English translation — תרומה ג

A.

Regarding the form of the menorah, it is stated in this week's parshah¹

: three almond-shaped cups on one branch, a knob and a flower, etc., likewise for the six branches, etc., and on the menorah

("the body of the menorah"²

— the middle branch)

four almond-shaped cups, its knobs and its flowers.

In the laws of the Chosen House³,

after the Rambam enumerates the number of the cups, knobs, and flowers,

both of the "branch of the menorah" and of the "six branches" — he elaborates: "And all were made with almond-shaped designs like almonds in their making."

On that which the Rambam says "<b>and all</b> were hammered" — that all the cups, knobs, and flowers in the menorah were "hammered" — brings the Kesef Mishneh

(from the Ra'avad)

: wrote thus our teacher because we say in the chapter "Hotsiu lo"<sup>4</sup>

five verses have no decisive interpretation and one of them is "hammered"

that we are in doubt whether it refers to cups or to its knobs and flowers,

and therefore interprets both, that out of doubt we make all hammered,

for even if they make hammered and it is not necessary to be hammered there is no loss,

but if they refrain from making hammered if hammered is required there is concern.

Asks the Mishneh LeMelech: The doubt

(in the baraita)

is only "in the verse 'and in the menorah four cups hammered, its knobs and its flowers' which speaks of the body of the menorah",

but regarding the "knobs and flowers in the six branches

("three cups hammered in the one branch, knob and flower")

he has no doubt whether we require hammered because it interrupted

"in the one branch" between "hammered" and "knob and flower",

for if not so, it should have said "three cups in the one branch hammered, knob and flower" — why does the Rambam say "<b>all</b> were hammered"?

And remains with a "needs further study".

2.

The MaB"iT⁶

asks the question and answers according to the explanation of the Tosafos in the reason that,

"meshuqadim" — "it has no decisive [meaning]",

that the doubt is "because there is an atnachta on 'gvi'im' and on 'menorah four gvi'im', and it implies 'meshuqadim, kapotav, u'frachav',

and another verse proves that 'meshuqadim' applies only to the gvi'im, as it is written 'three gvi'im meshuqadim',

and therefore it has no decisive [meaning]."

That is,

that the "it has no decisive [meaning]" is from the side of the contradiction between the two verses — from the verse about the six branches it is proven that "meshuqadim applies only to the gvi'im",

and the verse,

"and on the menorah four gvi'im"

(where "there is an atnachta on 'gvi'im'")

implies "meshuqadim, kapotav, u'frachav".

And since so — "we do all the branches of the menorah also meshuqadim ..

for what difference is there between the menorah itself and the branches of the menorah? ..

If all the gvi'im, kapotot, and flowers of the menorah require meshuqadim because there is no decisive [meaning] where it applies,

so too all those of the branches require meshuqadim."

But the explanation is seemingly not understandable:

According to the Mabit it turns out,

that from the side of the reasoning of "what is the difference between the menorah itself and the branches of the menorah" a doubt arises,

(it has no decision)

in <b>both</b> verses⁸

that if one would say that "the almond-shaped cups of the menorah apply only to the knobs and flowers",

one would have to be forced and say that also in the verse "three almond-shaped cups in the one branch, a knob and a flower" the almond-shaped cups apply to the ends of the verse of knob and flower]

And therefore,

according to the explanation of the Kessef Mishneh

(from Maharik)

that ,

"out of doubt we make all the almond-shaped cups" — one must make "everything almond-shaped",

both in the menorah itself and in the six branches — because the doubt is in both verses,

as above.

But it is a great difficulty to say so,

because⁹

: a)

how does it fit to say,

that from the reasoning of "what is different etc." one should force oneself and <b>expropriate</b> the

verse "three cups etc." from its plain meaning¹⁰?

! b)

In several places — Jerusalem Talmud¹¹,

Baraita of the Work of the Tabernacle¹²,

Mekhilta¹³

and more — it stands explicitly¹⁴

that the doubt is in

(the second)

verse "and on the menorah four cups almond-shaped etc."¹⁵.

It is seemingly necessary to learn,

that in the first verse,

three goblets of

before etc." there is no doubt that,

"of" before" refers only to the goblets

(since there is the interruption of "in the one branch",

before the words "knob and flower")

: and another verse proves that "of" before" refers only to the goblets — and does not say

(as earlier)

"its meaning"]

The doubt

(also according to Tosafos¹⁶)

is only in the second verse,

namely: whether "meshukadim" refers to "kaftor etc.",

as is implied from that "there is an etnachta on gevi'im"

(not like by the six branches where the gevi'im are meshukadim),

or one should say that

"meshukadim" refers to the gevi'im¹⁷

because thus one learns from the previous verse,

where it is

"proven that meshukadim applies only to the gevi'im"¹⁸.

And the question returns to its place: why should the kaftorim and flowers of the six branches be meshukadim?

3.

