Arakhin 11b (יא:) — the Talmud in English

that he commanded him

concerning matters of sound,

that is, to sing. For Moses, the Levite, was

Rav Ashi said: From here: “And it came to pass as one, with the trumpeters and the singers, to sound one sound.”

And trumpets are explicitly mentioned in the verse: “And you shall sound the trumpets over your burnt offerings.” And from the fact that the verse includes trumpeters and singers together, it follows that singing too is from the Torah [Tosafot].

Rabbi Yonatan said: From here,

as it is written: “And the Lord said to Aaron, and also your brothers, the tribe of Levi, bring near with you, and so on,

and they shall not die, neither they nor you.”

And by this, the Levites are equated with the priests.

Just as “you”

—that is, the priests—

in the service of the altar, so “they,”

that is, the Levites,

in the service of the altar;

and the Levites have no service of the altar other than song.

It was taught likewise:

From here we learn that song is from the Torah:

“And they shall not die, neither they nor you”: Just as you are engaged in the service of the altar, so they are engaged in the service of the altar.

And we make an additional equation:

you in theirs

and they

in yours are subject to death. For priests who sang are liable to death, just like Levites who performed the priestly service on the altar, for which they are subject to death, as it is written: “And the non-priest who approaches shall be put to death.” But

they,

who altered

their own

service—for example, a Levite singer who guarded [who closed the doors], or a Levite whose task was to guard who sang—

are not subject to death, but only to a prohibition. [It was not explained where

they were warned, Rashi].

Abaye said: We have accepted

as the halakha, not in accordance with the tanna in the beraita. Rather,

a singer who guarded,

who performed

the

service of

his fellow is subject to death

68 . As it is stated: “And those who encamp before the Tabernacle eastward, before the Tent of Meeting toward the east, Moses and Aaron

and his sons guard the charge of the Sanctuary, and so on,

and the non-priest who approaches shall be put to death.”

And this was stated also concerning the service of the Levites.

And he explains it:

What is meant by “non-priest”? If we say an actual non-priest,

that is, an Israelite,

the verse already wrote it once

in this passage, that he is subject to death.

Rather, is it not speaking of a non-priest with regard to that service

that he performed? That is, it speaks of a Levite who performed a service to which he had not been appointed, for since he was not appointed to it, he is liable to death.

The Gemara raises an objection:

We learned in a beraita:

A singer who guarded

70 , and a guard who sang, are not subject to death, but only to a prohibition!

How, then, does Abaye disagree with the tanna of the beraita?

And we answer: It is a dispute

among tannaim. For it was taught: There was an incident involving Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya, who went to assist with closing

the doors together with Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Gudgeda,

both of whom were Levites.

He said to him,

Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Gudgeda said:

My son, go back, for you are one of the singers and not one of the guards.

And we explain their dispute:

Is it not that they disagree about this, that one [Rabbi Yoḥanan]

that a singer who guarded the doors

holds

that a singer who guarded

is subject to death,

but in fact the Torah prohibition applies only when he guards by himself; assisting alone is permitted by Torah law.

And the Sages instituted a decree concerning assisting,

since the primary form of the prohibition carries liability to death.

And the other [Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya]

that even one who guarded the doors alone is not subject to death, but only

holds

that even when he guards by himself he is not subject to death; it entails only

a prohibition.

Therefore, when he assists, which is permitted by Torah law,

the Sages did not institute a decree concerning it.

And Abaye would hold in accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Gudgeda.

And we reject this:

No; everyone agrees that it entails only a prohibition

alone.

One holds that the Sages instituted a decree concerning assisting

lest he come to perform the service alone, although this does not entail liability to death.

And the other holds that the Sages did not institute a decree concerning it.

If so, there is no source for Abaye’s ruling that he is liable to death.

Rabbi Avin raised a dilemma: A communal voluntary burnt offering —which comes from the summer offerings of the altar, from the collection boxes into which money left over from sin offerings and guilt offerings is placed—

is it

required to have song

during its libations,

or is it not required to have song?

“And you shall sound over your burnt offerings,”

that is, song,

the Merciful One said,

and from the plural wording it follows:

one, a mandatory burnt offering, and one, a voluntary burnt offering.

Or perhaps

it is specifically a mandatory burnt offering that requires song. And the fact that it says “your burnt offerings” in the plural means “your burnt offerings”

the Merciful One speaks of all Israel,

but they are all of one type of burnt offering, namely, a mandatory burnt offering.

And we resolve it:

Come and hear: “And Hezekiah commanded that the burnt offering be offered upon the altar, and when the burnt offering began, the song of the Lord and the trumpets began, by the instruments of David, king of Israel.”

And we ask:

What function did this song serve? If we say

it was the song

of a mandatory burnt offering, why did

Hezekiah have

to seek authorization?

The wording “And Hezekiah commanded” indicates that Hezekiah had sought authorization.

Rather, is it not

referring to the song

of a voluntary burnt offering,

and Hezekiah sought authorization in this matter, asking whether song was required. Ultimately, he ruled that it is required. Thus, Rabbi Avin’s dilemma is resolved.

And we reject this:

Rav Yosef said: No,

this is not what it refers to. Rather,

it was the burnt offering of the New Moon

there.

And what they were asking

Hezekiah was:

Was the New Moon established at its proper time?

That day was the thirtieth of the month, and if the New Moon had been established then, it would be appropriate

to offer

the New Moon burnt offering;

or not,

the month was sanctified only on the following day, and it was not appropriate to offer it. He did not seek authorization concerning the song, but concerning the offering itself. Consequently, there is no proof from here for Rabbi Avin’s dilemma.

Abaye said to him: Can you say that? It is written: “On the sixteenth day of the first month, and so on, and Hezekiah commanded that the burnt offering be offered upon the altar.”

The incident did not take place on the New Moon, but on the sixteenth of the month.

Rather, Rami, son of Rav Yeiva, said

to reject this explanation:

It was the lamb brought with the Omer.

The incident took place on the sixteenth of Nisan, the day of the waving of the Omer.

And what they were asking was: Was the New Moon

of Nisan

established at its proper time,

and now it was the time for the Omer, so that it was appropriate

to offer

the lamb,

or not,

the New Moon was sanctified only on the following day, and it was not yet the time for the Omer?

Rav Avya challenged this:

How can it be said that this was their dilemma?

Let them see how they performed the Paschal offering and how they ate matza!

If they had done so the previous day, it was certainly established that the New Moon had been sanctified at its proper time.

Rather, Rav Ashi said:

Hezekiah was never uncertain about any of these matters. His seeking authorization was in order to request permission, not because of uncertainty.

It was like a communal emissary who seeks authorization

and receives permission to lead the prayer.

And we conclude:

Now that you have arrived at this,

that he asked not because of uncertainty,

you may even say

that

it was a mandatory burnt offering;

this too is understandable.

It was like a communal emissary who seeks authorization.

And we return to resolve Rabbi Avin’s dilemma:

Come and hear: Rabbi Yosei says: Merit is brought about on an auspicious day,

for in Nisan they were redeemed, and in Nisan they are destined to be redeemed.

And

misfortune is brought about

on an inauspicious day,

as follows.

They said: When the Temple was destroyed the first time, that day was the Ninth of Av.

It was an inauspicious day, on which the congregation had wept because of the sin of the spies.

And it was the day after Shabbat. And it was the year following a Sabbatical year,

that year.

And the priestly watch of Jehoiarib was

the watch serving during that week.

And the priests

and Levites stood on their platform and recited song. And what song did they recite?

They recited the psalm:

“And He brought upon them their own iniquity, and He will cut them off in their evil.”

they sang.

But they did not manage to recite

the words

“The Lord our God will cut them off,” before the enemies came and conquered them. And likewise the second time,

at the destruction of the Second Temple, it occurred at that same time.

And we ask:

What function did this song serve? If we say it

was for

a mandatory burnt offering,

was there such an offering?

Was there?

And

this,

already

on the seventeenth of Tammuz the daily offering had ceased,

because they had no lambs on account of the siege.

Rather, is it not

the song

of a voluntary burnt offering

that was being recited? Resolve the dilemma, then, that a voluntary burnt offering requires song.

And we reject this:

But can you understand it so?

How can it be established as referring to a voluntary burnt offering?

What is the difference, that a mandatory burnt offering was not present, and what is the difference, that a voluntary burnt offering

is said to have

been present?

Just as there were no lambs for the former, there were no lambs for the latter.

And we answer:

This is not difficult;

it is possible to say that

a bull

had

happened to come their way by mere chance,

one that was unfit for the daily offering, which requires a lamb, but fit for a voluntary burnt offering. The dilemma could therefore still be resolved.

And we reject this again:

Rava, and some say Rav Ashi, said: But can you understand it so?

Certainly, it is not speaking of the song accompanying the offering, for

the song of that day is “The earth is the Lord’s and all that fills it,”

as the destruction took place on the first day of the week, as we learned: “It was the day after Shabbat.” But the psalm

“And He brought upon them their own iniquity” is the song for the fourth day of the week.

Rather,

necessarily,

a lament

[a dirge]

simply happened to fall into their mouths,

and it was not the obligatory song, nor is it relevant at all to Rabbi Avin’s dilemma.

And we challenge this:

But

“the Levites”

are taught to be standing on their platform,

which indicates that it was in the capacity of song.

And we answer:

It is in accordance with the statement of Reish Lakish, who said: They recite song not

over an offering.

And we ask:

If so,

if it is permitted to recite it on the platform even when it is not obligatory, what was Rabbi Avin uncertain about

with regard to a voluntary burnt offering?

For it

too, let them recite

song; even if it is not obligatory, it is permitted. What would they lose by doing so?

And we answer: If song is not obligatory for a voluntary burnt offering, reciting it would

result in a harmful consequence.

People might say that just as song is optional for a voluntary burnt offering, so too for a mandatory burnt offering it is merely optional. Therefore, it should not be recited at all over an offering brought as a voluntary offering.

And we conclude:

What conclusion was reached

concerning Rabbi Avin’s dilemma?

And we resolve it:

Come and hear, as Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, taught:

It is written: “And you shall sound the trumpets

over your burnt offerings and over your sacrifices of peace offerings,”

and peace offerings are equated with burnt offerings:

Just as a burnt offering is most holy, so too peace offerings

mentioned in the verse with regard to the obligation to sound the trumpets are specifically peace offerings that are

most holy,

namely communal peace offerings, such as the lambs of Shavuot, and not other peace offerings, which are lesser sanctities and do not require the sounding of trumpets. And burnt offerings are equated with peace offerings:

Just as peace offerings have a fixed time

[as we established it with regard to the lambs of Shavuot],

so too a burnt offering that has a fixed time,

namely, a mandatory burnt offering such as the daily offerings and additional offerings, whose time is fixed, excluding a voluntary burnt offering, whose time is not fixed. Sounding and song have the same law. Rabbi Avin’s dilemma is therefore resolved.