Menachos 28 - Cycle 14
Summary
- Today's *shiur* learns *Maseches Menachos* 28a from the *Mishnah* about items that are *me’akev zeh es zeh*, beginning with the seven branches and seven lamps of the *Menorah* and extending to *mezuzah*, *tefillin*, and *tzitzis*. The learning develops the textual basis for essential components through the word “*havai’a*,” presents the Brisker Rav’s distinction between the *din* of constructing the *Menorah* as a *kli Mikdash* and the separate *din* of the daily *hadlakas neiros*, and applies that framework to later explanations, including a *Kli Chemdah* approach tied to the Beis Yosef’s *Chanukah* question. The *Gemara* then analyzes what materials the *Menorah* and *chatzotzros* may be made from, how “*miksha*” and repeated words in *pesukim* generate *derashos*, and why Moshe’s *chatzotzros* are valid only in his time. The *sugya* continues with a prohibition against making replicas of the *Mikdash* and its vessels, including a seven-branched *Menorah*, and concludes with a detailed description of the *Menorah*’s height, ornamentation, and which decorative components are essential, alongside later *poskim*’s applications to practical cases such as chandeliers and electric fixtures.
- The *Mishnah* states that the seven branches of the *Menorah* are *me’akvin zeh es zeh*, and if any are missing the *Menorah* is disqualified. The *Mishnah* does not state what the *halachah* is for the *mitzvah* of *hadlakas neiros* if not all are lit, and Beis Halevi says all are *me’akev* so all seven candles must be lit. Other *Acharonim* including the Sefas Emes disagree and treat the construction requirement and the lighting requirement as two separate *halachos*. Tosafos asks why the *Minchah* is emphasized as needing a *kli shares* to become *kodesh* and questions whether the oil must also be placed into a *kli shares* to become *kadosh*, and Shevet Halevi answers that the branches of the *Menorah* can take the place of the *kli shares*. The *Mishnah* adds that the seven lamps on top are also *me’akvin zeh es zeh* and all seven must be present.
- The *Mishnah* teaches that the two *parshiyos* in a *mezuzah*, *Shema Yisrael* and *Vehaya im shamoa*, are *me’akvos zu es zu* and both are essential. The *Mishnah* rules that even one incorrect letter disqualifies the *mezuzah*. The *Mishnah* likewise teaches that the four *parshiyos* of *tefillin* are *me’akvos zu es zu* and even one letter written improperly makes them *pasul*.
- The *Mishnah* states that the four *tzitzis* are *me’akvin zu es zu* and all four corners must have *tzitzis*. Rabbi Yishmael is cited with two formulations: one that all four are one *mitzvah* and therefore all must be present, and another that the four are considered four separate *mitzvos*.
- The *Gemara* asks the reason the seven branches are *me’akvin zeh es zeh* and answers from the verse *Kafteha u’kaneha mimena yihyu*, teaching that “*havai’a*” indicates an essential requirement. The Brisker Rav asks why a special verse is needed if the *Mikdash* vessels were given with exact instruction through *hakol b’chsav miyad Hashem alai hiskil*. The Brisker Rav explains that the *Menorah* has two separate *dinim*: one as part of the *klei haMikdash* with construction requirements, and a second *din* of daily lighting, and the *Gemara* here focuses on how the *mitzvah* of *hadlakas neiros* is accomplished through all seven.
- The Kli Chemdah explains a special *din* in lighting even one lamp and suggests that the seven lights may be seven separate *mitzvos*. He uses this to answer the Beis Yosef’s question why *Chanukah* is eight days, asking what the *nes* is on the first day when oil was found. He explains that they had enough oil only for one day and would technically be able to fulfill the *mitzvah* with one candle, and the *nes* was that Hashem enabled them already on the first day to light all seven candles.
- A *beraisa* teaches that the *Menorah* is formed from one solid piece, from gold, and if made from assembled pieces of gold it is *pasul*. The *beraisa* states that if made from other metals it is *kasher*, and the *Gemara* derives the disqualification of gold pieces from *miksha tei’aseh haMenorah*. The *Gemara* explains that repeated terms and the structure of the verses yield the rule that if it comes from gold it must be a single *kikar* and includes the cups, knobs, and flowers, and if it does not come from gold it does not require a *kikar* and does not require those ornamentations. The *Gemara* rejects learning that branches could be omitted by saying that something without branches is not a *Menorah* but a *pamot*.
- The *Gemara* derives that the *chatzotzros* must be of silver from *aseh lecha shtei chatzotzros kesef* and reads “*havai’a*” in *vehayu lecha l’mikra ha’eidah* as essential. The *Gemara* asks why pieces of silver would not invalidate, and answers that the Torah uniquely limits “*miksha hi*” to the *Menorah*, meaning the *Menorah* must be one piece but the *chatzotzros* need not be. A *beraisa* states the *chatzotzros* come from one piece of silver, are *kasher* if made from pieces, and are *pasul* if made from other metals.
