Arakhin 12a (יב.) — the Talmud in English

A dilemma was raised before them: Are 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 the next day, which is valid as explained in tractate Menahot

subject to the recitation of song, or are they not subject to the recitation of song?

And we explain the two sides of the dilemma:

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

that this refers to libations alone, even when the offering is not with them, because everything depends on the wine.

Or perhaps it is over eating and drinking—

that is, over the offering and the libations together—

that we say this,

but

over drinking alone

even though it is the primary factor that renders song obligatory, nevertheless, without an offering, which constitutes eating,

we do not say it. 78 .

And he seeks to resolve the dilemma:

Come and hear: Rabbi Yosei says: Merit is brought about through the agency of one who is meritorious, etc.,

and the Levites stood on their platform and recited song.

And we consider this:

What was the nature of this song? If you say it was for a communal obligatory burnt offering, could there have been such an offering

on Tisha be-Av

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

Rather, it was for a voluntary burnt offering,

such as when they happened to obtain a calf, as stated 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 referring to libations

of an obligatory burnt offering that they offered? These libations belonged to the daily offering from before the seventeenth of Tammuz, and they brought them now on their own, and recited song over them. The dilemma is thereby resolved.

And we reject this:

Rava said, and some say Rav Ashi: Can you understand it that way?

How could it be established in this manner? It was 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, “He brought back upon them their iniquity,”

was from the psalm recited

in the song of Wednesday.

Rather,

it must be that

Eliya

(a lamentation)

simply happened to come to their mouths;

it was not part of the song required for offerings.

And we raise an objection:

But it teaches: “They stood on their platform,”

which proves that it was a required song.

And we answer:

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

even

when it is not over an offering,

as an optional practice.

And we raise an objection:

If so, with regard to libations too, let us say

that it is optional; and what, then, was the entire dilemma?

And we answer:

A harmful consequence would result:

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

We return to explain

the body

of the

beraita cited above: “Rabbi Yosei says: Merit is brought about through the agency of one who is meritorious, etc.”

And we raise an objection:

At first,

when the Temple was destroyed

at the conclusion of a Sabbatical cycle, is it possible to find such a case?

But it is written

in Ezekiel’s prophecy that it occurred

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

And Scripture calls the tenth day of the month “the beginning of the year.” And the Gemara explains:

Which is the year whose beginning

falls

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

For its Yom Kippur is similar to the beginning of the year, when the court sounds the shofar, the slaves are emancipated and the fields return to their owners; 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 enters your mind that the Temple was destroyed in the first year of the cycle

(that is, at the conclusion of a Sabbatical year),

it would be destroyed,

which is impossible as an explanation, for the fourteenth year after the destruction could not then have been a Jubilee year. For

from the first year of the cycle

in which the destruction occurred

to the first year of the cycle

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

eight

relative to the conclusion of the first Sabbatical cycle. And

by the next first year of the cycle,

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

fifteen

relative to the conclusion of the first Sabbatical cycle. And the Jubilee year always occurs 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”

stated by the verse does not mean counting the year of the destruction. Rather, it means

“after the year in which the city was struck,”

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

And he asks:

If so,

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

“in the twenty-fifth year

of our exile”? Surely it was in the year of the

twenty-sixth

year

of the exile.

For the Master said: Israel was exiled

with Jehoiachin

in

the

seventh

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

they were exiled

also

in

the year

eight

[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 Jehoiakim’s conquest

and were exiled in the nineteenth

year [the questioner thought that this was an additional exile in the nineteenth year, besides the eighteenth year].

And Ezekiel was exiled with the exile of Jehoiachin.

From

the year

seven,

which was Ezekiel’s exile,

until eighteen

which was 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, as Ravina said, amount to

twenty-six

years from Ezekiel’s exile.

It is

already that year, whereas the verse writes only twenty-five.

And we answer:

Ravina could say to you: But according to your reasoning,

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

is the verse satisfactory

?

Since they were exiled

in Zedekiah’s exile

also in the nineteenth

year of Jehoiakim’s conquest, as cited above, then

from

the year

seven

of Ezekiel’s exile

until

the year

nineteen

which was the end of Zedekiah’s exile [and at that point the Temple was destroyed], there are

twelve

years. And those twelve years

and

another

fourteen

years after the destruction [when the prophecy occurred] amount to

twenty-six

years from Ezekiel’s exile;

it was

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

Rather, what can you say

? That it was in fact the twenty-sixth year, and it is called “the twenty-fifth year” because they count

excluding the year in which they were exiled,

so that twenty-five years had elapsed after it.

And just as according to your explanation this excludes the year in which they were exiled,

so too, according to me,

this can be explained in the same way:

excluding the year in which they were exiled

is what is meant by “the twenty-fifth year of our exile.” In truth, it was already the twenty-sixth year.

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

nevertheless,

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

nineteen,

there is

a difficulty for Ravina,

for even if you count the years excluding the year of 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 think that there were three exiles,

and that the eighteenth and nineteenth years were two separate years of exile? That is not so. There were only two exiles.

And this is how the Master’s statement is to be understood:

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

by Nebuchadnezzar,

which was

the year

eight

of the reign of

Nebuchadnezzar. This was the first exile, that of Jehoiachin. And in the second exile, that of Zedekiah,

they were exiled

in the year

eighteen of Jehoiakim’s conquest, which was

the year

nineteen

of the reign of

Nebuchadnezzar.

And there were only eleven years between the exile of Jehoiachin and the exile of Zedekiah and the destruction [and Ravina’s statement is thereby resolved].

For the Master said:

In the

first year

of his reign,

Nebuchadnezzar conquered

the city of

Nineveh.