Menachot 88b מנחות פ״ח ב

one can counter that the rite is performed outside the Temple, and so it does not require a service vessel. And if you suggest it was for measuring the oil for the loaves of a nazirite, one can counter that the loaves of a nazirite are consecrated through the slaughter of the ram he brings, and there is no need for the oil to have been consecrated through a service vessel.

Rabbi Ḥiyya said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: The consecration of the quarter-log measuring vessel was necessary, as with it one would measure oil for the High Priest’s griddle-cake offering, as a quarter-log of oil is used for each and every loaf. In praise for resolving his difficulty, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi read the verse about Rabbi Ḥiyya, who had traveled from Babylonia to join Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in Eretz Yisrael: “The man of my counsel from a far country” (Isaiah 46:11).

§ The mishna teaches: What purpose did the half-log measuring vessel serve? It was used to measure a half-log of water for the sota and a half-log of oil for the thanks offering. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was sitting in study and posed a difficulty: For what purpose was the half-log measuring vessel anointed with the anointing oil, thereby consecrating it a service vessel? If you suggest it was necessary in order to measure the water used in the rite of the sota, one can counter: Is the water that was used non-sacred such that it is necessary to consecrate it? Isn’t it written: “And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel” (Numbers 5:17)? And if you suggest that it was for measuring the oil for the loaves of a thanks offering, one can counter that the loaves of a thanks offering are consecrated through the slaughter of the thanks offering, and so there is no need for the oil to have been consecrated through a service vessel.

Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, said to his father: The consecration of the half-log measuring vessel was necessary, as with it one would distribute a half-log of oil to each and every lamp of the Candelabrum. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to his son in praise: Lamp of Israel! Indeed, that was its use.

§ Apropos the lamps of the Candelabrum, the Gemara relates that Rabbi Yoḥanan says that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: If there is a lamp whose flame went out during the night, the oil in the lamp is halakhically rendered as ashes and the wick is rendered as ashes, and they may no longer be used. How should the priest act? He removes the ashes, i.e., the oil and wick, from the lamp, and puts new oil and a new wick into it and kindles it.

Rav Zerika was sitting and studying this halakha and raised a dilemma: When the priest puts oil in the lamp, does he fill it with the same quantity of oil that was initially used, i.e., a half-log, or does he just fill it with an amount equal to what it now lacks, in order to replace the oil that was removed?

Rabbi Yirmeya said: It is obvious that he fills it with the same quantity of oil that was initially used, as, if he were to fill with an amount equal to what it now lacks, there would be a difficulty: How do we know how much oil it lacks? And if you would say that the priest calculates it using a measuring vessel, one could counter that if so, there would not be only seven measuring vessels for liquids; rather, there would have to be many more measuring vessels of a whole range of volumes.

In praise for resolving his difficulty, Rabbi Zerika read the verse about Rabbi Yirmeya: “And in your majesty prosper, ride on, on behalf of truth and meekness and righteousness” (Psalms 45:5).

An amoraic ruling was also stated in accordance with the explanation of Rabbi Yirmeya: Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says, and some say that Rabbi Abba says that Rabbi Ḥanina says that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: If there is a lamp whose flame went out during the night, the oil in the lamp is rendered as ashes and the wick is rendered as ashes, and they may no longer be used. How should the priest act? He removes the ashes, i.e., the oil and wick, from the lamp, and puts into it oil of the same quantity that was initially used, with a new wick, and kindles it.

§ Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehuda, says that Rav Sheshet says: Each lamp of the Candelabrum in the Temple was movable, as the branches holding it were thin and flexible. They could therefore be bent over in order to tip out any ashes, remaining oil, or wicks from the lamps. The basis for his opinion is the verse: “And you shall make a Candelabrum of pure gold, of beaten work the Candelabrum shall be made, its base, and its shaft; its cups, its knobs, and its flowers, will be from it…of a talent of pure gold it shall be made” (Exodus 25:31, 39).

The Gemara explains that Rav Sheshet holds that when it is written that the Candelabrum is to be fashioned from a single talent of gold, and that it be beaten into its form, it is written with regard to both the frame of Candelabrum and each of its lamps, i.e., they must all be fashioned together from a single piece of gold beaten into its form. Perforce, the lamps must have been movable, because since it is necessary to remove the ashes from the lamps, were each lamp not movable, it would not be possible to remove the ashes.

