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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 26, 2021 | 讬状讞 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖驻状讗

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 Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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.

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鈥檛 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 鈥淪hoeva celebration鈥 or 鈥淚mportant celebration鈥?? 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 鈥 can they be used for sanctified utensils in the Temple or not 鈥 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).

讜讗讬 诪讬讬转讬 讘诪拽讜讚砖转 讗讬驻住讬诇讜 诇讛讜 讘诇讬谞讛 讞讝拽讬讛 讗诪专 讻诇讬 砖专转 讗讬谉 诪拽讚砖讬谉 讗诇讗 诪讚注转 讜讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讗诪专讜 诇讚注转 谞转拽讚砖讜

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. 岣zkiya 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讬砖 砖讬注讜专 诇诪讬诐 讜讻诇讬 砖专转 讗讬谉 诪拽讚砖讬谉 讗诇讗 诪讚注转 讜讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讗诪专讜 诇拽讬讚讜砖 讬讚讬诐 讜专讙诇讬诐 诪诇讗谉

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.

谞砖驻讻讛 讗讜 谞转讙诇转讛 讻讜壮 讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬注讘讬专 讘诪住谞谞转 诇讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 诪住谞谞转 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讙讬诇讜讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖讛转讞转讜谞讛 诪讙讜诇讛 讗讘诇 讘讝诪谉 砖讛转讞转讜谞讛 诪讻讜住讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛注诇讬讜谞讛 诪讙讜诇讛 讗讬谉 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 讙讬诇讜讬 诪驻谞讬 砖讗专住 谞讞砖 讚讜诪讛 诇住驻讜讙 爪祝 讜注讜诪讚 讘诪拽讜诪讜

搂 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 Ne岣mya, 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 Ne岣mya 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.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 诇讛讚讬讜讟 讗讘诇 诇讙讘讜讛 诪讬 讗诪专 讜诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讛拽专讬讘讛讜 谞讗 诇驻讞转讱 讛讬专爪讱 讗讜 讛讬砖讗 驻谞讬讱 讗诪专 讛壮 爪讘讗讜转

The Gemara answers: Even if you say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya, say that Rabbi Ne岣mya 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鈥檛 Rabbi Ne岣mya 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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Malachi 1:8).

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 诇讜诇讘 讜注专讘讛

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛讞诇讬诇 讞诪砖讛 讜砖砖讛 讝讛讜 讛讞诇讬诇 砖诇 讘讬转 讛砖讜讗讘讛 砖讗讬谞讜 讚讜讞讛 诇讗 讗转 讛砖讘转 讜诇讗 讗转 讬讜诐 讟讜讘

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.

讙诪壮 讗讬转诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘 注讬谞讗 讞讚 转谞讬 砖讜讗讘讛 讜讞讚 转谞讬 讞砖讜讘讛 讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 砖讜讗讘讛 诇讗 诪砖转讘砖 讜诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 讞砖讜讘讛 诇讗 诪砖转讘砖 诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 砖讜讗讘讛 诇讗 诪砖转讘砖 讚讻转讬讘 讜砖讗讘转诐 诪讬诐 讘砖砖讜谉 讜诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 讞砖讜讘讛 诇讗 诪砖转讘砖 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪爪讜讛 讞砖讜讘讛 讛讬讗 讜讘讗讛 诪砖砖转 讬诪讬 讘专讗砖讬转

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鈥檈va] and one of them teaches that it was called the significant [岣shuva] celebration. Mar Zutra said: The one who taught sho鈥檈va is not mistaken, and the one who taught 岣shuva is not mistaken. The one who taught sho鈥檈va is not mistaken, as it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall draw [ushavtem] water with joy from the wells of salvation鈥 (Isaiah 12:3), and its name reflects the fact that it is a celebration of the water libation. And the one who taught 岣shuva is not mistaken, as Rav Na岣an said: It is a significant mitzva and it originated from the six days of Creation.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讞诇讬诇 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讬谞讜 讚讜讞讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖讬专 砖诇 拽专讘谉 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 注讬拽专 砖讬专讛 讘讻诇讬 讜注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 注讬拽专 砖讬专讛 讘驻讛 讜诇讗讜 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜讗讬谞讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讗讘诇 砖讬专 砖诇 砖讜讗讘讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 砖诪讞讛 讛讬讗 讜讗讬谞讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 讚讘讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚转谞讬讗 讻诇讬 砖专转 砖注砖讗谉 砖诇 注抓 专讘讬 驻讜住诇 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻砖讬专 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪讗谉 讚诪讻砖讬专 住讘专 注讬拽专 砖讬专讛 讘讻诇讬 讜讬诇驻讬谞谉 诪讗讘讜讘讗 讚诪砖讛 讜诪讗谉 讚驻住讬诇 住讘专 注讬拽专 砖讬专讛 讘驻讛 讜诇讗 讬诇驻讬谞谉 诪讗讘讜讘讗 讚诪砖讛

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.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 注讬拽专 砖讬专讛 讘讻诇讬 讜讛讻讗 讘讚谞讬谉 讗驻砖专 诪砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪讗谉 讚诪讻砖讬专 住讘专 讚谞讬谉 讗驻砖专 诪砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 讜诪讗谉 讚驻住讬诇 住讘专 诇讗 讚谞讬谉 讗驻砖专 诪砖讗讬 讗驻砖专

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.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讚注讬拽专 砖讬专讛 讘驻讛 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讗驻砖专 诪砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讬诇祝 诪谞讜专讛 讘讻诇诇讬 讜驻专讟讬 讗讜 讘专讘讜讬讬 讜诪讬注讜讟讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 讚专讬砖 讻诇诇讬 讜驻专讟讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讚专讬砖 专讬讘讜讬讬 讜诪讬注讜讟讬

And if you wish, say instead in rejection of Rav Yosef鈥檚 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.

专讘讬 讚专讬砖 讻诇诇讬 讜驻专讟讬 讜注砖讬转 诪谞讜专转 讻诇诇 讝讛讘 讟讛讜专 驻专讟 诪拽砖讛 转注砖讛 讛诪谞讜专讛 讞讝专 讜讻诇诇 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 讗讬 讗转讛 讚谉 讗诇讗 讻注讬谉 讛驻专讟 诪讛 讛驻专讟 诪驻讜专砖 砖诇 诪转讻转 讗祝 讻诇 砖诇 诪转讻转

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi interprets the verse 鈥淎nd you shall make a candelabrum of pure gold: of beaten work shall the candelabrum be made鈥 (Exodus 25:31), by means of the principle of generalizations and details. 鈥淎nd you shall make a candelabrum of,鈥 is a generalization, as the material of the candelabrum is not specified; 鈥減ure gold,鈥 that is a detail, limiting the material exclusively to gold; 鈥渙f beaten work shall the candelabrum be made,鈥 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.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讚专讬砖 专讬讘讜讬讬 讜诪讬注讜讟讬 讜注砖讬转 诪谞讜专转 专讬讘讛 讝讛讘 讟讛讜专 诪讬注讟 诪拽砖讛 转注砖讛 讛诪谞讜专讛 讞讝专 讜专讬讘讛 专讬讘讛 讜诪讬注讟 讜专讬讘讛 专讬讘讛 讛讻诇 诪讗讬 专讘讬 专讘讬 讻诇 诪讬诇讬 诪讗讬 诪讬注讟 诪讬注讟 砖诇 讞专住

Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda, however, who deems wooden Temple service vessels fit, interprets verses by means of the principle of amplifications and restrictions. 鈥淎nd you shall make a candelabrum of,鈥 is an amplification, as the material of the candelabrum is not specified; 鈥減ure gold,鈥 is a restriction, limiting the material exclusively to gold; 鈥渙f beaten work shall the candelabrum be made,鈥 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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗

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.

Masechet Sukkah is sponsored by Jonathan Katz in memory of his mother Margaret Katz (Ruth bat Avraham).
  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Sukkah 49-56 + Siyum – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

We are going to be finishing the 4th chapter this week and learning about the 2 pipes that were built...
Gefet with Rabbanit Yael Shimoni

Simchat Beit HaShoeivah – Sukkah – Gefet 7

Gefet: Gemara Rashi and Tosafot. Delve into commentaries on the daf in this advanced level shiur with Rabbanit Yael Shimoni....

Sukkah 50

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sukkah 50

讜讗讬 诪讬讬转讬 讘诪拽讜讚砖转 讗讬驻住讬诇讜 诇讛讜 讘诇讬谞讛 讞讝拽讬讛 讗诪专 讻诇讬 砖专转 讗讬谉 诪拽讚砖讬谉 讗诇讗 诪讚注转 讜讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讗诪专讜 诇讚注转 谞转拽讚砖讜

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. 岣zkiya 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讬砖 砖讬注讜专 诇诪讬诐 讜讻诇讬 砖专转 讗讬谉 诪拽讚砖讬谉 讗诇讗 诪讚注转 讜讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讗诪专讜 诇拽讬讚讜砖 讬讚讬诐 讜专讙诇讬诐 诪诇讗谉

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.

谞砖驻讻讛 讗讜 谞转讙诇转讛 讻讜壮 讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬注讘讬专 讘诪住谞谞转 诇讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 诪住谞谞转 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讙讬诇讜讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖讛转讞转讜谞讛 诪讙讜诇讛 讗讘诇 讘讝诪谉 砖讛转讞转讜谞讛 诪讻讜住讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛注诇讬讜谞讛 诪讙讜诇讛 讗讬谉 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 讙讬诇讜讬 诪驻谞讬 砖讗专住 谞讞砖 讚讜诪讛 诇住驻讜讙 爪祝 讜注讜诪讚 讘诪拽讜诪讜

搂 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 Ne岣mya, 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 Ne岣mya 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.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 诇讛讚讬讜讟 讗讘诇 诇讙讘讜讛 诪讬 讗诪专 讜诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讛拽专讬讘讛讜 谞讗 诇驻讞转讱 讛讬专爪讱 讗讜 讛讬砖讗 驻谞讬讱 讗诪专 讛壮 爪讘讗讜转

The Gemara answers: Even if you say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya, say that Rabbi Ne岣mya 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鈥檛 Rabbi Ne岣mya 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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Malachi 1:8).

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 诇讜诇讘 讜注专讘讛

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛讞诇讬诇 讞诪砖讛 讜砖砖讛 讝讛讜 讛讞诇讬诇 砖诇 讘讬转 讛砖讜讗讘讛 砖讗讬谞讜 讚讜讞讛 诇讗 讗转 讛砖讘转 讜诇讗 讗转 讬讜诐 讟讜讘

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.

讙诪壮 讗讬转诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘 注讬谞讗 讞讚 转谞讬 砖讜讗讘讛 讜讞讚 转谞讬 讞砖讜讘讛 讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 砖讜讗讘讛 诇讗 诪砖转讘砖 讜诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 讞砖讜讘讛 诇讗 诪砖转讘砖 诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 砖讜讗讘讛 诇讗 诪砖转讘砖 讚讻转讬讘 讜砖讗讘转诐 诪讬诐 讘砖砖讜谉 讜诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 讞砖讜讘讛 诇讗 诪砖转讘砖 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪爪讜讛 讞砖讜讘讛 讛讬讗 讜讘讗讛 诪砖砖转 讬诪讬 讘专讗砖讬转

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鈥檈va] and one of them teaches that it was called the significant [岣shuva] celebration. Mar Zutra said: The one who taught sho鈥檈va is not mistaken, and the one who taught 岣shuva is not mistaken. The one who taught sho鈥檈va is not mistaken, as it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall draw [ushavtem] water with joy from the wells of salvation鈥 (Isaiah 12:3), and its name reflects the fact that it is a celebration of the water libation. And the one who taught 岣shuva is not mistaken, as Rav Na岣an said: It is a significant mitzva and it originated from the six days of Creation.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讞诇讬诇 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讬谞讜 讚讜讞讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖讬专 砖诇 拽专讘谉 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 注讬拽专 砖讬专讛 讘讻诇讬 讜注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 注讬拽专 砖讬专讛 讘驻讛 讜诇讗讜 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜讗讬谞讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讗讘诇 砖讬专 砖诇 砖讜讗讘讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 砖诪讞讛 讛讬讗 讜讗讬谞讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 讚讘讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚转谞讬讗 讻诇讬 砖专转 砖注砖讗谉 砖诇 注抓 专讘讬 驻讜住诇 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻砖讬专 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪讗谉 讚诪讻砖讬专 住讘专 注讬拽专 砖讬专讛 讘讻诇讬 讜讬诇驻讬谞谉 诪讗讘讜讘讗 讚诪砖讛 讜诪讗谉 讚驻住讬诇 住讘专 注讬拽专 砖讬专讛 讘驻讛 讜诇讗 讬诇驻讬谞谉 诪讗讘讜讘讗 讚诪砖讛

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.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 注讬拽专 砖讬专讛 讘讻诇讬 讜讛讻讗 讘讚谞讬谉 讗驻砖专 诪砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪讗谉 讚诪讻砖讬专 住讘专 讚谞讬谉 讗驻砖专 诪砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 讜诪讗谉 讚驻住讬诇 住讘专 诇讗 讚谞讬谉 讗驻砖专 诪砖讗讬 讗驻砖专

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.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讚注讬拽专 砖讬专讛 讘驻讛 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讗驻砖专 诪砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讬诇祝 诪谞讜专讛 讘讻诇诇讬 讜驻专讟讬 讗讜 讘专讘讜讬讬 讜诪讬注讜讟讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 讚专讬砖 讻诇诇讬 讜驻专讟讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讚专讬砖 专讬讘讜讬讬 讜诪讬注讜讟讬

And if you wish, say instead in rejection of Rav Yosef鈥檚 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.

专讘讬 讚专讬砖 讻诇诇讬 讜驻专讟讬 讜注砖讬转 诪谞讜专转 讻诇诇 讝讛讘 讟讛讜专 驻专讟 诪拽砖讛 转注砖讛 讛诪谞讜专讛 讞讝专 讜讻诇诇 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 讗讬 讗转讛 讚谉 讗诇讗 讻注讬谉 讛驻专讟 诪讛 讛驻专讟 诪驻讜专砖 砖诇 诪转讻转 讗祝 讻诇 砖诇 诪转讻转

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi interprets the verse 鈥淎nd you shall make a candelabrum of pure gold: of beaten work shall the candelabrum be made鈥 (Exodus 25:31), by means of the principle of generalizations and details. 鈥淎nd you shall make a candelabrum of,鈥 is a generalization, as the material of the candelabrum is not specified; 鈥減ure gold,鈥 that is a detail, limiting the material exclusively to gold; 鈥渙f beaten work shall the candelabrum be made,鈥 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.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讚专讬砖 专讬讘讜讬讬 讜诪讬注讜讟讬 讜注砖讬转 诪谞讜专转 专讬讘讛 讝讛讘 讟讛讜专 诪讬注讟 诪拽砖讛 转注砖讛 讛诪谞讜专讛 讞讝专 讜专讬讘讛 专讬讘讛 讜诪讬注讟 讜专讬讘讛 专讬讘讛 讛讻诇 诪讗讬 专讘讬 专讘讬 讻诇 诪讬诇讬 诪讗讬 诪讬注讟 诪讬注讟 砖诇 讞专住

Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda, however, who deems wooden Temple service vessels fit, interprets verses by means of the principle of amplifications and restrictions. 鈥淎nd you shall make a candelabrum of,鈥 is an amplification, as the material of the candelabrum is not specified; 鈥減ure gold,鈥 is a restriction, limiting the material exclusively to gold; 鈥渙f beaten work shall the candelabrum be made,鈥 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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗

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.

Scroll To Top