Arakhin 13b (יג:) — the Talmud in English

And this is what it is saying: One may not have fewer than six lambs

that have been inspected in the Chamber of the Lambs, four days before slaughter.

Since the daily offering requires that four days before the day of its slaughter, the lamb must be inspected for blemishes.

And whose opinion is this? It is the opinion of ben Bag Bag. As it is taught in a beraita: Ben Bag Bag says: From where is it derived that the daily offering

requires inspection

four

days before slaughter? It is derived from the verse

concerning the daily offering:

“You shall take care to offer it to Me at its appointed time.” And there

concerning the Paschal offering,

He says: “And it shall be for you in safekeeping until the fourteenth day of this month.”

And they derive this by means of a gzera shava between the terms “take care” and “safekeeping”:

Just as there

with regard to the Paschal offering,

it requires inspection four days before slaughter [

for it was acquired on the tenth of the month and slaughtered on the fourteenth, which constitutes four days of inspection],

so too here,

with regard to the daily offering,

it requires inspection four days before slaughter.

The explanation of the matter is that the six inspected lambs are in addition to the two that are sacrificed on that day. At first, on the day of the dedication of the altar, eight inspected lambs were placed there. After two were taken for that day’s daily offerings, two other lambs were inspected before nightfall and brought in their place, so that they would be suitable for the fifth day. On the second day, after two were sacrificed, two others were brought in their place, so that they would be available for the sixth day, and so on. Consequently, all the daily offerings were inspected four days before slaughter.

And we support this interpretation:

It is also precise

that this was the intention of the Mishna.

For it teaches: “Six lambs, etc.,

to Shabbat,”

as an indication

and this implies that it is merely a sign.

But it does not teach: “Six lambs, etc.,

for

Shabbat,”

which would have implied that they were required for Shabbat itself.

And it concludes:

Conclude from this

that this is indeed the case.

We learned in the Mishna:

“One may not have fewer than two trumpets, and more may be added, etc.”

And we ask:

And up to how many

trumpets may be added?

And we answer:

Rav Huna bar Zavdi said, and some say that Rav Zavdi said: Up to one hundred and twenty

trumpets. As it is stated:

“And with them were one hundred and twenty priests sounding trumpets.”

We learned in the Mishna:

“From nine lyres, etc., and the cymbal alone.”

And we ask:

From where are these matters [derived]?

And we answer:

Rav Asi said: For the verse states, “And Asaf with the cymbals.”

Thus, one Levite alone was responsible for them.

And we challenge this:

The term “cymbals”

refers to two cymbals;

there were

two of them.

And we answer:

Since they performed a single task,

and one man performed with them, he called

the pair of cymbals

one.

Mishna:

One may not have fewer than twelve Levites

standing

on the platform

at the time of the song,

and more may be added indefinitely. The

Levite

who is a minor

does not enter the Temple courtyard for the service

of the Levites [as part of the sweeping of the courtyard and closing the doors].

Rather, at the time

that the Levites recite

the song,

he joins them.

And the

minors

did not recite [

play]

with the lyre or the harp, but with their mouths, in order to add flavor to the melody

of the Levites. For the voice of a minor is thin and adds texture to the voices of the adults.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: Minors do not ascend

the

number

of twelve Levites; rather, they come only as an addition.

And they do not ascend

the minors

onto the platform

of the Levites,

but they would stand on the ground, with their heads between the legs of the Levites

standing above them on the platform.

And they were called the assistants of the Levites.

Gemara:

And we consider:

These

twelve Levites

correspond to what?

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said: They correspond to

nine lyres, two harps, and one cymbal,

the minimum number of each, and therefore twelve Levites were required. This is also demonstrated by the verse,

as it is stated

with regard to the division of singers of Gedaliah:

“He and his brothers and his sons, twelve.”

We learned in the Mishna:

A minor does not enter the courtyard for service except at the time when the Levites

recite the song.

And we consider:

From where are these matters [derived]?

And we answer:

Rabbi Yohanan said: For the verse states: “And Jeshua stood with his sons and his brothers, Kadmiel and his sons, the sons of Judah as one, to lead those who performed the work in the House of God, the sons of Henadad, their sons and their brothers, the Levites.”

The end of the verse, which says “their sons and their brothers, the Levites,” is superfluous, since the sons of each one were already mentioned. Rather, it comes to include minors. [Tosafot]

We learned in the Mishna:

They did not recite [the song] with the lyre or with the harp, but with their mouths, etc.

And we ask:

Is this to say that a lyre is one thing and a harp another,

and that they are two distinct instruments? If so,

let us say that the Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda. For it is taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: The lyre of the Temple had

seven strings, as it is stated: “With the fullness of joys in Your presence.” Do not read “fullness” but “seven.”

This refers to joy before the Lord, as in the song of the Temple.

And the lyre

of the Messianic era will have

of

eight

strings.

As it is stated: “For the conductor, on the eighth,” referring to an eighth string.

And that of the World to Come

will have

ten

strings.

As it is stated: “With a ten-stringed instrument and with the harp, with resounding music on the lyre.” And it says

further:

“Give thanks to the Lord with the lyre; with the ten-stringed harp, sing praises to Him; sing to Him a new song.”

These verses refer to the song of the World to Come, in which the word “song” appears in the masculine form, whereas the songs of this world are called “singing” in the feminine form, as explained in the Mekhilta. Since Rabbi Yehuda derives that the lyre has ten strings from the phrase “the ten-stringed harp,” it is evident that a lyre is a harp, and not as the Mishna indicates.

And we answer:

Even if you say

that the Mishna is

in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,

there is no contradiction. Rabbi Yehuda called the lyre a harp only with regard to

the World to Come. Since its strings are more numerous, its sound is greater

like that of a harp,

and therefore

he calls it a harp.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: They are not included in the count, etc.

And the Levite distressers were called.

And in a beraita,

it was taught: “And the Levite supporters were called.”

This is an expression of support and assistance, as they were assistants of the Levites.

And our tanna

why did he call them distressers?

Since these

were small,

their voices were thin

[thin],

whereas these

were large,

their voices were thick; these would make their voices thin

[that is, they would reduce the volume of their voices, making them thin and pleasant],

and these would not reduce their voices; he called them “distressers,”

because they distressed the Levites, who were unable to make their voices as pleasant as theirs.

We have completed the chapter “They Are Not Valued.”

Mishna:

There are instances of leniency and stringency in valuations

in that the Torah assigned a fixed amount to those subject to valuations: The one who makes a valuation does not give an amount corresponding to the value of the person being valued,

whether leniently or stringently

[a leniency and a stringency], as the Mishna explains below.

And with regard to an ancestral field

[a field inherited by a person from his father or from other heirs of his estate – Rambam], there is a fixed amount assigned by the Torah for redeeming it from consecration, and the redeemer does not pay according to its value,

whether leniently or stringently

[a leniency and a stringency], as the Mishna explains below.

And with regard to an ox accustomed to goring

[which gored three times and whose owners were warned in court]

that killed a slave,

the Torah assigned a fixed amount for the fine that the owner of the ox pays the slave’s master, and he does not pay according to the slave’s value,

whether leniently or stringently,

as the Mishna explains below.

With regard to one who rapes

[a virgin]

and one who seduces

[a virgin]

and one who circulates an evil report

[saying to the father of his wife, who is a young woman: “I did not find signs of virginity in your daughter!” and bringing witnesses that she committed adultery], there is a fixed amount assigned by the Torah for the fine that they must give her father,

whether leniently or stringently,

as the Mishna explains below.

There are instances of leniency and stringency in valuations. How so?

If one valued the most handsome person among the Jewish people

whose value is one hundred maneh,

and the ugliest person among the Jewish people

who is worth only five sela,

he gives

—when the person being valued is between twenty and sixty years old—

fifty sela,

and thus we are lenient with regard to the handsome person and stringent with regard to the ugly one.

And

if he said

about the handsome or ugly person:

“His monetary value is incumbent upon me,” he gives his value.

For this is not “valuations” but “monetary values,” for which there is no fixed amount; rather, it is like a slave sold in the marketplace.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna:

There are instances of leniency and stringency in valuations. How so? If one valued

the most handsome person among the Jewish people, etc.

And we infer from what is stated in the Mishna, “among the Jewish people”:

Among the Jewish people,

when he was valued,

no

[he indeed gives his valuation]!

With regard to a gentile,

when he was valued,

no

the one making the valuation said anything, for a gentile is not subject to a valuation! If so,

let us say that our Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Meir, as we learned: With regard to a gentile, Rabbi Meir says: He is subject to valuation

by a Jew,

but he does not make valuations

of others.

And we reject this:

Even if you say

that our Mishna is that of

Rabbi Meir,

it is understandable why the tanna specified “among the Jewish people.” It was not in order to exclude a gentile, because

the same law applies: even a gentile, too,

is subject to valuation;

rather,

the tanna specified “the most handsome person among the Jewish people,” and did not say “the most handsome among the Canaanites,” since it is forbidden to mention beauty with regard to a Canaanite!