Arakhin 11b — the Talmud in English

that he commanded him

concerning matters of sound,

that is, to sing. Moses was a Levite.

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

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

Rabbi Yonatan said: From here:

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

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

And Levites were likened by this to priests.

Just as “you”

that is, priests,

in the Temple service, so “they”

that is, Levites,

in the Temple service,

but among Levites, Temple service applies only to singing.

It was taught likewise,

that from here we learn singing from the Torah:

“And they shall not die, neither they nor you”: just as you are in the Temple service, so they are in the Temple service.

And we further infer:

you in theirs

and they

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

they

who altered

in theirs,

such as a singing Levite who guarded [who closed the doors], and a Levite whose duty was to guard, but who sang,

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

they were warned, Rashi].

Abaye said: We have accepted

as the halakha not like the tanna in the beraita. Rather,

a singer who guarded,

who performed

in 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 eastward, Moses and Aaron

and his sons guarding the charge of the sanctuary, etc.,

and the outsider who approaches shall be put to death.”

And this was said also regarding the service of the Levites.

And he explains it:

What is “outsider”? If you say an actual outsider,

that is, an Israelite,

it is already written once

in this section, that he is subject to death.

Rather, is it not speaking of an outsider with respect to that service

in which he served? That is, a Levite who performed a service for which he has no appointment: since he was not appointed to it, he is liable to death.

He raised an objection:

We learned:

A singer who guarded

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

And how does Abaye dispute the tanna in the beraita?

And we answer: It is a dispute

between tannaim. For it was taught: An incident involving Rabbi Joshua ben Hananiah, who went to assist in closing

the doors together with Rabbi Yohanan ben Gudgada,

who were both Levites.

He said to him,

Rabbi Yohanan ben Gudgada said to him:

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

And we explain their dispute:

Is it not that they disagree about this, that one

[Rabbi Yohanan]

holds

that a singer who guarded

is subject to death,

but indeed the Torah prohibition applies only when he guarded alone, whereas merely assisting is permitted by Torah law.

And the Rabbis decreed concerning it

in the case of assistance, since its essential prohibition involves death.

And the other

[Rabbi Joshua ben Hananiah]

holds that even when he guards alone he is not subject to death, but only

Therefore, since assisting is permitted by Torah law,

a warning.

And therefore, in the case of assisting, which is permitted by Torah law,

they did not decree concerning it

the Rabbis. And Abaye holds like Rabbi Yohanan ben Gudgada.

And we reject this:

No; everyone agrees that it is only a warning

alone.

One holds that the Rabbis decreed concerning assistance

lest he come to perform it alone, even though this does not involve death.

And the other holds that the Rabbis did not decree concerning it.

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

Rabbi Avin raised a question: A communal voluntary burnt offering

[which comes from the “summering of the altar,” from the collection boxes into which money for surplus sin offerings and guilt offerings is placed]—is it

required to have singing

with its libations,

or is it not required to have singing?

“And you shall sound over your burnt offerings”

[that is, singing]

the Merciful One said,

and from the fact that it is written in the plural it implies:

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

Or perhaps

only a mandatory burnt offering requires singing. And that which is written, “your burnt offerings,” in the plural—“your burnt offerings”

the Merciful One said regarding all Israel,

but all of them are of one kind of burnt offering, namely, a mandatory burnt offering.

And we resolve it:

Come and hear: “And Hezekiah commanded to offer the burnt offering 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 inquire:

What was this singing for? If you say

the singing

of a mandatory burnt offering, why did Hezekiah need

Hezekiah

to consult?

And from the expression “Hezekiah commanded” it implies that Hezekiah consulted.

Rather, is it not

the singing

of a voluntary burnt offering

that is being discussed there, and Hezekiah consulted about whether it requires singing. And ultimately he ruled that it requires singing. Rabbi Avin’s doubt is resolved.

And we reject this:

Rav Yosef said: No,

this is not what is being discussed there. Rather,

it was the burnt offering of the New Moon

there.

And they were asking

Hezekiah,

Was the New Moon established in its time?

For that day was the thirtieth of the month, and it was the New Moon,

so that it could be offered

on it the burnt offering of the New Moon,

or not?

The month was sanctified only on the following day, and it was not fit to be offered. He consulted not about the singing, but about the sacrifice itself. Consequently, there is no proof from here for the doubt.

Abaye said to him: Can you say this? Is it not written, “On the sixteenth day of the first month, etc., and Hezekiah commanded to offer the burnt offering 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:

It was the lamb brought with the Omer.

For the incident occurred on the sixteenth of Nisan, which is the day of the waving of the Omer.

And they were asking, Was the New Moon established

of Nisan

in its time,

and now it is the time of the Omer,

so that the lamb could be offered

the lamb?

Or not?

It was sanctified not in its time but on the following day, and it was still not the time of the Omer.

Rav Avya challenged this:

How can one say that they were uncertain about this?

Let us see how they performed the Passover offering and how they ate matza!

And if they performed them on the previous day, then certainly the New Moon was established in its time.

Rather, Rav Ashi said:

Hezekiah was never uncertain about any doubt. And his consulting was for a request for permission, not because of a doubt.

Just as a communal prayer leader consults

and requests permission to pray.

And we conclude:

Now that you have arrived at this

that he asked not because of a doubt,

even say

that

it was a mandatory burnt offering

there; it is also understood.

Just as a communal prayer leader consults.

And we return to resolve Rabbi Avin’s question:

Come and hear: Rabbi Yose says: Merit is rolled onto a meritorious day,

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

And

merit is rolled

onto a liable day,

as follows.

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

That is, it was a liable day on which the congregation wept because of the sin of the spies.

And it was the day after Shabbat. And it was the day after the Sabbatical year

that year.

And the watch of Jehoiarib was

the watch of that week.

And priests

and Levites were standing on their platform and saying the song. And what song did they say?

They sang the psalm

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

they sang.

And they did not manage to say

the words

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

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

And we inquire:

What was this singing for? If you say that it

was over

a mandatory burnt offering,

it

could it have been?

And

this,

already

on the seventeenth of Tammuz the daily offering had ceased,

for they had no lambs because of the siege.

Rather, is it not

the singing

of a voluntary burnt offering

that it was? Then resolve the doubt, that a voluntary burnt offering requires singing.

And we reject this:

But can you understand it so?

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

What is different about a mandatory burnt offering, that it did not exist, and what is different about a voluntary burnt offering

that it should be said

that it existed?

For just as there were no lambs for this one, there were none for that one.

And we answer:

This is not difficult,

for it can be said that

a bull

by

mere happenstance was what came to hand for them,

which is not fit for the daily offering, for which a lamb is required, but is fit for a voluntary burnt offering. And once again the question can be resolved.

And again we reject it:

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

Certainly the song of the sacrifice is not being discussed. For

the song of that day is “The earth is the Lord’s and its fullness”

which it was, since the destruction occurred on the first day, 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]

was merely what fell into their mouths

and it was not the obligatory song, and it has no connection at all to Rabbi Avin’s question.

And he asks:

But “

Levites

standing on their platform,” it teaches,

and it implies that it was in the form of song.

And we answer:

As Reish Lakish expounded, for he said: They say song not

over a sacrifice.

And we ask:

If so,

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

regarding a voluntary burnt offering?

For it

too, let us say

song; and even if it is not obligatory, it is optional. What would be lost by this?

And we answer: If singing over a voluntary burnt offering is not obligatory, if they say it,

a harmful consequence will emerge from it.

They might say that just as with a voluntary burnt offering the singing is optional, so with a mandatory burnt offering the singing is also only optional. Therefore, one should not say it at all over a voluntary sacrifice.

And we conclude:

What is the outcome

of Rabbi Avin’s question?

And we resolve it:

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

It is written, “And you shall sound with the trumpets

over your burnt offerings and over your peace offerings,”

and peace offerings are compared to a burnt offering:

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

mentioned in the verse with regard to the obligation of sounding, specifically peace offerings that are

most holy,

namely communal peace offerings such as the lambs of Atzeret, but not other peace offerings, which are lesser holy offerings and do not require sounding. And a burnt offering is compared to peace offerings:

Just as peace offerings have a fixed time

[as we established with the lambs of Atzeret],

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 singing have one law. Rabbi Avin’s question is resolved.