Menachos 28
Summary
- Today's *daf* is Menachos 28, beginning with the *Mishnah* that shifts from things in *kodshim* that are *me’akvin zeh es zeh* to additional areas, opening with the *Menorah* and then moving into the *sugya* of its required form and materials. The *Mishnah* states that the seven branches and the seven lamps of the *Menorah* are each *me’akvin zeh es zeh*, and it continues with *mezuzah*, *tefillin*, and *tzitzis*, including a dispute whether the four *tzitzis* are one *mitzvah* or four. The *Gemara* derives the *Menorah*’s requirements from *pesukim*, distinguishes what is *le’ikkva* versus *le’chatchilah*, and develops a series of *derashos* from repeated terms like *havai-ah*, *téi’aseh*, *mikshah*, and *zahav*. The text then compares the *Menorah* to the *chatzotzros*, explains why Moshe’s *chatzotzros* are valid only for him and not for later generations, brings the Rambam’s framing of the *mitzvah* of *chatzotzros*, and concludes with Torah insights attributed to Rav Chaim Brisker, the Terumas HaDeshen, and the Chasam Sofer about why the *Shulchan* precedes the *Menorah* and how the *Aron* and *Menorah* represent different levels of *Talmud Torah*.
- The earlier *Mishnah* teaches that in a *korban minchah* the *solet* and the oil are *me’akvin zeh es zeh*, and the *kometz* and the *levonah* are *me’akvin zeh es zeh*. The *Mishnah* then lists additional *kodshim* cases where paired components are mutually indispensable, including the two Yom Kippur goats, the two Shavuos lambs, *batei challos*, and the two *sedarim*. The *Mishnah* then turns to non-*kodshim* subjects that also have elements that are mutually indispensable.
- The *Mishnah* rules that the seven branches of the *Menorah* are *me’akvin zeh es zeh*, so a *Menorah* with fewer than seven branches is invalid. The *Mishnah* also rules that the seven lamps atop the branches are *me’akvin zeh es zeh*, so seven branches without seven lamps is also invalid. The text emphasizes that this is about the *Menorah* of the *Beis HaMikdash*, not the eight-branched Chanukah *Menorah*, and it notes the Torah’s repeated references to the *Menorah* and its features such as *gavia*, *kaftor*, and *perach*.
- The *Gemara* asks for the source that the seven branches are indispensable and answers that *havai-ah* is written in the Torah, citing “כפתוריהם וקנתם ממנה יהיו,” and it treats “יהיו” as indicating *le’ikkva*. A *baraisa* states that the *Menorah* must come from *ha’ashet* and must be from gold, meaning it must be made from a single solid block (*mikshah*) and be *zahav*. The *baraisa* rules that if it is made from scraps (*gerutaos*) it is invalid, but if it is made from other metals it is valid, and the text explains that *mikshah* is *me’akev* while *zahav* is not *me’akev*. The *Gemara* challenges why other metals are allowed if “*zahav* and *havai-ah*” appear, answers that “תיעשה” serves as a *ribui* to include other metals, rejects reading “תיעשה” as including *gerutaos*, and concludes that repeated “*mikshah mikshah*” establishes *mikshah* as indispensable. The *Gemara* then weighs the implications of repeated “*zahav*” and “*mikshah*,” notes that the Torah actually uses *zahav* five times and *mikshah* four times across the *parshiyos*, and argues that the accounting works if *mikshah* is *le’ikkva* and *zahav* is not.
- A *baraisa* derives from “ככר זהב טהור יעשה אותה” that the *Menorah* must weigh a *kikar* only when it is made of gold, while a non-gold *Menorah* does not require the *kikar* weight. Another teaching states that the *gvi’im*, *kaftorim*, and *perachim* apply when it is gold, and if it is not gold those features are not required. A further teaching states “וזה מעשה המנורה מקשה זהב” to link *mikshah* specifically to a gold *Menorah*, expressed as “בא זהב בא מקשה, אין בה זהב אין בה מקשה.” The *Gemara* rejects extending this pattern to say that without gold it would not need branches, asserting that without branches it is not called a *Menorah*.
- The *Gemara* uses one of the Torah’s “*mikshah*” mentions to derive laws about the *chatzotzros*. A *baraisa* teaches that *chatzotzros* must be made from *ha’ashet* and from silver, but if they are made from scraps they are valid, while if made from other metals they are invalid. The *Gemara* explains the invalidity of other metals by “כסף הויה,” and it asks why scraps are not also invalid given “*mikshah* *havai-ah*.” The *Gemara* answers that the Torah limits *mikshah* to the *Menorah* with “מקשה היא,” meaning *hi*—the *Menorah*—and not the *chatzotzros*.
