A Question Left Unresolved By
Our Sages
In his description of the menorah, the Rambam
states:1
The central shaft of the menorah had four goblets,
four bulbs, and two flowers.... A third flower was located near the base of the
menorah.... Each branch [of the menorah] had three goblets, a
bulb, and a flower. They were all embossed, so that [their surface] appeared [to
be covered with small] almonds.2
The Kesef Mishneh (based on the comments of Mahari
Korcus) explains that all three types of ornaments on the menorah
were embossed because of a doubt in the interpretation of the Torah’s command.
The Torah3 reads,
“In the menorah, should be four goblets embossed,
its bulbs, and its flowers.” Our Sages4
explain that in this instance — and in regard to four other verses in the Torah
— there is a question about the meaning of the verse: Does the adjective ohseuan,
“embossed,” refer to the goblets (the antecedent in the verse) or to the bulbs
and flowers (which are mentioned subsequently). Because of this unresolved
issue, the Rambam rules that all the ornaments should be embossed. For
embossing the ornaments that need not be embossed will not disqualify them,
while failing to emboss those which are required to be so would leave the
Torah’s directive unfulfilled.5
The Kesef Mishneh’s explanation raises a difficulty.
The questions regarding the unresolved resolution of the other four verses cited
by our Sages6
are all theoretical in nature. In no case is the performance of a mitzvah
dependent on either of the interpretations. In this instance, however, the
question concerns the mitzvah of fashioning the menorah. Although
there may be no clear indication in the Written Law itself as to how this verse
was interpreted, there surely must have been an explanation in the Oral Law, for
otherwise the Torah’s directives concerning this mitzvah would have been
incomplete.
Accordingly, we are forced to say that initially, there was
clarity concerning the interpretation of the verse. When, then, and why, did
confusion arise concerning this matter?
The Historical Background
The question is reinforced by the fact that this question
does not concern a rare dimension of observance, but rather the fashioning of
the menorah, a sacred article that existed in the Sanctuary, and
subsequently in the First and the Second Beis HaMikdash. Throughout
that time, there could be no doubt as to which of the ornaments were embossed.
The question could be resolved merely by looking at the menorah.
To explain: The menorah was originally constructed
according to the prophetic vision Moshe our teacher received at Mount
Sinai.7 This same menorah
was used from that time onward, throughout the entire duration of the First
Beis HaMikdash.8
We cannot say that the doubt arose at the time of the Second
Beis HaMikdash, because: a) Ezra was accompanied by many elderly priests
who saw the First Beis HaMikdash.9
Surely, there were some who recalled the structure of the menorah. b) The
various differences between the First and Second Batei HaMikdash are
discussed by our Sages in several places in the Talmud (including the
very passage concerning the question regarding the embossed ornaments of the
menorah). No source states that in the First Beis HaMikdash, the
manner in which to decorate the ornaments of the menorah was known, but
in the Second Beis HaMikdash, this was an unresolved issue.
Moreover, the Sage who first mentions the existence of this
question, Issi ben Yehudah, lived shortly after the destruction of the Second
Beis HaMikdash. In his time, it was still possible to resolve this issue by
enquiring of those who saw the menorah in the Beis HaMikdash or
from Sages who had made such enquiries. Why then was the point a matter of
question for him?
Furthermore, if the reason that all the ornaments are to be
embossed is because of a doubt, it would have been proper for the Rambam
— who states10
that the purpose of the Mishneh Torah is to provide a person with a guide
to observe the mitzvos fully — to state that the question is unresolved,
instead of ruling that all the ornaments should be embossed. Of what relevance
is this ruling? He cannot be telling us how to build the menorah in the
First or Second Beis HaMikdash, for that is past history. Nor will this
ruling be relevant in the building of the Third Beis HaMikdash, for this
structure will be built in an era when “the knowledge of G‑d will fill the
earth,”11 and G‑d will have revealed the solutions to all the
unresolved questions concerning the construction of the Beis HaMikdash.12
A Resolution
to the Issue
Based on the above, we are forced to the following
conclusion: The reason that all the ornaments of the menorah should be
embossed is not a result of the unresolved question concerning the verse cited
above. On the contrary, the embossing of the ornaments is motivated by another
concept entirely.
To explain: Embossing the ornaments makes them more
attractive.13 The
Rambam writes14 that “Everything [performed] for the sake of the
G‑d who is good should be attractive and good; [e.g.,]... If one consecrates an
article, it should be from the best of one’s possession.” Thus we are obligated
to fulfill all the mitzvos, and surely the construction of the Beis
HaMikdash and its utensils, in the most attractive manner
possible.15 Therefore, it follows that since embossing the
ornaments makes them more attractive, all the ornaments of the menorah
should be embossed.
Thus, there are two dimensions to the embossing of these
ornaments: the specific obligation that is mentioned in the verse quoted
previously, and the overall obligation that stems from the fact that every
mitzvah should be fulfilled in the most attractive manner possible.
Therefore, the question as to which of the ornaments does the
verse whose interpretation is unresolved apply, is — like the other four verses
— only a theoretical matter. In practice, all the ornaments must be — and were
always — embossed. What is unresolved is merely whether the particular ornaments
were embossed because of an explicit command, or whether they were embossed
because of the general charge to perform all of the mitzvos in the most
attractive manner possible.16
* * *
The above concepts are relevant to the Third Beis
HaMikdash, for it will surely be constructed in the most attractive manner
possible. In the Era of the Redemption, “good things will flow in abundance, and
all the delights will be as freely available as dust.”17This prosperity will enable us to build
the Beis HaMikdash in the most beautiful manner ever.18
“And then, the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to G‑d, as in
the days of old and as in bygone years.”19
May this take place in the immediate future.
Adapted from Likkutei Sichos, Vol. XXVI, Parshas
Terumah
