Menachot

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,1 that is, for thyself only but not for future generations; then the verse, And make thee an ark of wood,2 would also signify for thyself only but not for future generations.3 But in fact the expression ‘thee’ [in the latter verse] means, according to one opinion,4 of thine own, or according to another opinion, ‘I would have preferred it to come from thine own rather than from theirs’;5 then here6 too it means the same thing! — Here7 it is different, since ‘thee’ is stated twice: ‘Make thee’ and ‘They shall be unto thee’. 8 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,9 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,10 What can be the reason for this?11 He replied, Both masters interpret [the verse] by the principle of ‘general proposition and specification’,12 but they differ in this: one13 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.14 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 candlestick15 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.16 And what do they exclude? Earthenware.17 On the contrary, Set aside your teaching because of mine! — You cannot say so,18 for it was taught: If there was no gold available for it,19 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.20 R. Jose b. Judah says, He should not make one even of wood, for thus did the Hasmonean kings make it.21 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;22 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,23 two handbreadths plain,24 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 remained25 three handbreadths, in which space were three cups, a knop and a flower. The cups were like Alexandrian goblets,26 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,27 and it is also written, Three cups like almond-blossoms in one branch, a knop and a flower;28 so that its own four29 expression ‘as though it were possible’ (the usual expression used when referring to God in anthropomorphic terms) is here inserted, but it is not found in any MS., and indeed it is quite unnecessary here. wood. Rabbi allows all metals, overrides the former Baraitha quoted by R. Papa. follow. wood according to R. Jose b. Judah.