Vol 16.36 - Terumah 5 Spanish French Audio Video
|Hebrew Text: Chumash-Shmot Rambam|
(5738) Debate in the viewpoint of Rashi on the Torah if the lights of the Menorah are from the "talent of gold" and also if it needs to be "beaten";
Explanation of the words of Rashi (Ex. 25:31) "It must not be made in sections";
Resolution of the words of Rashi in Parshat Vayakhel (35:14)
And its vessels. (I.e.) its tongs and its scoops.
Its lamps. Lucens (Loces) in Old French; the scoops into which the oil and wicks are put.
And the Oil for the light. It, too, required talented people for it is different from other oils, as is explained in Tractate Menachot. He allows it to ripen on top of the olive tree and it thereby is crushed and (yet remains) clear.
35. And you shall make a menorah of pure gold. The menorah shall be made of hammered work; its base and its stem, its goblets, its knobs, and its flowers shall (all) be (one piece) with it.
36. Their knobs and their branches shall (all) be (one piece) with it; all of it (shall be) one hammered mass of pure gold .It shall all be made of a single hammered work of pure gold.
37. And you shall make its lamps seven, and he shall kindle its lamps (so that they) shed light toward its face.
38. And its tongs and its scoops (shall be) of pure gold
39. He shall make it of a talent (Kikar) of pure gold, with all these implements.
When the Menorah is made out of gold, its total (weight) including its lamps shall be one talent. It must be fashioned entirely by hammering out one block (of gold)
(Though the Menorah's) tongs ash-scoops, and oil containers (shall also be made out of pure gold), they are not included in the talent (mentioned above. This decision was made) because, in connection with the Menorah, (Exodus 25:31) states: "pure gold" and afterwards, (ibid.38) repeats: "Its wick-tongs and ash-scoops shall be made of pure gold."
The verse does not state: "its lamps shall be of pure gold," for the lamps were permanently fixed in the Menorah, and were included in the talent (of gold from which the Menorah was fashioned).
Tal. Menachot 88b
R. Huna the son of Rab Judah said in the name of R. Shesheth: The lamp (at the top of each branch of the Candlestick) in the Temple was flexible. He is of the opinion that the expressions ‘a talent’ and ‘beaten work’ apply to the Candlestick and also to the lamps; and since the latter had to be cleaned out, were they not flexible, they could not very well be cleaned out.
An objection was raised: How did he do it? He removed (the lamps from the Candlestick) and put them in a cleansing mixture. He then dried them with a sponge, put oil in them, and lit them! — He agrees with the following Tanna, for it was taught: The Sages say, They did not move it (the lamp) from its place at all. Does this mean to imply that it could be moved if one wanted to do so?
— Say rather, They could not move it from its place at all. Who are ‘The Sages’? — R. Eleazar son of R. Zadok is meant. For it was taught: R. Eleazar son of R. Zadok says, There was a kind of thin plate of gold over (each lamp); when cleaning out (the lamp the priest) used to press it down towards the mouth of the lamp, and when putting oil in it he used to press it down towards the back of the lamp.
And this matter is the subject of dispute between the following Tannaim. For it was taught: The Candlestick and the lamps were made out of the talent, but the tongs and the snuff dishes were not made out of the talent. R. Nehemiah said, The Candlestick (only) was made out of the talent, but neither the lamps nor the tongs nor the snuff dishes were made out of the talent.
Wherein do they differ? — In the exposition of the following verse. For it was taught: Of a talent of pure gold shall it be made; we thus learn that the Candlestick was made out of the talent, but whence do I know that it included the lamps too? Because Scripture says, With all these vessels. Then I might think that it included even the tongs and the snuff dishes; the text therefore states, It. This is the opinion of R. Nehemiah. (But is there not here a contradiction between the two statements of R. Nehemiah?
— Two Tannaim differ as to R. Nehemiah's view.) R. Joshua b. Korha says, The Candlestick was made out of the talent, but neither the lamps nor the tongs nor the snuff dishes were made out of the talent. How then do I interpret the words ‘with all these vessels’? That the vessels were of gold. But that they were of gold is expressly stated in the verses, And thou shalt make the lamps thereof seven; and they shall light the lamps thereof, to give light over against it. And the tongs thereof and the snuff dishes thereof, shall be of pure gold! — (The former verse) was stated only for the sake of the mouth of the lamp. For I might have thought that since the mouth of the lamp becomes black the Torah has consideration for the money of Israel, and therefore it may be made of any kind of gold; the verse therefore teaches us (that it, too, must be of pure gold)
1. Concerning the manner of making the Lamps (Neirot -״הנרות״ ) of the Menorah, there is a debate in the Talmud.
(and the order of cleaning (Hatavas) the Menorah was that they removed them (from the Menorah) and placed them in the Sanctuary and cleaned them etc.)
