The Torah describes seven measuring utensils for liquids used in the Beit HaMikdash. These included a hin, a half-hin, a third of a hin, a quarter of a hin, a log, a half-log, and a quarter-log. A hin, capable of holding twelve log, was approximately four to seven liters. Some suggest that the hin itself had internal ridges, like a modern measuring cup, allowing it to indicate various subdivisions without needing separate vessels for each.
However, Bishamon disputes this, asserting that there was no hin at all in the Beit HaMikdash. He argues that the hin was used only once in history, by Moshe Rabbeinu, to measure the anointing oil for the Mishkan. Thus, it was not a permanent fixture in the Beit HaMikdash. Instead, Bishamon posits that an "extra measure" of one and a half log was present. This vessel was specifically for the High Priest's daily meal offering, which required three log of oil, allowing for precise division into two one-and-a-half log portions. Ultimately, everyone agrees there were seven measuring vessels in the Beit HaMikdash; Bishamon simply replaces the hin with the one-and-a-half log measure.
The Gemara elaborates on the seven liquid measuring utensils. According to Rebbe Yehuda, these measures are listed from smallest to largest: starting with a quarter-log and ascending to a hin. The other opinion, attributed to the Rabbanan, lists the exact same seven items but in reverse order, from the hin down to the quarter-log. The Gemara questions this difference in ordering.
Bishamon reiterates his position from the Mishnah: "There was no hin there." As previously stated, the hin served only for the anointing oil, a one-time use. Since tradition mandates seven vessels, if the hin is removed, another must take its place. Bishamon suggests the "extra measure" of one and a half log. The Gemara challenges this, asking why a special one-and-a-half log measure was needed when a half-log vessel could simply be filled three times. The response is that if that logic holds, why have a half-log vessel at all, when two quarter-log measures would suffice? This leads to the principle that "every vessel that serves one measure does not serve another measure." This means each specific measure requires its own dedicated utensil, preventing the use of a smaller vessel to achieve a larger measure by multiple fillings, or vice versa.
The practical difference (nafka mina) between these two rabbinic opinions, both agreeing on seven vessels, lies in the concept of birutzin—the overflow or clingage of liquid to the rim of a vessel when filled to the brim. The question is whether this birutzin is considered sanctified (kadosh) or not. Rebbe Yehuda, who counts from smallest to largest, holds that birutzin is sanctified. He believes that God instructed Moshe Rabbeinu to use the smallest measure, the quarter-log, to calculate all other measures. When a smaller vessel is filled and poured into a larger one, the birutzin from the smaller vessel naturally transfers into the larger one, becoming part of the measured quantity. Since God commanded this method, it implies that the birutzin is considered sanctified and integral to the measurement.
The Rabbanan, who count from largest to smallest, hold that birutzin is not sanctified. They believe God instructed Moshe Rabbeinu to use the largest measure, the hin, to derive all smaller measures. When pouring from a large vessel into a smaller one, it is difficult to avoid spillage or loss of liquid, meaning the birutzin would not consistently transfer into the smaller vessel. Therefore, it is not considered part of the sanctified measure.
Rashi explains Rebbe Yehuda's view: when filling a small vessel to the top and pouring it into a larger one, the birutzin clings to the rim of the small vessel and falls into the larger one. This method ensures that the birutzin is included, and thus sanctified, as it contributes to the overall larger measure. Conversely, when pouring from a large vessel to a small one, as per the Rabbanan, the birutzin is likely to be lost, not making it into the smaller vessel. This is why it is not considered sanctified.
Abaye offers an alternative explanation for the dispute, suggesting it is not about whether birutzin is sanctified, but rather about the meaning of "full" (mele'in) in the Torah's description of the vessels. One opinion holds that "full" means precisely the stated measure, no more and no less. This aligns with measuring from a large vessel to smaller ones, where precise pouring is required to avoid excess. The other opinion holds that "full" means no less than the stated measure, but a little more, such as foam or clingage, is acceptable. This aligns with measuring from smaller vessels to a larger one, where the birutzin naturally adds a slight excess that is still considered valid.
Regarding Bishamon's assertion that the hin was not in the Beit HaMikdash, the Gemara explains that the Rabbanan maintain that even though the hin was used only once by Moshe Rabbeinu, it was then placed in genizah (a repository for sacred texts and objects) and remained part of the roster of sanctified vessels, even without ongoing function. Bishamon, however, insisted on replacing it with a functional vessel, the one-and-a-half log measure, to maintain the traditional count of seven.
The Gemara then clarifies that the requirement is for seven measuring *levels*, not necessarily seven distinct vessels. One cup with seven marked levels would suffice to measure the seven different quantities.
The Gemara proceeds to detail the specific uses of each measuring vessel. The quarter-log was used for the water required for the purification of a leper (metzora). The Torah mandates that a bird be slaughtered over "living water" in a vessel, and a quarter-log of water ensures the blood remains visible. It was also used for the quarter-log of oil for a nazir's offerings, specifically for making the loaves of bread that accompanied his sacrifices.
The half-log was used for the water given to a sotah (a woman suspected of infidelity). These waters, drawn from the Kiyor of the Beit HaMikdash, were already sanctified. It was also used to measure the oil for the forty loaves of the thanksgiving offering (todah), where a half-log of oil was divided among them.
The regular log was used for all other meal offerings (menachot). The standard ratio was one log of oil per isaron of flour. Thus, a meal offering of sixty isaronim would require sixty logim of oil. However, Rabbi Reisman Yaakov holds that regardless of the number of isaronim, only one log of oil was used per meal offering.
The half-hin (six logim) was used for the wine libations that accompanied various animal sacrifices, the quantity of which varied depending on the type of animal offered. The three-and-a-half log measure (a half-log for each of the seven lamps) was used for the oil of the Menorah. All these vessels required sanctification with the anointing oil, similar to the vessels of the Mishkan.
The Gemara questions why the quarter-log vessel needed sanctification if its uses (the metzora's water and the nazir's bread oil) did not require a sanctified vessel. The metzora ceremony took place outside the Azara (courtyard), and the nazir's bread became sanctified only at the time of the animal's slaughter, not during baking. Rav Biya answers that the High Priest's daily offering required one and a half log of oil for his twelve loaves, meaning each loaf received a quarter-log. This oil, used for the High Priest's offering, did require a sanctified vessel. Rav Biya's answer, coming from Babel, was accepted as a correct resolution to the question posed by the scholars in Israel.
Similarly, the Gemara questions the need to sanctify the half-log vessel. The sotah waters were already sanctified from the Kiyor, and the oil for the todah loaves became sanctified only at the time of the animal's slaughter. Rabbi Yochanan answers that the half-log was needed for the oil of the Menorah. Each of the seven lamps of the Menorah received a half-log of oil, requiring a sanctified vessel for its measurement.
A further discussion arises regarding the Menorah's lamps. If a lamp went out prematurely, the Kohen would refill it. The question is whether he would refill it with a full half-log, or only the amount that was lost. Rabbi Yochanan states that a full half-log must be added, as the lamp must be restored to its original state. The Gemara asks how the Kohen would know how much oil was lost. The answer is that he would estimate it before emptying, but this leads to a problem: the estimated amount might not correspond to one of the seven standard measures. This implies the need for smaller, non-standard vessels to measure these "in-between" amounts, which contradicts the principle of dedicated vessels. The Gemara concludes that the Kohen's "sharpness" and ability to estimate accurately were sufficient.
The discussion then shifts to the structure of the Menorah. Abba bar Yochanan states that the receptacles (nerot) for the oil in the Menorah were movable, not fixed. This allowed for proper cleaning. However, the Torah states that the Menorah and its lamps were made from a single piece of beaten gold (mikshah). If they were one piece, how could the lamps be removed for cleaning? The Gemara explains that while the lamps were part of the single piece, they were made flexible, allowing them to be bent for cleaning and then returned to their position. This flexibility was crucial for thorough cleaning, as debris could accumulate. The Rabbanan, however, maintain that the Menorah and its lamps were not moved from their place for cleaning, implying they were not removable. This suggests that the term mikshah implies they were inseparable and cleaned in situ.
The Gemara then identifies the Sages who hold that the Menorah was made from one piece (mikshah) as Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Tzadok. They describe a thin gold plate (tas shel zahav) on top of the lamps, shaped like a small boat, wide in the middle and narrowing at the top. This plate prevented debris from falling into the oil. To clean, the Kohen would bend the flexible lamps to access the interior, then straighten them. This interpretation reconciles the mikshah requirement with the need for cleaning.
The discussion concludes with a dispute: some hold that only the body (guf) of the Menorah was from a single piece of gold, while others, like Rabbi Nechemya, hold that the Menorah and its lamps (neroteha) were all one piece. Rabbi Yehoshua states that only the Menorah itself was from a single piece, while the other utensils could be separate. The verse stating "its lamps" (neroteha) does not necessarily mean they were part of the mikshah, but rather that they too were made of gold. The Gemara clarifies that the verse specifically teaches that even the mouth (piha) where the wick stood, which would blacken, had to be made of pure gold, not a lesser material, to maintain its splendor despite the constant cleaning.