון דקאי קאי,” meaning that once the gold reaches a certain level it stabilizes and does not continue diminishing in the same way.
- Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani says in the name of Rabbi Yonasan that “על המנורה הטהורה” means its design descended from a pure place, and Rashi explains that Hashem showed Moshe the *menorah* from heaven. The *Gemara* challenges from “על השלחן הטהור” and the Maharsha answers that the *shulchan* was simpler, while the Rashba notes Moshe never expressed difficulty about the *shulchan*, making “descended from heaven” less fitting there. Reish Lakish interprets “השולחן הטהור” as meaning it can become *tamei* despite being a כלי עץ העשוי לנחת, and the *Gemara* explains this by teaching that it was lifted and shown to *olei regalim* together with the *lechem hapanim* while telling them “ראו חבתכם לפני המקום,” because Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says a great miracle occurred where סילוקו כסידורו and it remained לחם חם ביום הלקחו. The *Gemara* rejects “טהור means it can become *tamei*” for the *menorah* because it is a כלי מתכות and obviously receives *tumah*, and it concludes that for the *menorah* “טהור” means its design came from a pure place.
- A צלח in Pesachim is cited as חדש that כלי שרת can be *mekabel tumah* via חיבת הקודש even where normal *tumah* law would not apply. The מנחת חינוך מצוה קס אות יח rejects this from the *Gemara’s* handling of the *shulchan* as a כלי עץ העשוי לנחת, arguing that if חיבת הקודש applied to vessels the *Gemara* could have answered that way, and it limits חיבת הקודש to items destined to be eaten by people or by the *mizbe’ach*. The שואל ומשיב defends the צלח by distinguishing cases where *tumah* exclusion is due to lack of חשיבות, which חיבת הקודש can supply, versus exclusion due to עשוי לנחת, where it cannot. The משנה למלך cites a dispute among *Rishonim* whether the *shulchan* was taken out to the *azarah* for display or merely lifted in place.
- The מפרשים ask why the bread itself was not lifted instead of the whole *shulchan*. The צאן קדשים says the miracle of the bread’s freshness lasted only while it remained on the table. The חק נתן says removing it would violate תמיד because the *lechem hapanim* must always be on the table. The Ritva says the bread was so hot that steam rose from it, and the Radvaz challenges this both because such heat seems unnecessary and because steam normally appears only when bread is sliced, and he says the Ritva must hold this too was part of the miracle. The Radvaz himself says they showed the miracle on the Shabbos of Pesach and Sukkos when the bread was being replaced, bringing the *shulchan* to the entrance of the *heichal* and showing the old bread immediately.
- A baraisa of Rabbi Yosi b’Rabbi Yehudah states that an *aron* of fire, a *shulchan* of fire, and a *menorah* of fire descended from heaven, Moshe saw them and made their likeness, as in “וראה ועשה בתבניתם אשר אתה מראה בהר.” The *Gemara* asks whether “אשר הראית בהר” about the *mishkan* implies the same, and it answers that there it says כמשפטו, while here it says כתבניתם. Rabbi Yochanan says that Gavriel, girded like a worker with an apron, showed Moshe the making of the *menorah*, learning from “וזה מעשה המנורה” that Moshe was shown not only the final form but the method.
- Tana d’bei Rabbi Yishmael says three things were difficult for Moshe until Hashem showed him with His finger: *menorah*, *Rosh Chodesh*, and *sheratzim*, each introduced with “זה.” It states that “זה” always implies מורה באצבע, and it links “זה קלי ואנוהו” to the clarity of seeing. It adds “ויש אומרים אפילו שחיטה שנאמר וזה אשר תעשה על המזבח.” Tosafos asks from Chullin’s derashah on וזאת החיה אשר תאכלו, and answers that there it says זאת rather than זה, while the sugya here lists only explicit זה cases. Tosafos also asks about the “זה יתנו” case of a coin of fire for the *machatzis hashekel* and answers that it was not a case of נתקשה but rather Moshe did not know at all what a *shekel* was without being shown.
