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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 28, 2019 | 讻状讛 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Arakhin 12

The gemara deals with a braita quoted earlier that talks about when the destruction of the two temples happened and specifically in which year of the shmita cycle. The gemara raises questions from other places where dates are discussed and the gemara tries to answer the discrepancies.


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

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 谞住讻讬诐 讛讘讗讬诐 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 砖讬专讛 讗讜 讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 砖讬专讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 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 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 注诇 讗讻讬诇讛 讜砖转讬讛 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗砖转讬讬讛 诇讞讜讚讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to libations that are brought by themselves, without an animal offering, do they require song on the part of the Levites as the libations are poured on the altar, or do they not require song? The Gemara explains the sides of the dilemma: Should it be assumed that since Shmuel bar Na岣ani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: From where is it derived that one recites a song of praise in the Temple only over wine, it can be inferred that we recite songs whenever wine is poured on the altar? Or perhaps we recite songs only upon the eating and drinking of the altar, i.e., when both an animal offering is burnt and a libation is also poured upon the altar, but upon the drinking of the altar alone, we do not recite songs.

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 讜讻讜壮

The Gemara seeks to resolve the dilemma through a baraita cited earlier. Come and hear: Rabbi Yosei says that a fortunate matter is brought about on an auspicious day, and a deleterious matter on an inauspicious day, e.g., the Ninth of Av, on which several tragedies have already occurred. As the Sages said: When the Temple was destroyed for the first time, that day was the Ninth of Av; and it was the conclusion of Shabbat; 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 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).

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 讛讜讛 讘砖讘注讛 注砖专 讘转诪讜讝 讘讟诇 讛转诪讬讚 讜讗诇讗 讚注讜诇转 谞讚讘讛 讜讛讗 转谞讬 专讘 诪专讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚谞住讻讬谉

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 ceased to be brought on the seventeenth of Tammuz, three weeks before the Ninth of Av. Rather, it would seem that this song accompanied a voluntary burnt offering. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, teach that a voluntary burnt offering does not require song? Rather, is it not the case that the song accompanied libations brought without an animal offering? This would prove that the Levites sing when a wine libation is brought, even without an animal 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 讘砖讬专讛 讚讗专讘注讛 讘砖讘讗 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 it was Rav Ashi who said: And can you understand that this song was recited over any offering? The song of the day for Sunday, which is when the baraita says that the Temple was destroyed, is the psalm beginning with the verse: 鈥淎 psalm of David. The 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 that came into their mouths, not a song recited over an offering. Consequently, no proof can be offered from this baraita.

讜讛讗 注讜诪讚讬诐 注诇 讚讜讻谞谉 拽转谞讬 讻讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讜诪专 砖讬专讛 砖诇讗 注诇 讛拽专讘谉 讗讬 讛讻讬 讘谞住讻讬诐 谞诪讬 诇讬诪讗 谞驻讬拽 诪讬谞讬讛 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 the place where they sing to accompany offerings? The Gemara answers: This can be explained in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish. As Reish Lakish says: The Levites are permitted to recite a song on the platform even when it is not for an offering. The Gemara asks: If so, let them also recite a song for libations that are brought without an animal offering, even if that is not required. The Gemara answers: This could result in a mishap, as the Levites might assume that just as singing for libations which are brought without an animal offering is optional, so too, singing for libations that accompany an animal offering is also optional.

讙讜驻讗 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 讜讻讜壮

搂 The Gemara discusses the matter itself cited in the baraita. Rabbi Yosei says: A fortunate matter is brought about on an auspicious day, and a deleterious matter on an inauspicious day. As the Sages said: When the Temple was destroyed for the first time, that day was the Ninth of Av; and it was the conclusion of Shabbat; and it was the year after a Sabbatical Year.

讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讘诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘讬注讬转 诪讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讜讛讻转讬讘 讘注砖专讬诐 讜讞诪砖 砖谞讛 诇讙诇讜转谞讜 讘专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讘注砖讜专 诇讞讚砖 讘讗专讘注 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讗讞专 讗砖专 讛讜讻转讛 讛注讬专 讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 砖谞讛 砖专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讘注砖讜专 诇讞讚砖 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 讬讜讘诇

The Gemara asks: Can you find such a possibility, that when the Temple was destroyed for the first time it was in the year after a Sabbatical Year? But isn鈥檛 it written in a verse that Ezekiel experienced a prophecy 鈥渋n the twenty-fifth year of our captivity, at the beginning of the year, on the tenth day of the month, in the fourteenth year after the city was smitten鈥 (Ezekiel 40:1)? Which is the year when the beginning of the year is on the tenth of the month? You must say that this is referring to the Jubilee, which begins on Yom Kippur, the tenth of Tishrei.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讘讞讚 讘砖讘讜注 讞专讜讘 诪讞讚 讘砖讘讜注 诇讞讚 讘砖讘讜注 转诪谞讬 诇讞讚 讘砖讘讜注 讗讞专讬谞讗 讞诪砖 注砖专讛 讛讜讜讬讬谉

But if it enters your mind to say that the Temple was destroyed in the first year of the Sabbatical cycle, it is impossible that the Jubilee, which follows a Sabbatical Year, occurred on the fourteenth year after the destruction of the Temple: Counting from the first year of the Sabbatical cycle to the next first year of the Sabbatical cycle, one arrives at year eight. If one continues to count to the first year of yet another Sabbatical cycle, it is the fifteenth year after the year of the destruction of the Temple, not the fourteenth year.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讘讗专讘注 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讗讞专 砖谞讛 砖讛讜讻转讛 讛注讬专

The Gemara answers: Ravina said: The meaning of the verse is that it was in the fourteenth year after the year that the city was smitten. The year of the destruction is not counted as year one of the fourteen years; rather, year one was the following year. The destruction took place in the thirty-sixth year of the Jubilee cycle, and therefore the Jubilee occurred fourteen years later.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讘注砖专讬诐 讜讞诪砖 砖谞讛 注砖专讬诐 讜砖砖 讛讜讬讬谉 讚讗诪专 诪专 讙诇讜 讘砖讘注 讙诇讜 讘砖诪讜谞讛

The Gemara objects: If so, when the verse states that Ezekiel鈥檚 prophecy fourteen years after the destruction of the Temple was in the twenty-fifth year of captivity, that is not precise; it was actually the twenty-sixth year of captivity. As the Master says in a baraita: The Jews were exiled first in Nebuchadnezzar鈥檚 seventh year, and they were also exiled first in Nebuchadnezzar鈥檚 eighth year. This first exile took place during Nebuchadnezzar鈥檚 eighth year counting from the beginning of his reign; it was Nebuchadnezzar鈥檚 seventh year counting from the year he subjugated Jehoiakim, king of Judah.

讙诇讜 讘砖诪讜谞讛 注砖专讛 讙诇讜 讘转砖注 注砖专讛

The baraita continues: They were then exiled a second time in Nebuchadnezzar鈥檚 eighteenth year, and they were exiled in Nebuchadnezzar鈥檚 nineteenth year, when the Temple was destroyed. This statement will be explained later.

诪砖讘 讜注讚 转诪谞讬 住专讬 讞讚 住专讬 讜讞诪砖 注砖专讛 注砖专讬诐 讜砖讬转 讛讜讬讗

The Gemara explains the objection: Now, from the seventh year, when the first exile occurred, until the eighteenth year, when the second exile occurred, in conjunction with the Temple鈥檚 destruction, is eleven years, not counting the year of the destruction, and an additional fifteen years, until the date mentioned in the verse in Ezekiel, equals twenty-six years from the first exile, not twenty-five.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讬谞讗 讜诇讚讬讚讱 诪讬 谞讬讞讗 诪讻讚讬 讙诇讜 谞诪讬 讘转砖注 注砖专讛 诪砖讘 讜注讚 转砖住专讬 转专转讬 住专讬 讜讗专讘注 住专讬 注砖专讬诐 讜砖讬转 讛讜讬讬谉 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专 诇讘专 诪砖转讗 讚讙诇讜 讘讛 诇讚讬讚讬 谞诪讬 诇讘专 诪砖转讗 讚讙诇讜 讘讛

The Gemara explains that Ravina could have said to you: And according to you, who maintains that the fourteen years mentioned in the verse include the year of the destruction of the Temple, does it work out well? Now, they were also exiled in the nineteenth year, and it was then that the Temple was destroyed. From the seventh year until the nineteenth year is twelve years, and an additional fourteen years until the date mentioned in the verse in Ezekiel equals twenty-six years from the first exile, not twenty-five. Rather, what have you to say? That the twenty-five years are counted separate from the year when they were exiled for the first time. According to my opinion also, I can say that the twenty-five years are separate from the year when they were exiled for the first time.

诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 转砖住专讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara objects: In any case, the assertion of the baraita that the destruction of the Temple occurred in the nineteenth year is difficult for Ravina, because there are eleven years from the first exile until the year of the destruction, not counting the year of the exile or the year of the destruction, and then an additional fifteen years, including the year of the destruction, until the date mentioned in the verse in Ezekiel, which is a total of twenty-six years, not twenty-five.