- A *baraisa* states that all the *keilim* that Moshe made are valid for his time and remain valid for later generations, but the *chatzotzros* are valid for him and invalid for later generations. The *Gemara* asks why, considers deriving it from “עשה לך,” and rejects that proof because “ועשית לך ארון עץ” does not imply the *Aron* is only for Moshe, and Moshe’s *Aron* was used later, including in the First Temple period. The *Gemara* concludes that the *chatzotzros* are different because the Torah says *lecha* twice, “עשה לך” and “והיה לך,” and that duplication supports “לך ולא לדורות.” The text brings the Baal HaTurim’s inference from “ויעש בצלאל את הארון” and adds that R. Meir Simcha frames it as a prophecy that there would be only one *Aron*, noting related questions raised by the Rashash and a teshuvah of the Chasam Sofer about why an *Aron* was not made in the Second Temple era.
- The Rambam in *Sefer HaMitzvos* (מצות עשה מצוה נ״ט) defines the *mitzvah* to blow *chatzotzros* in the *Mikdash* with the offering of the festival *korbanos*, based on “וביום שמחתכם ובמועדיכם ובראשי חדשיכם ותקעתם בחצוצרות.” The Rambam also writes that *chatzotzros* are used in times of need and distress, based on “וכי תבאו מלחמה בארצכם על הצר הצורר אתכם.” The text adds that the Rambam in *Hilchos Shofar* (פרק א' הלכה ב') describes that in the *Mikdash* on Rosh Hashanah they used one *shofar* with two *chatzotzros* at the sides, with the *shofar* extending longer because “שמצות היום בשופר,” citing “בחצוצרות וקול שופר הריעו לפני המלך ה',” while outside the *Mikdash* they blow only *shofar*.
- Rav Pappa the son of Rav Chanin teaches before Rav Yosef that the *Menorah* must be from *ha’ashet* and from gold, and he reports a dispute where a silver *Menorah* is valid and where other metals are debated, with Rebbi invalidating and Rebbi Yosi b’Rebbi Yehudah validating, while a *Menorah* of wood, bone, or glass is invalid according to all in that version. Rav Yosef challenges the explanation and then tells him “סמי ידיך מכמי דידי,” presenting a different *baraisa* where *klei shares* made of wood are invalid according to Rebbi but valid according to Rebbi Yosi b’Rebbi Yehudah. Rav Yosef explains that Rebbi uses *kelalei u’pratei* while Rebbi Yosi b’Rebbi Yehudah uses *ribui u’mi’ut*, and he frames the *derashah* so that *kelal u’perat u’kelal* yields only items *ke’ein ha’perat* while *ribui u’mi’ut u’ribui* includes everything except what is specifically excluded. Rav Yosef supports his version with additional *baraisos* that explicitly state “רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה מכשיר אף של עץ,” and he uses the law forbidding making a seven-branched *Menorah* even of other metals to show that the Temple *Menorah* could be valid in other metals, while Rebbi Yosi b’Rebbi Yehudah adds that even a wooden seven-branched *Menorah* should not be made, tying it to the account of the Hasmonean *Menorah* and the response that it was iron spits plated and later upgraded to silver and then gold.
- The Brisker Rav brings from Rav Chaim Brisker that the Torah consistently mentions the *Shulchan* before the *Menorah* because the Torah defines the placement of the *Menorah* as “נוכח השולחן,” so without a *Shulchan* there is no defined place for the *Menorah*. The Terumas HaDeshen, as cited by the Chasam Sofer, explains the ordering as *Shulchan* representing *gashmiyus* and *Menorah* representing *ruchniyus* and Torah, paralleling “שמח זבולון בצאתך ויששכר באהליך” and the principle “אם אין קמח אין תורה.” The Chasam Sofer challenges this from the fact that the *Aron* also represents Torah yet precedes the *Shulchan*, and he answers that the *Aron* represents the basic obligation of *Talmud Torah* that applies to every Jew regardless of circumstances, while the *Menorah* represents higher *madreigos* of Torah that depend on support and conditions. The Chasam Sofer anchors the universal obligation in the Rambam’s *Hilchos Talmud Torah* (פרק א הלכה ח), “כל איש מישראל חייב בתלמוד תורה,” including the poor, the suffering, the elderly, and one with a family, with set times by day and night from “והגית בו יומם ולילה,” and he contrasts that baseline with elite paths where “הרבה עשו כרבי שמעון בר יוחאי ולא עלתה בידם.” The text also cites the Rema in *Toras HaOlah* בשם בעל עקידה that features of the *Menorah* symbolically correspond to elements in the Torah, including שבע תיבות of “בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ” aligning with the seven lamps and additional word-count correspondences in the openings of other *Chumashim* to *kaftorim*, *perachim*, height measures, and *gevi’im*.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions