Parasha: Terumah · Aliyah: Third (Tiferet)

תיעשה המנורה, the Lampstand shall be made. Why did the Torah need to write these words at all? Was it not enough to write: "you shall construct a Lampstand made of gold?" Our sages in Menachot 28 comment that the word תיעשה allows for the fact that if necessary the Lampstand could be constructed of other metals. The passive form of תיעשה rather than תעשה, "you shall make," is justified then, seeing that in Moses' time there was no need to take advantage of the permission to construct the Lampstand of inferior materials.

כפתריהם וקנותם ממנו יהיו, Their knops and their branches shall be of one piece with it. We are taught in Menachot 28 that both the seven branches of the Lampstand and the seven lamps were essential. [if even one of these items were to be missing the Lampstand could not fulfil its function. Ed.] The Talmud bases this rule on the use of the word יהיו in connection with this directive. This appears difficult as the word יהיו appears only after the mention of the branches, and not in connection with the lamps. The word יהיו appears altogether only twice in connection with the Lampstand, once in our verse and once previously in verse 31 where the making of the Lampstand is commanded. If the Talmud were correct, why does the Torah not mention the word יהיו when describing the construction of the lamps in verse 37? The fact that verse 31 does not speak about the lamps at all surely suggests that only the items mentioned prior to the word יהיו are essential? Even though the Mishnah does not mention anything but the Lampstand itself and its branches, Tossaphot already added that this ruling also applies to the cups, knops, and flowers mentioned in verse 31, but that the reason the Mishnah does not mention those items is that they would not apply when the Lampstand is not made of gold. Maimonides writes in the same vein in chapter three of his Hilchot Beyt Ha-Bechirah. The fact remains that the word יהיו does not appear in connection with the lamps themselves. There is an argument in Menachot 98 as to whether the lamps were an integral part of the Lampstand or whether they were removable. According to the view that the lamps were removable and were separate utensils, whence do we know they were considered essential seeing the word יהיו is not mentioned in connection with them? Even according to the view that the lamps were integral to the Lampstand, surely the sage holding that view concedes that they were not cast in one piece with the rest of the Lampstand, and our problem remains? The problem discussed by our sages in the Talmud appears to center around the question whether the Lampstand consumed the whole talent of gold mentioned in verse 39, or whether the various other utensils were all cast out of the same talent of gold mentioned in verse 39. When the Torah singled out the knops, the flowers and the cups as being מקשה, i.e. cast as a single piece with the Lampstand, no mention is made of the lamps. Seeing that the Torah went to some length to describe the details of the construction of the Lampstand, it is rather evident that any utensils not mentioned were not an integral part of the Lampstand. Besides, when one considers that the Torah emphasises concerning the items mentioned in verse 31 that they were to be ממנה, an integral part of the Lampstand, surely the rules implied by the word יהיו apply to all of them, as mentioned by Tossaphot!

Perhaps we can say that seeing that the Torah took pains to reveal the function of the seven shafts of the Lampstand, namely to place the lamps on top of them, this is sufficient evidence that just as the shafts of the Lampstand were essential so were the lamps which had to be placed on top of them. This may be the reason the Talmud did not even bother to mention the status of the lamps when it stipulated what was essential and what was not.

ומלקחיה, ומחתותיה זהב טהור; both its tongs and its snuffdishes to be of pure gold. The Torah had to mention the words "pure gold" here as everybody agrees that these utensils were not cast from the previously mentioned talent of gold.

ככר זהב טהור, a talent of pure gold. We have a Baraitha in Menachot 88 which states: The words: "he shall make the Lampstand out of one talent of pure gold," teach that the Lampstand including its lamps are to be made out of the same talent of gold. How did I arrive at the conclusion that the lamps themselves are included in the amount of one talent of gold mentioned? It says in our verse: "all these utensils." This might have led me to believe that the snuffdishes and tongs were also to be made out of the same talent. To prevent me from thinking this, the Torah uses the restrictive clause אותה, "it (alone)."

Let us take a look at the true meaning of the various exclusions and inclusions in the Torah's text. What is it that we have not yet been told concerning the commandment of the Lampstand so that our verse became necessary at all? Apparently, but for our verse I would not have any idea of the amount of gold needed to carry out G'd's instructions to construct the Lampstand. Ergo, our verse provided this information, i.e. the amount of gold required was one talent of pure gold. Having received this information we became doubtful whether the one talent of gold was enough to include the making of the lamps themselves or not. Such doubt did not include the snuffdishes or tongs, seeing the Torah employed the words "pure gold" when speaking of their construction. Had they been part of the talent of gold mentioned by the Torah, the Torah would not have had to stipulate that they too were to be made of "pure gold," seeing the Lampstand itself was made of pure gold. On the other hand, we cannot argue that the Torah's not mentioning "pure gold" in connection with the lamps proves that they must have been made as part of the talent of gold mentioned. It is entirely possible that seeing that the lamps would be in constant use and the Torah had not mentioned what materials they were to be made of is proof that it did not matter to G'd of what materials the lamps would be made. The Torah had to add the words את כל הכלים "all the utensils," in order that we should know that G'd was very much concerned with what material the lamps were to be made. They were to be part of the talent of gold mentioned earlier. I have no doubt, however, that the snuffdishes and tongs were not part of that talent of gold, otherwise the Torah did not need to stress the words "pure gold" in connection with their construction. Therefore, I am not likely to make a mistake when I read the words "all these utensils."

After all this, what does remain difficult is the word אותה, "it," which clearly intends to exclude something else. Is this word intended to exclude the snuffdishes and tongs? If so, why was a further word needed to do this? It would appear that a further careful examination of the text reveals that the very fact that the Torah mentions the talent of gold only after having already instructed Moses to construct the knops, cups, and flowers, that they must surely be included in that talent of gold. The Torah therefore had to write the word אותה to exclude said items from that talent of gold.

There are two reasons why G'd may have decided to write the verse about the snuffdishes, etc. prior to the verse telling us that the Lampstand was to be constructed of one talent of pure gold. 1) The first reason is that the Torah writes in 25,40: "and see that you make them after their pattern which was shown you on the mount." This means that the Torah mentions the overall appearance of the Lampstand immediately after telling us about the amount of pure gold to be used in its constructions plus all its utensils. Had the Torah written verse 39 prior to verse 38, it would have meant that the items mentioned in verse 38 were included in those mentioned in verse 40 about the vision shown Moses on the mount. This would have been misleading, however, as it is entirely possible that G'd had never shown Moses all these snuffdishes, etc. when he had the vision on the mount.

2) Another reason why the Torah chose to write about the snuffdishes in connection with the lamps is to let us know that just as the snuffdishes were constructed separately, so the lamps were also constructed separately, though the gold used for their construction was part of the talent of gold described in verse 39. The fact that these lamps were constructed from the gold of the talent mentioned did not obligate the Torah to mention it with the Lampstand itself, seeing that their construction was not part of the requirement "you shall make them of beaten work," as were the knops, cups, and flowers (verse 31). Although I explained earlier that the fact that the lamps are not mentioned in the same context as the other details of the construction of the Lampstand as being beaten work, and that this fact proved that they were not included in the directives applicable to construction of the Lampstand, the fact that the Torah wrote about the talent of gold where it did indicates that there are some matters in which these items were comparable to the Lampstand itself. Logic would have suggested that the common factor was that the lamps also had to be made of beaten work seeing that we do not find any item which is specifically excluded from that directive. The Torah therefore had to mention the lamps in context with the snuffdishes to ensure we would not misunderstand its intention.

Seeing it had become necessary for the Torah to write the verse about the talent of gold after the verse dealing with the snuffdishes, etc., for the reasons we have mentioned, the Torah was afraid that intelligent people examining the subject should not misunderstand G'd's intention in the matter. They should not clim that the reason the Torah wrote about the snuffdishes prior to mentioning the talent of gold is that the gold for it was to be part of that talent. They should not think that the Torah forced itself to write the words "pure gold" in order that we should learn something from the extra word "pure," such as that the purity of the gold used for these utensils was essential in order for them to be capable of performing their function. This would be so even if the Lampstand itself did not have to be constructed out of gold. The Torah wisely used the word אותה to indicate that the snuffdishes, etc., were not part of that talent of gold the Torah spoke of as being "the materials of the Lampstand itself together with its knops, etc." The information that the lamps themselves are to be made of the gold which is derived from the words את כל הכלים, "with all the utensils," remains valid. We can now say with certainty that the reason the Torah listed the verse containing the directives about the snuffdishes, tongs, etc., prior to the verse mentioning the talent of gold, is because of the considerations we have already mentioned. This is the reason that the sage of the Mishnah explains the word אותה as excluding the snuffdishes and pans and all the other utensils including the lamps. He even concludes from the expression את כל הכלים that every single one of the lamps must be constructed from the gold of that talent. I have only expanded this thought by not interpreting all this from the absence of the letter ו which we would have expected the Torah to write in front of the words את כל הכלים. [According to the author these words are best translated as "together with all these utensils." Ed.]