Menachot

for in the one case [the priest] stood facing the west with his back to the east1 and sprinkled, whereas in the other he stood facing the south with his back to the north 2 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-offering3 likens also the log [of oil of the leper] to the guilt-offering;4 the Rabbis, however, do not liken one with the other.5 But according to R. Eliezer is it permitted to deduce a law by analogy from another law which has itself been deduced by analogy?6 — Raba therefore answered, Both teachings state the view of the Rabbis; one deals with the validity7 [of the offering], whereas the other deals with the acceptance8 [of the offering in fulfilment of the owner's obligation]. MISHNAH. OF THE SEVEN BRANCHES OF THE CANDLESTICK,9 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,10 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,11 THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHERS; INDEED EVEN ONE [IMPERFECT] LETTER CAN INVALIDATE THE WHOLE. OF THE FOUR FRINGES,12 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. 13 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’;14 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’.15 But does not the expression ‘shall the candlestick be made’ also refer to ‘beaten work’?16 — Scripture stated, Of beaten work, Of beaten work, twice,17 signifying that this condition is indispensable. But is it not also written, Gold, Gold, twice,17 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’?18 What is the exposition [referred to]? — It was taught: Of a talent of pure gold shall it be made, with all these vessels:19 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:20 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.21 And this was the work of the candlestick, beaten work of gold:22 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.23 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’24 and also ‘shall be’;24 then when made from scraps they should also be invalid, should they not, since it is written ‘beaten work’24 and ‘shall be’? Scripture therefore stated in connection with the candlestick, It was beaten work,22 ‘it’ [was beaten work] but not the trumpets. Our Rabbis taught: All the vessels sprinklings were not quite in the direction of the Holy of Holies. wrong, and therefore it is invalid. 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. 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. process of double analogy. Cf. Zeb. 49b. thereby rendered permitted to the priests. fulfilment of the leper's obligation; and therefore he is still prohibited from entering the camp of Israel and from eating consecrated food. 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. be permitted if made out of broken pieces, or scraps of gold. 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.