- The משנה states that the two parshiyos in a *mezuzah* are *me’akev* each other and even one letter is *me’akev*. Rav Yehudah says in the name of Rav that this is needed for *kotzo shel yud*, and three views are brought: Rashi says it is the right leg of the *yud*, Rabbeinu Tam says it is the bent head of the *yud*, and the Rosh says it is the *tag* (left crown) atop the *yud*. The Biur Halachah cites the Levush as being lenient if the *tag* is missing because the halachah is not like the Rosh, but the Biur Halachah says it is really צריך עיון because the Rosh holds it is genuinely *pasul* without it.
- The *Gemara* brings Rav Yehudah in the name of Rav that any letter not surrounded by *gevil* on four sides is *pesulah*, so if a letter touches another it is invalid. The רש״ש and the בית הלוי question how there can be “one letter” that is not *mukaf gevil* if touching necessarily involves two letters, and the later explanation presented is that according to Rashi, if the first letter was properly written and a second letter later touches it, only the second is invalid and the first need not be rewritten. A teshuvah of the Rashba is cited that the *mukaf gevil* rule applies to a *Sefer Torah* as well because without it the form is not an אות, while Tosafos in Gittin says lack of *mukaf gevil* is a lack of *kesivah temah* and a *get* is valid because it does not require *kesivah temah*.
- Rav Ashi bar Nadbach says in the name of Rav Yehudah that if the interior of a ה׳ is punctured it is *kasher* but if its ירך is punctured it is *pasul*, and Rabbi Zeira clarifies that if the ירך is punctured it is *kasher* if what remains is the size of an אות קטנה and otherwise *pasul*. A case is brought where איגר, the father-in-law of Rabbi Abba, had the leg of the ה׳ in העם broken by a hole and Rabbi Abba ruled with this standard. Another case states that Rami bar Tamri, father-in-law of Rami bar Dikuli, had the leg of a ו׳ in ויהרוג broken by a hole, and Rabbi Zeira instructed him to bring a child who is not particularly sharp nor particularly dull; if the child reads it as ויהרוג it is *kasher*, and if he reads it as יהרג it is *pasul*.
- Rav Yehudah says in the name of Rav that when Moshe ascended to heaven he found Hashem tying crowns on letters, and Moshe asked “מי מעכב על ידך?” Hashem answered that in the end of many generations there would be a man, עקיבא בן יוסף, who would expound heaps of halachos from each crown. Moshe asked to see him, sat at the end of eight rows in Rabbi Akiva’s beis midrash, and did not understand until Rabbi Akiva answered a question with “הלכה למשה מסיני,” which settled Moshe’s mind. Moshe then asked why the Torah was given through him if Hashem has such a person, and Hashem replied “שתוק כך עלה במחשבה לפני,” and when Moshe asked to see Rabbi Akiva’s reward he was shown his flesh being weighed/combbed in the marketplace and again received “שתוק כך עלה במחשבה לפני,” with an aside that famous explanations exist in the של״ה and in the בית יוסף at the start of Parshas Chukas.
- Rava says seven letters require three *zayinim*, namely שעטנז גץ, and it is added that the משנה ברורה says *al pi kabbalah* these letters relate to שטן and therefore need three crowns to be made fit. Rav Ashi says he saw expert scribes carve/shape the roof of the ח׳ and hang the leg of the ה׳ so it does not touch, interpreting the roof of the ח׳ as meaning that Hashem lives *berumo shel olam*. It then connects the hanging leg of the ה׳ to Rabbi Yehudah Nesiah asking Rabbi Ami on “בטחו בה׳ עדי עד כי ביה ה׳ צור עולמים,” and Rabbi Ami answers that anyone who “hangs” his trust in Hashem has refuge in this world and the next.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions