Sukkah 50b — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

It was stated: Rav Yehuda and Rav Einah

disagreed concerning the version of the Mishna, regarding the joy of the Water-Drawing Celebration:

One teaches:

the joy of the House of the

Drawing.

And one teaches:

the joy of the House of the

Important One.

Mar Zutra said: Whoever teaches "

Drawing"

is not mistaken, and

also

whoever teaches "

Important"

is not mistaken.

Whoever teaches "

Drawing"

is not mistaken —

as it is written [Isaiah 12] "

And you shall draw water with joy."

And it is called the joy on account of the drawing of the water.

And whoever teaches "

Important"

is not mistaken —

as

Rav Naḥman said: It is an important mitzva, and it came

through the creation of the channels beneath the place of the altar even

from the six days of Creation

in order to receive the libations.

The Sages taught: The flute overrides Shabbat; these are the words of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda.

And the Sages say: Even

the

Festival day it does not override.

Rav Yosef said:

All the

dispute

is only

with regard to the song of a sacrifice,

when the Levites played the flute during the pouring of the wine of a communal sacrifice.

For Rabbi Yosei holds: The essential

mitzva of

song

of the Levites over the sacrifice is

with

the joining of the playing of a

musical instrument.

And

therefore the playing of the flute over the sacrifice is included in the

service

of the sacrifice

and is

considered so.

And

therefore it

overrides Shabbat

just as the service of a communal sacrifice overrides Shabbat.

And

if

the Sages hold: The essential song

is

by mouth, and

the playing of the instrument that joins it

is not

included in

the service.

And

therefore it

does not override Shabbat.

But the song of the Drawing —

according to everyone it is joy

and is not service,

and

therefore the playing of an instrument at the time of the joy of the Water-Drawing Celebration

does not override Shabbat.

Rav Yosef said: From where do I say

from where do I know

that they disagree concerning this,

whether the essential song is through the joining of playing on an instrument?

From this

as it was taught: Vessels of service that one made of wood —

Rabbi disqualifies, and Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda validates.

What, is it not that they disagree concerning this:

The one who validates holds

that

the essential song

is

with an instrument,

and

therefore

we derive it from the pipe of Moses,

from the pipe of Moses our teacher, which was made of wood and was in the Temple from the days of Moses our teacher. And just as it is fitting to use the wooden flute for the service of song in the Temple, so too it is permitted to use in the Temple vessels of service made of wood.

And the one who disqualifies holds

that

the essential song

is

by mouth.

And

therefore

we do not derive it from the pipe of Moses,

since it does not serve as a vessel for service in the Temple.

And this rejects Rav Yosef’s proof:

No,

that is not what they disagreed about.

Rather, one can always say

that everyone

holds that

the essential song is with an instrument.

And here they

disagree over the question whether

one derives

a matter that

can

be done otherwise,

from

a matter

that cannot

be done otherwise.

They disagree.

The one who validates holds: "

One derives what can be done from what cannot be done."

And although the pipe of Moses could not be made of metal, but only of wood, nevertheless we can learn from it that vessels of service can also be made of wood.

And the one who disqualifies holds: "

One does not derive what can be done from what cannot be done."

And therefore one cannot learn from it with regard to vessels of service, since vessels of service can be made of metal.

And if you wish, say: Everyone

holds

that the essential song

is

by mouth,

and therefore one cannot learn from the pipe of Moses with regard to vessels of service.

And

even if you say that the essential song is with an instrument, nevertheless it is impossible to learn from the pipe of Moses, since everyone holds that

one does not derive what can be done from what cannot be done.

And here —

in deriving

the teaching concerning making the

menorah

of gold, whether one derives it

by

the interpretive rule of "

general and specific,"

or by

the interpretive rule of "

multiplication and limitation,"

they disagree.

When

Rabbi expounds

the making of the menorah of gold by the rule of

general and specific,

whereas

Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda expounds

this by the rule of "

multiplications and limitations."

The derivation of general and specific differs from the derivation of multiplication and limitation in one point, and from it follows an additional distinction between general, specific, and general, and multiplication, limitation, and multiplication.

The rule of "general and specific" says that the specific comes to explain and define the general, so that the "general" includes nothing else, not even something resembling the specific, apart from the particular specific thing appearing in the verse.

Whereas the rule of "multiplication and limitation" says that the limitation comes only to exclude and say that the multiplication does not multiply everything, but this does not mean that the limitation excludes the multiplication entirely; and unlike the rule of "general and specific," the limitation does not limit things resembling it, but only itself, whereas the things resembling it can remain included in the multiplication.

And from this it follows that under the rule of "general, specific, and general," the additional general comes to add and include only things resembling the specific, which, had it not been for the general after the specific, would have been excluded by virtue of the rule of "general and specific"; and by virtue of the additional general, things resembling the specific are also multiplied, but the additional general does not have the power to extend and include everything.

But under the rule of "multiplication, limitation, and multiplication," the additional multiplication does not need to multiply things resembling the limitation, since they were not excluded by virtue of the limitation; therefore it comes to multiply everything.

And the limitation comes only to limit one thing.

Rabbi expounds general and specific:

For it is written [Exodus 25]: "And you shall make a menorah of pure gold; hammered out shall the menorah be made." "

And you shall make a menorah" —

a general statement, "

pure gold" —

a specific statement, "

hammered out shall the menorah be made" —

it returned and made a general statement.

And the rule is:

general, specific, and general —

you derive only something resembling the specific.

Just as the specific is explicit —

of metal, so too anything of metal

is valid for making the menorah, but not wood.

Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda expounds multiplication and limitation: "

And you shall make a menorah" —

it multiplied. "

pure gold" —

it limited. "

hammered out shall the menorah be made" —

it returned and multiplied.

And the rule is:

multiplication, limitation, and multiplication —

it multiplies everything.

What did it multiply —

it multiplied every matter,

what did it limit —

it limited earthenware.

Rav Pappa said: