1) THE WET MEASURES (cont.)

(a) (Gemara – Beraisa – R. Yehudah): There were seven wet measures in the Mikdash – Revi’is, half-Log, Log, quarter-Hin, third-Hin, half-Hin, Hin;
(b) R. Meir says, there were a Hin, half-Hin, third-Hin, quarter-Hin, Log, half-Log, Revi’is (the difference between these opinions will be explained.)
(c) R. Shimon says, there was not a Hin, there is no need for it!
1. Rather, in its place was a measure of a Log and a half, for half of the Chavitim morning and afternoon.
(d) R. Meir and R. Yehudah: There was no need for a Log and a half, the half-Log measure can be used three times!
(e) R. Shimon: Also according to you, there was no need for a half-Log or Log, the Revi’is can be used repeatedly!
1. Rather, the general rule is, no measure in the Mikdash was used for a different measure.
(f) Question: What is the difference between R. Meir and R. Yehudah?
(g) Answer #1 (R. Yochanan): They argue about Birutzei Midos (Rashi – drops that spill over the brim when a Kli is filled to overflowing; R. Gershom – foam):
1. R. Yehudah lists the measures in increasing order, he holds that Birutzei Midos become Kodesh;
i. Hash-m gave a Revi’is to Moshe, and told him to make the other measures from it (by repeatedly filling them from it; when one pours from a measure into a bigger measure, one can pour quickly, the Birutzim enter the receiving Kli – Rashi; R. Gershom – when wine is poured into a bigger Kli, it makes foam.)
2. R. Meir lists the measures in descending order, he holds that Birutzim do not become Kodesh;
i. Hash-m gave a Hin to Moshe, and told him to make the other measures from it (by pouring from it into smaller vessels; when doing so, one pours slowly, the Birutzim are lost. (R. Gershom – there is no foam).)
(h) (Abaye): Perhaps all agree that Birutzim become Kodesh, perhaps all agree that they do not become Kodesh!
(i) Answer #2 (Abaye): Rather, they argue about “Mele’im” (at Chaunkas ha’Mishkan, the pans were full (of Soles or Ketores); likewise, for all generations, measures must be full),
1. R. Meir lists the measures in descending order, he holds that they cannot be too small or too big;
i. The Hin was divided into smaller vessels of equal sizes to make the other measures (Rashi Kesav Yad – they were exact, for when pouring into smaller vessels, there is no foam.)
2. R. Yehudah lists the measures in increasing order, he holds that they cannot be too small, but they may be extra big, this is considered ‘Malei’;
i. Version #1 (Rashi): (When using a balance scale for Kodesh, we require what is being weighed to Machri’a (push its pan a Tefach lower than the pan with known weights).) The Revi’is (was itself determined in this way, and it) was poured repeatedly to gauge the other measures, therefore they contain ‘extra’ weight, one Hachra’ah for each Revi’is (this is more than one Hachra’ah when weighing the full measure.)
ii. Version #2 (Rashi Kesav Yad): The other measures are slightly too big on account of foam
(j) (Mishnah – R. Shimon): There was not a Hin, there is no need for it!
(k) Question: How do Rabanan (R. Meir and R. Yehudah) answer R. Shimon?
(l) Answer: Moshe made a Hin, a Hin of oil was used for Shemen ha’Mishchah – “V’Shemen Zayis Hin”.
1. R. Shimon holds, since it was not needed for all generations, it was hidden;
2. Rabanan hold, since it was needed once, it was kept.
(m) (Beraisa – R. Shimon): In its place…
(n) Question: Why must there be a measure ‘in place of’ the Hin?
(o) Answer: Ravina taught, a tradition from Moshe from Sinai teaches that Semichah applies to two Korbanos Tzibur (it does not specify which) – likewise, a tradition from Sinai teaches that there are seven wet measures, it does not specify what they are.
(p) Question: R. Eliezer bar R. Tzadok says that there were notches in the Hin, there were not seven measures – did he not receive the tradition?!
(q) Answer #1: Indeed, he did not receive the tradition.
(r) Answer #2: He received a tradition that there are seven measures, but they need not be separate Kelim.
2) USES OF THE WET MEASURES
(a) The Revi’is was used to measure water for a Metzora (when one bird is slaughtered, its blood is put on water), and the oil for Lachmei Nazir;
(b) The half-Log was used for Mei Sotah (the curses were erased into the water, she would drink it), and for Lachmei Todah;
(c) The Log was used for (oil for) Menachos;
1. Sixty Lugim are used for a Minchah of 60 Esronim;
2. R. Eliezer ben Yakov says, only one Log is used, even for a Minchah of 60 Esronim – “L’Minchah v’Log Shamen”.
(d) (The half-Hin, i.e.) six Lugim are for (Nesachim of) a bull, four Lugim (a third of a Hin) are for a ram, three Lugim (a quarter-Hin) are for a lamb;
(e) Three and a half Lugim were used for the Menorah, half a Log for each lamp. (There was not a measure of three and a half, this Shi’ur is merely brought along with the other Shi’urim.)
