Sukkah 50
Share this shiur:
This week’s learning is sponsored by Michelle Winer for a refuah shelaima for Bella Rachel bat Malka Enya and Binyamin Yisrael ben Malka Enya.
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 week’s learning is sponsored by Michelle Winer for a refuah shelaima for Bella Rachel bat Malka Enya and Binyamin Yisrael ben Malka Enya.
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.
Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!
Jerusalem, Israel
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Modi’in, Israel
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.
Tampa, United States
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Skokie, IL, United States
Oceanside NY, United States
Bronx, United States
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Englewood NJ, United States
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Berlin, Germany
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
New Jersey, United States
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Wynnewood, United States
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
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Lexington, MA, United States
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Elkins Park, United States
Philadelphia, United States
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Toronto, Canada
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Givat Shmuel, Israel
I had tried to start after being inspired by the hadran siyum, but did not manage to stick to it. However, just before masechet taanit, our rav wrote a message to the shul WhatsApp encouraging people to start with masechet taanit, so I did! And this time, I’m hooked! I listen to the shiur every day , and am also trying to improve my skills.
Yad Binyamin, Israel
Raanana, Israel
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.