Other commentators¹⁹

say,

that even though

that the doubt is indeed only regarding the second verse

(as above)

— but since there is a reasoning to compare and connect

(as proof)

the second verse with the first

(because "it is reasonable that they should be equal"),

therefore the Rambam teaches,

that just as one makes "all hammered" regarding "the body of the menorah"

(because ,

he has no clear proof"),

so one makes all hammered regarding the six branches

("even though the verse <b>does not</b> require so")

— "<b>in order</b> <b>to make them equal</b>"

(because "there is no objection to adding").

But also this answer is problematic: Is the reasoning "in order to equate them" sufficient to establish a law that "everyone brings the first fruits early",

also there where the ,

verse <b>not</b> obligates thus"²⁰

(and especially since the Rambam does not say by it "it seems to me" and the like)

— such a novelty in halacha must seemingly have a source²¹

D.

One will understand this with the introduction of the explanation in the above-mentioned baraisa ,

(Tanya Isi ben Yehuda)

that "early" is "has no determination",

for seemingly:

How can one even say,

that the Torah states a law in a manner that

it has no determination — that it should become a doubt and one should <b>not</b> know how to fulfill the commandment²²?

tomorrow cursed and will rise" — this pertains only to knowing how to interpret a verse; but regarding "with almond blossoms" it is a <b>command</b> in the manner of making the menorah²³].

One must

(seemingly)

say,

that "it has no determination" does not mean that initially and essentially the Torah <b>did not</b> determine — certainly the Torah said how to make the Menorah in a specific manner,

and so Moshe Rabbeinu made it in practice — and the doubt

("it has no determination")

was born only in a later time.

The question arises: since there was always a Menorah in the Mishkan and Temple — when

(and how)

was the doubt born?

At first glance one could say,

that the doubt arose during the time of the Babylonian exile — in the manner that the Gemara says there

(before this)²⁴

regarding

the Amah Tarsin*,

that

(first)

"in the <b>Second</b> Temple" "it was doubtful to the Sages regarding its sanctity, whether like the inner or like the outer"

(and the doubt is²⁵

due to the question of how to interpret a verse²⁶

("and the Debir of")

before it or after it)²⁷.

But beyond the difficulty in the matter — among those who ascended

With Ezra were indeed "and many of the priests" the elders "who had seen the first house"

— is moreover and mainly: it is not omitted anywhere to say,

that there was a change in the form of the menorah between the First Temple and the Second Temple,

that specifically in the Second Temple there was "everything was of almond-shaped cups"

One cannot say that the doubt was born only at "Issi ben Yehudah"

(or in his time)

— because

(In addition to this, there is room to investigate whether in his time — being a Tanna³⁰

— it was already forgotten how the Menorah looked,

and it was also not possible to clarify the matter³¹

— there is yet another main point)

According to this, there is no place to explain the ruling of the Rambam

("everyone was diligent")

by the <b>menorah</b> of the <b>Beis HaMikdash</b>,

on the foundation of the maamar "there is no determination" — a doubt which according to the above was born only <b>after</b> the <b>destruction³²</b>

5.

It is known the discussion regarding the commandments which were always fulfilled from the time of Moshe Rabbeinu — how were doubts and disputes born in them regarding the manner of their fulfillment³³?

for at first glance: how is a dispute possible in this — could they not have easily clarified it by looking into the tefillin of their ancestors and seeing whether they were arranged according to the one opinion or according to the other?

It is known the explanation³⁴,

that the dispute began not in the time of Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam,

but rather these two opinions existed also in the generations before them

(and in accordance with the opinions the tefillin were also actually in two forms).

The question remains, however: Since Jews have been laying tefillin from the time of Moshe Rabbeinu³⁵,

there should seemingly have been a mesorah from father to son etc. since the generation of Moshe,

how did a dispute arise even in the earliest time?

Regarding this is the question in the dispute of Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel³⁶

regarding tzitzis — "How many strings does he place?" — how was the mesorah,

according to which Jews fulfilled the mitzvah of tzitzis from the time of Moshe Rabbeinu and onward — without interruption?

&lt;b&gt;And further&lt;/b&gt;].

But however one explains the possibilities of the doubts in the aforementioned discussions&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;

— it will not answer the question in our case regarding &lt;b&gt;Menorah&lt;/b&gt;: the Menorah of Moses

you &lt;b&gt;are shown&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;on the mountain"&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt;

was indeed extant for hundreds of years from the First Temple*&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;

in such a way that they saw and knew exactly the form of the Menorah

even not during the time of the Babylonian exile].

And one must say the explanation in this — that it is the proof:

The two questions mentioned regarding the matter of "there is no determination" —

(a)

How is it possible that the command of G-d regarding the menorah should be expressed specifically in a way that it should create a doubt as to how to act in practical halachah?

(b)

One could have clarified the doubt from the menorah that Moses made —

they compel to say,

that in practice, with the menorah of Moses it was "&lt;b&gt;all&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;made of hammered work&lt;/b&gt;"

(&lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; due to doubt and stringency,

but)

from the aspect of &lt;b&gt;the law&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;and the halacha&lt;/b&gt;

(for the reason explained below in section 7).

And the "ein lo hachra'a" does not mean a doubt &lt;b&gt;in the law&lt;/b&gt;

(which parts of the menorah are "meshukadim"),

but only &lt;b&gt;in the interpretation&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;of the verses&lt;/b&gt;

(and specifically based on this it will be sweetened that this is exactly like in the other four verses&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;,

as above section 4)

: whether the word "meshukadim" belongs above or below — but the actual menorah was "all meshukadim".

It turns out,

that the ruling of the Rambam "all meshukadim" is not a result of a stringency in the doubt

("ein lo hachra'a")

that was born at some time,

but a matter of established halacha; and the &lt;b&gt;source&lt;/b&gt; of this ruling is from the "ein lo hachra'a",

which compels to say that "all meshukadim",

as above.

7.

The explanation in this:

The concept of "hammered" is not a law in the <b>form</b> of the menorah

The goblets etc. must be "protrusions"*⁴⁰

in the "design" of "almonds"

(almonds⁴¹)

— in the manner that the menorah must have goblets, knobs, and flowers]

— but as the Rambam is precise in his language: "And all is made like almonds <b>in their making</b>" — it is a law in the <b>manner</b> of <b>making</b> the menorah.

And as the Rambam explains in his commentary on the Mishnah*⁴¹

: "Made like almonds ..

a craft known to copper artisans that they strike with a hammer etc. entirely almonds almonds and it is a well-known work that needs no explanation."

That is: since the goblets etc. are for the beauty of the menorah

(as Rashi⁴²

says "they were only for ornamentation"),

therefore the Torah commanded that it be made in such a manner of "made like almonds",

which is a work of <b>craftsmanship</b> that brings out the design of the goblet etc. in the utmost beauty and splendor.

From this it is understood,

that after the Torah reveals that the "beauty" of the menorah requires the skilled work in the manner of "hammered out" — there is no place to distinguish in that same menorah between cups and knobs and flowers: it is a simple matter,

that all parts of the menorah⁴³

must be made through the skilled work.

And this that the Torah says it only by one detail of the menorah

(or by the "goblets",

or by the knobs and flowers),

is this not meant to exclude the others,

rather,

on the contrary: the verse comes to teach from <b>this</b> detail about the other details,

as we find in many places.

Since "hammered" is a matter of "beauty" of the menorah — it automatically entails an obligation to make the menorah "hammered"

(not only because of the explicit command regarding the menorah,

but)

also because of the <b>general</b> command of this⁴⁴

God and I will beautify Him — adorn Him etc.,

from "all the fat is for the Lord"⁴⁵,

as the Rambam⁴⁶

explains,

that "anything that is for the name of the good God"

(and all the more so in our case,

where it concerns a vessel of the <b>Sanctuary</b>)

must be "from the most beautiful and finest ...

from the beautiful and good"⁴⁷.

That is: in the obligation of "ham- mered" there are two laws: a)

the obligation of "hammered" as a specific command regarding the menorah — and <b>the</b> command in the verse <b>explicitly⁴⁸</b>

refers either to the bo-

With,

or also the knobs and flowers

(in a manner that "it has no determination")

; b)

From the side of this <b>general</b> command of "Ve'anvehu",

"All chelev is for Hashem" — that from this side the obligation of "meshu kadim" is on the cups, knobs, and flowers <b>equally</b> — "<b>all</b> are meshu kadim"⁴⁹].

And based on this it is understood why the matter that meshu kadim "has no determination" is only a doubt in the <b>interpretation</b> of the verses,

but it is not a practical difference for halacha — because in any case the <b>law</b> of meshu kadim applies to all details of the menorah.

According to which it is

(seemingly&lt;sup&gt;49&lt;/sup&gt;)

indeed a practical difference for halacha — whether "meshuqadim" is a requirement &lt;b&gt;le'iqeiva&lt;/b&gt;

(from the side of the explicit command regarding the Menorah),

or it is only an obligation &lt;b&gt;le'chatchila&lt;sup&gt;50&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt;

(from the side of "Zeh E-li ve'anveihu",

"Kol chelev la-Shem")

Nevertheless,

from the Menorah of Moshe one could not clarify the "ein lo hachra'a" in the explanation of the verse,

because one could not know which parts are "meshuqadim" from the side of the command

(in the verse of the Menorah),

and which — from the side of the &lt;b&gt;general&lt;/b&gt; obligation].

And it is incidentally answered the question of the Mishneh LaMelech,

that the Rambam says "everyone was almond-shaped" also

Regarding the six branches

(although by them there is <b>not</b> any doubt)

— because the reason to say that "everyone was almond-shaped" is

(not from the side of the doubt,

but)

because the <b>definition</b> of "almond-shaped" is its content a matter <b>and obligation</b> on "everyone",

on all the details of the menorah,

And consequently it applies both to the middle shaft and also to the six branches — that they all must be specifically "and I will beautify Him,"

"from the most beautiful and choicest ..

from the beautiful and good."

(Moshiach Shabbos Parshas Matos-Masei 5742)