And the Talmud ties this with the debate whether the verse stating:
“He shall make it of a talent (ככר) of pure gold, with all these implements.(ibid 39)”
Rambam rules that the Halacha is:
“When the Menorah is made out of gold, its total (weight), including its lamps, shall be one talent. It must be fashioned entirely by hammering out one block (of gold) . . for the lamps were permanently fixed in the Menorah, and were included in the talent (of gold from which the Menorah was fashioned)”.
2. We have mentioned many times that Rashi’s commentary on Torah explains the Pshat (simple meaning), even when it does not fit with a part of the Halacha in Torah – And this is very evident in the viewpoint of his commentary here.
As stated, the Talmud ties the debate whether the “Lamps” must be “Miksheh” (with the Menorah) with the debate whether they must “come from the talent”.
And like Rambam states:
“According to everyone, the talent of gold only includes the Menorah itself that must be beaten” –
and therefore he explains that according to the opinion (in the Beraisa of Melechet HaMishkan) that the tongs and scoops “come from the talent” and that they are not ”separate vessels” from the Menorah. Rather they are a part of the Menorah (tongs – “There was a kind of thin plate of gold over (each lamp) etc. (c.f. Talmud) and scoops - “small receptacles under each lamp etc.”)
Rashi, however, in his commentary states on the words:
“A talent of pure gold.”: “Its weight, including all its vessels, should be only a talent, no more and no less etc.” (verse 39)
And prior to this, translates (in verse 38) that:
“its tongs“: are the tongs (הצבתים) etc.” and
“its scoops: They were like small receptacles which were used to rake out the ashes” -
It follows (according to his opinion) that also the separate utensils of the Menorah were from the Kikar –
And one could say that his reason is:
The simple explanation of
1) Tongs and scoops – in every place in Tanach – is a separate utensil from the object that it is used for – for example: the Altar
2) “He shall make it of a talent/kikar of pure gold, with all these implements” means that “it” – the Menorah – and “all these implements” - All the implements which are mentioned in the verse – must be made from the “talent of pure gold”.
Accordingly, since, according to Rashi, the condition of “Miksheh” is not tied to the amount of the “talent of pure gold”, it follows that just because the “Lamps” had to be from the “Kikar”, it (according to his opinion), does not prove that they had to be “beaten/Miksheh” (together with the Menorah).
3. At first glance, it appears that Rashi holds that the command of “Miksheh” by the Menorah includes also the “Lamps”:
For on the verse:” The Menorah must be made by hammering” Rashi explains:
“It must not be made in sections. (That is) its branches or lamps must not be made as individual parts and afterwards attached (as is done by smiths through a process called soldering), but, rather, it should all originate from one piece,
(Hammered with a hammer and cut with special tools) thereby
separating the branches in two directions).
And since we must not make the Lamps “individual parts and afterwards attaching them”, this, seemingly, means that, the Lamps must from the onset be made/beaten “Miksheh” with the Menorah.
However, if one examines this closely, this is not a proof:
Rashi only says: “The Menorah must be made by hammering” and negates the view that the Menorah be “individual parts and afterwards attaching them”
(i.e that the Menorah must not be attached (צונויפגעקלעפט) from individual parts) –
and on this subject Rashi says that just as its branches or lamps must not be made as “individual parts and afterwards attached”, so too one must not attach the Lamps to the Menorah (for then, the Menorah would not be from “one piece”):
But concerning whether the Lamps could be and remain separate parts from the Menorah – and we just place them on the top of the branches – (on this) Rashi does not comment; For In this situation, the Menorah is Miksheh, it is from “one piece”, it is not attached (davuk) to the Menorah, at all.
Accordingly it is also answered why at the end of his comment, Rashi only mentions the branches and not the Lamps
4. Since one cannot clearly discern Rashi’s opinion on this subject, and he does not state “I do not know”
(as he states in other places, where the explanation of the verse is not clear),
one must say, that in learning the Pshat, it is so simple, that Rashi does not need to explain it in his commentary – one clearly and openly sees it the explanation from the verses themselves.
And the explanation is:
The order in the section of the making of the Menorah is:
First, comes the command: “And you shall make a menorah of pure gold, etc (it) shall be made of hammered work; etc its base and its stem, its goblets, its knobs, and its flowers shall be of it”
(Afterwards, in the verse it specifies how to make the branches of the Menorah, its cups etc and concludes: “Their knobs and their branches shall (all) be of it; all of it (shall be) one hammered mass of pure gold).
And only afterward states: “And you shall make its lamps seven (verse 37) . . And its tongs and its scoops” (verse 38) etc “He shall make it of a talent of pure gold (verse 39).
(And so too in Parshat Vayakhel, where it tells how the Menorah was actually made, all the specifics are stated in the same order)
From this, that the command of “And you shall make its lamps”, is stated after the minute details of the Menorah itself, and after the command: “It shall all be made of a single hammered work of pure gold” etc, is understood, that according to the simple understanding of the verse ( the style of Rashi’s commentary on Torah), that the “Lamps” are separate objects which do not pertain to the body of the Menorah – they are in the same category of “tongs” and “scoops” which are mentioned right after the Lamps.
