Arakhin 11a (יא.) — the Talmud in English

There were ten openings in it

and in each opening there was one pipe that itself had ten openings. Each opening of the pipe emitted a different type of musical sound.

Thus, the entire instrument emitted one hundred types of musical sound,

from the ten pipes that were in it.

It was taught in a baraita: It,

the magreifa,

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

The handle was hollow, and the aforementioned pipes were situated inside it.

And there were ten openings in it.

And in each opening there was one pipe.

Each one emitted one hundred types of musical sound,

as each pipe had one hundred openings,

so the entire instrument emitted one thousand types of musical sound.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: And your mnemonic is

to remember who said that there were ten types of musical sound and who said that there were one hundred:

the baraita

is the one that stated the larger measure, as it is the way of Mishnayot to speak by way of

exaggeration.

We learned in our Mishna: The musicians

were the slaves of the priests,

the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: They were members of the family of Beit Pegarim, and so on, i.e., Israelites. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: They were Levites. And he explains:

Let us say that this is the dispute

between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Ḥanina:

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

mitzva of

song

in the Temple

is with the mouth, and the instrument

of music is only

to make the voice pleasant,

merely enhancing the sound,

and it is not the principal element of the mitzva. Therefore, it is valid even when performed by slaves.

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

mitzva of

song is with an instrument 56 ,

and therefore it was valid specifically when performed by Levites. [This is simple according to everyone: The principal form of song is specifically by Levites, as will be derived below].

And we challenge this:

Can you understand it this way?

And if so,

what

does Rabbi Yosei, who validates Israelites,

hold?

If he holds that the principal form of song is with the mouth, the slaves suffice;

so why are Israelites necessary?

And if he holds that the principal form of song is with an instrument, Levites

specifically

are required.

Therefore, their dispute must be explained differently:

Actually, they all hold that

all the tanna'im here hold that

the principal form of song is with the mouth 57 .

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

. And here, concerning those elevated from the platform,

if we rely on all those who ascend the platform to sing, since they have the presumptive status of Levites

for

the purpose of

genealogical status,

and their daughters may be married into the priesthood,

and

likewise if we maintain them as Levites

for

the purpose of the distribution of

tithes,

on this basis

the tanna'im disagree

in our Mishna.

The one who says that they were slaves

were

the musicians

holds that one does not elevate a person from the platform, neither for genealogical status nor for tithes.

The one who says that they were Levites holds that one elevates

a person from the platform both for genealogical status and for tithes.

And therefore they must specifically be Levites, so that we do not come to stumble and distribute the tithe to Israelites; and slaves are certainly excluded, since this would lead to marrying them into the priesthood. [Although the principal form of song is with the mouth, nevertheless, an observer will not distinguish whether he is making music with an instrument or with his mouth. [Rabbeinu Gershom]].

And the one who says that they were Israelites holds that one elevates a person from the platform for genealogical status,

and for this reason one does not elevate slaves to the platform, since this would lead to marrying them into the priesthood.

But not

does one elevate them

for tithes,

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

The Sages taught: Song is indispensable for the offering

—the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say:

The song

is not indispensable

for the offering.

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

i.e., the sprinkling of the blood,

is indispensable

for the offering,

so too song,

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

is indispensable.

And the Sages

derive

that

extrapolation

for the other

law,

that of Rabbi Elazar, who said: Just as atonement

for an offering is valid only

during the day, so too song

specifically

during the day.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: From where is the principal

obligation of

song

over offerings

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

that includes mention of the Name?

You must say that this is song,

as the psalms of song contain mention of the Name of Heaven.

And we challenge this:

But perhaps

the verse is referring to

the raising of the hands

in the priestly blessing, 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 service,

for the verse divided them into two separate matters.

Rav Mattana said: The principal form of song is

song

from here:

as it is stated,

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

And we challenge this:

But perhaps

the verse is referring to

words of Torah,

as it is written

with regard to them,

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

And this is what the verse says: Because you did not engage in words of Torah, etc.

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 challenge this:

But perhaps the verse is speaking of the first fruits,

as it is written

with regard to them,

“And you shall rejoice in all the good.”

They contain both joy and goodness.

The meaning of the verse would be: Because you did not bring the first fruits.

And we answer: First fruits

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

It is therefore necessary that the verse is speaking specifically of song.

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

when they are brought?

It is derived

by means of a gezerah shavah from “all

the good”

that is written with regard to them, from

“good

of heart,”

from here,

which refers to song.

And we challenge this:

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 pouring of

the wine libation? As it is stated: “And the vine said to them: Shall I leave my wine, which gladdens God and people?” If it gladdens people,

through drinking it,

God—how does it gladden Him? From here it is derived that song is recited only over

the pouring of

the wine libation,

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

. And we answer:

You can find

song with the first fruits

as Rav Yosef taught:

With regard to the first fruits, it is written, “From the first of every fruit,” which implies specifically:

You bring fruit, but you do not bring liquids,

and this is the proper initial procedure, to bring them while they are still fruit.

If one brought grapes

and designated them as first fruits

and then pressed them

into wine,

from where

is it derived that after the fact he may bring them and thereby fulfill his obligation of first fruits?

The verse states: “You shall bring,”

in any event. In such a case, song over wine is applicable with regard to the first fruits.

Hezekiah said: From here:

the principal source of song is, as it is written:

“And Kenaniah was leader of the Levites in the carrying; he instructed concerning the carrying, for he was discerning.” Do not read yasor—“he instructed”—but yashir—“he shall sing.”

Belueti [

name of a sage]

Rabbi Yohanan said: From here:

the principal source of song is, as it is written:

“To perform the service of a service”—what is a service that must be performed during another

service?

Service

another,

you must say that this is song.

For it was performed during the service of the wine libation.

Rabbi Yitzhak said: From here,

the principal source of song:

“Raise a song and sound the timbrel, the melodious lyre together with the harp.”

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzhak said: From here:

as it is written,

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

For they should rejoice with song in the Temple more than the waters rejoiced at the splitting of the Red Sea.

And a tanna derives it

as the principal source of song

from here:

as it is written,

“And to the sons of Kohath He did not give, because the sacred service was upon them; on the shoulder they shall carry.” Since it says “on the shoulder,” do I not know that they would 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 sound the timbrel.” And it says: “They shall raise their voice, they shall sing.”

Thus we find that vayisa’u—“they shall carry”—is used as an expression of song. And this is the service of the Levites.

Hananiah, son of the brother of Rabbi Yehoshua, said: From here

we learn song, as it is written:

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