Today's Daf Yomi
August 26, 2021 | י״ח באלול תשפ״א
Masechet Sukkah is sponsored by Jonathan Katz in memory of his mother Margaret Katz (Ruth bat Avraham).
A month of shiurim are sponsored by Terri Krivosha for a refuah shleima for her beloved husband Rabbi Hayim Herring.
And for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah.
-
This month's learning is sponsored by the students at the Emerging Scholars of Yeshivat Maharat in honor of Rabbanit Michelle and all your work!
Sukkah 50
Today’s daf is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of the 4th yahrzeit of her father, Hershel Tzvi Shlomo Chaim ben Pesach and Dina Sara. When Judi was growing up in Pennsylvania, her family joked that it always rained on Sukkot. Her father passed away in Florida during Hurricane Irma. So it seems particularly fitting to remember him while learning Masechet Sukkah (even though it is not the rainy season in Israel). And for the yahrzeit of the Maharal, Judah Loew ben Bezalel.
The water libations override Shabbat, but there is one difference – the water is collected in a vessel that is not sanctified so that it will not be disqualified overnight. Why? After all, without intention, the vessel does not sanctify its contents so one should be able to put it in the vessel with the intent that it only becomes sanctified the following day! And there is a requisite amount so if there were to put a larger amount in the vessel, it would not become sanctified as the vessel only sanctifies when the proper amount is in it. Three possible answers are brought. If the water is left uncovered, it is invalid. Why is it not possible to take out the snake venom in a strainer? Is it because the mishna doesn’t hold like Rabbi Nechemiah who claims that venom can be removed by a strainer? The mishna mentions the playing of the flute in the Shoeva Celebration. Is the wording in the mishna “Shoeva celebration” or “Important celebration”?? Why would this event be called by these names? They used to play the flute in the temple during the Simchat Beit Hashoeva for five or six days because they do not play it on Yom Tov and Shabbat. This opinion is not agreed upon by everyone – Rabbi Yossi Bar Yehuda thinks that it also overrides Shabbat. However, Rav Yosef holds that his opinion and the debate between him and the rabbis concerns the flute that accompanied the daily sacrifice (12 days a year, including Sukkot) and not the flute of the Simchat Beit Hashoeva which clearly would not override Shabbat. The debate is whether the main part of the music is the singing or the instruments. He tries to prove that this is the root of their debate by bringing a different debate of Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda regarding wooden utensils – can they be used for sanctified utensils in the Temple or not – and tries to learn it from the wooden flute of Moshe. The gemara rejects his proof as it is possible to understand that the controversy there stems from another matter (two other possibilities are raised).
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Podcast (דף יומי לנשים - עברית): Play in new window | Download
ואי מייתי במקודשת איפסילו להו בלינה חזקיה אמר כלי שרת אין מקדשין אלא מדעת וגזירה שמא יאמרו לדעת נתקדשו
And if he brings the water in a consecrated barrel, the water will become disqualified for use in the libation by remaining overnight, just as all consecrated items, e.g., offerings, are rendered unfit after remaining overnight. Ḥizkiya said: Temple vessels consecrate only with specific intent. Therefore, in theory, one could bring water to the Temple in a consecrated vessel, provided he has no intent to consecrate it. And the reason one may not do so is due to a rabbinic decree lest people say, upon seeing the water poured in the morning, that the water was intentionally consecrated. In that case, they might draw the mistaken conclusion that remaining overnight does not disqualify liquids for use in libations.
אמר רבי ינאי אמר רבי זירא אפילו תימא יש שיעור למים וכלי שרת אין מקדשין אלא מדעת וגזירה שמא יאמרו לקידוש ידים ורגלים מלאן
Rabbi Yannai said that Rabbi Zeira said: Even if you say that there is a requisite measure for the water to be poured for libation and no more than three log can be consecrated, and that Temple vessels consecrate only with intent, here there is a rabbinic decree lest they say the barrel was filled with water for sanctifying the hands and the feet of the priest, for which there is no measure. Then, when they see the water poured in the morning, they will draw the mistaken conclusion that remaining overnight does not disqualify liquids for use in libations.
נשפכה או נתגלתה כו׳ ואמאי ליעביר במסננת לימא מתניתין דלא כרבי נחמיה דתניא מסננת יש בו משום גילוי אמר רבי נחמיה אימתי בזמן שהתחתונה מגולה אבל בזמן שהתחתונה מכוסה אף על פי שהעליונה מגולה אין בה משום גילוי מפני שארס נחש דומה לספוג צף ועומד במקומו
§ The mishna continues: If the water in the barrel spilled or was exposed overnight, the water is disqualified. The Gemara asks: Why is the water disqualified? Let him pass it through a strainer, eliminating the poison. Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya, as it was taught in a baraita: A vessel covered with a strainer is subject to the halakha of exposure if the vessel is left unsupervised. Rabbi Neḥemya said: When is this so? It is when the lower vessel, in which the liquid collects after passing through the strainer, is exposed. However, if the lower vessel is covered, even if the upper vessel is exposed, it is not subject to the halakha of exposure, because the poison of a snake is like a sponge in that it floats and stays in place.
אפילו תימא רבי נחמיה אימר דאמר רבי נחמיה להדיוט אבל לגבוה מי אמר ולית ליה לרבי נחמיה הקריבהו נא לפחתך הירצך או הישא פניך אמר ה׳ צבאות
The Gemara answers: Even if you say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya, say that Rabbi Neḥemya said his opinion permitting strained water for a common person. However, did he actually say that strained water is permitted even to be sacrificed to God? Even if it is possible to render this water potable, it is certainly not of the select quality that would render it eligible for use in the Temple service. Isn’t Rabbi Neḥemya of the opinion that it is inappropriate to sacrifice on the altar any item that one would not give to someone of prominent stature? As it is stated: “And when you offer the blind for sacrifice, it is no evil; and when you offer the lame and sick, it is no evil. Present it now unto your governor; will he be pleased with you or will he accept your person, says the Lord of hosts” (Malachi 1:8).
הדרן עלך לולב וערבה
מתני׳ החליל חמשה וששה זהו החליל של בית השואבה שאינו דוחה לא את השבת ולא את יום טוב
MISHNA: The flute is played on the festival of Sukkot for five or six days. This is the flute of the Place of the Drawing of the Water, whose playing overrides neither Shabbat nor the Festival. Therefore, if the first Festival day occurred on Shabbat, they would play the flute for six days that year. However, if Shabbat coincided with one of the intermediate days of the Festival, they would play the flute for only five days.
גמ׳ איתמר רב יהודה ורב עינא חד תני שואבה וחד תני חשובה אמר מר זוטרא מאן דתני שואבה לא משתבש ומאן דתני חשובה לא משתבש מאן דתני שואבה לא משתבש דכתיב ושאבתם מים בששון ומאן דתני חשובה לא משתבש דאמר רב נחמן מצוה חשובה היא ובאה מששת ימי בראשית
GEMARA: It was stated that Rav Yehuda and Rav Eina disagreed: One of them teaches that the celebration was called the Celebration of Drawing [sho’eva] and one of them teaches that it was called the significant [ḥashuva] celebration. Mar Zutra said: The one who taught sho’eva is not mistaken, and the one who taught ḥashuva is not mistaken. The one who taught sho’eva is not mistaken, as it is written: “And you shall draw [ushavtem] water with joy from the wells of salvation” (Isaiah 12:3), and its name reflects the fact that it is a celebration of the water libation. And the one who taught ḥashuva is not mistaken, as Rav Naḥman said: It is a significant mitzva and it originated from the six days of Creation.
תנו רבנן החליל דוחה את השבת דברי רבי יוסי בר יהודה וחכמים אומרים אף יום טוב אינו דוחה אמר רב יוסף מחלוקת בשיר של קרבן דרבי יוסי סבר עיקר שירה בכלי ועבודה היא ודוחה את השבת ורבנן סברי עיקר שירה בפה ולאו עבודה היא ואינה דוחה את השבת אבל שיר של שואבה דברי הכל שמחה היא ואינה דוחה את השבת
§ The Sages taught: The flute overrides Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: It does not override even a Festival. Rav Yosef said: The dispute is with regard to the song that the Levites sang accompanying the daily offering. As Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda holds that the primary essence of song is the accompaniment by musical instruments, and consequently these instruments are a component of the Temple service and override Shabbat. The Rabbis hold that the primary essence of song is singing with the mouth, and consequently the instruments are not a component of the service; they merely accompany the singing on occasion and therefore they do not override Shabbat. However, with regard to the song of the Drawing of the Water, everyone agrees that it is rejoicing and not a component of the Temple service; therefore it does not override Shabbat.
אמר רב יוסף מנא אמינא דבהא פליגי דתניא כלי שרת שעשאן של עץ רבי פוסל ורבי יוסי בר יהודה מכשיר מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי מאן דמכשיר סבר עיקר שירה בכלי וילפינן מאבובא דמשה ומאן דפסיל סבר עיקר שירה בפה ולא ילפינן מאבובא דמשה
Rav Yosef said: From where do I say that they disagree about this matter? It is as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to Temple service vessels that one crafted of wood, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems them unfit and Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda deems them fit. What, is it not that they disagree with regard to this matter? The one who deems the wooden vessel fit holds that the primary essence of song is accompaniment by musical instruments, and we derive that sacred vessels may be crafted of wood from the wooden flute of Moses, which according to this opinion was a service vessel. And the one who deems the wooden vessel unfit holds that the primary essence of song is singing with the mouth, and therefore we do not derive any halakha relevant to service vessels from the wooden flute of Moses, as according to this opinion it was not a service vessel. The Gemara rejects this explanation of the baraita.
לא דכולי עלמא עיקר שירה בכלי והכא בדנין אפשר משאי אפשר קמיפלגי מאן דמכשיר סבר דנין אפשר משאי אפשר ומאן דפסיל סבר לא דנין אפשר משאי אפשר
No, that is not necessarily the matter that they dispute, as one could say that everyone agrees: The primary essence of song is singing accompanied by musical instruments. And here, it is with regard to whether one derives the possible from the impossible that they disagree. Can one establish a principle that applies in all cases based on a case with a unique aspect? The one who deems wooden service vessels fit holds that one derives the possible, i.e., Temple service vessels, from the impossible, i.e., the flute of Moses. Although there was no alternative to crafting the flute of Moses from wood, one may derive from this that sacred service vessels, even when the alternative to craft them from metal exists, may be crafted from wood. And the one who deems wooden service vessels unfit holds that one does not derive the possible from the impossible.
ואיבעית אימא דכולי עלמא דעיקר שירה בפה ואין דנין אפשר משאי אפשר והכא במילף מנורה בכללי ופרטי או ברבויי ומיעוטי קא מיפלגי רבי דריש כללי ופרטי רבי יוסי בר יהודה דריש ריבויי ומיעוטי
And if you wish, say instead in rejection of Rav Yosef’s proof that everyone agrees that the primary essence of song is singing with the mouth, and one does not derive the possible from the impossible. And here, it is with regard to deriving the halakhot of the Temple candelabrum by means of the hermeneutic principle of generalizations and details or by means of the principle of amplifications and restrictions that they disagree. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi interprets verses by means of the principle of generalizations and details, and Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda interprets verses by means of the principle of amplifications and restrictions.
רבי דריש כללי ופרטי ועשית מנורת כלל זהב טהור פרט מקשה תעשה המנורה חזר וכלל כלל ופרט וכלל אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט מה הפרט מפורש של מתכת אף כל של מתכת
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi interprets the verse “And you shall make a candelabrum of pure gold: of beaten work shall the candelabrum be made” (Exodus 25:31), by means of the principle of generalizations and details. “And you shall make a candelabrum of,” is a generalization, as the material of the candelabrum is not specified; “pure gold,” that is a detail, limiting the material exclusively to gold; “of beaten work shall the candelabrum be made,” the verse then generalized again. The result is a generalization and a detail and a generalization, from which you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items that are similar to the detail; just as the detail is explicit that the candelabrum is crafted from gold, which is a metal, so too all other materials used in crafting the candelabrum must be of metal. The candelabrum is a prototype for all other Temple service vessels.
רבי יוסי בר יהודה דריש ריבויי ומיעוטי ועשית מנורת ריבה זהב טהור מיעט מקשה תעשה המנורה חזר וריבה ריבה ומיעט וריבה ריבה הכל מאי רבי רבי כל מילי מאי מיעט מיעט של חרס
Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda, however, who deems wooden Temple service vessels fit, interprets verses by means of the principle of amplifications and restrictions. “And you shall make a candelabrum of,” is an amplification, as the material of the candelabrum is not specified; “pure gold,” is a restriction, limiting the material exclusively to gold; “of beaten work shall the candelabrum be made,” the verse repeated and amplified. The result is amplification and restriction and amplification, from which one derives to amplify all items except for those items most dissimilar to the restriction. What did the verse amplify? It amplified all materials, even wood. And what did the verse exclude with this restriction? It excluded a candelabrum crafted of earthenware.
אמר רב פפא
Rav Pappa said: Rav Yosef stated that the dispute between Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda and the Rabbis concerning whether or not the flute overrides Shabbat and Festivals is based on the significance and the role of song in the sacrifice of offerings.
-
This month's learning is sponsored by the students at the Emerging Scholars of Yeshivat Maharat in honor of Rabbanit Michelle and all your work!
Subscribe to Hadran's Daf Yomi
Want to explore more about the Daf?
See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners
Sukkah 50
The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria
ואי מייתי במקודשת איפסילו להו בלינה חזקיה אמר כלי שרת אין מקדשין אלא מדעת וגזירה שמא יאמרו לדעת נתקדשו
And if he brings the water in a consecrated barrel, the water will become disqualified for use in the libation by remaining overnight, just as all consecrated items, e.g., offerings, are rendered unfit after remaining overnight. Ḥizkiya said: Temple vessels consecrate only with specific intent. Therefore, in theory, one could bring water to the Temple in a consecrated vessel, provided he has no intent to consecrate it. And the reason one may not do so is due to a rabbinic decree lest people say, upon seeing the water poured in the morning, that the water was intentionally consecrated. In that case, they might draw the mistaken conclusion that remaining overnight does not disqualify liquids for use in libations.
אמר רבי ינאי אמר רבי זירא אפילו תימא יש שיעור למים וכלי שרת אין מקדשין אלא מדעת וגזירה שמא יאמרו לקידוש ידים ורגלים מלאן
Rabbi Yannai said that Rabbi Zeira said: Even if you say that there is a requisite measure for the water to be poured for libation and no more than three log can be consecrated, and that Temple vessels consecrate only with intent, here there is a rabbinic decree lest they say the barrel was filled with water for sanctifying the hands and the feet of the priest, for which there is no measure. Then, when they see the water poured in the morning, they will draw the mistaken conclusion that remaining overnight does not disqualify liquids for use in libations.
נשפכה או נתגלתה כו׳ ואמאי ליעביר במסננת לימא מתניתין דלא כרבי נחמיה דתניא מסננת יש בו משום גילוי אמר רבי נחמיה אימתי בזמן שהתחתונה מגולה אבל בזמן שהתחתונה מכוסה אף על פי שהעליונה מגולה אין בה משום גילוי מפני שארס נחש דומה לספוג צף ועומד במקומו
§ The mishna continues: If the water in the barrel spilled or was exposed overnight, the water is disqualified. The Gemara asks: Why is the water disqualified? Let him pass it through a strainer, eliminating the poison. Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya, as it was taught in a baraita: A vessel covered with a strainer is subject to the halakha of exposure if the vessel is left unsupervised. Rabbi Neḥemya said: When is this so? It is when the lower vessel, in which the liquid collects after passing through the strainer, is exposed. However, if the lower vessel is covered, even if the upper vessel is exposed, it is not subject to the halakha of exposure, because the poison of a snake is like a sponge in that it floats and stays in place.
אפילו תימא רבי נחמיה אימר דאמר רבי נחמיה להדיוט אבל לגבוה מי אמר ולית ליה לרבי נחמיה הקריבהו נא לפחתך הירצך או הישא פניך אמר ה׳ צבאות
The Gemara answers: Even if you say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya, say that Rabbi Neḥemya said his opinion permitting strained water for a common person. However, did he actually say that strained water is permitted even to be sacrificed to God? Even if it is possible to render this water potable, it is certainly not of the select quality that would render it eligible for use in the Temple service. Isn’t Rabbi Neḥemya of the opinion that it is inappropriate to sacrifice on the altar any item that one would not give to someone of prominent stature? As it is stated: “And when you offer the blind for sacrifice, it is no evil; and when you offer the lame and sick, it is no evil. Present it now unto your governor; will he be pleased with you or will he accept your person, says the Lord of hosts” (Malachi 1:8).
הדרן עלך לולב וערבה
מתני׳ החליל חמשה וששה זהו החליל של בית השואבה שאינו דוחה לא את השבת ולא את יום טוב
MISHNA: The flute is played on the festival of Sukkot for five or six days. This is the flute of the Place of the Drawing of the Water, whose playing overrides neither Shabbat nor the Festival. Therefore, if the first Festival day occurred on Shabbat, they would play the flute for six days that year. However, if Shabbat coincided with one of the intermediate days of the Festival, they would play the flute for only five days.
גמ׳ איתמר רב יהודה ורב עינא חד תני שואבה וחד תני חשובה אמר מר זוטרא מאן דתני שואבה לא משתבש ומאן דתני חשובה לא משתבש מאן דתני שואבה לא משתבש דכתיב ושאבתם מים בששון ומאן דתני חשובה לא משתבש דאמר רב נחמן מצוה חשובה היא ובאה מששת ימי בראשית
GEMARA: It was stated that Rav Yehuda and Rav Eina disagreed: One of them teaches that the celebration was called the Celebration of Drawing [sho’eva] and one of them teaches that it was called the significant [ḥashuva] celebration. Mar Zutra said: The one who taught sho’eva is not mistaken, and the one who taught ḥashuva is not mistaken. The one who taught sho’eva is not mistaken, as it is written: “And you shall draw [ushavtem] water with joy from the wells of salvation” (Isaiah 12:3), and its name reflects the fact that it is a celebration of the water libation. And the one who taught ḥashuva is not mistaken, as Rav Naḥman said: It is a significant mitzva and it originated from the six days of Creation.
תנו רבנן החליל דוחה את השבת דברי רבי יוסי בר יהודה וחכמים אומרים אף יום טוב אינו דוחה אמר רב יוסף מחלוקת בשיר של קרבן דרבי יוסי סבר עיקר שירה בכלי ועבודה היא ודוחה את השבת ורבנן סברי עיקר שירה בפה ולאו עבודה היא ואינה דוחה את השבת אבל שיר של שואבה דברי הכל שמחה היא ואינה דוחה את השבת
§ The Sages taught: The flute overrides Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: It does not override even a Festival. Rav Yosef said: The dispute is with regard to the song that the Levites sang accompanying the daily offering. As Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda holds that the primary essence of song is the accompaniment by musical instruments, and consequently these instruments are a component of the Temple service and override Shabbat. The Rabbis hold that the primary essence of song is singing with the mouth, and consequently the instruments are not a component of the service; they merely accompany the singing on occasion and therefore they do not override Shabbat. However, with regard to the song of the Drawing of the Water, everyone agrees that it is rejoicing and not a component of the Temple service; therefore it does not override Shabbat.
אמר רב יוסף מנא אמינא דבהא פליגי דתניא כלי שרת שעשאן של עץ רבי פוסל ורבי יוסי בר יהודה מכשיר מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי מאן דמכשיר סבר עיקר שירה בכלי וילפינן מאבובא דמשה ומאן דפסיל סבר עיקר שירה בפה ולא ילפינן מאבובא דמשה
Rav Yosef said: From where do I say that they disagree about this matter? It is as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to Temple service vessels that one crafted of wood, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems them unfit and Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda deems them fit. What, is it not that they disagree with regard to this matter? The one who deems the wooden vessel fit holds that the primary essence of song is accompaniment by musical instruments, and we derive that sacred vessels may be crafted of wood from the wooden flute of Moses, which according to this opinion was a service vessel. And the one who deems the wooden vessel unfit holds that the primary essence of song is singing with the mouth, and therefore we do not derive any halakha relevant to service vessels from the wooden flute of Moses, as according to this opinion it was not a service vessel. The Gemara rejects this explanation of the baraita.
לא דכולי עלמא עיקר שירה בכלי והכא בדנין אפשר משאי אפשר קמיפלגי מאן דמכשיר סבר דנין אפשר משאי אפשר ומאן דפסיל סבר לא דנין אפשר משאי אפשר
No, that is not necessarily the matter that they dispute, as one could say that everyone agrees: The primary essence of song is singing accompanied by musical instruments. And here, it is with regard to whether one derives the possible from the impossible that they disagree. Can one establish a principle that applies in all cases based on a case with a unique aspect? The one who deems wooden service vessels fit holds that one derives the possible, i.e., Temple service vessels, from the impossible, i.e., the flute of Moses. Although there was no alternative to crafting the flute of Moses from wood, one may derive from this that sacred service vessels, even when the alternative to craft them from metal exists, may be crafted from wood. And the one who deems wooden service vessels unfit holds that one does not derive the possible from the impossible.
ואיבעית אימא דכולי עלמא דעיקר שירה בפה ואין דנין אפשר משאי אפשר והכא במילף מנורה בכללי ופרטי או ברבויי ומיעוטי קא מיפלגי רבי דריש כללי ופרטי רבי יוסי בר יהודה דריש ריבויי ומיעוטי
And if you wish, say instead in rejection of Rav Yosef’s proof that everyone agrees that the primary essence of song is singing with the mouth, and one does not derive the possible from the impossible. And here, it is with regard to deriving the halakhot of the Temple candelabrum by means of the hermeneutic principle of generalizations and details or by means of the principle of amplifications and restrictions that they disagree. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi interprets verses by means of the principle of generalizations and details, and Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda interprets verses by means of the principle of amplifications and restrictions.
רבי דריש כללי ופרטי ועשית מנורת כלל זהב טהור פרט מקשה תעשה המנורה חזר וכלל כלל ופרט וכלל אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט מה הפרט מפורש של מתכת אף כל של מתכת
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi interprets the verse “And you shall make a candelabrum of pure gold: of beaten work shall the candelabrum be made” (Exodus 25:31), by means of the principle of generalizations and details. “And you shall make a candelabrum of,” is a generalization, as the material of the candelabrum is not specified; “pure gold,” that is a detail, limiting the material exclusively to gold; “of beaten work shall the candelabrum be made,” the verse then generalized again. The result is a generalization and a detail and a generalization, from which you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items that are similar to the detail; just as the detail is explicit that the candelabrum is crafted from gold, which is a metal, so too all other materials used in crafting the candelabrum must be of metal. The candelabrum is a prototype for all other Temple service vessels.
רבי יוסי בר יהודה דריש ריבויי ומיעוטי ועשית מנורת ריבה זהב טהור מיעט מקשה תעשה המנורה חזר וריבה ריבה ומיעט וריבה ריבה הכל מאי רבי רבי כל מילי מאי מיעט מיעט של חרס
Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda, however, who deems wooden Temple service vessels fit, interprets verses by means of the principle of amplifications and restrictions. “And you shall make a candelabrum of,” is an amplification, as the material of the candelabrum is not specified; “pure gold,” is a restriction, limiting the material exclusively to gold; “of beaten work shall the candelabrum be made,” the verse repeated and amplified. The result is amplification and restriction and amplification, from which one derives to amplify all items except for those items most dissimilar to the restriction. What did the verse amplify? It amplified all materials, even wood. And what did the verse exclude with this restriction? It excluded a candelabrum crafted of earthenware.
אמר רב פפא
Rav Pappa said: Rav Yosef stated that the dispute between Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda and the Rabbis concerning whether or not the flute overrides Shabbat and Festivals is based on the significance and the role of song in the sacrifice of offerings.
