Menachot 55

הא דקאי מזרח ומערב ואדי הא דקאי צפון ודרום ואדי

for in the one case [the priest] stood facing the west with his back to the east<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This was the right and proper position for sprinkling the blood of the Red Cow, and it is valid even though the sprinklings were not quite in the direction of the Holy of Holies.');">¹</span> and sprinkled, whereas in the other he stood facing the south with his back to the north<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case both the position of the priest who sprinkled the blood and the direction in which it was sprinkled were wrong, and therefore it is invalid.');">²</span>

אמר מר ושבפנים ושבמצורע שלא לשמן פסולות שלא מכוונות כשרות והתניא בין שלא לשמן בין שלא מכוונות כשרות

and sprinkled. The Master said, 'But as for those [sprinklings which must be performed] inside, or [the sprinklings in the purification rites] of a leper, if they were made under the name of some other [offering], they are invalid, but if they were not rightly directed, they are valid'.

אמר רב יוסף לא קשיא הא רבי אליעזר והא רבנן רבי אליעזר דמקיש אשם לחטאת מקיש נמי לוג לאשם רבנן לא מקשי

But it has been taught: Whether they were made under the name of some other [offering] or were not rightly directed, they are valid! Said R'Joseph: This is no contradiction; one Baraitha states the view of R'Eliezer, the other that of the Rabbis. R'Eliezer who likens the guilt-offering to the sin-offering<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By reason of the juxtaposition of these two kinds of offering in one verse, Lev. VII, 7: As is the sin-offering so is the guilt-offering, the laws of each are placed on the same footing; and as the sin-offering is rendered invalid if any vital service was performed under any other name but its own, so it is with the guilt-offering too. V. Zeb. 10b.');">³</span>

ולרבי אליעזר וכי דבר הלמד בהיקש חוזר ומלמד בהיקש

likens also the log [of oil of the leper] to the guilt-offering;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the juxtaposition of the log of oil and the guilt-offering of the leper in one verse, ibid. XIV, 21, the further analogy is made: as the guilt-offering is rendered invalid by the performance of any of its vital services under another name (by analogy with the sin-offering, v. prec. n.) , so it is too with the service of the sprinkling of the oil in the purification rites of the leper.');">⁴</span> the Rabbis, however, do not liken one with the other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the ruling in the latter Baraitha is in accordance with the view of the Rabbis.');">⁵</span>

אלא אמר רבא הא והא רבנן כאן להכשיר (הקרבן) כאן להרצות (שלא עלו לבעלים לשום חובה):

But according to R'Eliezer is it permitted to deduce a law by analogy from another law which has itself been deduced by analogy?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 179, nn. 7 and 8. It is absolutely disallowed to deduce any law in connection with holy things by the process of double analogy. Cf. Zeb. 49b.');">⁶</span> - Raba therefore answered, Both teachings state the view of the Rabbis; one deals with the validity<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The latter Baraitha implied that the offering was valid, but only to this extent, that the remainder of the log of oil was thereby rendered permitted to the priests.');">⁷</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> שבעה קני מנורה מעכבין זה את זה שבעה נרותיה מעכבין זה את זה שתי פרשיות שבמזוזה מעכבות זו את זו אפילו כתב אחד מעכבן

[of the offering], whereas the other deals with the acceptance<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The former Baraitha by ruling 'they are invalid' merely wished to convey that the sprinklings were not accepted in fulfilment of the leper's obligation; and therefore he is still prohibited from entering the camp of Israel and from eating consecrated food.');">⁸</span> [of the offering in fulfilment of the owner's obligation].

ד' פרשיות שבתפילין מעכבין זו את זו אפילו כתב אחד מעכבן ד' ציציות מעכבות זו את זו שארבעתן מצוה אחת רבי ישמעאל אומר ארבעתן ארבע מצות:

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>OF THE SEVEN BRANCHES OF THE CANDLESTICK,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Ex. XXV, 31ff.');">⁹</span> THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHERS.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מ"ט הויה כתיב בהו

OF THE SEVEN LAMPS THEREOF, THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHERS. OF THE TWO PORTIONS OF SCRIPTURE IN THE MEZUZAH,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. The two portions are: Deut. VI, 4-8, and XI, 13-21.');">¹⁰</span>

תנו רבנן מנורה היתה באה מן העשת ומן הזהב עשאה מן הגרוטאות פסולה משאר מיני מתכות כשרה מאי שנא מן הגרוטאות פסולה דכתיב (שמות כה, לא) מקשה והויה שאר מיני מתכות נמי זהב והויה

THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHER; INDEED EVEN ONE [IMPERFECT] LETTER CAN INVALIDATE THE WHOLE. OF THE FOUR PORTIONS OF SCRIPTURE IN THE TEFILLIN,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. The four portions are: Deut. VI, 4-8; XI, 13-21; Ex. XIII, 1-10 and 11-16.');">¹¹</span>

אמר קרא תיעשה לרבות שאר מיני מתכות ואימא לרבות גרוטאות לא ס"ד דאמקשה כתיבה הויה

THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHERS; INDEED EVEN ONE [IMPERFECT] LETTER CAN INVALIDATE THE WHOLE. OF THE FOUR FRINGES,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Num. XV, 38.');">¹²</span>

תיעשה נמי אמקשה כתיב מקשה מקשה לעכב

THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHERS, SINCE THE FOUR TOGETHER FORM ONE PRECEPT. R'ISHMAEL SAYS, THE FOUR ARE FOUR SEPARATE PRECEPTS.

זהב זהב נמי לעכב

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>[OF THE SEVEN BRANCHES OF THE CANDLESTICK etc.] Why is it so? - Because the expression 'shall be' is used therewith.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXV, 36: Their knops and their branches shall be of one piece with it.');">¹³</span> Our Rabbis taught: The candlestick had to be made from one mass and of gold; if it was made from scraps [of gold] it is invalid, but if made from any other metal it is valid.

האי מאי אי אמרת בשלמא מן הגרוטאות פסולה משאר מיני מתכות כשרה היינו זהב זהב מקשה מקשה לדרשא אלא אי אמרת מן הגרוטאות כשרה משאר מיני מתכות פסולה זהב זהב מקשה מקשה מאי דרשת ביה

Now why is it invalid if made from scraps? It is, presumably, because Scripture says 'beaten work' and also 'shall be';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The term 'beaten work' implies hammered out of one piece, and since the expression 'shall be' is added in the verse, this condition of 'beaten work' is indispensable. The expressions used in this exposition are in Ex. XXV, 31: And thou shalt make a candlestick of pure gold: of beaten work shall the candlestick be made . . its cup', its knops and its flowers shall be of one piece with it.');">¹⁴</span>

מאי דרשא דתניא (שמות כה, לט) ככר זהב טהור יעשה אותה את כל הכלים האלה באה זהב באה ככר אינה באה זהב אינה באה ככר (שמות כה, לא) גביעיה כפתוריה ופרחיה באה זהב באה גביעים כפתורים ופרחים אינה באה זהב אינה באה גביעים כפתורים ופרחים

then when made from other metals too it should be invalid, should it not, since Scripture says, 'of gold' and also 'shall be'? - The verse also says, Shall the candlestick be made, to include other metals. Perhaps it is to include scraps! - You cannot think so, for the expression 'shall be' refers to 'beaten work'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus ruling out the use of broken pieces.');">¹⁵</span>

ואימא נמי באה זהב באה קנים אינה באה זהב אינה באה קנים ההוא פמוט מיקרי

But does not the expression 'shall the candlestick be made' also refer to 'beaten work'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore by reason of the general and comprehensive expression 'shall the candlestick be made' it should also be permitted if made out of broken pieces, or scraps of gold.');">¹⁶</span> - Scripture stated, Of beaten work, Of beaten work, twice,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. vv. 31 and 36.');">¹⁷</span>

(במדבר ח, ד) וזה מעשה המנורה מקשה זהב באה זהב באה מקשה אינה באה זהב אינה באה מקשה

signifying that this condition is indispensable. But is it not also written, Gold, Gold, twice,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. vv. 31 and 36.');">¹⁷</span>

מקשה דסיפא למאי אתא למעוטי חצוצרות דתניא חצוצרות היו באים מן העשת מן הכסף עשאם מן הגרוטאות כשרים משאר מיני מתכות פסולים

so that this too is indispensable? - What is this that you say? It is well if you hold that if made out of scraps it is invalid and if out of other metal it is valid, for then the repetition of the terms 'gold' and 'beaten work' is made use of in the exposition [which follows].

ומאי שנא משאר מיני מתכות פסולים דכתיב כסף והויה מן הגרוטאות נמי מקשה והויה מיעט רחמנא גבי מנורה מקשה היא היא ולא חצוצרות

But if you hold that if made out of scraps it is valid and if out of other metals it is invalid, what use then will you make of the repetition of the terms 'gold' and 'beaten work'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The force of the argument centres around the term 'beaten work' which is used four times in connection with the candlestick: twice in Ex. XXV (in vv. 31 and 36) and twice in Num: VIII, 4. If it is held that it is invalid if made out of scraps, then this term was stated twice to indicate that this condition was indispensable, and on two more occasions for the purposes given in the following exposition. If, however, it is valid if made out of scraps, then at least in one instance this term is superfluous. V. Sh. Mek a.l.');">¹⁸</span> What is the exposition [referred to]? - It was taught: Of a talent of pure gold shall it be made, with all these vessels:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. ibid. 39.');">¹⁹</span>

תנו רבנן כל הכלים

if made of gold it must be a talent [in weight], if not of gold it need not be a talent. Its cu its knops, and its flowers:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXV, 31. vrubn');">²⁰</span> if made of gold there must then be cups, knops and flowers, if not of gold there need be neither cups nor knops nor flowers. Perhaps I ought also to say, If made of gold there must then be branches, if not of gold there need be no branches! - That would be called a lamp.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not a , a branched candlestick.');">²¹</span> And this was the work of the candlestick, beaten work of gold:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. VIII, 4.');">²²</span> if of gold it must be beaten work, if not of gold it need not be beaten work. And what use is made of the [second] expression 'beaten work' in this last [verse]? - It serves to exclude the trumpets.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. ibid. X. 2ff. Thus the two silver trumpets need not be beaten work.');">²³</span> For it was taught: The trumpets had to be made [each] from one mass and of silver; if made from scraps [of silver] they are valid, if from other metals they are invalid. Now why are they invalid if made from other metals? presumably because it is written 'of silver'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid.');">²⁴</span> and also 'shall be';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid.');">²⁴</span> then when made from scraps they should also be invalid, should they not, since it is written 'beaten work'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid.');">²⁴</span> and 'shall be'? Scripture therefore stated in connection with the candlestick, It was beaten work,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. VIII, 4.');">²²</span> 'it' [was beaten work] but not the trumpets. Our Rabbis taught: All the vessels