Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

June 27, 2019 | 讻状讚 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Arakhin 11

Who played musical instruments in the Temple – why? Was the main “shir” the singing or the musical instruments? What is the source for singing while bringing the sacrifices? It is a critical element of the sacrificial process? With which sacrifices did they sing?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

注砖专讛 谞拽讘讬诐 讛讬讜 讘讛 讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 诪讜爪讬讗 注砖专讛 诪讬谞讬 讝诪专 谞诪爪讗转 讻讜诇讛 诪讜爪讬讗讛 诪讗讛 诪讬谞讬 讝诪专 讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讗 讛讬讗 讗诪讛 讜讙讘讜讛 讗诪讛 讜拽转讗 讬讜爪讗 讛讬诪谞讛 讜注砖专讛 谞拽讘讬诐 讛讬讜 讘讛 讻诇 讗讞讚 诪讜爪讬讗 诪讗讛 诪讬谞讬 讝诪专 谞诪爪讗转 讻讜诇讛 诪讜爪讬讗讛 讗诇祝 诪讬谞讬 讝诪专 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讜住讬诪谞讬讱 诪转谞讬转讗 讙讜讝诪讗

There were ten holes in it and each and every one would emit ten types of tone. It therefore emerges that the entire instrument emitted one hundred types of tone. It was taught in a baraita: The magreifa was one cubit wide and one cubit tall, and a handle protruded from it. It was hollow and there were ten holes in it and each one would produce one hundred types of tone. It therefore emerges that that the entire instrument emitted one thousand types of tone. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: And your mnemonic to remember which of these two statements was said by Shmuel and which was taught in a baraita is that the baraita expresses itself with exaggeration, as it is common for baraitot to exaggerate numbers.

讜注讘讚讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讛讬讜 讻讜壮 诇讬诪讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 注讘讚讬诐 讛讬讜 拽住讘专 注讬拽专 砖讬专讛 讘驻讛 讜讻诇讬 诇讘住讜诪讬 拽诇讗 讛讜讗 讚注讘讬讚讗 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讜讬诐 讛讬讜 拽住讘专 注讬拽专 砖讬专讛 讘讻诇讬

搂 The mishna teaches that the Temple musicians were slaves of priests according to Rabbi Meir, whereas according to Rabbi Yosei they were Israelites of pure lineage, and according to Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus they were Levites. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that they disagree about this; that the one who says they were slaves holds that the primary component of song in the Temple service is singing with the mouth, and the instrumental music was performed merely to sweeten the sound of the singing. Since the instrumental music is mere accompaniment, it could be performed by slaves. And the one who says that the musicians were Levites holds that the primary component of song in the Temple service is the music played with instruments. Therefore, the musicians had to be Levites, who were tasked with the song that was part of the Temple service.

讜转住讘专讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讗讬 拽住讘专 讗讬 拽住讘专 注讬拽专 砖讬专讛 讘驻讛 注讘讚讬诐 住讙讬讗 讗讬 拽住讘专 注讬拽专 砖讬专讛 讘讻诇讬 诇讜讬诐 讘注讬谞谉

The Gemara responds: And can you understand the disagreement in this manner? According to this suggestion, what does Rabbi Yosei, who says that the musicians were Israelites of pure lineage, hold? If he holds that the primary component of song in the Temple service is singing with the mouth, then it should be sufficient if slaves play the instruments. Why would he require Israelites of pure lineage? And if he holds that the primary component of song in the Temple service is the music played with instruments, we should require Levites to play the instruments.

诇注讜诇诐 拽住讘专 注讬拽专 砖讬专讛 讘驻讛 讜讛讻讗 讘诪注诇讬谉 诪讚讜讻谉 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 讜诇诪注砖专讜转 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

The Gemara responds: Actually, Rabbi Yosei holds that the primary component of song in the Temple service is singing with the mouth. And here, the tanna鈥檌m disagree about whether the musicians in the Temple may be elevated from the musical platform to the presumptive status of pure lineage with regard to marriage and eligibility to receive Levitical tithes.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 注讘讚讬诐 讛讬讜 拽住讘专 讗讬谉 诪注诇讬谉 诪讚讜讻谉 诇讗 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 讜诇讗 诇诪注砖专讜转 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讜讬诐 讛讬讜 拽住讘专 诪注诇讬谉 诪讚讜讻谉 讘讬谉 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 讘讬谉 诇诪注砖专讜转 讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讬砖专讗诇讬诐 讛讬讜 拽住讘专 诪注诇讬谉 诪讚讜讻谉 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 讜诇讗 诇诪注砖专讜转

The one who says that the musicians were slaves holds that people cannot be elevated from the Temple musical platform to the presumptive status of pure lineage with regard to marriage and eligibility to receive tithes. The one who says that the musicians were Levites holds that one elevates from the platform both to the presumptive status of pure lineage and eligibility to receive tithes. And according to the one who says that the musicians were Israelites, he holds that one elevates from the platform to the presumptive status of pure lineage but not with regard to the eligibility to receive tithes.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛砖讬专 诪注讻讘 讗转 讛拽专讘谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 诪注讻讘

The Sages taught in a baraita: The song that the Levites sing while a communal offering is being sacrificed is an indispensable component of the offering, which means that if the Levites did not sing, the offering is invalid. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: It is not indispensable.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗转谞讛 讗转 讛诇讜讬诐 谞转谞讬诐 诇讗讛专谉 讜诇讘谞讬讜 诪转讜讱 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讻驻专 注诇 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诪讛 讻驻专讛 诪注讻讘转 讗祝 砖讬专讛 诪注讻讘转

The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Meir, i.e., from where does he derive his opinion? The Gemara answers: It is as the verse states: 鈥淎nd I have given the Levites, they are given to Aaron and to his sons from among the children of Israel, to do the service of the children of Israel in the Tent of Meeting, and to make atonement for the children of Israel鈥 (Numbers 8:19). The verse compares the atonement for the Jewish people, which is caused by the sprinkling of the blood of offerings on the altar, to the service of the Levites, which is their singing. This teaches that just as the atonement caused by the sprinkling of the blood is an indispensable component of the offering, so too the song of the Levites is indispensable.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讛讜讗 诇讗讬讚讱 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讛 讻驻专讛 讘讬讜诐 讗祝 砖讬专讛 讘讬讜诐

The Gemara asks: And what do the Rabbis derive from the comparison in this verse? The Gemara answers: That comparison serves to teach another halakha, which was stated by Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar says: Just as the atonement achieved by the sprinkling of the blood must take place during the day, so too the song must be sung during the day.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪谞讬谉 诇注讬拽专 砖讬专讛 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜砖专转 讘砖诐 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讜 讗讬讝讛讜 砖讬专讜转 砖讘砖诐 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 砖讬专讛

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: From where is it derived that the basic requirement to accompany communal offerings with song applies by Torah law? As it is stated with regard to a Levite who serves in the Temple: 鈥淭hen he shall serve with the name of the Lord his God鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:7). What is this service that is performed with the name of God? You must say that this is the song, in which the Levites mention and praise the name of God.

讜讗讬诪讗 谞砖讬讗讜转 讻驻讬诐 诪讚讻转讬讘 诇砖专转讜 讜诇讘专讱 讘砖诪讜 诪讻诇诇 讚讘专讻转 讻讛谞讬诐 诇讗讜 砖讬专讜转 讛讬讗

The Gemara objects: But you can say that this service with the name of God is referring to the lifting of the hands for the Priestly Benediction, which also includes the mention of the name of God. If so, the verse is referring to priests, not ordinary Levites. The Gemara responds: From the fact that it is written: 鈥淎t that time the Lord separated the tribe of Levi鈥to serve Him, and to bless in His name鈥 (Deuteronomy 10:8), it can be derived by inference that the Priestly Benediction is not considered service, as the verse mentions service and the Priestly Benediction as distinct rituals.

专讘 诪转谞讛 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 转讞转 讗砖专 诇讗 注讘讚转 讗转 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 讘砖诪讞讛 讜讘讟讜讘 诇讘讘 讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 注讘讜讚讛 砖讘砖诪讞讛 讜讘讟讜讘 诇讘讘 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 砖讬专讛 讜讗讬诪讗 讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讚讻转讬讘 驻拽讜讚讬 讛壮 讬砖专讬诐 诪砖诪讞讬 诇讘 诪砖诪讞讬 诇讘 讗讬拽专讬 讟讜讘 诇讗 讗讬拽专讬

Rav Mattana said that the source for the requirement to accompany the Temple offerings with song is derived from here: 鈥淏ecause you did not serve the Lord your God with joyfulness, and with goodness of heart鈥 (Deuteronomy 28:47). What is this service of God that is performed with joyfulness and with goodness of heart? You must say that this is song. The Gemara objects: But you can say that this service is studying the words of Torah, as it is written: 鈥淭he precepts of the Lord are upright, rejoicing the heart鈥 (Psalms 19:9). The Gemara explains: Torah is indeed called a matter that rejoices the heart, but it is not called 鈥済oodness.鈥

讜讗讬诪讗 讘讻讜专讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜砖诪讞转 讘讻诇 讛讟讜讘 讟讜讘 讗讬拽专讬 讟讜讘 诇讘讘 诇讗 讗讬拽专讬

The Gemara objects: But you can say that the joyful service of God referred to above is the bringing of the first fruits, as it is written in that context: 鈥淎nd you shall rejoice in all the goodness that the Lord your God has given you鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:11). The Gemara answers: Bringing the first fruits is indeed called goodness, but it is not called something that involves goodness of heart.

讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讛 诪谞讬谉 诇讘讬讻讜专讬诐 砖讟注讜谞讬谉 砖讬专讛 讗转讬讗 讟讜讘 讟讜讘 诪讛讻讗

The Gemara discusses a related matter. Rav Mattana says: From where is it derived that bringing the first fruits to the Temple requires the accompaniment of song? The Gemara answers: It is derived from here, i.e., from the requirement to accompany communal offerings with song, by means of a verbal analogy of the word goodness in the verse 鈥淎nd with goodness of heart鈥 and the word goodness in the verse 鈥淵ou shall rejoice in all the goodness.鈥

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 诪谞讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖讬专讛 讗诇讗 注诇 讛讬讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讜转讗诪专 诇讛诐 讛讙驻谉 讛讞讚诇转讬 讗转 转讬专讜砖讬 讛诪砖诪讞 讗诇讛讬诐 讜讗谞砖讬诐 讗诐 讗谞砖讬诐 诪砖诪讞 讗诇讛讬诐 讘诪讛 诪砖诪讞 诪讻讗谉 砖讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖讬专讛 讗诇讗 注诇 讛讬讬谉

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani say that Rabbi Yonatan said: From where is it derived that songs of praise in the Temple are recited only over the wine libation accompanying the sacrifice? As it is stated: 鈥淎nd the vine replied: Should I leave my wine, which gladdens God and man, and go and wave above the trees鈥 (Judges 9:13). If it is clear that wine gladdens people, in what way does it gladden God? Rather, derive from here that songs of praise in the Temple are recited only over the wine of libation, and it is this song that gladdens God. This is difficult, as since there is no wine libation associated with the bringing of first fruits, how can it be accompanied by song?

诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 驻专讬 讗转讛 诪讘讬讗 讜讗讬 讗转讛 诪讘讬讗 诪砖拽讬谉 讛讘讬讗 注谞讘讬诐 讜讚专讻谉 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 转讘讬讗

The Gemara answers: You can find cases where the first fruits are brought in the form of wine, as Rabbi Yosei teaches: The verse states with regard to the first fruits: 鈥淵ou shall take of the first of all the fruit of the ground, which you shall bring in from your land鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:2). Since the verse mentions 鈥渇ruit,鈥 you must bring the actual fruit as your first fruits offering, and you may not bring it in the form of beverages. If one brought grapes and he had already pressed them into wine, from where is it derived that he has fulfilled his obligation of offering his first fruits? The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall bring in from your land.鈥 This apparently superfluous phrase comes to teach that if one brings wine for the mitzva of first fruits, he has fulfilled his obligation.

讞讝拽讬讛 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讜讻谞谞讬讛讜 砖专 讛诇讜讬诐 讬砖讜专 讘诪砖讗 讻讬 诪讘讬谉 讛讜讗 讗诇 转讬拽专讬 讬砖讜专 讗诇讗 讬砖讬专

The Gemara presents another source for the requirement that the song of the Levites must accompany the sacrificial service in the Temple. 岣zkiyya says that this obligation is derived from here: 鈥淎nd Chenaniah, chief of the Levites鈥e was master of lifting, because he was skillful鈥 (I聽Chronicles 15:22). Do not read it as 鈥渉e was master [yasor] of lifting,鈥 but as: He shall sing [yashir] with the lifting of his voice.

讘诇讜讜讟讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讛讻讗 诇注讘讜讚 注讘讚转 注讘讜讚讛 讗讬讝讛讜 注讘讜讚讛 砖爪专讬讻讛 注讘讜讚讛 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讜 砖讬专讛

The Sage named Balvatei said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said that the requirement for the Levites to accompany the Temple offerings with song is derived from here: The verse states with regard to the Levites: 鈥淓very one that entered in to do the work of service鈥 (Numbers 4:47). What is work that must be performed in conjunction with another service? You must say that this is song.

专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 砖讗讜 讝诪专讛 讜转谞讜 转祝 讻谞讜专 谞注讬诐 注诐 谞讘诇 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讛诐 讬砖讗讜 拽讜诇诐 讬专谞讜 讘讙讗讜谉 讛壮 爪讛诇讜 诪讬诐

Rabbi Yitz岣k says that the requirement to accompany the Temple offerings with song is derived from here: 鈥淪ing aloud to God鈥Take up the melody, and sound the timbrel, the sweet harp with the lyre鈥 (Psalms 81:2鈥3). Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said that the obligation is derived from here: 鈥淭hose yonder lift up their voice, they sing for joy; for the majesty of the Lord they shout from the sea鈥 (Isaiah 24:14).

讜转谞讗 诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 诪讛讻讗 讜诇讘谞讬 拽讛转 诇讗 谞转谉 讻讬 注讘讜讚转 讛拽讚砖 注诇讬讛诐 讘讻转祝 讬砖讗讜 诪诪砖诪注 砖谞讗诪专 讘讻转祝 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 砖讬砖讗讜 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬砖讗讜 讗讬谉 讬砖讗讜 讗诇讗 诇砖讜谉 砖讬专讛 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 砖讗讜 讝诪专讛 讜转谞讜 转祝 讜讗讜诪专 讬砖讗讜 拽讜诇诐 讬专谞讜 讜讙讜壮

And a tanna cites a derivation for the requirement for the Levites to accompany the Temple offerings with song from here: 鈥淏ut unto the sons of Kohath he gave none, because the service of the holy things belonged to them: They bore them [yisa鈥檜] upon their shoulders鈥 (Numbers 7:9). By inference from that which is stated, 鈥渦pon their shoulders,鈥 don鈥檛 I know that they bore them? Why must the verse state 鈥yisa鈥檜? The term 鈥yisa鈥檜is not stated here in its meaning of 鈥渢hey bore them,鈥 but rather as an expression of song. And similarly, the verse states: 鈥淭ake up [se鈥檜] the melody, and sound the timbrel,鈥 and another verse states: 鈥淭hey lift up [yisu] their voice, they sing for joy.鈥

讞谞谞讬讗 讘谉 讗讞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 诪砖讛 讬讚讘专 讜讛讗诇讛讬诐 讬注谞谞讜 讘拽讜诇

岣nanya, son of Rabbi Yehoshua鈥檚 brother, says that the requirement for the Levites to sing in the Temple is derived from here: 鈥淢oses spoke, and God answered him with a voice鈥 (Exodus 19:19).

注诇 注住拽讬 拽讜诇 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讜讬讛讬 讻讗讞讚 诇诪讞爪爪专讬诐 讜诇诪砖专专讬诐 诇讛砖诪讬注 拽讜诇 讗讞讚

This indicates that God responded to Moses, who was a Levite, by commanding him about matters pertaining to the voice, i.e., that the Levites must accompany the sacrifices with song. Rav Ashi says that the obligation for the Levites to sing in the Temple is derived from here: 鈥淚t came to pass, when the trumpeters and singers were as one, to make one sound to be heard in praising and thanking the Lord鈥 (II聽Chronicles 5:13). This indicates that just as there is a requirement for trumpets to be sounded during the sacrifice of communal offerings (see Numbers 10:10), there is likewise a requirement for the Levites to sing.

专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讜诇讗 讬诪讜转讜 讙诐 讛诐 讙诐 讗转诐 诪讛 讗转诐 讘注讘讜讚转 诪讝讘讞 讗祝 讛诐 讘注讘讜讚转 诪讝讘讞

Rabbi Yonatan says that the requirement for the Levites to sing in the Temple is derived from here: The Torah commands the priests with regard to the Levites: 鈥淭hey shall not come near the altar, that they die not, neither they nor you鈥 (Numbers 18:3). The verse equates the Levites with the priests, indicating that just as you, the priests, are obligated to perform the service on the altar, so too they, the Levites, are obligated to perform a service pertaining to the altar, i.e., the song that accompanies the offerings.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讜诇讗 讬诪讜转讜 讙诐 讛诐 讙诐 讗转诐 讗转诐 讘砖诇讛诐 讜讛诐 讘砖诇讻诐 讘诪讬转讛 讛诐 讘砖诇讛诐 讗讬谞谉 讘诪讬转讛 讗诇讗 讘讗讝讛专讛

A derivation of halakhot based on the comparison between priests and Levites in this verse is also taught in a baraita: It is stated: 鈥淭hat they die not, neither they nor you.鈥 This indicates that if you, the priests, perform their duties, i.e., the Levites鈥 duties, or they, the Levites, perform yours, e.g., the sacrificial rites, the perpetrator is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven. But if they, the Levites, perform a function that belongs to a different group of Levites, but is nevertheless a duty of theirs, i.e., the Levites in general, e.g., if Levites assigned to open and close the gates of the Temple decide instead to sing, they are not punished with death; rather, they have merely violated a prohibition.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 谞拽讬讟讬谞谉 诪砖讜专专 砖砖讬注专 讘砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讘诪讬转讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛讞谞讬诐 诇驻谞讬 讛诪砖讻谉 拽讚诪讛 诇驻谞讬 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讜讙讜壮 讜讛讝专 讛拽专讘 讬讜诪转 诪讗讬 讝专 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讝专 诪诪砖 讛讻转讬讘 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讝专 讚讗讜转讛 注讘讜讚讛

Abaye said: We hold that a Levite designated to serve as a singer who instead served in another Levite鈥檚 position as a gatekeeper is liable to be put to death, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd those that were to pitch tent before the Tabernacle eastward, before the Tent of Meeting toward the sunrising, were Moses and Aaron and his sons, keeping the charge of the Sanctuary, for the charge of the children of Israel; and the stranger that drew near was to be put to death鈥 (Numbers 3:38). What is the meaning of the term 鈥渟tranger鈥 in this verse? If we say it is referring to an actual stranger, i.e., a non-Levite, isn鈥檛 it written already on another occasion that he is liable to be put to death (see Numbers 3:10)? Rather, this is not its meaning; instead, it is referring to one who is a Levite but is a stranger to that service.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诪砖讜专专 砖砖讬注专 讜诪砖讜注专 砖砖讜专专 讗讬谞谉 讘诪讬转讛 讗诇讗 讘讗讝讛专讛

The Gemara raises an objection to Abaye鈥檚 statement from a baraita: A singer who served as a gatekeeper and a gatekeeper who sang are not punished with death; rather, they have merely violated a prohibition.

转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 诪注砖讛 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘专 讞谞谞讬讛 砖讛诇讱 诇住讬讬注 讘讛讙驻转 讚诇转讜转 讗爪诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讙讜讚讙讚讗 讗诪专 诇讜 讘谞讬 讞讝讜专 诇讗讞讜专讬讱 砖讗转讛 诪谉 讛诪砖讜专专讬诐 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛诪砖讜注专讬诐

The Gemara explains that this matter is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving Rabbi Yehoshua bar 岣nanya, a Levite, who went to Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Gudgeda, also a Levite, in order to assist in closing the doors of the Temple. Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Gudgeda said to him: My son, go back, as you are among the singers and not among the gatekeepers.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 诪讬转讛 讛讬讗 讜讙讝专讜 讘讛 专讘谞谉 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讝讛专讛 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 讙讝专讜 讘讛

The Gemara analyzes the baraita: What, is it not the case that these two Levite Sages disagree about this, that one Sage, Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Gudgeda, holds that if a Levite who is a singer closes the gate by himself, it is a prohibition punishable by death, and therefore the Sages decreed that a Levite who is a singer should not even assist the gatekeepers in closing the gates; and one Sage, Rabbi Yehoshua bar 岣nanya, holds that it is a prohibition that is not punishable by death, and therefore the Sages did not decree that a Levite who is a singer should not assist the gatekeepers in closing the gates?

讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讝讛专讛 讛讬讗 诪专 住讘专 诪住讬讬注 讙讝专讜 讘讬讛 专讘谞谉 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讘讬讛 专讘谞谉

The Gemara responds: No, that is not necessarily the correct analysis of the baraita. Rather, everyone agrees that one Levite performing another Levite鈥檚 task by himself is a prohibition that is not punishable by death. One Sage holds that the Sages nevertheless decreed that a Levite who is a singer should not even assist the gatekeepers, and one Sage holds that the Sages did not decree that a Levite who is a singer should not assist the gatekeepers in closing the gates.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 注讜诇转 谞讚讘转 爪讬讘讜专 讟注讜谞讛 砖讬专讛 讗讜 讗讬谞讛 讟注讜谞讛 砖讬专讛 注诇转讬讻诐 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讗讞转 注讜诇转 讞讜讘讛 讜讗讞转 注讜诇转 谞讚讘讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 注讜诇讜转讬讻诐 讚讻讜诇讛讜 讬砖专讗诇 拽讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗

Rabbi Avin raises a dilemma: Does a communal voluntary burnt offering require an accompanying song or does it not require song? He explains the two sides of the dilemma: The Merciful One states in the Torah: 鈥淵ou shall blow with the trumpets over your burnt offerings鈥 (Numbers 10:10). Does the term 鈥渂urnt offerings鈥 include both an obligatory burnt offering and a voluntary burnt offering, or perhaps the Merciful One is saying that the trumpets and song must accompany the burnt offerings of the entire Jewish people, i.e., they must be burnt offerings that are an obligation of the people?

转讗 砖诪注 讜讬讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛讜 诇讛注诇讜转 讛注讜诇讛 注诇 讛诪讝讘讞 讜讘注转 讛讞诇 讛注讜诇讛 讛讞诇 砖讬专 讛壮 讜讛讞爪讜爪专讜转 注诇 讬讚讬 讻诇讬 砖讬专 讚讜讚 诪诇讱 讬砖专讗诇 讛讗讬 砖讬专讛 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚注讜诇转 讞讜讘讛 诇诪讛 诇讬讛 讗讬诪诇讜讻讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚注讜诇转 谞讚讘讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a verse: 鈥淎nd Hezekiah commanded to offer the burnt offering upon the altar, and when the burnt offering began, the song of the Lord began also, and the trumpets, together with the instruments of David king of Israel鈥nd Hezekiah the king and the princes commanded the Levites to sing praises unto the Lord鈥 (II聽Chronicles 29:27鈥30). The Gemara analyzes the description of this service: This song, what was its purpose? If we say that it accompanied an obligatory burnt offering that was brought on that day, why did they have to seek authorization from Hezekiah? Why did Hezekiah need to issue a specific command that they should accompany this offering with song? Rather, is it not the case that this song served to accompany the voluntary burnt offering that Hezekiah brought on that day?

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 注讜诇转 专讗砖 讞讜讚砖 讛讜讛 讜拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讬 讛讜拽讘注 专讗砖 讞讚砖 讘讝诪谞讜 讚诇讬拽专讘 讗讜 诇讗

Rav Yosef said: No, that day was a New Moon, and it was the additional burnt offering of the New Moon, an obligatory burnt offering, that was accompanied by the song. As for the need for Hezekiah鈥檚 approval, the explanation is as follows: It was the thirtieth day following the previous New Moon, and they were asking him if the current New Moon was established in its time, i.e., on that day, so that the burnt offering of the New Moon should be sacrificed, or if the New Moon had not been declared on that day. Hezekiah clarified that the court had declared the New Moon, and therefore they should sacrifice the offering.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讛讻讬 讜讛讻转讬讘 讘讬讜诐 砖砖讛 注砖专 诇讞讚砖 讛专讗砖讜谉 讜讙讜壮 讜讬讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛讜 诇讛注诇讜转 讛注讜诇讛 注诇 讛诪讝讘讞

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: And how can you say that that day was the New Moon? Isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淥n the sixteenth day of the first month鈥 (II聽Chronicles 29:17), and later, in that context, it states: 鈥淎nd Hezekiah commanded to offer the burnt offering upon the altar鈥?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讬讘讗 讻讘砖 讛讘讗 注诐 讛注讜诪专 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讬 拽讘注 专讗砖 讞讚砖 讘讝诪谞讜 讚诇讬拽专讬讘 讗讜 诇讗

Rather, Rami, son of Rav Yeiva, said: The question they were asking Hezekiah referred to the obligatory, communal burnt offering lamb that comes with the omer, i.e., the barley offering brought on the sixteenth of the first month, Nisan. They asked: Was the New Moon of Nisan established in its correct time, which means that it is now in fact the sixteenth of Nisan and the omer offering and the lamb brought with it should be sacrificed, or was it not really the sixteenth of Nisan?

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗讜讬讗 讜诇讬讞讝讬 驻住讞 讛讬讻讬 注讘讬讚 诪爪讛 讛讬讻讬 讗讻讬诇

Rav Avya objects to this explanation: How is it possible that they were unsure whether it was the sixteenth of Nisan? Let them see how the Paschal offering was performed on the fourteenth of Nisan and how matza was eaten the following night. The day of the sixteenth of Nisan could easily be determined from when those mitzvot were performed.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗砖诇讬讞讗 讚爪讬讘讜专讗 讚诪诪诇讬讱 讛砖转讗 讚讗转讬转 诇讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 注讜诇转 讞讜讘讛 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗砖诇讬讞讗 讚爪讬讘讜专讗 讚诪诪诇讬讱

Rather, Rav Ashi said: They asked permission from Hezekiah before sacrificing the lamb that comes with the omer offering, just as it is with regard to a prayer leader, who, as a gesture of respect, asks permission from the congregation before leading them in prayer. Likewise, the people asked permission from Hezekiah as a formal gesture of respect, not because they required his advice. The Gemara notes: Now that you have arrived at this explanation, you may even say that it was a common obligatory burnt offering, e.g., the daily offering, and they asked permission of Hezekiah before sacrificing it, just as it is with regard to a prayer leader, who asks permission from the congregation before leading it in prayer.

转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪讙诇讙诇讬谉 讝讻讜转 诇讬讜诐 讝讻讗讬 讜讞讜讘讛 诇讬讜诐 讞讬讬讘

The Gemara has still not proven whether or not a communal voluntary burnt offering must be accompanied with song. The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the following baraita. Rabbi Yosei says: A fortunate matter is brought about on an auspicious day, and a deleterious matter on an inauspicious day.

讗诪专讜 讻砖讞专讘 讛讘讬转 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 转砖注讛 讘讗讘 讛讬讛 讜诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 讛讬讛 讜诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘讬注讬转 讛讬转讛 讜诪砖诪专转讜 砖诇 讬讛讜讬专讬讘 讛讬转讛 讜讛讬讜 讻讛谞讬诐 讜诇讜讬诐 注讜诪讚讬诐 注诇 讚讜讻谞谉 讜讗讜诪专讬诐 砖讬专讛 讜诪讛 砖讬专讛 讗诪专讜 讜讬砖讘 注诇讬讛诐 讗转 讗讜谞诐 讜讘专注转诐 讬爪诪讬转诐 讜诇讗 讛住驻讬拽讜 诇讜诪专 讬爪诪讬转诐 讛壮 讗诇讛讬谞讜 注讚 砖讘讗讜 讙讜讬诐 讜讻讘砖讜诐 讜讻谉 讘砖谞讬讛

As the Sages said: When the Temple was destroyed for the first time, that day was the Ninth of Av, a date on which several calamities had already occurred; and it was the conclusion of Shabbat, i.e., it was on the day after Shabbat, a Sunday; and it was the year after a Sabbatical Year; and it was the week of the priestly watch of Jehoiarib; and the priests and Levites were standing on their platform and singing song. And what song were they singing? They were singing the verse: 鈥淎nd He brought upon them their own iniquity, and He will cut them off in their own evil鈥 (Psalms 94:23). And they did not manage to recite the end of that verse: 鈥淭he Lord our God will cut them off,鈥 before gentiles came and conquered them. And likewise, the same happened when the Second Temple was destroyed.

讛讗讬 砖讬专讛 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讬讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚注讜诇转 讞讜讘讛 诪讬 讛讜讗讬 讘砖讘注讛 注砖专 讘转诪讜讝 讘讟诇 讛转诪讬讚 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚注讜诇转 谞讚讘讛

The Gemara analyzes the baraita: This song, what was its purpose? If we say that it accompanied an obligatory burnt offering, was there any obligatory communal burnt offering sacrificed at that time? The daily offering had already ceased to be sacrificed, due to a lack of animals, on the seventeenth of Tammuz, three weeks before the Ninth of Av. Rather, is it not correct to say that this song accompanied a voluntary burnt offering?

讜转住讘专讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讚注讜诇转 讞讜讘讛 讚诇讗 讛讜讗讬 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讚注讜诇转 谞讚讘讛 讚讛讜讗讬 讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讘谉 讘拽专 讗拽专讗讬 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚讗讬转专诪讬讗 诇讛讜

The Gemara asks: And can you understand this to be the case? What is different about an obligatory burnt offering, which was not sacrificed at this time because they did not have animals to bring, and what is different about a voluntary burnt offering, that it was sacrificed? Just as there were no animals available for obligatory offerings, there were none available for voluntary burnt offerings either. The Gemara answers: That is not difficult. A young bull, which cannot be sacrificed as the daily offering, for which lambs are required, happened to come into their possession merely by coincidence, and they sacrificed it as a voluntary burnt offering. This indicates that the Levites are required to sing as an accompaniment to the sacrifice of a communal voluntary burnt offering.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讗砖讬 讜转住讘专讗 砖讬专讛 讚讬讜诪讬讛 诇讛壮 讛讗专抓 讜诪诇讜讗讛 讜讬砖讘 注诇讬讛诐 讗转 讗讜谞诐 讘砖讬专 讚讗专讘注讛 讘砖讘转 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讗讬诇讬讬讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚谞驻诇 诇讛讜 讘驻讜诪讬讬讛讜

Rava said, and some say Rav Ashi said: And how can you understand the description of the destruction cited in the baraita? The song of the day for Sunday, which is when the baraita says that the Temple was destroyed, is the psalm that begins: 鈥淭he earth is the Lord鈥檚, and the fullness thereof鈥 (Psalms 24:1). And yet the verse that the baraita says that the Levites were singing, 鈥淎nd He brought upon them their own iniquity,鈥 is in the song for Wednesday, not the song for Sunday. Rather, it was merely a portentous lamentation [eiliyya] that came into their mouths, not an actual song recited over an offering.

讜讛讗 注讜诪讚讬谉 注诇 讚讜讻谞谉 拽转谞讬 讻讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 讗讜诪专 砖诇讗 注诇 讛拽专讘谉 讗讬 讛讻讬 讘注讜诇转 谞讚讘讛 谞诪讬 诇讬诪讗 谞驻讬拽 诪讬谞讛 讞讜专讘讗

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in the baraita that the Levites were standing on their platform near the altar, which is where they stood when they sang to accompany offerings? The Gemara answers: This can be explained in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish, who says: The Levites are permitted to recite songs on the platform even when it is not for an offering. The Gemara asks: If so, if the Levites may recite songs on the platform at will, let them also recite a song for a voluntary burnt offering, even if it is not required. The Gemara answers: That could result in a mishap, as the Levites might assume that just as singing for a voluntary burnt offering is optional, so too singing for an obligatory burnt offering is also optional.

诪讗讬 讛讜讛 注诇讛 转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 专讘 诪专讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 注诇 注诇转讬讻诐 讜注诇 讝讘讞讬 砖诇诪讬讻诐

The question of whether a song must be recited for a communal voluntary burnt offering has still not been resolved. The Gemara asks: What came of it, i.e., what is the resolution to that question? The Gemara responds: Come and hear a proof, as Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, teaches that the verse: 鈥淵ou shall blow with the trumpets over your burnt offerings, and over the sacrifices of your peace offerings鈥 (Numbers 10:10), juxtaposes burnt offerings to peace offerings, which indicates that there is a relevant comparison between them with regard to the sounding of trumpets, and, by extension, to song.

