When listing the vessels that G-d commanded us to make for the Mishkan, the Shulchan (table, upon which the “showbread” was kept) is mentioned along with “all of its vessels” (Sh’mos 35:13). The outer altar and “all of its vessels,” are also mentioned (35:16). However, for the Menorah (35:14), rather than “all of its vessels,” it is just “its vessels” that are mentioned. The most obvious reason for this difference is that some of the Menorah’s vessels (“its lamps”) are explicitly mentioned in the same verse, so “all” of its vessels no longer need to be referenced. (The same is true after the Mishkan was finished, see 39:36-39.) However, earlier (30:27), the Menorah’s lamps are not mentioned separately, yet only “its vessels” are to be anointed, not “all of its vessels.” [“All” of the Shulchan’s vessels must be anointed (30:27), as well as “all” of the vessels of the outer altar (30:28).] To confuse things even more, when listing the vessels that Betzalel and his helpers are to make for the Mishkan (31:8-9), included are “all” of the vessels of the Menorah and “all” of the vessels of the outer altar, but not “all” of the vessels of the Shulchan. Why is the word “all” sometimes used and sometimes left off?

Meshech Chuchma addresses most of these issues. When discussing which parts of the Menorah were made from the “talent of pure gold” (25:39; his discussion is on 25:31), his concluding thought is that whenever “its lamps” are mentioned separately, and therefore not included with its other vessels in the word “vessels,” the term “all of its vessels” is not used. Regarding anointing (30:27), he points out (see also Netziv) that many of the “vessels” of the Menorah (such as its “cups, knobs and flowers”) are built into the Menorah (see 25:31), so need not be anointed separately (as anointing the Menorah covers them). Therefore, in the instructions for anointing it only says “all its vessels” for the Shulchan (and the outer altar). For the Menorah, on the other hand, it only says “its vessels” since not all of its vessels need to be individually anointed.

As far as why, when Betzalel is chosen to lead the project (31:8-9), the word “all” is used for the Menorah (and the outer altar) but not for the Shulchan, Meshech Chuchma (30:27 and 35:10) suggests that overall there were more vessels for the Menorah than there were for the Shulchan. Therefore, unless some of the vessels of the Menorah are being excluded (such as when its lamps are mentioned separately or regarding the anointing), thereby making “its vessels” less abundant, the word “all” is used regarding the Menorah’s vessels but not for the Shulchan’s. Since all the vessels of the Shulchan were anointed, and therefore more of its vessels were anointed then those of the Menorah, the word “all” is used for the Shulchan but not for the Menorah.

Meshech Chuchma doesn’t discuss why the word “all” is always used for the outer altar’s vessels. Were there also more vessels for this altar than for the Shulchan, and more than those of the Menorah that needed to be anointed, but less (or the same amount) as the total number of the Menorah’s vessels? Does the inclusion of the word “all” only depend on a contrast with whatever else is mentioned in the same verse, so only the number of the vessels of the Menorah and the Shulchan affect whether the word “all” is used, with the relative amount of vessels of the outer altar irrelevant since they are mentioned in a different verse?

The Menorah and its vessels were all made out of pure gold (25:36-39). All of the vessels of the outer altar were made out of copper (27:3). What about the vessels of the Shulchan? The Torah lists four kinds of vessels for the Shulchan — its “forms” (in which the “showbread” was kept to maintain its shape), its “bowls” (to hold frankincense), its “support tubes” (which formed shelving for the multiple layers of bread) and its “dividers/covers” — all of which were made out of pure gold (25:29 and 37:16). The vessels necessary to bake the bread are not mentioned (although Meshech Chuchma includes them in the “numerous” vessels of the Shulchan), and were not made out of gold. Rather, like all the other vessels of the Mishkan where it isn’t specified otherwise (see Netziv on 27:19), they were made out of copper. (This is implied in 37:16, where it is only the vessels that are “on” the Shulchan that are made of pure gold; its other vessels are not.) It is therefore possible that the word “all” is left out of the commandment to make them (31:8) in order to indicate that not all of the Shulchan’s vessels are to be made out of the same material, even though all of the vessels of the Menorah and all of the vessels of the outer altar are.

To sum up, the starting point is that the word “all” is always used, unless there is a reason not to. Since not all of the Menorah’s vessels need to be anointed separately, the word “all” is omitted in 30:27. Since there are more vessels for the Menorah (including those that didn’t need to be anointed), or since not all of the vessels of the Shulchan were made out of gold, the word “all” is omitted in 31:8. And since the Menorah’s lamps are mentioned separately from its other vessels (35:14), the word “all” is not used there. However, this still leaves us with the question of why “its lamps” were mentioned separately, and not implicitly included by just saying “and all its vessels” (as is done elsewhere).

There is a discussion in the Talmud (Menachos 88b) whether the lamps of the Menorah were made from the “talent of pure gold” (25:39). Meshech Chuchma (25:31) suggests that the reason “its lamps” are mentioned explicitly (and therefore not included in “its vessels”), and are specifically mentioned after the other vessels are referenced, is to teach us that just as those other vessels do not come from the “talent of gold,” neither do the lamps. [Although this contradicts Meshech Chuchma’s subsequent contention that the Menorah’s “cups, knobs and flowers” are considered separate vessels, and would therefore be included with the other “vessels” despite coming from the “talent of gold,” Netziv (30:27) says that the lamps do not need to be anointed separately even if they did not come from the “talent of gold.” This not only explains why not “all” of the Menorah’s vessels were anointed, but can also theoretically be the difference between there being more vessels of the Shulchan being anointed than those of the Menorah.] However, even if this can explain why the Menorah’s lamps are mentioned separately according to the opinion that the lamps were not part of the body of the Menorah, it would not explain why they are mentioned separately according to the opinion that the lamps were also from the “talent of gold,” and thereby “built in” to the Menorah.

When explaining this dispute, the Talmud attributes the difference of opinion to how the words “all of these vessels” (25:39) are to be understood. Do these words teach us that the lamps were part of the “talent of pure gold,” or that even the lips of the lamps, which become blackened from the burning wicks, must nevertheless be made of pure gold? According to the opinion that the lamps did not come from the “talent of gold,” this verse teaches us that every part of the Menorah, even the lips of the lamps, must be made of pure gold, and the verse that mentions “its lamps” separately teaches us that they are not made from the “talent of gold.” On the other hand, according to the opinion that the lamps do come from the “talent of gold” this is learned from this verse (25:39). However, where would we learn that the lips of the lamps must also be made of pure gold from? Perhaps this is why, according to this opinion, the lamps were mentioned separately (in 35:14), teaching us that every part of the lamps, even their lips, must be made of the same material as the Menorah and the rest of its vessels.