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Sheshet’s opinion from a baraita: How would the priest act when removing the ashes from the lamps? He would remove the lamps from the Candelabrum and place them in the Tent of Meeting, i.e., the Sanctuary, and scrub them with a sponge [bisfog] to remove any remaining oil. And then he would put fresh oil into them and kindle them. Evidently, the lamps and the frame of the Candelabrum were separate parts.

The Gemara explains that there is a dispute between tanna’im concerning this issue and Rav Sheshet states his opinion in accordance with the opinion of that tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: The Rabbis say that when removing the ashes, the priest would not move the lamp from its place; rather, he would remove the ashes while the lamp was still attached to the frame.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But from the fact that the baraita states that the priest would not move the lamp from its place, it would appear that if one wanted to move it, he was able to move it from its place. Apparently, then, the lamps were independent parts. The Gemara explains: Rather, emend the baraita to say: The lamp would not move from its place, as the lamps were not independent removable parts but were formed together with the frame from a single piece of gold.

The Gemara asks: And whose opinion is expressed by the Rabbis in the baraita? It is the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, as it is taught in another baraita: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: There was a kind of gold plate [tas] for each lamp, which was placed on top of it and which served as a cover for the lamp. The plate was attached to one side of the lamp, to the lamp’s head, and the wick emerged from the other side, from the lamp’s mouth. When the priest would come to remove the ashes from the lamp, he would first push up on the part of the plate at the mouth of the lamp, thereby exposing its contents. The lamp would then be bent over and its contents tipped out. And when he would come to place fresh oil and a wick in the lamp, he would place the new wick at its mouth and then push down on the plate at the head of the lamp, thereby closing it, then he would straighten it up and pour in the oil through a hole in the middle of the plate.

The Gemara comments: And whether or not the lamps were independent removable parts is the subject of a dispute between these following tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: Both the frame of the Candelabrum and its lamps are produced together from the same talent of gold. But its tongs and its pans, which were the implements used for removing the ashes, were not fashioned from that same gold talent. Rabbi Neḥemya says: Only the frame of the Candelabrum is produced from the talent of gold, but its lamps and its tongs and its pans are not produced from that same gold talent; rather, they are formed independently. The lamps are then positioned on the frame, but can still be removed from it.

The Gemara asks: With regard to what do these tanna’im disagree? The Gemara explains: They disagree with regard to the exposition of this verse, as it is taught in a baraita: From the verse: “Of a talent of pure gold it shall be fashioned with all these vessels” (Exodus 25:39), we learned about the frame of the Candelabrum that it is produced from the gold talent. From where is it derived to include its lamps, that they should also be fashioned together with the frame from the same talent? The verse states: “It shall be fashioned with all these vessels.” This indicates that not only the frame, but also additional parts should be fashioned from the same talent. If so, one might have thought that I should include even its tongs and its pans. To counter this, the verse states: “It shall be fashioned.” The additional word “it” teaches that only the frame and the lamps are to be fashioned from the gold talent. This is the statement of Rabbi Neḥemya.

The Gemara interrupts the citation of the baraita and notes that the statement of Rabbi Neḥemya in this baraita, in which he claims the lamps were fashioned from the talent with the frame, is difficult, as it is contradicted by the statement of Rabbi Neḥemya in the other baraita, in which he claims the lamps were independent parts. The Gemara explains: There are two tanna’im, and they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya.

The Gemara resumes its citation of the baraita: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: Only the frame of the Candelabrum was produced from the talent of gold, but its tongs and its pans and its lamps were not produced from the talent. Rather, how do I realize the meaning of the verse: “Of a talent of pure gold it shall be fashioned with all these vessels”? It teaches only that all the vessels associated with the Candelabrum were made of gold, even though they were not fashioned from the same gold talent from which the Candelabrum and its lamps were.

The Gemara questions the need for the derivation of the baraita: But the requirement that the vessels be made of gold is explicitly written in the verse: “And you shall fashion its lamps seven, and they shall kindle its lamps, and it will enlighten toward its face. And its tongs and its pans shall be of pure gold” (Exodus 25:37–38); why then is it necessary for the baraita to derive this from the phrase “with all these vessels”? The Gemara explains: This derivation of the baraita is necessary only to teach that the same applies to the mouth of the lamps, where the wicks rest. Otherwise, it might enter your mind to say that since the mouth of the lamps blackens and is damaged by the burning wick, therefore the principle that the Torah spared the money of the Jewish people should be applied,