诪讛 注讜诇讛 拽讜讚砖 拽讚砖讬诐 讗祝 砖诇诪讬诐 拽讜讚砖 拽讚砖讬诐 讜诪讛 砖诇诪讬诐 拽讘讜注 诇讛诐 讝诪谉 讗祝 注讜诇讛 拽讘讜注 诇讛 讝诪谉

There are two conclusions that are to be drawn from this comparison: Just as the burnt offering is an offering of the most sacred order, so too, the peace offering that must be accompanied by song is one that is an offering of the most sacred order, and the only peace offering of this kind is the lambs that are brought together with the two loaves on Shavuot. And just as this peace offering has a set time when it must be brought, so too, the burnt offering that must be accompanied by song is one that has a set time, which excludes voluntary burnt offerings. Consequently, voluntary burnt offerings are not accompanied by song.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Arakhin 11

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Arakhin 11

注砖专讛 谞拽讘讬诐 讛讬讜 讘讛 讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 诪讜爪讬讗 注砖专讛 诪讬谞讬 讝诪专 谞诪爪讗转 讻讜诇讛 诪讜爪讬讗讛 诪讗讛 诪讬谞讬 讝诪专 讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讗 讛讬讗 讗诪讛 讜讙讘讜讛 讗诪讛 讜拽转讗 讬讜爪讗 讛讬诪谞讛 讜注砖专讛 谞拽讘讬诐 讛讬讜 讘讛 讻诇 讗讞讚 诪讜爪讬讗 诪讗讛 诪讬谞讬 讝诪专 谞诪爪讗转 讻讜诇讛 诪讜爪讬讗讛 讗诇祝 诪讬谞讬 讝诪专 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讜住讬诪谞讬讱 诪转谞讬转讗 讙讜讝诪讗

There were ten holes in it and each and every one would emit ten types of tone. It therefore emerges that the entire instrument emitted one hundred types of tone. It was taught in a baraita: The magreifa was one cubit wide and one cubit tall, and a handle protruded from it. It was hollow and there were ten holes in it and each one would produce one hundred types of tone. It therefore emerges that that the entire instrument emitted one thousand types of tone. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: And your mnemonic to remember which of these two statements was said by Shmuel and which was taught in a baraita is that the baraita expresses itself with exaggeration, as it is common for baraitot to exaggerate numbers.

讜注讘讚讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讛讬讜 讻讜壮 诇讬诪讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 注讘讚讬诐 讛讬讜 拽住讘专 注讬拽专 砖讬专讛 讘驻讛 讜讻诇讬 诇讘住讜诪讬 拽诇讗 讛讜讗 讚注讘讬讚讗 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讜讬诐 讛讬讜 拽住讘专 注讬拽专 砖讬专讛 讘讻诇讬

搂 The mishna teaches that the Temple musicians were slaves of priests according to Rabbi Meir, whereas according to Rabbi Yosei they were Israelites of pure lineage, and according to Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus they were Levites. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that they disagree about this; that the one who says they were slaves holds that the primary component of song in the Temple service is singing with the mouth, and the instrumental music was performed merely to sweeten the sound of the singing. Since the instrumental music is mere accompaniment, it could be performed by slaves. And the one who says that the musicians were Levites holds that the primary component of song in the Temple service is the music played with instruments. Therefore, the musicians had to be Levites, who were tasked with the song that was part of the Temple service.

讜转住讘专讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讗讬 拽住讘专 讗讬 拽住讘专 注讬拽专 砖讬专讛 讘驻讛 注讘讚讬诐 住讙讬讗 讗讬 拽住讘专 注讬拽专 砖讬专讛 讘讻诇讬 诇讜讬诐 讘注讬谞谉

The Gemara responds: And can you understand the disagreement in this manner? According to this suggestion, what does Rabbi Yosei, who says that the musicians were Israelites of pure lineage, hold? If he holds that the primary component of song in the Temple service is singing with the mouth, then it should be sufficient if slaves play the instruments. Why would he require Israelites of pure lineage? And if he holds that the primary component of song in the Temple service is the music played with instruments, we should require Levites to play the instruments.

诇注讜诇诐 拽住讘专 注讬拽专 砖讬专讛 讘驻讛 讜讛讻讗 讘诪注诇讬谉 诪讚讜讻谉 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 讜诇诪注砖专讜转 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

The Gemara responds: Actually, Rabbi Yosei holds that the primary component of song in the Temple service is singing with the mouth. And here, the tanna鈥檌m disagree about whether the musicians in the Temple may be elevated from the musical platform to the presumptive status of pure lineage with regard to marriage and eligibility to receive Levitical tithes.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 注讘讚讬诐 讛讬讜 拽住讘专 讗讬谉 诪注诇讬谉 诪讚讜讻谉 诇讗 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 讜诇讗 诇诪注砖专讜转 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讜讬诐 讛讬讜 拽住讘专 诪注诇讬谉 诪讚讜讻谉 讘讬谉 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 讘讬谉 诇诪注砖专讜转 讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讬砖专讗诇讬诐 讛讬讜 拽住讘专 诪注诇讬谉 诪讚讜讻谉 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 讜诇讗 诇诪注砖专讜转

The one who says that the musicians were slaves holds that people cannot be elevated from the Temple musical platform to the presumptive status of pure lineage with regard to marriage and eligibility to receive tithes. The one who says that the musicians were Levites holds that one elevates from the platform both to the presumptive status of pure lineage and eligibility to receive tithes. And according to the one who says that the musicians were Israelites, he holds that one elevates from the platform to the presumptive status of pure lineage but not with regard to the eligibility to receive tithes.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛砖讬专 诪注讻讘 讗转 讛拽专讘谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 诪注讻讘

The Sages taught in a baraita: The song that the Levites sing while a communal offering is being sacrificed is an indispensable component of the offering, which means that if the Levites did not sing, the offering is invalid. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: It is not indispensable.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗转谞讛 讗转 讛诇讜讬诐 谞转谞讬诐 诇讗讛专谉 讜诇讘谞讬讜 诪转讜讱 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讻驻专 注诇 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诪讛 讻驻专讛 诪注讻讘转 讗祝 砖讬专讛 诪注讻讘转

The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Meir, i.e., from where does he derive his opinion? The Gemara answers: It is as the verse states: 鈥淎nd I have given the Levites, they are given to Aaron and to his sons from among the children of Israel, to do the service of the children of Israel in the Tent of Meeting, and to make atonement for the children of Israel鈥 (Numbers 8:19). The verse compares the atonement for the Jewish people, which is caused by the sprinkling of the blood of offerings on the altar, to the service of the Levites, which is their singing. This teaches that just as the atonement caused by the sprinkling of the blood is an indispensable component of the offering, so too the song of the Levites is indispensable.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讛讜讗 诇讗讬讚讱 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讛 讻驻专讛 讘讬讜诐 讗祝 砖讬专讛 讘讬讜诐

The Gemara asks: And what do the Rabbis derive from the comparison in this verse? The Gemara answers: That comparison serves to teach another halakha, which was stated by Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar says: Just as the atonement achieved by the sprinkling of the blood must take place during the day, so too the song must be sung during the day.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪谞讬谉 诇注讬拽专 砖讬专讛 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜砖专转 讘砖诐 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讜 讗讬讝讛讜 砖讬专讜转 砖讘砖诐 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 砖讬专讛

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: From where is it derived that the basic requirement to accompany communal offerings with song applies by Torah law? As it is stated with regard to a Levite who serves in the Temple: 鈥淭hen he shall serve with the name of the Lord his God鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:7). What is this service that is performed with the name of God? You must say that this is the song, in which the Levites mention and praise the name of God.

讜讗讬诪讗 谞砖讬讗讜转 讻驻讬诐 诪讚讻转讬讘 诇砖专转讜 讜诇讘专讱 讘砖诪讜 诪讻诇诇 讚讘专讻转 讻讛谞讬诐 诇讗讜 砖讬专讜转 讛讬讗

The Gemara objects: But you can say that this service with the name of God is referring to the lifting of the hands for the Priestly Benediction, which also includes the mention of the name of God. If so, the verse is referring to priests, not ordinary Levites. The Gemara responds: From the fact that it is written: 鈥淎t that time the Lord separated the tribe of Levi鈥to serve Him, and to bless in His name鈥 (Deuteronomy 10:8), it can be derived by inference that the Priestly Benediction is not considered service, as the verse mentions service and the Priestly Benediction as distinct rituals.

专讘 诪转谞讛 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 转讞转 讗砖专 诇讗 注讘讚转 讗转 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 讘砖诪讞讛 讜讘讟讜讘 诇讘讘 讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 注讘讜讚讛 砖讘砖诪讞讛 讜讘讟讜讘 诇讘讘 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 砖讬专讛 讜讗讬诪讗 讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讚讻转讬讘 驻拽讜讚讬 讛壮 讬砖专讬诐 诪砖诪讞讬 诇讘 诪砖诪讞讬 诇讘 讗讬拽专讬 讟讜讘 诇讗 讗讬拽专讬

Rav Mattana said that the source for the requirement to accompany the Temple offerings with song is derived from here: 鈥淏ecause you did not serve the Lord your God with joyfulness, and with goodness of heart鈥 (Deuteronomy 28:47). What is this service of God that is performed with joyfulness and with goodness of heart? You must say that this is song. The Gemara objects: But you can say that this service is studying the words of Torah, as it is written: 鈥淭he precepts of the Lord are upright, rejoicing the heart鈥 (Psalms 19:9). The Gemara explains: Torah is indeed called a matter that rejoices the heart, but it is not called 鈥済oodness.鈥

讜讗讬诪讗 讘讻讜专讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜砖诪讞转 讘讻诇 讛讟讜讘 讟讜讘 讗讬拽专讬 讟讜讘 诇讘讘 诇讗 讗讬拽专讬

The Gemara objects: But you can say that the joyful service of God referred to above is the bringing of the first fruits, as it is written in that context: 鈥淎nd you shall rejoice in all the goodness that the Lord your God has given you鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:11). The Gemara answers: Bringing the first fruits is indeed called goodness, but it is not called something that involves goodness of heart.

讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讛 诪谞讬谉 诇讘讬讻讜专讬诐 砖讟注讜谞讬谉 砖讬专讛 讗转讬讗 讟讜讘 讟讜讘 诪讛讻讗

The Gemara discusses a related matter. Rav Mattana says: From where is it derived that bringing the first fruits to the Temple requires the accompaniment of song? The Gemara answers: It is derived from here, i.e., from the requirement to accompany communal offerings with song, by means of a verbal analogy of the word goodness in the verse 鈥淎nd with goodness of heart鈥 and the word goodness in the verse 鈥淵ou shall rejoice in all the goodness.鈥

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 诪谞讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖讬专讛 讗诇讗 注诇 讛讬讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讜转讗诪专 诇讛诐 讛讙驻谉 讛讞讚诇转讬 讗转 转讬专讜砖讬 讛诪砖诪讞 讗诇讛讬诐 讜讗谞砖讬诐 讗诐 讗谞砖讬诐 诪砖诪讞 讗诇讛讬诐 讘诪讛 诪砖诪讞 诪讻讗谉 砖讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖讬专讛 讗诇讗 注诇 讛讬讬谉

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani say that Rabbi Yonatan said: From where is it derived that songs of praise in the Temple are recited only over the wine libation accompanying the sacrifice? As it is stated: 鈥淎nd the vine replied: Should I leave my wine, which gladdens God and man, and go and wave above the trees鈥 (Judges 9:13). If it is clear that wine gladdens people, in what way does it gladden God? Rather, derive from here that songs of praise in the Temple are recited only over the wine of libation, and it is this song that gladdens God. This is difficult, as since there is no wine libation associated with the bringing of first fruits, how can it be accompanied by song?

诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 驻专讬 讗转讛 诪讘讬讗 讜讗讬 讗转讛 诪讘讬讗 诪砖拽讬谉 讛讘讬讗 注谞讘讬诐 讜讚专讻谉 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 转讘讬讗

The Gemara answers: You can find cases where the first fruits are brought in the form of wine, as Rabbi Yosei teaches: The verse states with regard to the first fruits: 鈥淵ou shall take of the first of all the fruit of the ground, which you shall bring in from your land鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:2). Since the verse mentions 鈥渇ruit,鈥 you must bring the actual fruit as your first fruits offering, and you may not bring it in the form of beverages. If one brought grapes and he had already pressed them into wine, from where is it derived that he has fulfilled his obligation of offering his first fruits? The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall bring in from your land.鈥 This apparently superfluous phrase comes to teach that if one brings wine for the mitzva of first fruits, he has fulfilled his obligation.

讞讝拽讬讛 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讜讻谞谞讬讛讜 砖专 讛诇讜讬诐 讬砖讜专 讘诪砖讗 讻讬 诪讘讬谉 讛讜讗 讗诇 转讬拽专讬 讬砖讜专 讗诇讗 讬砖讬专

The Gemara presents another source for the requirement that the song of the Levites must accompany the sacrificial service in the Temple. 岣zkiyya says that this obligation is derived from here: 鈥淎nd Chenaniah, chief of the Levites鈥e was master of lifting, because he was skillful鈥 (I聽Chronicles 15:22). Do not read it as 鈥渉e was master [yasor] of lifting,鈥 but as: He shall sing [yashir] with the lifting of his voice.

讘诇讜讜讟讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讛讻讗 诇注讘讜讚 注讘讚转 注讘讜讚讛 讗讬讝讛讜 注讘讜讚讛 砖爪专讬讻讛 注讘讜讚讛 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讜 砖讬专讛

The Sage named Balvatei said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said that the requirement for the Levites to accompany the Temple offerings with song is derived from here: The verse states with regard to the Levites: 鈥淓very one that entered in to do the work of service鈥 (Numbers 4:47). What is work that must be performed in conjunction with another service? You must say that this is song.

专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 砖讗讜 讝诪专讛 讜转谞讜 转祝 讻谞讜专 谞注讬诐 注诐 谞讘诇 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讛诐 讬砖讗讜 拽讜诇诐 讬专谞讜 讘讙讗讜谉 讛壮 爪讛诇讜 诪讬诐

Rabbi Yitz岣k says that the requirement to accompany the Temple offerings with song is derived from here: 鈥淪ing aloud to God鈥Take up the melody, and sound the timbrel, the sweet harp with the lyre鈥 (Psalms 81:2鈥3). Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said that the obligation is derived from here: 鈥淭hose yonder lift up their voice, they sing for joy; for the majesty of the Lord they shout from the sea鈥 (Isaiah 24:14).

讜转谞讗 诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 诪讛讻讗 讜诇讘谞讬 拽讛转 诇讗 谞转谉 讻讬 注讘讜讚转 讛拽讚砖 注诇讬讛诐 讘讻转祝 讬砖讗讜 诪诪砖诪注 砖谞讗诪专 讘讻转祝 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 砖讬砖讗讜 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬砖讗讜 讗讬谉 讬砖讗讜 讗诇讗 诇砖讜谉 砖讬专讛 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 砖讗讜 讝诪专讛 讜转谞讜 转祝 讜讗讜诪专 讬砖讗讜 拽讜诇诐 讬专谞讜 讜讙讜壮

And a tanna cites a derivation for the requirement for the Levites to accompany the Temple offerings with song from here: 鈥淏ut unto the sons of Kohath he gave none, because the service of the holy things belonged to them: They bore them [yisa鈥檜] upon their shoulders鈥 (Numbers 7:9). By inference from that which is stated, 鈥渦pon their shoulders,鈥 don鈥檛 I know that they bore them? Why must the verse state 鈥yisa鈥檜? The term 鈥yisa鈥檜is not stated here in its meaning of 鈥渢hey bore them,鈥 but rather as an expression of song. And similarly, the verse states: 鈥淭ake up [se鈥檜] the melody, and sound the timbrel,鈥 and another verse states: 鈥淭hey lift up [yisu] their voice, they sing for joy.鈥

讞谞谞讬讗 讘谉 讗讞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 诪砖讛 讬讚讘专 讜讛讗诇讛讬诐 讬注谞谞讜 讘拽讜诇

岣nanya, son of Rabbi Yehoshua鈥檚 brother, says that the requirement for the Levites to sing in the Temple is derived from here: 鈥淢oses spoke, and God answered him with a voice鈥 (Exodus 19:19).

注诇 注住拽讬 拽讜诇 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讜讬讛讬 讻讗讞讚 诇诪讞爪爪专讬诐 讜诇诪砖专专讬诐 诇讛砖诪讬注 拽讜诇 讗讞讚

This indicates that God responded to Moses, who was a Levite, by commanding him about matters pertaining to the voice, i.e., that the Levites must accompany the sacrifices with song. Rav Ashi says that the obligation for the Levites to sing in the Temple is derived from here: 鈥淚t came to pass, when the trumpeters and singers were as one, to make one sound to be heard in praising and thanking the Lord鈥 (II聽Chronicles 5:13). This indicates that just as there is a requirement for trumpets to be sounded during the sacrifice of communal offerings (see Numbers 10:10), there is likewise a requirement for the Levites to sing.

专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讜诇讗 讬诪讜转讜 讙诐 讛诐 讙诐 讗转诐 诪讛 讗转诐 讘注讘讜讚转 诪讝讘讞 讗祝 讛诐 讘注讘讜讚转 诪讝讘讞

Rabbi Yonatan says that the requirement for the Levites to sing in the Temple is derived from here: The Torah commands the priests with regard to the Levites: 鈥淭hey shall not come near the altar, that they die not, neither they nor you鈥 (Numbers 18:3). The verse equates the Levites with the priests, indicating that just as you, the priests, are obligated to perform the service on the altar, so too they, the Levites, are obligated to perform a service pertaining to the altar, i.e., the song that accompanies the offerings.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讜诇讗 讬诪讜转讜 讙诐 讛诐 讙诐 讗转诐 讗转诐 讘砖诇讛诐 讜讛诐 讘砖诇讻诐 讘诪讬转讛 讛诐 讘砖诇讛诐 讗讬谞谉 讘诪讬转讛 讗诇讗 讘讗讝讛专讛

A derivation of halakhot based on the comparison between priests and Levites in this verse is also taught in a baraita: It is stated: 鈥淭hat they die not, neither they nor you.鈥 This indicates that if you, the priests, perform their duties, i.e., the Levites鈥 duties, or they, the Levites, perform yours, e.g., the sacrificial rites, the perpetrator is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven. But if they, the Levites, perform a function that belongs to a different group of Levites, but is nevertheless a duty of theirs, i.e., the Levites in general, e.g., if Levites assigned to open and close the gates of the Temple decide instead to sing, they are not punished with death; rather, they have merely violated a prohibition.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 谞拽讬讟讬谞谉 诪砖讜专专 砖砖讬注专 讘砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讘诪讬转讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛讞谞讬诐 诇驻谞讬 讛诪砖讻谉 拽讚诪讛 诇驻谞讬 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讜讙讜壮 讜讛讝专 讛拽专讘 讬讜诪转 诪讗讬 讝专 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讝专 诪诪砖 讛讻转讬讘 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讝专 讚讗讜转讛 注讘讜讚讛

Abaye said: We hold that a Levite designated to serve as a singer who instead served in another Levite鈥檚 position as a gatekeeper is liable to be put to death, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd those that were to pitch tent before the Tabernacle eastward, before the Tent of Meeting toward the sunrising, were Moses and Aaron and his sons, keeping the charge of the Sanctuary, for the charge of the children of Israel; and the stranger that drew near was to be put to death鈥 (Numbers 3:38). What is the meaning of the term 鈥渟tranger鈥 in this verse? If we say it is referring to an actual stranger, i.e., a non-Levite, isn鈥檛 it written already on another occasion that he is liable to be put to death (see Numbers 3:10)? Rather, this is not its meaning; instead, it is referring to one who is a Levite but is a stranger to that service.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诪砖讜专专 砖砖讬注专 讜诪砖讜注专 砖砖讜专专 讗讬谞谉 讘诪讬转讛 讗诇讗 讘讗讝讛专讛

The Gemara raises an objection to Abaye鈥檚 statement from a baraita: A singer who served as a gatekeeper and a gatekeeper who sang are not punished with death; rather, they have merely violated a prohibition.

转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 诪注砖讛 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘专 讞谞谞讬讛 砖讛诇讱 诇住讬讬注 讘讛讙驻转 讚诇转讜转 讗爪诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讙讜讚讙讚讗 讗诪专 诇讜 讘谞讬 讞讝讜专 诇讗讞讜专讬讱 砖讗转讛 诪谉 讛诪砖讜专专讬诐 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛诪砖讜注专讬诐

The Gemara explains that this matter is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving Rabbi Yehoshua bar 岣nanya, a Levite, who went to Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Gudgeda, also a Levite, in order to assist in closing the doors of the Temple. Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Gudgeda said to him: My son, go back, as you are among the singers and not among the gatekeepers.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 诪讬转讛 讛讬讗 讜讙讝专讜 讘讛 专讘谞谉 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讝讛专讛 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 讙讝专讜 讘讛

The Gemara analyzes the baraita: What, is it not the case that these two Levite Sages disagree about this, that one Sage, Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Gudgeda, holds that if a Levite who is a singer closes the gate by himself, it is a prohibition punishable by death, and therefore the Sages decreed that a Levite who is a singer should not even assist the gatekeepers in closing the gates; and one Sage, Rabbi Yehoshua bar 岣nanya, holds that it is a prohibition that is not punishable by death, and therefore the Sages did not decree that a Levite who is a singer should not assist the gatekeepers in closing the gates?

讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讝讛专讛 讛讬讗 诪专 住讘专 诪住讬讬注 讙讝专讜 讘讬讛 专讘谞谉 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讘讬讛 专讘谞谉

The Gemara responds: No, that is not necessarily the correct analysis of the baraita. Rather, everyone agrees that one Levite performing another Levite鈥檚 task by himself is a prohibition that is not punishable by death. One Sage holds that the Sages nevertheless decreed that a Levite who is a singer should not even assist the gatekeepers, and one Sage holds that the Sages did not decree that a Levite who is a singer should not assist the gatekeepers in closing the gates.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 注讜诇转 谞讚讘转 爪讬讘讜专 讟注讜谞讛 砖讬专讛 讗讜 讗讬谞讛 讟注讜谞讛 砖讬专讛 注诇转讬讻诐 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讗讞转 注讜诇转 讞讜讘讛 讜讗讞转 注讜诇转 谞讚讘讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 注讜诇讜转讬讻诐 讚讻讜诇讛讜 讬砖专讗诇 拽讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗

Rabbi Avin raises a dilemma: Does a communal voluntary burnt offering require an accompanying song or does it not require song? He explains the two sides of the dilemma: The Merciful One states in the Torah: 鈥淵ou shall blow with the trumpets over your burnt offerings鈥 (Numbers 10:10). Does the term 鈥渂urnt offerings鈥 include both an obligatory burnt offering and a voluntary burnt offering, or perhaps the Merciful One is saying that the trumpets and song must accompany the burnt offerings of the entire Jewish people, i.e., they must be burnt offerings that are an obligation of the people?

转讗 砖诪注 讜讬讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛讜 诇讛注诇讜转 讛注讜诇讛 注诇 讛诪讝讘讞 讜讘注转 讛讞诇 讛注讜诇讛 讛讞诇 砖讬专 讛壮 讜讛讞爪讜爪专讜转 注诇 讬讚讬 讻诇讬 砖讬专 讚讜讚 诪诇讱 讬砖专讗诇 讛讗讬 砖讬专讛 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚注讜诇转 讞讜讘讛 诇诪讛 诇讬讛 讗讬诪诇讜讻讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚注讜诇转 谞讚讘讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a verse: 鈥淎nd Hezekiah commanded to offer the burnt offering upon the altar, and when the burnt offering began, the song of the Lord began also, and the trumpets, together with the instruments of David king of Israel鈥nd Hezekiah the king and the princes commanded the Levites to sing praises unto the Lord鈥 (II聽Chronicles 29:27鈥30). The Gemara analyzes the description of this service: This song, what was its purpose? If we say that it accompanied an obligatory burnt offering that was brought on that day, why did they have to seek authorization from Hezekiah? Why did Hezekiah need to issue a specific command that they should accompany this offering with song? Rather, is it not the case that this song served to accompany the voluntary burnt offering that Hezekiah brought on that day?

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 注讜诇转 专讗砖 讞讜讚砖 讛讜讛 讜拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讬 讛讜拽讘注 专讗砖 讞讚砖 讘讝诪谞讜 讚诇讬拽专讘 讗讜 诇讗

Rav Yosef said: No, that day was a New Moon, and it was the additional burnt offering of the New Moon, an obligatory burnt offering, that was accompanied by the song. As for the need for Hezekiah鈥檚 approval, the explanation is as follows: It was the thirtieth day following the previous New Moon, and they were asking him if the current New Moon was established in its time, i.e., on that day, so that the burnt offering of the New Moon should be sacrificed, or if the New Moon had not been declared on that day. Hezekiah clarified that the court had declared the New Moon, and therefore they should sacrifice the offering.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讛讻讬 讜讛讻转讬讘 讘讬讜诐 砖砖讛 注砖专 诇讞讚砖 讛专讗砖讜谉 讜讙讜壮 讜讬讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛讜 诇讛注诇讜转 讛注讜诇讛 注诇 讛诪讝讘讞

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: And how can you say that that day was the New Moon? Isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淥n the sixteenth day of the first month鈥 (II聽Chronicles 29:17), and later, in that context, it states: 鈥淎nd Hezekiah commanded to offer the burnt offering upon the altar鈥?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讬讘讗 讻讘砖 讛讘讗 注诐 讛注讜诪专 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讬 拽讘注 专讗砖 讞讚砖 讘讝诪谞讜 讚诇讬拽专讬讘 讗讜 诇讗

Rather, Rami, son of Rav Yeiva, said: The question they were asking Hezekiah referred to the obligatory, communal burnt offering lamb that comes with the omer, i.e., the barley offering brought on the sixteenth of the first month, Nisan. They asked: Was the New Moon of Nisan established in its correct time, which means that it is now in fact the sixteenth of Nisan and the omer offering and the lamb brought with it should be sacrificed, or was it not really the sixteenth of Nisan?

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗讜讬讗 讜诇讬讞讝讬 驻住讞 讛讬讻讬 注讘讬讚 诪爪讛 讛讬讻讬 讗讻讬诇

Rav Avya objects to this explanation: How is it possible that they were unsure whether it was the sixteenth of Nisan? Let them see how the Paschal offering was performed on the fourteenth of Nisan and how matza was eaten the following night. The day of the sixteenth of Nisan could easily be determined from when those mitzvot were performed.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗砖诇讬讞讗 讚爪讬讘讜专讗 讚诪诪诇讬讱 讛砖转讗 讚讗转讬转 诇讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 注讜诇转 讞讜讘讛 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗砖诇讬讞讗 讚爪讬讘讜专讗 讚诪诪诇讬讱

Rather, Rav Ashi said: They asked permission from Hezekiah before sacrificing the lamb that comes with the omer offering, just as it is with regard to a prayer leader, who, as a gesture of respect, asks permission from the congregation before leading them in prayer. Likewise, the people asked permission from Hezekiah as a formal gesture of respect, not because they required his advice. The Gemara notes: Now that you have arrived at this explanation, you may even say that it was a common obligatory burnt offering, e.g., the daily offering, and they asked permission of Hezekiah before sacrificing it, just as it is with regard to a prayer leader, who asks permission from the congregation before leading it in prayer.

转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪讙诇讙诇讬谉 讝讻讜转 诇讬讜诐 讝讻讗讬 讜讞讜讘讛 诇讬讜诐 讞讬讬讘

The Gemara has still not proven whether or not a communal voluntary burnt offering must be accompanied with song. The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the following baraita. Rabbi Yosei says: A fortunate matter is brought about on an auspicious day, and a deleterious matter on an inauspicious day.

讗诪专讜 讻砖讞专讘 讛讘讬转 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 转砖注讛 讘讗讘 讛讬讛 讜诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 讛讬讛 讜诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘讬注讬转 讛讬转讛 讜诪砖诪专转讜 砖诇 讬讛讜讬专讬讘 讛讬转讛 讜讛讬讜 讻讛谞讬诐 讜诇讜讬诐 注讜诪讚讬诐 注诇 讚讜讻谞谉 讜讗讜诪专讬诐 砖讬专讛 讜诪讛 砖讬专讛 讗诪专讜 讜讬砖讘 注诇讬讛诐 讗转 讗讜谞诐 讜讘专注转诐 讬爪诪讬转诐 讜诇讗 讛住驻讬拽讜 诇讜诪专 讬爪诪讬转诐 讛壮 讗诇讛讬谞讜 注讚 砖讘讗讜 讙讜讬诐 讜讻讘砖讜诐 讜讻谉 讘砖谞讬讛

As the Sages said: When the Temple was destroyed for the first time, that day was the Ninth of Av, a date on which several calamities had already occurred; and it was the conclusion of Shabbat, i.e., it was on the day after Shabbat, a Sunday; and it was the year after a Sabbatical Year; and it was the week of the priestly watch of Jehoiarib; and the priests and Levites were standing on their platform and singing song. And what song were they singing? They were singing the verse: 鈥淎nd He brought upon them their own iniquity, and He will cut them off in their own evil鈥 (Psalms 94:23). And they did not manage to recite the end of that verse: 鈥淭he Lord our God will cut them off,鈥 before gentiles came and conquered them. And likewise, the same happened when the Second Temple was destroyed.

讛讗讬 砖讬专讛 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讬讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚注讜诇转 讞讜讘讛 诪讬 讛讜讗讬 讘砖讘注讛 注砖专 讘转诪讜讝 讘讟诇 讛转诪讬讚 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚注讜诇转 谞讚讘讛

The Gemara analyzes the baraita: This song, what was its purpose? If we say that it accompanied an obligatory burnt offering, was there any obligatory communal burnt offering sacrificed at that time? The daily offering had already ceased to be sacrificed, due to a lack of animals, on the seventeenth of Tammuz, three weeks before the Ninth of Av. Rather, is it not correct to say that this song accompanied a voluntary burnt offering?

讜转住讘专讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讚注讜诇转 讞讜讘讛 讚诇讗 讛讜讗讬 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讚注讜诇转 谞讚讘讛 讚讛讜讗讬 讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讘谉 讘拽专 讗拽专讗讬 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚讗讬转专诪讬讗 诇讛讜

The Gemara asks: And can you understand this to be the case? What is different about an obligatory burnt offering, which was not sacrificed at this time because they did not have animals to bring, and what is different about a voluntary burnt offering, that it was sacrificed? Just as there were no animals available for obligatory offerings, there were none available for voluntary burnt offerings either. The Gemara answers: That is not difficult. A young bull, which cannot be sacrificed as the daily offering, for which lambs are required, happened to come into their possession merely by coincidence, and they sacrificed it as a voluntary burnt offering. This indicates that the Levites are required to sing as an accompaniment to the sacrifice of a communal voluntary burnt offering.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讗砖讬 讜转住讘专讗 砖讬专讛 讚讬讜诪讬讛 诇讛壮 讛讗专抓 讜诪诇讜讗讛 讜讬砖讘 注诇讬讛诐 讗转 讗讜谞诐 讘砖讬专 讚讗专讘注讛 讘砖讘转 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讗讬诇讬讬讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚谞驻诇 诇讛讜 讘驻讜诪讬讬讛讜

Rava said, and some say Rav Ashi said: And how can you understand the description of the destruction cited in the baraita? The song of the day for Sunday, which is when the baraita says that the Temple was destroyed, is the psalm that begins: 鈥淭he earth is the Lord鈥檚, and the fullness thereof鈥 (Psalms 24:1). And yet the verse that the baraita says that the Levites were singing, 鈥淎nd He brought upon them their own iniquity,鈥 is in the song for Wednesday, not the song for Sunday. Rather, it was merely a portentous lamentation [eiliyya] that came into their mouths, not an actual song recited over an offering.

讜讛讗 注讜诪讚讬谉 注诇 讚讜讻谞谉 拽转谞讬 讻讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 讗讜诪专 砖诇讗 注诇 讛拽专讘谉 讗讬 讛讻讬 讘注讜诇转 谞讚讘讛 谞诪讬 诇讬诪讗 谞驻讬拽 诪讬谞讛 讞讜专讘讗

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in the baraita that the Levites were standing on their platform near the altar, which is where they stood when they sang to accompany offerings? The Gemara answers: This can be explained in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish, who says: The Levites are permitted to recite songs on the platform even when it is not for an offering. The Gemara asks: If so, if the Levites may recite songs on the platform at will, let them also recite a song for a voluntary burnt offering, even if it is not required. The Gemara answers: That could result in a mishap, as the Levites might assume that just as singing for a voluntary burnt offering is optional, so too singing for an obligatory burnt offering is also optional.

诪讗讬 讛讜讛 注诇讛 转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 专讘 诪专讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 注诇 注诇转讬讻诐 讜注诇 讝讘讞讬 砖诇诪讬讻诐

The question of whether a song must be recited for a communal voluntary burnt offering has still not been resolved. The Gemara asks: What came of it, i.e., what is the resolution to that question? The Gemara responds: Come and hear a proof, as Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, teaches that the verse: 鈥淵ou shall blow with the trumpets over your burnt offerings, and over the sacrifices of your peace offerings鈥 (Numbers 10:10), juxtaposes burnt offerings to peace offerings, which indicates that there is a relevant comparison between them with regard to the sounding of trumpets, and, by extension, to song.

诪讛 注讜诇讛 拽讜讚砖 拽讚砖讬诐 讗祝 砖诇诪讬诐 拽讜讚砖 拽讚砖讬诐 讜诪讛 砖诇诪讬诐 拽讘讜注 诇讛诐 讝诪谉 讗祝 注讜诇讛 拽讘讜注 诇讛 讝诪谉

There are two conclusions that are to be drawn from this comparison: Just as the burnt offering is an offering of the most sacred order, so too, the peace offering that must be accompanied by song is one that is an offering of the most sacred order, and the only peace offering of this kind is the lambs that are brought together with the two loaves on Shavuot. And just as this peace offering has a set time when it must be brought, so too, the burnt offering that must be accompanied by song is one that has a set time, which excludes voluntary burnt offerings. Consequently, voluntary burnt offerings are not accompanied by song.

Scroll To Top