Arakhin 11a — the Talmud in English

There were ten openings in it

and in each opening there was one reed, which had ten openings in it. And each opening of the reed emitted a type of music.

It follows that the entire instrument emitted one hundred types of music,

from the ten reeds that were in it.

In the metanita it was taught: It, [

the magreifa,]

was one cubit long and one cubit wide, and a handle extended from it. [

And the handle was hollow, and the aforementioned reeds were found within it.]

And there were ten openings in it.

And in each opening there was one reed.

Each one emitted one hundred types of music,

for in each reed there were one hundred openings,

so the entire instrument emitted one thousand types of music.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: And your sign

to remember who said ten types of music and who said one hundred

is the metanita,

which stated the larger measure. For it is the way of Mishnayot to speak by way of

exaggeration.

We learned in our Mishna: The musicians

were slaves of priests,

the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: They were from the family of Beit Pagarim, and so on—that is, Israelites. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: They were Levites. And he explains:

Let us say that they disagree about this,

Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Ḥanina:

The one who says that they were slaves holds that the primary

mitzva of

song

in the Temple

is with the mouth, and the instrument

of music

is only to sweeten

the sound,

and is not the principal part of the mitzva. And therefore it is valid even when performed by slaves.

And the one who says that they were Levites holds that the primary

mitzva of

song is with an instrument 56 ,

and therefore it was made valid specifically when performed by Levites. [And this is obvious according to everyone: the primary song is specifically through Levites, as will be learned below].

And we refute this:

But can you understand it thus,

and if so,

what does Rabbi Yosei,

who validates Israelites, hold?

What does he hold?

If he holds that the primary song is with the mouth, slaves suffice;

why does he require Israelites?

And if he holds that the primary song is with an instrument, Levites

specifically

are required.

Therefore, their dispute must be explained in another manner:

In fact, they all hold

that all the tannaim here

hold that the primary song is with the mouth 57 .

And because of the fulfillment of the mitzva, we should have validated it even when performed by slaves .

And here they disagree concerning those whom one raises from the platform,

whether one relies on all those who ascend the platform to sing, since they have the presumptive status of Levites

for

the matter of

lineage

and they marry their daughters to priests,

and

likewise, if they are held to be Levites

for

the matter of the distribution of

tithes

on this basis,

the tannaim in our Mishna disagree.

[The tannaim in our Mishna disagree:]

The one who says: slaves

were

the musicians

holds that one does not raise people from the platform, neither for lineage nor for tithes.

The one who says: They were Levites holds that one raises

people from the platform both for lineage and for tithes.

And therefore specifically Levites are required, so that we should not come to a stumbling block and distribute a tithe to Israelites; and all the more so, not to slaves, since through this we would marry them to priests. [And although the primary song is with the mouth, in any event the observer will not distinguish whether he is making music with an instrument or with his mouth. [Rabbenu Gershom]].

And the one who says that they were Israelites holds that one raises people from the platform for lineage,

and therefore one does not raise slaves to the platform, since this would lead us to marry them to priests.

But not

does one raise them

for tithes,

and therefore Israelites suffice, because we will not rely on this for the distribution of tithes.

The Sages taught: Song invalidates the offering,

the statement of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say:

The song

does not invalidate

the offering.

What is Rabbi Meir’s reason? For the verse states: “And I have given the Levites as gifts to Aaron and to his sons from among the Children of Israel, etc., and to atone for the Children of Israel, etc.” Just as atonement,

which is the sprinkling of blood,

invalidates

an offering,

so too song,

which is alluded to at the beginning of the verse [for “And I have given the Levites” speaks of song,]

invalidates.

And the Sages

derive

that

same juxtaposition

for the other

law,

that of Rabbi Elazar, for Rabbi Elazar said: Just as atonement

for an offering is valid only

during the day, so too song

specifically

is during the day.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: From where

is the fundamental

obligation of song

over offerings

from the Torah? For it is stated: “And you shall serve in the name of the Lord your God.” What is a service involving the Name [

in which the Name is mentioned]?

You must say: This is song.

For there is mention of the Divine Name in the psalms within it.

And we raise an objection:

But say

that the verse speaks

of the raising of the hands,

which also contains mentions of the Name.

And we answer:

Since it is written, “To serve Him and to bless in His Name,” it follows that the priestly blessing is not a service,

for Scripture divided them into two matters.

Rav Mattana said:

The primary song is

from here:

as it is stated:

“Because you did not serve the Lord your God with joy and with goodness of heart.” What is a service that is with joy and with goodness of heart? You must say: This is song.

And we raise an objection:

But say

that it speaks

of words of Torah,

as

it is written

concerning them:

“The commandments of the Lord are upright, gladdening the heart.”

And so the verse says: “Because you did not engage in words of Torah,” and so on.

And we answer: Words of Torah

are called “gladdening the heart,”

but

they are not called “good.”

Therefore the verse cannot be interpreted as referring to them.

And we raise an objection:

But say that the verse speaks of first fruits,

as

it is written

concerning them:

“And you shall rejoice in all the good,”

and they contain both joy and goodness. And the intention of the verse is: “Because you did not bring first fruits.”

And we answer: First fruits are

called “good,” but they are not called “goodness of heart.”

And it is therefore necessary that the verse speaks specifically of song.

Rav Mattana said: From where is it derived that first fruits require song

when they are brought?

It is derived

by a gezera shava from “all

the good

” that is written concerning them, from

“good”

“of heart,”

from here,

which speaks of song.

And we raise an objection:

Is that so? But Rav Shmuel bar Naḥmani said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: From where is it derived that song is recited only over

the libation of

wine? For it is stated: “And the grapevine said to them: Shall I stop my wine, which gladdens God and men?” If it gladdens men,

through drinking it,

God—through what does it gladden? From here it is derived that song is recited only over

the libation of

wine,

and through the song recited over it to the Lord, it “gladdens God.” From now, it is difficult: How can song apply to first fruits? They consist only of the fruits of the seven species, whereas song applies only to wine .

And we answer:

It can be found

that song applies to first fruits

as Rav Yosef taught:

Concerning first fruits it is written, “From the first of every fruit,” and this implies specifically:

You bring fruit, but you do not bring liquids,

and this is the preferred manner, to bring them while they are still fruit.

If he brought grapes

and designated them for first fruits

and pressed them

afterward into wine,

from where

do we know that after the fact he brings them and fulfills through them the obligation of first fruits?

The verse states: “You shall bring,”

in any event, and in such a manner song over wine applies to first fruits.

Hezekiah said: from here

the essence of song: as it is written:

“And Chenaniah, chief of the Levites, was over the burden; he would instruct, for he was understanding.” Do not read yāsōr, but yāshīr.

Belueti [

the name of a sage]

Rabbi Yohanan said: from here

the essence of song: as it is written:

“To perform the service of a service”—what is a service that requires

to be performed at the time of

service

another?

You must say: this is song.

For it is [performed] at the time of the service of the wine libation.

Rabbi Isaac said: from here

the essence of song:

“Raise a song and give a timbrel, a pleasant lyre with a harp.”

Rav Nahman bar Isaac said: from here:

as it is written:

“They shall raise their voice, they shall sing out in the majesty of the Lord, they shall exult, waters.”

That they should exult with song in the Temple more than the exultation of the waters at the splitting of the Sea of Reeds.

And a tanna brings it

for the essence of song

from here:

as it is written:

“And to the sons of Kohath He did not give, for the sacred service was upon them; on the shoulder they shall carry.” From the fact that it was said, “on the shoulder,” do I not know that they shall carry? What does “they shall carry” teach?

Rather,

“they shall carry” is only an expression of song.

And so it says, “Raise a song and give a timbrel.” And it says, “They shall raise their voice, they shall sing out.”

Thus we find “and they raised” serving as an expression of song. And this is the service of the Levites.

Hananiah son of the brother of Rabbi Joshua said: from here

we learn song: as it is written:

“Moses would speak, and God would answer him with a voice.”