5. Another proof for this is:
In Parshat Pekudei where it is told how the Mishkan was brought to Moshe, it states: “The pure Menorah, its implements etc”.
(Just like it is illogical to say that they brought the Menorah and the branches, cups etc)
6. According to this view – that Rashi’s opinion on Torah is that Lamps are not part of the command of “Miksheh” – we can understand many differences and questions in Parshat Vayakhel (compared to here) (where the Torah again speaks of the work of the Mishkan):
In the verse (Ex. 35:14) “The menorah for light, and its vessels, and its lamps and the oil for the light”, Rashi comments on the words: “Its lamps” – “Lucens (Loces -״לוציני״ש in Old French); the scoops into which the oil and wicks are put”
It is not understood:
1) On the words: “Its lamps” in our Parsha, (where the Lamps of the Menorah are mentioned for the first time) Rashi explains: “They were a kind of cups into which the oil and the wicks were put” – Now, since Rashi already translated, in our parsha, the meaning of Lamps, why must Rashi again explain it in Parshat Vayakhel?
2) The question is even greater: Rashi himself explains a few verses earlier (Parshat Vayakhel verse 35:5): “I have already explained the contributions to the Mishkan and its work in the place where they were commanded.” -
And for this reason Rashi does not explain there, (the majority) of the aspects of the offering and work of the Mishkan
(For he does not do so unless it is a case where there is an innovation which we could not have discerned in “the place where they were commanded.”)
because he relies on the fact that he already explained it –
Therefore, since Rashi has already explained the meaning of “Lamps” in “the place where they were commanded” why does he specifically re-iterate the explanation?
3) Why does Rashi add and preface “Lucens (Loces) in Old French “- for seemingly it is self-evident.
· For if the explanation of “the cups etc” (״בזיכין וכר״) is not sufficient” and we require the “vernacular”, Rashi should have brought this at the place where he first explained the word “Lamps” (in our Parsha)
· And if we do not need this (the vernacular), since the translation “like a type of cups etc.” (״כמין בזיכין כר״) is sufficient, why does Rashi need to add the “vernacular” in Parshat Vayakhel?
7. We can understand this by prefacing another distinction in Rashi’s explanation:
We have mentioned many times that every word (and letter) in Rashi’s commentary on Torah is utterly precise. And this is not just regarding the body of the comment, but even the words that Rashi cites as the title are precise.
One of the places that we glaringly see this (i.e. how precise the title of Rashi’s comment is) is in the aforementioned comment of Rashi.
In that verse – “The menorah for light, and its vessels, and its lamps and the oil for the light” – Rashi writes three separate titles:
1) And its vessels (״ואת כלי׳): its tongs and its scoops.
2) Lamps (״נרזחי׳,): Lucens in the vernacular; the scoops into which the oil and wicks are put.
3) And oil for the light (״ואת שמן המאור): It, too, required talented people etc
We see a glaring difference. In the first and third titles Rashi brings the word “And” (vEs) whereas in the second title he just cites the word “Lamps” and not the word: “And”
8. According to the above – that according to Rashi’s explanation, the Lamps are not included in the category of – “Miksheh” – it is understood:
Since, according to his opinion, the Lamps are not part of the Menorah, one must say that when the verse states: “(He shall make it (osah) of a talent. . of pure gold) , with all these implements”:, The Lamps are not included in the “it” ( the Menorah) but rather (they are included) in “all these implements” – i.e. the Lamps are from the implements of the Menorah.
Yet when one comes to Parshat Vayakhel, where the verse states: “The menorah for light, and its vessels, and its lamps etc” it becomes difficult. For since the verse already states “and its vessels” which (should) include the Lamps, - why does the verse state “and its lamps” separately?
Therefore, in order to answer this,
Rashi cites the heading “And its vessels (״ואת כלי׳) and explains - “its tongs and its scoops”.
And immediately afterwards he cites: “Lamps”. Yet he omits the word “and” –
in order to emphasize, with this intent, that one must learn the verse as if it would not have stated before the word “Lamps” the word “and”.
The reason for this is because the “Lamps” are (also) a part of “And its vessels”.
In other words, the explanation of the verse is: And its vessels (which are) “its tongs and its scoops”
9. However, it still remains not understood:
Why does the verse, really, separate (אויסטיילן) the “Lamps” from the implements of the Menorah?
Therefore to answer this, Rashi states:
“Lucens in the laaz/vernacular” (״לוציני״ש בלעז״). (Note: This may be Loces, Lucent or Lux in Old French)
For the root of the word “Lucens” in the “vernacular” - means light.
And the reason the Lamps are called, by the term, “light” is (as Rashi continues) because
(they are) “The scoops into which the oil and wicks are put”.
Namely, because they reflect the intent and purpose of the whole Menorah – to create light
(Which is created from (that which is in) the Lamps (“into which the oil and wicks are put”))
And since the Lamps are the main part of the whole Menorah – it is understood why the verse separates them from the (other) implements of the Menorah
(m’Sichas Shabbat Parshat Vayakhel-Pekudei 5737)
|Date Modified:||Date Reviewed:|