1 for in the one case [the priest] stood facing the west with his back to the east and sprinkled, whereas in the other he stood facing the south with his back to the north 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’. 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 likens also the log [of oil of the leper] to the guilt-offering; the Rabbis, however, do not liken one with the other. But according to R. Eliezer is it permitted to deduce a law by analogy from another law which has itself been deduced by analogy? — Raba therefore answered, Both teachings state the view of the Rabbis; one deals with the validity [of the offering], whereas the other deals with the acceptance [of the offering in fulfilment of the owner's obligation]. MISHNAH. OF THE SEVEN BRANCHES OF THE CANDLESTICK, THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHERS. OF THE SEVEN LAMPS THEREOF, THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHERS. OF THE TWO PORTIONS OF SCRIPTURE IN THE MEZUZAH, 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, THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHERS; INDEED EVEN ONE [IMPERFECT] LETTER CAN INVALIDATE THE WHOLE. OF THE FOUR FRINGES, THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHERS, SINCE THE FOUR TOGETHER FORM ONE PRECEPT. R. ISHMAEL SAYS, THE FOUR ARE FOUR SEPARATE PRECEPTS. GEMARA. [OF THE SEVEN BRANCHES OF THE CANDLESTICK etc.] Why is it so? — Because the expression ‘shall be’ is used therewith. 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. Now why is it invalid if made from scraps? It is, presumably, because Scripture says ‘beaten work’ and also ‘shall be’; 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’. But does not the expression ‘shall the candlestick be made’ also refer to ‘beaten work’? — Scripture stated, Of beaten work, Of beaten work, twice, signifying that this condition is indispensable. But is it not also written, Gold, Gold, twice, 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]. 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’? What is the exposition [referred to]? — It was taught: Of a talent of pure gold shall it be made, with all these vessels: if made of gold it must be a talent [in weight], if not of gold it need not be a talent. Its cups, its knops, and its flowers: 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. And this was the work of the candlestick, beaten work of gold: 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. 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’ and also ‘shall be’; then when made from scraps they should also be invalid, should they not, since it is written ‘beaten work’ and ‘shall be’? Scripture therefore stated in connection with the candlestick, It was beaten work, ‘it’ [was beaten work] but not the trumpets. Our Rabbis taught: All the vesselsᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣ
2 which Moses had made were valid for him and valid also for future generations; the trumpets, however, were valid for him but invalid for future generations. What is the reason for the trumpets? Should you say because it is written, Make thee, that is, for thyself only but not for future generations; then the verse, And make thee an ark of wood, would also signify for thyself only but not for future generations. But in fact the expression ‘thee’ [in the latter verse] means, according to one opinion, of thine own, or according to another opinion, ‘I would have preferred it to come from thine own rather than from theirs’; then here too it means the same thing! — Here it is different, since ‘thee’ is stated twice: ‘Make thee’ and ‘They shall be unto thee’. R. Papa the son of R. Hanin recited the following teaching before R. Joseph: The candlestick had to be made from one mass and of gold; if it was made of silver it is still valid; if of tin or lead or gasitron, Rabbi declares it to be invalid, but R. Jose b. Judah declares it to be valid. If it was made of wood or of bone or of glass, all agree that it is invalid. Thereupon he said to him, What can be the reason for this? He replied, Both masters interpret [the verse] by the principle of ‘general proposition and specification’, but they differ in this: one concludes, as the thing specified is clearly a metal, so all metals are permitted; but the other concludes, as the thing specified is a valuable [metal], so only valuable [metals] are permitted. Then said [R. Joseph] to him, Set aside your teaching in view of mine, for it has been taught: If vessels of ministry were made of wood, Rabbi declares them invalid, but R. Jose b. Judah declares them valid. In what do they differ? Rabbi interprets [the verse] by the principle of ‘general proposition and specification’, whereas R. Jose b. Judah interprets it by the principle of ‘amplification and limitation’. Rabbi interprets the verse by ‘general proposition and specification’ thus, And thou shalt make a candlestick is a general proposition, ‘of pure gold’ is a particular specification, ‘of beaten work shall the candlestick be made’ is another general proposition; we thus have two general propositions separated by a particular specification, in which case you may only include such things as are similar to the thing specified, and as the thing specified is clearly a metal so all metals are included. R. Jose b. Judah on the other hand interprets the verse by ‘amplification and limitation’ thus, ‘And thou shalt make a candlestick’ is an amplifying proposition, ‘of pure gold’ is a limitation, ‘of beaten work shall the candlestick be made’ is another amplifying proposition; we thus have two amplifying propositions separated by a limitation, in which case they include [well-nigh] everything. What do they include? Everything. And what do they exclude? Earthenware. On the contrary, Set aside your teaching because of mine! — You cannot say so, for it was taught: If there was no gold available for it, it may be made of silver, of copper, of iron, of tin or of lead. R. Jose b. Judah allows it even of wood. And another Baraitha also taught: A man may not make a house after the design of the Temple, or a porch after the design of the Temple porch, or a courtyard after the design of the Temple court, or a table after the design of the table [in the Temple], or a candlestick after the design of the candlestick [in the Temple]. He may, however, make one with five, six or eight [branches], but with seven he may not make one, even though it be of other metal. R. Jose b. Judah says, He should not make one even of wood, for thus did the Hasmonean kings make it. But [the Rabbis] said to him, Is any proof to be deduced from that? In fact it was made of iron bars which they overlaid with tin; when they [the Hasmoneans] grew richer they made one of silver, and when they grew still richer they made one of gold. Samuel said in the name of an old scholar, The height of the candlestick was eighteen handbreadths: three handbreadths for the base and the flower upon it, two handbreadths plain, one handbreadth for cup, knop and flower, again two handbreadths plain, one handbreadth for a knop out of which two branches come forth, one on each side, extending and rising to the same height as the candlestick, then one handbreadth plain, one handbreadth for a knop out of which two branches come forth, one on each side, extending and rising to the same height as the candlestick, then again one handbreadth plain, and one handbreadth for a knop out of which two branches come forth, one on each side, extending and rising to the same height as the candlestick, and then two handbreadths plain; there now remained three handbreadths, in which space were three cups, a knop and a flower. The cups were like Alexandrian goblets, the knops like Cretan apples, and the flowers like the blossoms around the capitals of columns. It will be found, therefore, that there were twenty-two cups, eleven knops, and nine flowers. Of the cups the [omission of] one invalidates the others, of the knops the [omission of] one invalidates the others, and of the flowers the [omission of] one invalidates the others; moreover, of the cups, the knops and the flowers, the [omission of] one kind invalidates the others. It is quite clear that there were twenty-two cups, for it is written, And in the candlestick were four cups, and it is also written, Three cups like almond-blossoms in one branch, a knop and a flower; so that its own four29ʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠᵃᵍᵃʰᵃⁱᵃʲᵃᵏᵃˡᵃᵐᵃⁿᵃᵒᵃᵖᵃᵠᵃʳᵃˢᵃᵗᵃᵘᵃᵛᵃʷᵃˣᵃʸᵃᶻᵇᵃ