Kommentar zu Schemot 25:36

כפתריהם וקנותם ממנו יהיו, Their knops and their branches shall be of one piece with it. We are taught in Menachot 28 that both the seven branches of the Lampstand and the seven lamps were essential. [if even one of these items were to be missing the Lampstand could not fulfil its function. Ed.] The Talmud bases this rule on the use of the word יהיו in connection with this directive. This appears difficult as the word יהיו appears only after the mention of the branches, and not in connection with the lamps. The word יהיו appears altogether only twice in connection with the Lampstand, once in our verse and once previously in verse 31 where the making of the Lampstand is commanded. If the Talmud were correct, why does the Torah not mention the word יהיו when describing the construction of the lamps in verse 37? The fact that verse 31 does not speak about the lamps at all surely suggests that only the items mentioned prior to the word יהיו are essential? Even though the Mishnah does not mention anything but the Lampstand itself and its branches, Tossaphot already added that this ruling also applies to the cups, knops, and flowers mentioned in verse 31, but that the reason the Mishnah does not mention those items is that they would not apply when the Lampstand is not made of gold. Maimonides writes in the same vein in chapter three of his Hilchot Beyt Ha-Bechirah. The fact remains that the word יהיו does not appear in connection with the lamps themselves. There is an argument in Menachot 98 as to whether the lamps were an integral part of the Lampstand or whether they were removable. According to the view that the lamps were removable and were separate utensils, whence do we know they were considered essential seeing the word יהיו is not mentioned in connection with them? Even according to the view that the lamps were integral to the Lampstand, surely the sage holding that view concedes that they were not cast in one piece with the rest of the Lampstand, and our problem remains? The problem discussed by our sages in the Talmud appears to center around the question whether the Lampstand consumed the whole talent of gold mentioned in verse 39, or whether the various other utensils were all cast out of the same talent of gold mentioned in verse 39. When the Torah singled out the knops, the flowers and the cups as being מקשה, i.e. cast as a single piece with the Lampstand, no mention is made of the lamps. Seeing that the Torah went to some length to describe the details of the construction of the Lampstand, it is rather evident that any utensils not mentioned were not an integral part of the Lampstand. Besides, when one considers that the Torah emphasises concerning the items mentioned in verse 31 that they were to be ממנה, an integral part of the Lampstand, surely the rules implied by the word יהיו apply to all of them, as mentioned by Tossaphot!

V. 36. Das Suffix וקנתם ist auffallend. Es kann sich doch nur auf die Arme beziehen, und kann man doch nicht die Arme den Armen selbst zueignen. Man hätte: קניה וכפתריהם erwarten sollen. Die Arme sind Teile des Leuchters und die Knaufe Teile der Arme. Es scheint jedoch ein Unterschied zwischen קנים und קנות zu sein. קנים sind die Arme im ganzen. Der Arm besteht aber aus Knaufen, כפתורים, und glatten Teilen, die sich zu ihnen wie die Stiele zu der Frucht verhalten, und daher קנות heißen, sie sind Träger der כפתורים.

Perhaps we can say that seeing that the Torah took pains to reveal the function of the seven shafts of the Lampstand, namely to place the lamps on top of them, this is sufficient evidence that just as the shafts of the Lampstand were essential so were the lamps which had to be placed on top of them. This may be the reason the Talmud did not even bother to mention the status of the lamps when it stipulated what was essential and what was not.