诪讬 住讘专转 砖诇砖 讙诇讬讜转 讛讜讬 讙诇讜 讘砖讘注 诇讻讬讘讜砖 讬讛讜讬拽讬诐 砖讛讬讗 砖诪讜谞讛 诇谞讘讜讻讚谞爪专 讙诇讜 讘砖诪讜谞讛 注砖专讛 诇讻讬讘讜砖 讬讛讜讬拽讬诐 砖讛讬讗 转砖注 注砖专讛 诇谞讘讜讻讚谞爪专

The Gemara explains: Do you hold that there were three separate exiles, one in the seventh or eighth year, a second one in the eighteenth year, and a third one in the nineteenth year? In truth there were only two exiles: They were exiled in the seventh year from Nebuchadnezzar鈥檚 subjugation of Jehoiakim, which was the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar鈥檚 reign. They were then exiled a second time, when the Temple was destroyed, in the eighteenth year from the subjugation of Jehoiakim, which was actually in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar鈥檚 reign. Consequently, there were eleven years from the first exile to the destruction of the Temple, not counting the year of the exile, and another fourteen years until the verse in Ezekiel, which equals a total of twenty-five years.

讚讗诪专 诪专 砖谞讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讻讬讘砖 谞讬谞讜讛

The Gemara corroborates its interpretation of the baraita. As the Master says: In the first year of his reign, Nebuchadnezzar conquered Nineveh;

砖谞讬讛 注诇讛 讜讻讬讘砖 讬讛讜讬拽讬诐

in his second year he ascended to Eretz Yisrael and conquered Jehoiakim.

讜讻谉 讘砖谞讬讛

搂 The Gemara continues its discussion of the baraita, which teaches: When the Temple was destroyed for the first time, that day was the Ninth of Av; and it was the conclusion of Shabbat; and it was the year after a Sabbatical Year; and likewise, the same happened when the Second Temple was destroyed.

讜砖谞讬讛 讘诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘讬注讬转 诪讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 诪讻讚讬 讘讬转 砖谞讬 讻诪讛 拽诐 讗专讘注 诪讗讛 讜注砖专讬诐 讗专讘注 诪讗讛 转诪谞讬讗 讬讜讘诇讬 讗专讘住专讬 转专讬 砖讘讜注 驻砖讜 诇讛讜 砖讬转 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讘砖讬转讗 讘砖讘讜注

The Gemara asks: Can you find such a possibility, that the Second Temple was destroyed in the year after a Sabbatical Year? Now, for how many years did the Second Temple stand? It stood for 420 years. Four hundred years include exactly eight Jubilees, as the Jubilee cycle is fifty years. An additional fourteen years consist of two Sabbatical cycles. There are six years remaining during which the Temple stood, which means that the last year was the sixth year of the Sabbatical cycle, and therefore when the Temple was destroyed the following year it was a Sabbatical Year, not the year after the Sabbatical Year.

讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 砖谞转 讞诪砖讬诐 注讜诇讛 诇讻讗谉 讜诇讻讗谉 讗讬讬转讬 转诪谞讬讗 诪转诪谞讬讗 讬讜讘诇讬 讜讛谞讬 砖讬转 讛讜讬 讗专讘讬住专 讗讬砖转讻讞 讚讘诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘讬注讬转 讞专讜讘

The Gemara answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita stated? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that the fiftieth year is counted for here and for there, i.e., it is both the Jubilee Year and the first year of the next Sabbatical cycle and Jubilee cycle, and therefore each Jubilee cycle is only forty-nine years rather than fifty years. Consequently, when calculating the number of years of the Sabbatical and Jubilee cycles until the destruction of the Second Temple, bring an additional eight years from the eight complete Jubilee cycles during which the Temple stood. The eight years and those six years that remained according to the previous calculation equal fourteen years, which are two complete Sabbatical cycles. Therefore, it is found that the Second Temple was destroyed in the year following the Sabbatical Year.

讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 诇讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 砖讘注讛 注砖专 讬讜讘诇讜转 诪谞讜 讬砖专讗诇 诪砖谞讻谞住讜 诇讗专抓 讜注讚 砖讬爪讗讜 讜讗讬 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诪砖注讛 砖谞讻谞住讜 诪谞讜 砖讗诐 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讻谉 谞诪爪讗 讘讬转 讞专讘 讘转讞讬诇转 讬讜讘诇 讜讗讬 讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 讘讗专讘注 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讗讞专 讗砖专 讛讻转讛 讛注讬专

The Gemara objects: But if one explains the baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, the first clause of the baraita is problematic, as you do not find that the first time the Temple was destroyed was in the year after the Sabbatical Year. As it is taught in a baraita: The Jewish people counted seventeen Jubilees from when they entered Eretz Yisrael until they left, when the First Temple was destroyed. And you cannot say that they counted from the time they entered, because if you say this, the result is that the Temple was destroyed at the beginning of the Jubilee cycle, and you do not find that the Jubilee Year was 鈥渋n the fourteenth year after the city was smitten鈥 (Ezekiel 40:1).

讗诇讗 爪讗 诪讛诐 砖讘注 砖讻讬讘砖讜 讜砖讘注 砖讞讬诇拽讜 讜讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 讘讗专讘注 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讗讞专 讗砖专 讛讻转讛 讛注讬专

Rather, remove from them the seven years when they conquered the land and the seven years when they divided the land, as they did not start counting the first Jubilee cycle until after those events. And you then find that the Jubilee Year was 鈥渋n the fourteenth year after the city was smitten.鈥

讜讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬讬转讬 砖讘住专讬 诪砖讘住专讬 讬讜讘诇讬 砖讚讬 讗讛谞讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讘转诇转讗 讘砖讘讜注

The Gemara explains the difficulty from this baraita: But if one holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, that each Jubilee cycle is forty-nine years rather than fifty years, you must bring an additional seventeen years, one from each of the seventeen Jubilee cycles and add them to these seventeen cycles, and it turns out that the destruction of the Temple was in the third year of the Sabbatical cycle.

讛谞讱 砖谞讬 讚讗讙诇讬谞讛讜 住谞讞专讬讘 注讚 讚讗转讗 讬专诪讬讛 讗讛讚专讬谞讛讜 诇讗 拽讞砖讬讘 诇讛讜

The Gemara answers: Throughout those years from when Sennacherib exiled the ten tribes until Jeremiah came and returned them to their land, they did not count the Jubilee cycle, as the Jubilee applies only when all twelve tribes are in their ancestral lands. When the exiles returned, a new Jubilee cycle was started, and the Temple was destroyed thirty-six years later, in the year after a Sabbatical Year.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 专讘谞谉 讜讻讬 拽转谞讬 讜讻谉 讘砖谞讬讛 讗砖讗专讗

The Gemara suggests a second answer to its question about the statement of the baraita which equates the destructions of the First Temple and the Second Temple. And if you wish, say instead: Actually, the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and when it teaches: And likewise, the same happened when the Second Temple was destroyed, it is not asserting that the Temple was destroyed in a year after a Sabbatical Year, because in fact the Second Temple was destroyed during a Sabbatical Year. Rather, it is referring to the other details the baraita provides with regard to the timing of the destruction, i.e., that it occurred on the Ninth of Av and on a Sunday.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 诪砖诪专转讜 砖诇 讬讛讜讬专讬讘 讘砖谞讬讛 诪讬 讛讜讗讬

The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable to conclude that not all of the details pertaining to the destruction of the First Temple also apply to the destruction of the Second Temple. As, if you do not say so, then with regard to the statement that the destruction occurred during the week of the priestly watch of Jehoiarib, was the priestly watch of Jehoiarib present during the time of the Second Temple?

讜讛转谞讬讗 讗专讘注 诪砖诪专讜转 注诇讜 诪谉 讛讙讜诇讛 讬讚注讬讛 讜讞专讬诐 驻砖讞讜专 讜讗讬诪专 注诪讚讜 谞讘讬讗讬诐 砖讘讬谞讬讛诐 讜讞诇拽讜诐 诇注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注 诪砖诪专讜转 讘诇诇讜诐 讜谞转谞讜诐 讘拽诇驻讬 讘讗 讬讚注讬讛 讜谞讟诇 讞诇拽讜 讜讞诇拽 讞讘讬专讬讜 砖砖

But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that the watch of Jehoiarib did not exist during the Second Temple era? As it is taught: Only four priestly watches ascended from the Babylonian exile, while the other twenty stayed in Babylonia. And these are the watches who returned: The descendants of Jedaiah, Harim, Pash岣r, and Immer. The prophets among those who returned arose and divided these four families into twenty-four watches. They achieved this as follows: They wrote the names of these new twenty-four watches on pieces of paper, mixed them up, and put them in a receptacle [kalpi] from which lots were drawn. A representative from the family of Jedaiah came and drew his portion and the lot of five other watches, for a total of six.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 12

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Arakhin 12

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 谞住讻讬诐 讛讘讗讬诐 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 砖讬专讛 讗讜 讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 砖讬专讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 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 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 注诇 讗讻讬诇讛 讜砖转讬讛 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗砖转讬讬讛 诇讞讜讚讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to libations that are brought by themselves, without an animal offering, do they require song on the part of the Levites as the libations are poured on the altar, or do they not require song? The Gemara explains the sides of the dilemma: Should it be assumed that since Shmuel bar Na岣ani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: From where is it derived that one recites a song of praise in the Temple only over wine, it can be inferred that we recite songs whenever wine is poured on the altar? Or perhaps we recite songs only upon the eating and drinking of the altar, i.e., when both an animal offering is burnt and a libation is also poured upon the altar, but upon the drinking of the altar alone, we do not recite songs.

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 讜讻讜壮

The Gemara seeks to resolve the dilemma through a baraita cited earlier. Come and hear: Rabbi Yosei says that a fortunate matter is brought about on an auspicious day, and a deleterious matter on an inauspicious day, e.g., the Ninth of Av, on which several tragedies have already occurred. As the Sages said: When the Temple was destroyed for the first time, that day was the Ninth of Av; and it was the conclusion of Shabbat; 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 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).

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 讛讜讛 讘砖讘注讛 注砖专 讘转诪讜讝 讘讟诇 讛转诪讬讚 讜讗诇讗 讚注讜诇转 谞讚讘讛 讜讛讗 转谞讬 专讘 诪专讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚谞住讻讬谉

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 ceased to be brought on the seventeenth of Tammuz, three weeks before the Ninth of Av. Rather, it would seem that this song accompanied a voluntary burnt offering. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, teach that a voluntary burnt offering does not require song? Rather, is it not the case that the song accompanied libations brought without an animal offering? This would prove that the Levites sing when a wine libation is brought, even without an animal 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 讘砖讬专讛 讚讗专讘注讛 讘砖讘讗 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 it was Rav Ashi who said: And can you understand that this song was recited over any offering? The song of the day for Sunday, which is when the baraita says that the Temple was destroyed, is the psalm beginning with the verse: 鈥淎 psalm of David. The 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 that came into their mouths, not a song recited over an offering. Consequently, no proof can be offered from this baraita.

讜讛讗 注讜诪讚讬诐 注诇 讚讜讻谞谉 拽转谞讬 讻讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讜诪专 砖讬专讛 砖诇讗 注诇 讛拽专讘谉 讗讬 讛讻讬 讘谞住讻讬诐 谞诪讬 诇讬诪讗 谞驻讬拽 诪讬谞讬讛 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 the place where they sing to accompany offerings? The Gemara answers: This can be explained in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish. As Reish Lakish says: The Levites are permitted to recite a song on the platform even when it is not for an offering. The Gemara asks: If so, let them also recite a song for libations that are brought without an animal offering, even if that is not required. The Gemara answers: This could result in a mishap, as the Levites might assume that just as singing for libations which are brought without an animal offering is optional, so too, singing for libations that accompany an animal offering is also optional.

讙讜驻讗 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 讜讻讜壮

搂 The Gemara discusses the matter itself cited in the baraita. Rabbi Yosei says: A fortunate matter is brought about on an auspicious day, and a deleterious matter on an inauspicious day. As the Sages said: When the Temple was destroyed for the first time, that day was the Ninth of Av; and it was the conclusion of Shabbat; and it was the year after a Sabbatical Year.

讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讘诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘讬注讬转 诪讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讜讛讻转讬讘 讘注砖专讬诐 讜讞诪砖 砖谞讛 诇讙诇讜转谞讜 讘专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讘注砖讜专 诇讞讚砖 讘讗专讘注 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讗讞专 讗砖专 讛讜讻转讛 讛注讬专 讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 砖谞讛 砖专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讘注砖讜专 诇讞讚砖 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 讬讜讘诇

The Gemara asks: Can you find such a possibility, that when the Temple was destroyed for the first time it was in the year after a Sabbatical Year? But isn鈥檛 it written in a verse that Ezekiel experienced a prophecy 鈥渋n the twenty-fifth year of our captivity, at the beginning of the year, on the tenth day of the month, in the fourteenth year after the city was smitten鈥 (Ezekiel 40:1)? Which is the year when the beginning of the year is on the tenth of the month? You must say that this is referring to the Jubilee, which begins on Yom Kippur, the tenth of Tishrei.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讘讞讚 讘砖讘讜注 讞专讜讘 诪讞讚 讘砖讘讜注 诇讞讚 讘砖讘讜注 转诪谞讬 诇讞讚 讘砖讘讜注 讗讞专讬谞讗 讞诪砖 注砖专讛 讛讜讜讬讬谉