- The verses *U’v’yom simchaschem u’v’mo’adeichem u’v’rashei chodsheichem u’teka’tem ba’chatzotzros* and *V’chi tavo’u milchamah b’artzechem… v’harei’osem ba’chatzotzros* are presented as sources for blowing on *Yom Tov* and *Rosh Chodesh* and also when *Klal Yisrael* suffers. The text states that in the *Beis HaMikdash* they also blew *chatzotzros* on *Rosh Hashanah* besides the *mitzvah* of *tekias shofar*, and that *kohanim* blew *chatzotzros* when bringing *korbanos* from *u’vnei Aharon haKohanim yitke’u ba’chatzotzros*. The text notes an interesting *machlokes* whether this blowing is an *avodah* that a *ba’al mum* may not perform or whether a *ba’al mum* may perform it. The Magen Avraham explains that nowadays people do not blow *chatzotzros* in times of suffering because the blowing must be done by *kohanim* and nowadays people do not know exactly who are the *kohanim*, and another explanation is given that the obligation applies only when the *Aron* goes out to war, which is not the case today.
- A *beraisa* teaches that all vessels Moshe made are valid for him and valid for future generations, but the *chatzotzros* Moshe made are valid for him and invalid for future generations. The *Gemara* rejects deriving this from a simple “*lecha*” rule by comparing it to *va’asisa lecha Aron eitz*, and instead answers that by *chatzotzros* the Torah says *lecha* twice—*aseh lecha* and *vehayu lecha*—to limit it to Moshe. Rav Yechezkel Abramsky explains that *korbanos* are an eternal *mitzvah* so their *avodah* remains, while *chatzotzros* are *l’mikra ha’eidah* and only Moshe had the ability to gather all of *Klal Yisrael* effectively in that way.
- A teaching lists a *Menorah* made of gold as standard and states that one made of silver is *kasher*, and one made of iron, tin, or lead is subject to dispute, with Rabbi *posel* and Rav Yosef bar Rabbi Yehudah *machshir*. The *Gemara* states that a *Menorah* of wood, bone, or glass is *pasul* according to everyone. Rav Papa explains the dispute through *klal u’prat u’klal* and defines “*ke’ein ha’prat*” differently for the two positions, while Rav Yosef responds that all agree metals are valid and the dispute centers on wood, connecting it to a parallel dispute about *klei shares* made of wood. The *Gemara* frames the methodological dispute as *klal u’prat* versus *ribui u’mi’ut*, and then cites a *beraisa* stating explicitly that if there is no gold one brings silver, copper, iron, tin, and lead, and that Rabbi Yosi bar Yehudah validates even wood.
- Another *beraisa* rules that one may not build a house in the exact design of the *Heichal* nor an *achsadra* like the *Ulam*, and it cites *Lo sa’asun iti elokei chesef v’elokei zahav lo sa’asu lachem* as a source for prohibiting making forms of heavenly beings and making replicas that resemble items made to serve Hashem. It prohibits making a courtyard corresponding to the *Azarah*, a table corresponding to the *Shulchan*, and a *Menorah* corresponding to the *Menorah*, and it forbids making a five-, six-, or eight-branched *Menorah* and also forbids making a seven-branched one even from other metals. Rabbi Yosi bar Yehudah says even wood should not be used “*k’derech she’asu malchus Beis Chashmona’i*,” and the response argues that their proof is not decisive because they were iron spits coated with lead, later replaced by silver and then gold, while an alternate reading is recorded that some have a *girsa* that it was wood.
- The text states that one major *halachah* is that one may not have a seven-branched *Menorah*, and it raises the question of an electric *Menorah* with seven branches. Some *poskim* are more lenient because the defining feature includes a *gavia* on top and electric bulbs are not *gevi’im*, while others extend the prohibition to a round candelabra even though the *Mikdash* *Menorah* was straight and even though it used oil. The text reports that Rav Wosner is lenient regarding a chandelier with seven lights and is certainly lenient with electric bulbs. The text also records a *machlokes Rishonim* whether making *klei haMishkan* for *lilmod* is more lenient or whether the prohibition remains regardless, based on the stance that the verse forbids making exact replicas.
- Shmuel *mishmei d’sava* states the *Menorah* height is eighteen *tefachim* and details how the *tefachim* are allocated among legs, flowers, blank sections, and the points where pairs of branches emerge and rise to the top. The *Gemara* describes the *gevi’im* as like *kosos Aleksandriyos* that are long and narrow, the *kaftorim* as like *tapuchei haKreisim*, and the *perachim* as like floral designs on columns. It concludes there are twenty-two *gevi’im*, eleven *kaftorim*, and nine *perachim*, and states that the *gevi’im*, *kaftorim*, and *perachim* are each *me’akvin zeh es zeh* and also collectively *me’akvin zeh es zeh*.
- The text records a dispute among *Acharonim* whether a *Menorah* shaped like the *Mikdash* *Menorah* but lacking *kaftorim*, *gevi’im*, and *perachim* is still problematic to make. It cites the Gra”Z as considering it a problem even without those features, and it presents the Bechor Shor’s approach that distinguishes between the *halachos* of the *Menorah* itself and the *halachos* of *hadlakas neiros*, arguing that even if a model is not *kasher* as a *Menorah* it may still be *kasher* for the lighting concept and therefore should not be made with seven branches. It states that the Shulchan Aruch prohibits making a seven-branched *Menorah* even if not gold and even if lacking *gevi’im*, *kaftorim*, and *perachim*, and it cites R’ Akiva Eiger as distinguishing gold from other materials such that a gold one lacking those features would not be a *kasher Menorah* and would be permitted to make, while a non-gold one is acceptable without those features and remains prohibited to replicate. The text cites Tiferes Moshe as permitting use if manufactured by a non-Jew, records that Mishnas Chachamim is lenient if it is not made for oil, and states that Pischei Teshuvah says it makes no difference whether it is used for oil or candles and one should not make it.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions