Sukkah 50
Share this shiur:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Judith Rosenfeld Hochstadter, Gittel bat Kreindel v’Binyamin BenZion on her second yahrzeit. “Her curiosity, humor, intellect and devout nature continues to inspire and hold us accountable. We miss her and think of her in all our pursuits, especially in our Hadran learning, where she would be glad to know that she didn’t have to boil more than 1 egg at a time!!”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
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).
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Judith Rosenfeld Hochstadter, Gittel bat Kreindel v’Binyamin BenZion on her second yahrzeit. “Her curiosity, humor, intellect and devout nature continues to inspire and hold us accountable. We miss her and think of her in all our pursuits, especially in our Hadran learning, where she would be glad to know that she didn’t have to boil more than 1 egg at a time!!”
Sukkah 50
וְאִי מַיְיתֵי בִּמְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, אִיפְּסִילוּ לְהוּ בְּלִינָה. חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר: כְּלֵי שָׁרֵת אֵין מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶלָּא מִדַּעַת, וּגְזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יֹאמְרוּ לְדַעַת נִתְקַדְּשׁוּ.
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא יֵשׁ שִׁיעוּר לַמַּיִם, וּכְלֵי שָׁרֵת אֵין מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶלָּא מִדַּעַת, וּגְזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יֹאמְרוּ לְקִידּוּשׁ יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם מִלְּאָן.
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.
נִשְׁפְּכָה אוֹ נִתְגַּלְּתָה כּוּ׳. וְאַמַּאי? לִיעַבַּיר בִּמְסַנֶּנֶת. לֵימָא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה, דְּתַנְיָא: מְסַנֶּנֶת יֵשׁ בָּהּ מִשּׁוּם גִּילּוּי. אָמַר רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה: אֵימָתַי — בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַתַּחְתּוֹנָה מְגוּלָּה, אֲבָל בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַתַּחְתּוֹנָה מְכוּסָּה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָעֶלְיוֹנָה מְגוּלָּה — אֵין בָּהּ מִשּׁוּם גִּילּוּי. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֶרֶס נָחָשׁ דּוֹמֶה לִסְפוֹג צָף וְעוֹמֵד בִּמְקוֹמוֹ.
§ 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.
אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה, אֵימַר דְּאָמַר רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה לְהֶדְיוֹט, אֲבָל לְגָבוֹהַּ מִי אָמַר? וְלֵית לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה: ״הַקְרִיבֵהוּ נָא לְפֶחָתֶךָ הֲיִרְצְךָ אוֹ הֲיִשָּׂא פָנֶיךָ אָמַר ה׳ צְבָאוֹת״?!
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).
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ לוּלָב וַעֲרָבָה
הֶחָלִיל — חֲמִשָּׁה וְשִׁשָּׁה. זֶהוּ הֶחָלִיל שֶׁל בֵּית הַשּׁוֹאֵבָה, שֶׁאֵינוֹ דּוֹחֶה לֹא אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת וְלֹא אֶת יוֹם טוֹב.
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.
גְּמָ׳ אִיתְּמַר: רַב יְהוּדָה וְרַב עֵינָא, חַד תָּנֵי: שׁוֹאֵבָה, וְחַד תָּנֵי: חֲשׁוּבָה. אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא: מַאן דְּתָנֵי שׁוֹאֵבָה לָא מִשְׁתַּבַּשׁ, וּמַאן דְּתָנֵי חֲשׁוּבָה לָא מִשְׁתַּבַּשׁ. מַאן דְּתָנֵי שׁוֹאֵבָה לָא מִשְׁתַּבַּשׁ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וּשְׁאַבְתֶּם מַיִם בְּשָׂשׂוֹן״. וּמַאן דְּתָנֵי חֲשׁוּבָה לָא מִשְׁתַּבַּשׁ, דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מִצְוָה חֲשׁוּבָה הִיא, וּבָאָה מִשֵּׁשֶׁת יְמֵי בְּרֵאשִׁית.
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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הֶחָלִיל דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר יְהוּדָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אַף יוֹם טוֹב אֵינוֹ דּוֹחֶה. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּשִׁיר שֶׁל קׇרְבָּן, דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי סָבַר: עִיקַּר שִׁירָה בִּכְלִי, וַעֲבוֹדָה הִיא, וְדוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: עִיקַּר שִׁירָה בַּפֶּה, וְלָאו עֲבוֹדָה הִיא, וְאֵינָהּ דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. אֲבָל שִׁיר שֶׁל שׁוֹאֵבָה, דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל שִׂמְחָה הִיא, וְאֵינָהּ דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת.
§ 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.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מְנָא אָמֵינָא דִּבְהָא פְּלִיגִי, דְּתַנְיָא: כְּלֵי שָׁרֵת שֶׁעֲשָׂאָן שֶׁל עֵץ, רַבִּי פּוֹסֵל וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר יְהוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר. מַאי לָאו בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, מַאן דְּמַכְשַׁיר סָבַר: עִיקַּר שִׁירָה בִּכְלִי, וְיָלְפִינַן מֵאַבּוּבָא דְמֹשֶׁה. וּמַאן דְּפָסֵיל סָבַר: עִיקַּר שִׁירָה בַּפֶּה, וְלָא יָלְפִינַן מֵאַבּוּבָא דְמֹשֶׁה.
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.
לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא עִיקַּר שִׁירָה בִּכְלִי, וְהָכָא בְּדָנִין אֶפְשָׁר מִשֶּׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר קָמִיפַּלְגִי. מַאן דְּמַכְשַׁיר סָבַר: דָּנִין אֶפְשָׁר מִשֶּׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר, וּמַאן דְּפָסֵיל סָבַר: לָא דָּנִין אֶפְשָׁר מִשֶּׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר.
The Gemara rejects this explanation of the baraita. 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.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא דְּעִיקַּר שִׁירָה בַּפֶּה, וְאֵין דָּנִין אֶפְשָׁר מִשֶּׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר, וְהָכָא בְּמֵילַף מְנוֹרָה בִּכְלָלֵי וּפְרָטֵי אוֹ בְּרִבּוּיֵי וּמִיעוּטֵי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי. רַבִּי דָּרֵישׁ כְּלָלֵי וּפְרָטֵי, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר יְהוּדָה דָּרֵישׁ רִיבּוּיֵי וּמִיעוּטֵי.
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.
רַבִּי דָּרֵישׁ כְּלָלֵי וּפְרָטֵי: ״וְעָשִׂיתָ מְנוֹרַת״ — כָּלַל, ״זָהָב טָהוֹר״ — פָּרַט, ״מִקְשָׁה תֵּעָשֶׂה הַמְּנוֹרָה״ — חָזַר וְכָלַל. כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל, אִי אַתָּה דָן אֶלָּא כְּעֵין הַפְּרָט. מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת, אַף כֹּל שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת.
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.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר יְהוּדָה, דָּרֵישׁ רִיבּוּיֵי וּמִיעוּטֵי: ״וְעָשִׂיתָ מְנוֹרַת״ — רִיבָּה, ״זָהָב טָהוֹר״ — מִיעֵט, ״מִקְשָׁה תֵּעָשֶׂה הַמְנוֹרָה״ — חָזַר וְרִיבָּה, רִיבָּה וּמִיעֵט וְרִיבָּה — רִיבָּה הַכֹּל. מַאי רַבִּי — רַבִּי כֹּל מִילֵּי, מַאי מַיעֵט — מַיעֵט שֶׁל חֶרֶס.
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.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא:
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.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.
Jerusalem, Israel
I never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.
Karmiel, Israel
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Atlanta, United States
I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!
Florida, United States
Minnesota, United States
Tel Aviv, Israel
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Minneapolis, United States
I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Far Rockaway, United States
I started my Daf Yomi journey at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic.
Los Angeles, United States
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Newton, United States
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Raanana, Israel
I started the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.
Jerusalem, Israel
I began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Silver Spring, MD, United States
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Jerusalem, Israel
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
Efrat, Israel
Raanana, Israel
Minneapolis, MN, United States
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
Hearing and reading about the siyumim at the completion of the 13 th cycle Daf Yomi asked our shul rabbi about starting the Daf – he directed me to another shiur in town he thought would allow a woman to join, and so I did! Love seeing the sources for the Divrei Torah I’ve been hearing for the past decades of living an observant life and raising 5 children .
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Jerusalem, Israel
Sukkah 50
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧͺΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ§ΧΦΌΧΦΌΦΆΧ©ΧΦΆΧͺ, ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€ΦΌΦ°Χ‘Φ΄ΧΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ. ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΅Χͺ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ·Χͺ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΉΧΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’Φ·Χͺ Χ Φ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌ.
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. αΈ€izkiya 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.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ: ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧͺΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅Χ©Χ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΧΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΅Χͺ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ·Χͺ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΉΧΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ©Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ.
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.
Χ Φ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ€ΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉ Χ Φ΄ΧͺΦ°ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ³. ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧ? ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’Φ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ‘Φ·Χ ΦΌΦΆΧ ΦΆΧͺ. ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ Φ°ΧΦΆΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ°Χ‘Φ·Χ ΦΌΦΆΧ ΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ΅Χ©Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ. ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ Φ°ΧΦΆΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧͺΦ·Χ β ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΦΈΧ, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ‘ΦΌΦΈΧ, ΧΦ·Χ£ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ’ΦΆΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΦΈΧ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ. ΧΦ΄Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ‘ Χ ΦΈΧΦΈΧ©Χ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄Χ‘Φ°Χ€ΧΦΉΧ Χ¦ΦΈΧ£ ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ§ΧΦΉΧΧΦΉ.
Β§ 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 NeαΈ₯emya, 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 NeαΈ₯emya 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.
ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧͺΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ Φ°ΧΦΆΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ Φ°ΧΦΆΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧΦΌΦ· ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨? ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ Φ°ΧΦΆΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ€ΦΆΧΦΈΧͺΦΆΧΦΈ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄Χ¨Φ°Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΈ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ€ΦΈΧ ΦΆΧΧΦΈ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΧ³ Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧͺΧ΄?!
The Gemara answers: Even if you say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi NeαΈ₯emya, say that Rabbi NeαΈ₯emya 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. Isnβt Rabbi NeαΈ₯emya 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: βAnd 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 hostsβ (Malachi 1:8).
ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ’Φ²ΧΦΈΧΦ° ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ
ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦΆΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ, Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ.
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.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ³ ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ’Φ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ·Χ ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ: Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ: ΧΦ²Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·Χ©Χ, ΧΦΌΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ²Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·Χ©Χ. ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·Χ©Χ, ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦΌΧ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΧΦΉΧΧ΄. ΧΦΌΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ²Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·Χ©Χ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ²Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦ΅Χ©ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺ.
GEMARA: It was stated that Rav Yehuda and Rav Eina disagreed: One of them teaches that the celebration was called the Celebration of Drawing [shoβeva] and one of them teaches that it was called the significant [αΈ₯ashuva] celebration. Mar Zutra said: The one who taught shoβeva is not mistaken, and the one who taught αΈ₯ashuva is not mistaken. The one who taught shoβeva is not mistaken, as it is written: βAnd you shall draw [ushavtem] water with joy from the wells of salvationβ (Isaiah 12:3), and its name reflects the fact that it is a celebration of the water libation. And the one who taught αΈ₯ashuva is not mistaken, as Rav NaαΈ₯man said: It is a significant mitzva and it originated from the six days of Creation.
ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ: ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ, ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ: ΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ. ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ£: ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ§ΦΆΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ Χ§ΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΌΦ·Χ¨ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ. ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ: Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΌΦ·Χ¨ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦΆΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧ Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ. ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ.
Β§ 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.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ£: ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΅Χͺ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ’Φ²Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ Χ’Φ΅Χ₯, Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨. ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ€ΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΧ¨ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΌΦ·Χ¨ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ€Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ©ΧΦΆΧ. ΧΦΌΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ€ΦΈΧ‘Φ΅ΧΧ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΌΦ·Χ¨ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦΆΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ€Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ©ΧΦΆΧ.
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.
ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ’ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΌΦ·Χ¨ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΆΧ€Φ°Χ©ΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΆΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΆΧ€Φ°Χ©ΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ€ΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ. ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΧ¨ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΆΧ€Φ°Χ©ΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΆΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΆΧ€Φ°Χ©ΧΦΈΧ¨, ΧΦΌΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ€ΦΈΧ‘Φ΅ΧΧ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΆΧ€Φ°Χ©ΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΆΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΆΧ€Φ°Χ©ΧΦΈΧ¨.
The Gemara rejects this explanation of the baraita. 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.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ’Φ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ’ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΌΦ·Χ¨ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦΆΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΆΧ€Φ°Χ©ΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΆΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΆΧ€Φ°Χ©ΧΦΈΧ¨, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΦ°Χ ΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΧ€Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€ΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ. Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΧ€Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ, Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©Χ Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ.
And if you wish, say instead in rejection of Rav Yosefβs 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.
Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΧ€Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ: Χ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦΈ ΧΦ°Χ ΧΦΉΧ¨Φ·ΧͺΧ΄ β ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ·Χ, Χ΄ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ¨Χ΄ β Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ¨Φ·Χ, Χ΄ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ©ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ΅Χ’ΦΈΧ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°Χ ΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧΧ΄ β ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ. ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧ€Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ’Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ. ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ€ΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧ©Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΦΆΧΦΆΧͺ, ΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΦΌΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΦΆΧΦΆΧͺ.
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi interprets the verse βAnd you shall make a candelabrum of pure gold: of beaten work shall the candelabrum be madeβ (Exodus 25:31), by means of the principle of generalizations and details. βAnd you shall make a candelabrum of,β is a generalization, as the material of the candelabrum is not specified; βpure gold,β that is a detail, limiting the material exclusively to gold; βof beaten work shall the candelabrum be made,β 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.
Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦΈΧ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©Χ Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ: Χ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦΈ ΧΦ°Χ ΧΦΉΧ¨Φ·ΧͺΧ΄ β Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ, Χ΄ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ¨Χ΄ β ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’Φ΅Χ, Χ΄ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ©ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ΅Χ’ΦΈΧ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ ΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧΧ΄ β ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ, Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ β Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΉΧ. ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ β Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΅Χ, ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΧ’Φ΅Χ β ΧΦ·ΧΧ’Φ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ‘.
Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda, however, who deems wooden Temple service vessels fit, interprets verses by means of the principle of amplifications and restrictions. βAnd you shall make a candelabrum of,β is an amplification, as the material of the candelabrum is not specified; βpure gold,β is a restriction, limiting the material exclusively to gold; βof beaten work shall the candelabrum be made,β 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.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ€ΦΌΦΈΧ:
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.