But if it enters your mind to say that the Temple was destroyed in the first year of the Sabbatical cycle, it is impossible that the Jubilee, which follows a Sabbatical Year, occurred on the fourteenth year after the destruction of the Temple: Counting from the first year of the Sabbatical cycle to the next first year of the Sabbatical cycle, one arrives at year eight. If one continues to count to the first year of yet another Sabbatical cycle, it is the fifteenth year after the year of the destruction of the Temple, not the fourteenth year.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讘讗专讘注 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讗讞专 砖谞讛 砖讛讜讻转讛 讛注讬专

The Gemara answers: Ravina said: The meaning of the verse is that it was in the fourteenth year after the year that the city was smitten. The year of the destruction is not counted as year one of the fourteen years; rather, year one was the following year. The destruction took place in the thirty-sixth year of the Jubilee cycle, and therefore the Jubilee occurred fourteen years later.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讘注砖专讬诐 讜讞诪砖 砖谞讛 注砖专讬诐 讜砖砖 讛讜讬讬谉 讚讗诪专 诪专 讙诇讜 讘砖讘注 讙诇讜 讘砖诪讜谞讛

The Gemara objects: If so, when the verse states that Ezekiel鈥檚 prophecy fourteen years after the destruction of the Temple was in the twenty-fifth year of captivity, that is not precise; it was actually the twenty-sixth year of captivity. As the Master says in a baraita: The Jews were exiled first in Nebuchadnezzar鈥檚 seventh year, and they were also exiled first in Nebuchadnezzar鈥檚 eighth year. This first exile took place during Nebuchadnezzar鈥檚 eighth year counting from the beginning of his reign; it was Nebuchadnezzar鈥檚 seventh year counting from the year he subjugated Jehoiakim, king of Judah.

讙诇讜 讘砖诪讜谞讛 注砖专讛 讙诇讜 讘转砖注 注砖专讛

The baraita continues: They were then exiled a second time in Nebuchadnezzar鈥檚 eighteenth year, and they were exiled in Nebuchadnezzar鈥檚 nineteenth year, when the Temple was destroyed. This statement will be explained later.

诪砖讘 讜注讚 转诪谞讬 住专讬 讞讚 住专讬 讜讞诪砖 注砖专讛 注砖专讬诐 讜砖讬转 讛讜讬讗

The Gemara explains the objection: Now, from the seventh year, when the first exile occurred, until the eighteenth year, when the second exile occurred, in conjunction with the Temple鈥檚 destruction, is eleven years, not counting the year of the destruction, and an additional fifteen years, until the date mentioned in the verse in Ezekiel, equals twenty-six years from the first exile, not twenty-five.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讬谞讗 讜诇讚讬讚讱 诪讬 谞讬讞讗 诪讻讚讬 讙诇讜 谞诪讬 讘转砖注 注砖专讛 诪砖讘 讜注讚 转砖住专讬 转专转讬 住专讬 讜讗专讘注 住专讬 注砖专讬诐 讜砖讬转 讛讜讬讬谉 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专 诇讘专 诪砖转讗 讚讙诇讜 讘讛 诇讚讬讚讬 谞诪讬 诇讘专 诪砖转讗 讚讙诇讜 讘讛

The Gemara explains that Ravina could have said to you: And according to you, who maintains that the fourteen years mentioned in the verse include the year of the destruction of the Temple, does it work out well? Now, they were also exiled in the nineteenth year, and it was then that the Temple was destroyed. From the seventh year until the nineteenth year is twelve years, and an additional fourteen years until the date mentioned in the verse in Ezekiel equals twenty-six years from the first exile, not twenty-five. Rather, what have you to say? That the twenty-five years are counted separate from the year when they were exiled for the first time. According to my opinion also, I can say that the twenty-five years are separate from the year when they were exiled for the first time.

诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 转砖住专讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara objects: In any case, the assertion of the baraita that the destruction of the Temple occurred in the nineteenth year is difficult for Ravina, because there are eleven years from the first exile until the year of the destruction, not counting the year of the exile or the year of the destruction, and then an additional fifteen years, including the year of the destruction, until the date mentioned in the verse in Ezekiel, which is a total of twenty-six years, not twenty-five.

诪讬 住讘专转 砖诇砖 讙诇讬讜转 讛讜讬 讙诇讜 讘砖讘注 诇讻讬讘讜砖 讬讛讜讬拽讬诐 砖讛讬讗 砖诪讜谞讛 诇谞讘讜讻讚谞爪专 讙诇讜 讘砖诪讜谞讛 注砖专讛 诇讻讬讘讜砖 讬讛讜讬拽讬诐 砖讛讬讗 转砖注 注砖专讛 诇谞讘讜讻讚谞爪专

The Gemara explains: Do you hold that there were three separate exiles, one in the seventh or eighth year, a second one in the eighteenth year, and a third one in the nineteenth year? In truth there were only two exiles: They were exiled in the seventh year from Nebuchadnezzar鈥檚 subjugation of Jehoiakim, which was the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar鈥檚 reign. They were then exiled a second time, when the Temple was destroyed, in the eighteenth year from the subjugation of Jehoiakim, which was actually in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar鈥檚 reign. Consequently, there were eleven years from the first exile to the destruction of the Temple, not counting the year of the exile, and another fourteen years until the verse in Ezekiel, which equals a total of twenty-five years.

讚讗诪专 诪专 砖谞讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讻讬讘砖 谞讬谞讜讛

The Gemara corroborates its interpretation of the baraita. As the Master says: In the first year of his reign, Nebuchadnezzar conquered Nineveh;

砖谞讬讛 注诇讛 讜讻讬讘砖 讬讛讜讬拽讬诐

in his second year he ascended to Eretz Yisrael and conquered Jehoiakim.

讜讻谉 讘砖谞讬讛

搂 The Gemara continues its discussion of the baraita, which teaches: When the Temple was destroyed for the first time, that day was the Ninth of Av; and it was the conclusion of Shabbat; and it was the year after a Sabbatical Year; and likewise, the same happened when the Second Temple was destroyed.

讜砖谞讬讛 讘诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘讬注讬转 诪讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 诪讻讚讬 讘讬转 砖谞讬 讻诪讛 拽诐 讗专讘注 诪讗讛 讜注砖专讬诐 讗专讘注 诪讗讛 转诪谞讬讗 讬讜讘诇讬 讗专讘住专讬 转专讬 砖讘讜注 驻砖讜 诇讛讜 砖讬转 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讘砖讬转讗 讘砖讘讜注

The Gemara asks: Can you find such a possibility, that the Second Temple was destroyed in the year after a Sabbatical Year? Now, for how many years did the Second Temple stand? It stood for 420 years. Four hundred years include exactly eight Jubilees, as the Jubilee cycle is fifty years. An additional fourteen years consist of two Sabbatical cycles. There are six years remaining during which the Temple stood, which means that the last year was the sixth year of the Sabbatical cycle, and therefore when the Temple was destroyed the following year it was a Sabbatical Year, not the year after the Sabbatical Year.

讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 砖谞转 讞诪砖讬诐 注讜诇讛 诇讻讗谉 讜诇讻讗谉 讗讬讬转讬 转诪谞讬讗 诪转诪谞讬讗 讬讜讘诇讬 讜讛谞讬 砖讬转 讛讜讬 讗专讘讬住专 讗讬砖转讻讞 讚讘诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘讬注讬转 讞专讜讘

The Gemara answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita stated? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that the fiftieth year is counted for here and for there, i.e., it is both the Jubilee Year and the first year of the next Sabbatical cycle and Jubilee cycle, and therefore each Jubilee cycle is only forty-nine years rather than fifty years. Consequently, when calculating the number of years of the Sabbatical and Jubilee cycles until the destruction of the Second Temple, bring an additional eight years from the eight complete Jubilee cycles during which the Temple stood. The eight years and those six years that remained according to the previous calculation equal fourteen years, which are two complete Sabbatical cycles. Therefore, it is found that the Second Temple was destroyed in the year following the Sabbatical Year.

讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 诇讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 砖讘注讛 注砖专 讬讜讘诇讜转 诪谞讜 讬砖专讗诇 诪砖谞讻谞住讜 诇讗专抓 讜注讚 砖讬爪讗讜 讜讗讬 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诪砖注讛 砖谞讻谞住讜 诪谞讜 砖讗诐 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讻谉 谞诪爪讗 讘讬转 讞专讘 讘转讞讬诇转 讬讜讘诇 讜讗讬 讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 讘讗专讘注 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讗讞专 讗砖专 讛讻转讛 讛注讬专

The Gemara objects: But if one explains the baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, the first clause of the baraita is problematic, as you do not find that the first time the Temple was destroyed was in the year after the Sabbatical Year. As it is taught in a baraita: The Jewish people counted seventeen Jubilees from when they entered Eretz Yisrael until they left, when the First Temple was destroyed. And you cannot say that they counted from the time they entered, because if you say this, the result is that the Temple was destroyed at the beginning of the Jubilee cycle, and you do not find that the Jubilee Year was 鈥渋n the fourteenth year after the city was smitten鈥 (Ezekiel 40:1).

讗诇讗 爪讗 诪讛诐 砖讘注 砖讻讬讘砖讜 讜砖讘注 砖讞讬诇拽讜 讜讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 讘讗专讘注 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讗讞专 讗砖专 讛讻转讛 讛注讬专

Rather, remove from them the seven years when they conquered the land and the seven years when they divided the land, as they did not start counting the first Jubilee cycle until after those events. And you then find that the Jubilee Year was 鈥渋n the fourteenth year after the city was smitten.鈥

讜讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬讬转讬 砖讘住专讬 诪砖讘住专讬 讬讜讘诇讬 砖讚讬 讗讛谞讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讘转诇转讗 讘砖讘讜注

The Gemara explains the difficulty from this baraita: But if one holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, that each Jubilee cycle is forty-nine years rather than fifty years, you must bring an additional seventeen years, one from each of the seventeen Jubilee cycles and add them to these seventeen cycles, and it turns out that the destruction of the Temple was in the third year of the Sabbatical cycle.

讛谞讱 砖谞讬 讚讗讙诇讬谞讛讜 住谞讞专讬讘 注讚 讚讗转讗 讬专诪讬讛 讗讛讚专讬谞讛讜 诇讗 拽讞砖讬讘 诇讛讜

The Gemara answers: Throughout those years from when Sennacherib exiled the ten tribes until Jeremiah came and returned them to their land, they did not count the Jubilee cycle, as the Jubilee applies only when all twelve tribes are in their ancestral lands. When the exiles returned, a new Jubilee cycle was started, and the Temple was destroyed thirty-six years later, in the year after a Sabbatical Year.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 专讘谞谉 讜讻讬 拽转谞讬 讜讻谉 讘砖谞讬讛 讗砖讗专讗

The Gemara suggests a second answer to its question about the statement of the baraita which equates the destructions of the First Temple and the Second Temple. And if you wish, say instead: Actually, the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and when it teaches: And likewise, the same happened when the Second Temple was destroyed, it is not asserting that the Temple was destroyed in a year after a Sabbatical Year, because in fact the Second Temple was destroyed during a Sabbatical Year. Rather, it is referring to the other details the baraita provides with regard to the timing of the destruction, i.e., that it occurred on the Ninth of Av and on a Sunday.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 诪砖诪专转讜 砖诇 讬讛讜讬专讬讘 讘砖谞讬讛 诪讬 讛讜讗讬

The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable to conclude that not all of the details pertaining to the destruction of the First Temple also apply to the destruction of the Second Temple. As, if you do not say so, then with regard to the statement that the destruction occurred during the week of the priestly watch of Jehoiarib, was the priestly watch of Jehoiarib present during the time of the Second Temple?

讜讛转谞讬讗 讗专讘注 诪砖诪专讜转 注诇讜 诪谉 讛讙讜诇讛 讬讚注讬讛 讜讞专讬诐 驻砖讞讜专 讜讗讬诪专 注诪讚讜 谞讘讬讗讬诐 砖讘讬谞讬讛诐 讜讞诇拽讜诐 诇注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注 诪砖诪专讜转 讘诇诇讜诐 讜谞转谞讜诐 讘拽诇驻讬 讘讗 讬讚注讬讛 讜谞讟诇 讞诇拽讜 讜讞诇拽 讞讘讬专讬讜 砖砖

But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that the watch of Jehoiarib did not exist during the Second Temple era? As it is taught: Only four priestly watches ascended from the Babylonian exile, while the other twenty stayed in Babylonia. And these are the watches who returned: The descendants of Jedaiah, Harim, Pash岣r, and Immer. The prophets among those who returned arose and divided these four families into twenty-four watches. They achieved this as follows: They wrote the names of these new twenty-four watches on pieces of paper, mixed them up, and put them in a receptacle [kalpi] from which lots were drawn. A representative from the family of Jedaiah came and drew his portion and the lot of five other watches, for a total of six.

Scroll To Top