Sukkah 50b (נ:) — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

It was stated: Rav Yehuda and Rav Einai

disagreed about the wording of the Mishna, with regard to the joy of the Water-Drawing Celebration:

One tanna taught:

the joy of the House of

Drawing.

And another tanna taught:

the joy of the House of

the Important One.

Mar Zutra said: The one who teaches “

Drawing”

is not mistaken, and

also

the one who teaches “

Important”

is not mistaken.

The one who teaches “

Drawing”

is not mistaken—

as it is written [Isaiah 12]: “

And you shall draw water with joy.”

And the celebration is called by the name of the drawing of the water.

And the one who 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, already

from the six days of Creation,

in order to receive the libations.

The Sages taught: The flute overrides Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda.

And the Rabbis say: Even

the

Festival it does not override.

Rav Yosef said:

All the

dispute

is only

with regard to the song accompanying an offering,

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

Rabbi Yosei holds: The principal

mitzva of

song

of the Levites accompanying the offering is

through

the combination of the playing of a

musical instrument.

And

therefore, the playing of the flute accompanying the offering is considered part of the

Temple service

of the offering;

it

is considered so.

And

therefore, it

overrides Shabbat,

just as the service of a communal offering overrides Shabbat.

And

if

the Rabbis hold: The principal song

is

with the mouth, and

the playing of an instrument that accompanies it

is not

part of the

Temple service.

And

therefore it

does not override Shabbat.

But the song of the Water-Drawing Celebration—

according to everyone, it is joy

and not a Temple service;

and

therefore the playing of an instrument during the Water-Drawing Celebration

does not override Shabbat.

Rav Yosef said: From where do I say

how do I know

that they disagree about this,

that the Rabbis and Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda disagree whether the principal song is through the combination of playing an instrument?

From this:

As it was taught: Service vessels that one made of wood—

Rabbi disqualifies them, and Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda deems them fit.

What, is it not that they disagree about this:

The one who deems them fit holds

that

the principal song

is

with an instrument,

and

therefore

we derive it from the flute of Moses,

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

And the one who disqualifies them holds

that

the principal song

is

with the mouth.

And

therefore

we do not derive it from the flute of Moses,

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

And this refutes Rav Yosef’s proof:

No,

they did not disagree about this.

Rather, it can always be said

that everyone

holds that

the principal song is with an instrument.

And here they

disagree over the question of whether one

derives

a matter that

can

be performed in another manner

from

a matter

that cannot

be performed in another manner;

they disagree.

The one who deems them fit holds: “

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

And although the flute of Moses could not be made of metal but only of wood, nevertheless we may learn from it that service vessels too may be made of wood.

And the one who disqualifies them holds: “

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

And therefore one cannot derive this with regard to service vessels, since service vessels can be made of metal.

And if you wish, say: Everyone

holds

that the principal song

is

with the mouth,

and therefore one cannot derive from the flute of Moses with regard to service vessels.

And

even if you say that the principal song is with an instrument, nevertheless one cannot derive from the flute of Moses, since everyone holds that

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

And here—

with regard to deriving

the method for making the

menora

of gold, whether it is derived

by

the hermeneutical principle of “

generalization and specification,”

or by

the principle of “

inclusion and limitation,”

they disagree.

When

Rabbi expounded

the making of the menora of gold by means of the principle of

generalization and specification,

whereas

Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda expounded

it by means of the principle of “

inclusions and limitations.”

The method of generalization and specification differs from the method of inclusion and limitation in one respect, and from this there follows an additional distinction between generalization, specification, and generalization, on the one hand, and inclusion, limitation, and inclusion, on the other.

The principle of “generalization and specification” states that the specification comes to interpret and define the generalization, so that the generalization includes nothing else—not even something resembling the specification—apart from the specific item stated in the verse.

By contrast, the principle of “inclusion and limitation” states that the limitation comes only to exclude, and to say that the inclusion does not include everything. But this does not mean that the limitation narrows the inclusion to one specific item; unlike the principle of “generalization and specification,” the limitation does not exclude things resembling it, but only itself, whereas things resembling it may remain included in the inclusion.

It follows that with the principle of “generalization, specification, and generalization,” the additional generalization comes to add and include only things resembling the specification. Were it not for the generalization following the specification, they would have been excluded by virtue of the principle of “generalization and specification”; through the additional generalization, things resembling the specification are also included. But the additional generalization does not have the power to extend and include everything.

However, with the principle of “inclusion, limitation, and inclusion,” there is no need for the additional inclusion to include things resembling the limitation, since they were not excluded by virtue of the limitation. Therefore, it comes to include everything.

And the limitation comes only to exclude one thing.

Rabbi expounds generalizations and specifications:

As it is written [Exodus 25]: “And you shall make a menora of pure gold; of hammered work shall the menora be made.” “

And you shall make a menora”—

a generalization, “

pure gold”—

a specification, “

of hammered work shall the menora be made”—

he returned and generalized.

And the rule is:

generalization, specification, and generalization—

you derive only what is similar to the specification.

Just as the specification explicitly refers—

to metal, so too anything made of metal

is fit for making the menora, but not something made of wood.

Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda expounds inclusions and limitations: “

And you shall make a menora”—

it includes. “

pure gold”—

it limits. “

of hammered work shall the menora be made”—

it returned and included.

And the rule is:

inclusion, limitation, and inclusion—

it includes everything.

What does it include—

it includes every material,

What does it exclude—

it excludes earthenware.

Rav Pappa said: