and the eighteen of the six branches; this equals twenty-two goblets. Concerning the knobs as well, it is clear how the number eleven was reached. The Candelabrum contains the two knobs of its main shaft, as the verse states: “Its knobs” (Exodus 25:34), with the plural “knobs” indicating that there were two, and the six of the six branches, as it is written: “In one branch, a knob and a flower” (Exodus 25:33). In addition to these eight knobs, the verse states: “And a knob under two branches of one piece with it, and a knob under two branches of one piece with it, and a knob under two branches of one piece with it” (Exodus 25:35); this equals eleven knobs.

But from where do we derive that the Candelabrum contained nine flowers? According to the verse there are the two flowers of its main shaft, as it is written: “And its flowers” (Exodus 25:34), and the six of the six branches, as it is written: “In one branch, a knob and a flower” (Exodus 25:33), meaning that there are eight, not nine, flowers on the Candelabrum. Rav Shalman said in response: It is written: “It was a beaten work, from the base to the flower” (Numbers 8:4), which teaches that there was a ninth flower near the base.

Rav says: The height of the Candelabrum is nine handbreadths. Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya raised an objection to the statement of Rav: We learned in a mishna (Tamid 30b): There was a stone before the Candelabrum and it had three steps, upon which the priest would stand and prepare the lamps for kindling. If the Candelabrum was only nine handbreadths high, why would it be necessary for the priest to stand on an elevated surface to reach the lamps?

Rav said to him: Shimi, is it you who is asking me such a question? When I said that the height of the Candelabrum is nine handbreadths, I was referring not to the total height, which is eighteen handbreadths; rather, I meant that the Candelabrum is nine handbreadths from the point at which the branches extend from the main shaft and above.

§ It is written: “And the flowers, and the lamps, and the tongs, of gold, and that perfect gold [mikhlot zahav]” (II Chronicles 4:21). The Gemara asks: What is meant by mikhlot zahav? Rav Ami says: It is a reference to the fact that the Candelabrum and its vessels exhausted [kilattu] all of Solomon’s pure [sagur] gold [zahav], which was used in its fashioning in such great quantities. As Rav Yehuda says that Rav said: Solomon made ten Candelabrums, and for each and every one he brought one thousand talents of gold, and they placed the gold in the furnace to refine it one thousand times, until they reduced the gold to one talent for each Candelabrum, as it is stated: “Of a talent of pure gold shall it be made” (Exodus 25:39).

The Gemara asks: Is that so that all of Solomon’s gold was exhausted for the fashioning of the Candelabrum and its vessels? But isn’t it written: “And all King Solomon’s drinking vessels were of gold, and all the vessels of the house of the forest of Lebanon were of pure gold;silver was nothing accounted of in the days of Solomon” (II Chronicles 9:20)? The Gemara answers: We are saying that Solomon’s pure gold was exhausted for the fashioning of the Candelabrum, but not all of his gold.

The Gemara asks: And would refining the gold reduce it to this extent, that one thousand talents of gold would be reduced to one talent? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: An incident occurred where the weight of the Candelabrum of the Temple was found to be greater than the weight of the Candelabrum of Moses by one Kordikini gold dinar, and they placed it in the furnace eighty times until the weight of the Candelabrum stood at precisely one talent. Evidently, putting the Candelabrum into a furnace reduces its weight by very little. The Gemara answers: Once it is standing, it is standing, i.e., since the gold was refined to such a degree in the time of Solomon, later when it was refined eighty times it was reduced by the weight of only one dinar.

§ Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Upon the pure Candelabrum” (Leviticus 24:4)? It teaches that the procedure for fashioning it descended, i.e., was shown to Moses, from the place of purity, i.e., by God, who showed Moses a model of the Candelabrum. The Gemara asks: If that is so, is that to say that phrase “upon the pure Table” (Leviticus 24:6) also teaches that the procedure for fashioning it was shown to Moses from the place of purity? Rather, the expression “the pure Table” teaches, by inference, that it is susceptible to becoming ritually impure. Here too, the expression “the pure Candelabrum” teaches, by inference, that it is susceptible to becoming ritually impure.

The Gemara rejects this: Granted, the inference drawn there with regard to the Table is in accordance with that which Reish Lakish says; as Reish Lakish says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Upon the pure Table” (Leviticus 24:6)? The expression “pure Table” teaches, by inference, that it is susceptible to becoming ritually impure, but why? Isn’t the Table a wooden vessel designated to rest in a fixed place, and any wooden vessel that is designated to rest in a fixed place is not susceptible to becoming ritually impure? Rather, this teaches that the Table was not always left in a fixed place; the priests would lift the Table with its shewbread to display the shewbread to the pilgrims standing in the Temple courtyard, and a priest would say to them: See your affection before the Omnipresent. For this reason, the Table is susceptible to becoming ritually impure.

Parenthetically, the Gemara asks: What is meant by: See your affection before God? It is in accordance with that which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: A great miracle was performed with the shewbread: Its condition at the time of its removal from the Table, after having been left there for a week, was like its condition at the time of its arrangement on the Table, as it is stated: “To place hot bread on the day when it was taken away” (I Samuel 21:7), indicating that it was as hot on the day of its removal as it was on the day when it was placed on the Table.

The Gemara resumes stating its objection: But here, with regard to the Candelabrum, there is no reason to explain that the expression “the pure Candelabrum” teaches, by inference, that it is susceptible to becoming ritually impure; this is obvious, as the Candelabrums are metal vessels, and metal vessels are susceptible to becoming ritually impure whether or not they remain in a fixed location. Rather, it must be that the expression “the pure Candelabrum” teaches that the procedure for fashioning it descended, i.e., was shown to Moses, from the place of purity.

§ It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: An Ark of fire and a Table of fire and a Candelabrum of fire descended from the Heavens, and Moses saw their format and fashioned the vessels for the Tabernacle in their likeness. As it is stated after the command to fashion these items: “And see that you make them after their pattern, which is being shown to you in the mount” (Exodus 25:40).

The Gemara asks: If that is so, is that to say that the verse: “And you shall set up the Tabernacle according to its fashion which has been shown to you in the mount” (Exodus 26:30), also indicates that God showed Moses a Tabernacle of fire? The Gemara answers: Here, with regard to the Tabernacle, it is written: “According to its fashion,” meaning that it should be built according to the instructions given to Moses, whereas there, with regard to the Ark, Table, and Candelabrum, it is written: “After their pattern,” indicating that an actual model of the items was shown to Moses.

Apropos this discussion the Gemara relates: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The angel Gabriel was girded with a type of wide belt [pesikiyya] in the manner of artisans who tie up their clothes to prevent these clothes from hindering them in their work. And he showed the precise way to fashion the Candelabrum to Moses, as it is written: “And this is the work of the Candelabrum” (Numbers 8:4), and the term “this” indicates that an exact replica was shown to him.

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Three matters were difficult for Moses to comprehend precisely, until the Holy One, Blessed be He, showed them to him with His finger, and these are the three matters: The form of the Candelabrum, and the exact size of the new moon, and the impure creeping animals. The Candelabrum was shown to him, as it is written: “And this is the work of the Candelabrum” (Numbers 8:4). The new moon was shown to him, as it is written: “This month shall be for you the beginning of months” (Exodus 12:2). The creeping animals were shown to him, as it is written: “And these are they which are unclean for you among the swarming things” (Leviticus 11:29). And there are those who say that God also showed Moses the halakhot of slaughtering, as it is stated: “Now this is that which you shall sacrifice upon the altar” (Exodus 29:38), and slaughtering is the first ritual of sacrifice.

§ The mishna teaches: With regard to the two passages that are in the mezuza, the absence of each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others. And furthermore, the absence of even one letter prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the rest of them. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious that the absence of even one letter prevents fulfillment of the mitzva, since it is written: “And you shall write them [ukhtavtam]” (Deuteronomy 6:9), which teaches that the writing [ketav] must be complete [tam]?

Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: It was necessary to state that only to teach that even the absence of the thorn, i.e., the small stroke, of a letter yod prevents fulfillment of the mitzva. The Gemara asks: But isn’t this also obvious, since the letter is not formed properly? Rather, it is necessary according to another statement that Rav Yehuda says that Rav says, as Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Any letter that is not encircled with blank parchment on all four of its sides, i.e., where its ink connects to the letter above it, below it, preceding it, or succeeding it, is unfit. When the mishna makes reference to one letter preventing fulfillment of the mitzva, it is referring to a letter that touches an adjacent letter.

Ashiyan bar Nadbakh says in the name of Rav Yehuda: If the inner part of the letter heh was perforated it is fit, but if the perforation was in the leg of the letter heh it is unfit. Rabbi Zeira says: This matter was explained to me by Rav Huna, and Rabbi Ya’akov says: This matter was explained to me by Rav Yehuda: If the inner part of the letter heh was perforated it is fit. In a case where the perforation was in the leg of the letter heh, then if there remained in the leg that is attached to the roof of the letter the equivalent of the measure of a small letter, i.e., the letter yod, then it is fit. But if not, it is unfit.

The Gemara relates: Agra, the father-in-law of Rabbi Abba,