Arakhin 13b — the Talmud in English

And this is what it is saying: One may not have fewer than six lambs ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page location")

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

For concerning the daily offering, it is necessary that four days before the day of its slaughter the lamb be inspected for a blemish.

And whose opinion is this? It is that of Ben Bag Bag. For it was taught: Ben Bag Bag says: From where [do we know] that the daily offering

requires inspection

four

days before slaughter? The verse says

concerning the daily offering,

“You shall guard it to offer it to Me at its appointed time.” And below

concerning the Paschal offering

it says, “And it shall be for you as a guarded [animal] until the fourteenth day of this month.”

And they learn by a gzera shava, “you shall guard” and “guarded,”

just as there

concerning the Paschal offering

it requires inspection four days before slaughter [

for its purchase was on the tenth of the month and its slaughter was on the fourteenth, and these are the four days of inspection]

so too here

concerning 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 offered on that day. At first, on the day of the inauguration of the altar, eight inspected lambs were placed there. After two were taken for the daily offerings of that day, two others were inspected before nightfall and brought in their place, so that they would be fit for the fifth day. And on the second day, after two were offered, two others were brought in their place, so that they would be visible for the sixth day, and so it continued. Thus all the daily offerings were inspected four days before slaughter.

And we support this interpretation:

it is also precise

that this is the intention of the Mishna.

For it teaches “

six lambs, etc.

for Shabbat,”

and it implies that this is merely a sign.

But it does not teach “

six lambs, etc.

for Shabbat,”

which would imply that it is referring to the needs of Shabbat itself.

And it concludes:

infer from it

that this is so.

We learned in the Mishna:

“One may not have fewer than two trumpets, and one adds, etc.”

And we ask:

And up to how many

trumpets may one add?

And we answer:

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

trumpets. As it is stated:

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

We learned in the Mishna:

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

And we ask:

From where are these matters?

And we answer:

Rav Asi said: For the verse says, “And Asaph with cymbals.”

Thus there was one Levite alone.

And we object:

“Cymbals” is plural

cymbals

they were.

And we answer:

Since they perform one activity

for they strike against one another, and one is of no use without its companion,

and one person performs [the activity] with them, he calls them

a pair of cymbals

one.

Mishna:

One may not have fewer than twelve Levites

standing

on the platform

at the time of the song,

and one adds without limit. The

Levite

minor

enters the Temple courtyard for service

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

Only at the time

that the Levites recite

the song

and he joins them.

But the

minors

did not recite [

play]

with the lyre or with the harp, but with the mouth, in order to give flavor to the melody

of the Levites. For the voice of a minor is thin and flavors the voice of the adults.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: The minors do not ascend

the minors

to the count

of twelve Levites; they come only as an addition.

And the minors do not ascend

the minors

to the platform

of the Levites,

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

who stood above them on the platform.

And they were called the “sorrowers of the Levites.”

Gemara:

And we consider:

These

twelve Levites

corresponding to what?

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said: Corresponding to

nine lyres, two harps, and one cymbal

of which one may not have fewer; twelve Levites were therefore required. And this is likewise proven from the verse,

as it is stated

concerning the division of singers of Gedaliah,

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

We learned in the Mishna:

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

sing.”

And we consider:

From where are these matters?

And we answer:

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: For the verse says, “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 it already mentioned the sons of each one. Rather, it comes to include minors. [Tosafot]

We learned in the Mishna:

“They would not recite, neither with the harp nor with the lyre, but with the mouth, etc.”

And we ask:

Does this mean that the harp is one thing and the lyre another

and that they are two instruments? If so,

let us say that our Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Judah. For it was taught: Rabbi Judah says: The lyre of the Temple had

seven strings. As it is stated, “Fullness of joys in Your presence.” Do not read “fullness” but “seven.”

And it is referring to joy before the Lord, like the song in the Temple.

And the lyre

of the days of the Messiah

has

eight

strings.

As it is stated, “For the leader, on the eighth,” meaning, on an eighth string.

And that of the World to Come

has

ten

strings.

As it is stated, “Upon a ten-stringed instrument and upon the harp, upon the meditation of the lyre. And it says

further

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

And these verses refer to the song of the World to Come, in which it says “song” in the masculine form, whereas songs in this world are called “song” in the feminine form, as explained in the Mekhilta. And from the fact that Rabbi Judah learns that the lyre has ten strings from “a ten-stringed harp,” it is proven that “lyre” is the same as “harp,” and not as in our Mishna.

And we answer:

Even if you say

our Mishna is

in accordance with Rabbi Judah,

there is no contradiction. And Rabbi Judah called the lyre a harp only

in the World to Come. Since its strings are numerous, its sound is great

like that of a harp,

therefore

he calls it a harp.

We learned in our Mishna:

“Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: They do not ascend in the count, etc.”

And the disturbers of the Levites were called.

And in the beraita

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

For this is an expression of support and assistance, since they are the helpers of the Levites.

And the tanna of our [Mishna]

why does he call them disturbers?

Since these

small ones

their voices are thin [

thin ]

and these

large ones

their voices are thick; these make their voices thin [

that is, they diminish their voices, and it becomes thin and pleasant ]

and these do not make their voices thin; he calls them “disturbers,”

for they distress the Levites, since they cannot make their voices as pleasant as theirs.

We have returned to you, chapter “No Valuations Are Made.”

Mishna:

There are cases involving valuations in which the law is lenient and cases in which it is stringent:

The Torah assigned fixed amounts for persons whose value is vowed, so that the one who makes the valuation does not give an amount corresponding to the actual value of the person whose value was vowed,

whether this results in leniency or stringency

[that is, whether the fixed amount is less than or greater than the person’s actual value], as the Mishna explains below.

And with regard to an ancestral field

[a field inherited by a person from his father or from another heir — Rambam], there is a case in which the Torah assigned a fixed amount for one who redeems it from consecrated property, and the redeemer does not pay according to its actual value,

whether this results in leniency or stringency

[that is, whether the fixed amount is less than or greater than its actual value], as the Mishna explains below.

And with regard to an ox classified as forewarned

[an ox that gored three times and whose owner was warned in court],

that killed a slave,

the Torah assigned a fixed amount for the fine paid by the ox’s owner to the slave’s master, and he does not pay according to the slave’s actual value,

whether this results in leniency or stringency,

as the Mishna explains below.

With regard to one who violates

[a virgin]

and one who seduces

[a virgin]

and one who defames

[a man who says to the father of his young wife, “I did not find signs of virginity in your daughter,” and brings witnesses that she committed adultery], there is a case in which the Torah assigned a fixed amount for the fine that they must give to their fathers,

whether this results in leniency or stringency,

as the Mishna explains below.

There are cases involving valuations in which the law is lenient and cases in which it is stringent. How so?

If one person valued the most attractive person among the Jewish people,

whose actual value is one hundred maneh,

and the least attractive person among the Jewish people,

whose actual value is only five sela,

he gives —

when the person whose value was vowed is between twenty and sixty years old —

fifty sela,

and thus we are lenient with regard to the attractive person and stringent with regard to the unattractive person.

And

if he said

about the attractive or unattractive person:

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

For this is not a valuation, but a monetary assessment. In such a case there is no fixed amount; rather, the payment is determined as it would be for a slave sold in the marketplace.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna:

There are cases involving valuations in which the law is lenient and cases in which it is stringent. How so? If one valued

the most attractive person among the Jewish people, etc.

The Gemara analyzes the wording of the Mishna, which says “among the Jewish people”:

Among the Jewish people,

when he is valued,

he does not

[that is, he does not merely give his fixed valuation]!

When a gentile

is valued,

he does not

the one making the valuation say anything, because a gentile is not subject to a valuation! If so,

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

by a Jew,

but he cannot make a valuation

for others.

The Gemara rejects this:

Even if you say

that our Mishna is the opinion of

Rabbi Meir,

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

the same law applies: even a gentile too

is subject to a valuation.

Rather,

the tanna used the expression “the most attractive person among the Jewish people” and did not say “the most attractive person among the Canaanites,” because it is forbidden to mention a Canaanite’s beauty!