Arakhin 12a — the Talmud in English

It was raised as a question before them: libations that come on their own

such as when they brought a communal offering today but did not bring its libations with it, and brought them on the following day, and this is valid, as explained in tractate Menahot

require song, or do they not require song?

And we explain the two sides of the uncertainty:

Since Rabbi Shmuel bar Nahmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said, “From where is it derived that song is recited only over wine, etc.?” we say

that this is said with regard to the libations alone, even when the sacrifice is not with them, because everything depends upon the wine.

Or perhaps it is over eating and drinking,

that is, the sacrifice and the libations together,

that we say,

but

over drinking alone

even though it is the principal factor requiring song, nevertheless, without a sacrifice, which constitutes eating,

we do not say it. 78 .

And he seeks to resolve it:

Come and hear: Rabbi Yosei says, “Merit is brought about through the agency of a meritorious day, etc.,”

and the Levites stand on their platform and recite song.

And we inquire about it:

What is the nature of this song? If you say it was for a obligatory burnt-offering, could there have been one

then, on the Ninth of Av

? But the daily offering had already ceased on the Seventeenth of Tammuz.

Rather, it was for a voluntary burnt-offering,

such as when a young bull happened to become available to them, as above. This too is not possible.

For Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, taught

with regard to a voluntary burnt-offering

that it does not require

song.

Rather, is it not that it was for libations

of an obligatory burnt-offering that they offered—the libations that belonged to the daily offering from before the Seventeenth of Tammuz, and they brought them now on their own, and recited song over them? And resolve the uncertainty from this.

And we reject this:

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

How can it be established in this manner? Was it not the conclusion of Shabbat,

and the song of that day was, “The earth and all that fills it belong to the Lord”?

Whereas the song mentioned in the beraita for that day was from the psalm

“He brought their iniquity back upon them”

and

that is the song for the fourth day of the week.

Rather,

necessarily,

a lament

a dirge

was what happened to come into their mouths,

and it was not part of the obligatory song of the sacrifices.

And we object:

But it teaches, “They stand on their platform,”

which proves that it was an obligatory song.

And we answer:

It is in accordance with the statement of Reish Lakish, for Reish Lakish said: One recites song

even

not over a sacrifice,

as an optional matter.

And we object:

If so, with regard to libations as well, let us say

that it is optional; and what was the substance of the uncertainty?

And we answer:

A harmful consequence would result

for they might say that just as libations that come on their own are optional, so too libations that come with the sacrifice are optional. Therefore, if it is not obligatory, it is preferable not to recite it at all.

And we return to explain

the body

of the beraita cited above:

Rabbi Yosei says, “Merit is brought about through the agency of a meritorious day, etc.,”

and we object:

At first,

when the Temple was destroyed,

did you find this possible on the conclusion of a Sabbatical cycle?

But it is written

in the prophecy of Ezekiel, which occurred

“in the twenty-fifth year of our exile, at the beginning of the year, on the tenth of the month, in the fourteenth year after the city was struck.”

And Scripture called the tenth of the month the beginning of the year. And the Gemara explains:

Which year is it in which the beginning of the year

falls

on the tenth of the month? You must say that this is the Jubilee

for its Day of Atonement is similar to the beginning of the year, when the court sounds the blasts, the slaves are released and the fields return to their owners, and then it becomes apparent that it is the Jubilee year. It follows that the fourteenth year after the destruction was a Jubilee year .

And if it should enter your mind that the Temple was destroyed in the first year of the week

that is, at the conclusion of a Sabbatical cycle,

it would be ruined

the fourteenth year after the destruction could not be a Jubilee year. For

from the first year of the week

in which the destruction occurred

to the first year of the week

following it there are eight years [including the year of the destruction]. It follows that the conclusion of the second Sabbatical cycle, the year of

eight, is eight years after the conclusion of the first Sabbatical cycle. And by

relative to the conclusion of the first Sabbatical cycle. And

the next first year of the week,

that is, the conclusion of the third Sabbatical cycle, it is already the year of

fifteen

after the conclusion of the first Sabbatical cycle. The Jubilee year is always at the conclusion of a Sabbatical cycle. How, then, could Scripture say that the Jubilee year was the fourteenth year after the destruction?

And we answer:

Ravina said: “In the fourteenth year”

that the verse states does not mean including the year of the destruction. Rather,

after the year in which the city was struck,

and from then fourteen years had passed until that prophecy. The prophecy therefore occurred in the fifteenth year after the destruction.

And he asks:

If so,

that it occurred in the fifteenth year, why is it written

“in the twenty-fifth year

of our exile”? Was it not in the year of

twenty-six

of the exile that they

were?

For the Master said: They were exiled

Israel with Jeconiah

in

the

seventh

year of Nebuchadnezzar’s conquest of the kingdom of Jehoiakim,

and they were exiled

also

in

the year of

eight [and below it will be explained what “eight” means]. And in the second exile, that of Zedekiah,

[and below it will be explained what “eight” means]. And in the second exile, that of Zedekiah,

they were exiled in the eighteenth

year of the conquest of Jehoiakim,

and they were exiled in the nineteenth

year [and the questioner thought that an additional exile occurred in the nineteenth, in addition to the eighteenth year].

And Ezekiel was exiled with the exile of Jeconiah.

From

the year of

seven,

which is Ezekiel’s exile,

until eighteen

which is the year of Zedekiah’s exile, in which the Temple was destroyed, there are eleven years, and those

eleven

years,

and

another

fifteen

years after the destruction, when Ezekiel’s prophecy occurred according to Ravina, make the year of

twenty-six

from Ezekiel’s exile

already,

whereas the verse states only twenty-five.

And we answer:

Ravina can say to you: And according to you,

who said that the prophecy occurred in the fourteenth year after the destruction,

is the verse satisfactory

to you?

Since they were exiled

in the exile of Zedekiah

also in the nineteenth

year of the conquest of Jehoiakim, as cited above, if so,

from

the year of

seven

of Ezekiel’s exile

until

the year of

nineteen

which is the end of Zedekiah’s exile [and then the Temple was destroyed],

twelve

years have passed. And those twelve years

and

another

fourteen

years after the destruction [when the prophecy occurred], make the year of

twenty-six

of Ezekiel’s exile,

they would be, whereas it is written, “in the twenty-fifth year of our exile.”

therefore, whereas the verse says: “In the twenty-fifth year of our exile.”

Rather, what can you say?

That it was indeed the twenty-sixth year, and it calls it “the twenty-fifth year” because they calculate

excluding the year in which they were exiled,

so that after it there were twenty-five years.

And just as according to your words this is excluding the year in which they were exiled,

so too according to me

it must be explained in this manner.

For excluding the year in which they were exiled

this is “the twenty-fifth year of our exile”; in truth, it was already the twenty-sixth year.

And we object: This is understandable if the destruction occurred in the eighteenth year of Jehoiakim’s conquest. But

in any event,

according to what was stated above, that it was in the year of

nineteen,

it is

difficult for Ravina,

for even if you count the years excluding the year of the exile, there are twenty-six years from Ezekiel’s exile until the aforementioned prophecy: twelve years between the exile in the seventh year and the destruction in the nineteenth year, and another fourteen years after the destruction, when the prophecy was stated.

And we answer:

Do you hold that there were three exiles,

and that the eighteenth year and the nineteenth year were two separate years? That is not so. Rather, there were only two exiles.

And this is how what the Master said is explained:

They were exiled in the seventh year of Jehoiakim’s conquest

through Nebuchadnezzar,

which was

the year of

eight

of the reign of

Nebuchadnezzar. This was the first exile, that of Jeconiah; and in the second exile, that of Zedekiah,

Это было первое изгнание — изгнание Йехояхина. А во время второго изгнания, при Цидкиягу,

they were exiled

in the year of

eighteen of Jehoiakim’s conquest, which was

the year of

nineteen

of the reign of

Nebuchadnezzar.

And between the exile of Jeconiah and the exile of Zedekiah and the destruction there were only eleven years. [And Ravina’s words are thereby resolved.]

For the Master said:

In the

first year

of his reign,

Nebuchadnezzar conquered

the city of

Nineveh.