(f) (Gemara – Rebbi) Question: Why was the Revi’is Nimshach (anointed with Shemen ha’Mishchah, to enable it to Mekadesh?)
1. This is not needed for Mei Metzora – it is used outside the Mikdash, it is Chulin!
88b—————————————88b

2. It is not needed for Lachmei Nazir, slaughter of Ayil Nazir is Mekadesh them!
(g) Answer (R. Chiya): It was used to measure a Revi’is of oil for each Chalah of Chavitim.
(h) Rebbi: “Me’Eretz Merchak Ish Atzasi” (Hash-m sends my counselor from afar – R. Chiya came from Bavel.)
(i) (Mishnah): The half-Log was used…
(j) Question (Rebbi): Why was the half-Log Nimshach?
1. Version #1 (our text): It is not needed for Mei Sotah – the water is already “Mayim Kedoshim” (it is taken from the Kiyor!)
2. Version #2 (Rashi): It is not needed for Mei Sotah – she drinks it outside (the Azarah, in Sha’ar Niknor), it need not be Mekudash in a Kli!
3. It is not needed for Lachmei Todah, slaughter of the Todah is Mekadesh them!
(k) Answer (R. Shimon bar Rebbi): It is needed for each lamp of the Menorah.
(l) Rebbi: You enlighten Yisrael!
(m) (R. Yochanan): If a lamp became extinguished (before morning), the (remaining) oil and wick are removed, new oil and wick are put in, it is relit.
(n) Question (R. Zerika): Do we put in the full half-Log of oil, like at the beginning, or only the amount that remained (which suffices to burn until morning?)
(o) Answer (R. Yirmeyah): Surely, we put in the full half-Log, for we do not know exactly how much oil remained!
1. Suggestion: Perhaps we estimate how much oil remained!
2. Rejection: If so, we would need more than seven measures (we would need for each possible amount of remaining oil, up to a half-Log!)
(p) R. Zerika: “Va’Hadarcha Tzelach Rechav Al Devar Emes” (your answer is Emes.)
(q) (R. Avahu citing R. Yochanan): If a lamp became extinguished, the oil and wick are removed, a full Shi’ur of oil and a new wick are put in, it is relit.
3) THE LAMPS
(a) (Rav Huna brei d’Rav Yehudah): The lamps in the Mikdash were of Perakim (the shafts were bendable, enabling the lamps to be turned over.)
(b) He holds that “Kikar” and “Mikshah” refer to the Menorah *and* the lamps;
1. Since we must Metiv (remove the remaining oil and wick and replace them) we must be able to turn the lamps over.
(c) Question (Beraisa): The lamps would be removed and taken to the Ohel Mo’ed, they would be cleaned out with an absorbant material, new oil was put in, they were lit.
(d) Answer: Rav Huna holds like the following Tana:
1. (Beraisa – Chachamim): He would not move the lamps at all.
2. Question: This implies that if he wanted to, he could move them!
3. Correction: Rather, the lamps could not be moved at all.
(e) Chachamim hold like R. Eliezer:
1. (Beraisa – R. Eliezer ben Yakov): Each lamp had a cover like a gold plate; when he is Metiv, he pushes the cover (Rashi Kesav Yad – this inverts the lamp) and expels the oil; when he puts in oil, he returns the cover (straightening the lamp);
(f) The following Tana’im argue about this:
1. (Beraisa): (The Menorah was made from one Kikar of gold -) also its lamps were made from the Kikar, the tongs and shovels (for removing wicks and ashes) were not made from the Kikar;
2. R. Nechemyah says, the Menorah was from the Kikar, the lamps, tongs and shovels were not from the Kikar.
(g) Question: What do they argue about?
(h) Answer: They argue about the following verse:
1. (Beraisa – R. Nechemyah): “Kikar Zahav Tahor Ya’aseh Osah” – this teaches that the Menorah was made from one Kikar;
2. Question: What is the source to include its lamps?
3. Answer: “Es Kol ha’Kelim ha’Eleh”
4. Suggestion: Perhaps we include even the tongs and shovels!
5. Rejection: “Osah”.
i. Interjection: R. Nechemyah contradicts himself (regarding the lamps)!
ii. Answer: Tana’im argue about the opinion of R. Nechemyah.
6. (Continuation of Beraisa): R. Yehoshua ben Korchah says, the Menorah was from the Kikar, the lamps, tongs and shovels were not.
7. Question: What do we learn from “Es Kol ha’Kelim ha’Eleh”
8. Answer: This teaches that they must be made of gold.
9. Question: It explicitly says that they are of gold – “V’Asisa Es Neroseha…u’Malkacheha u’Machtoseha Zahav Tahor”!
10. Answer: “Es Kol ha’Kelim ha’Eleh” teaches about the mouths of the lamps;
i. One might have thought, since they become black on account of the flame, the Torah would be concerned for money of Yisrael and would not require making them of pure gold (some texts – of gold);
ii. The verse teaches that also they must be made of (pure) gold.