Sukkah 51a (נא.) — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara explains: Is the essence of the song vocal or instrumental? —

As they disagree.

It is a dispute between tannaim.

As we learned

in tractate Arakhin: The musicians, those who held the musical instruments during the singing accompanying the offering —

were the servants of priests; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yosei says:

They were Israelites, from

the family

of Beit HaPegarim

and

from

the family of Beit Tzefarya

— [that was what they were called]—who held the musical instruments.

And

those families

from Ammaum

[the name of a place]

were.

And they were

distinguished Israelite families, without any defect of mamzerut or of one disqualified through improper priestly lineage, and because of their distinguished lineage they

would marry

their daughters [or their widows]

to the priesthood.

Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says:

Those who held the musical instruments

were Levites.

Only they were fit to perform the song instrumentally, but not Israelites.

Is that not the point over which they disagree

Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus:

The one who says

[Rabbi Meir]

that they were servants holds

that the

essence of the song

is

vocal,

and the Levites sang vocally, while the servants played the instruments.

And the one who says

[Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus]

that they were Levites holds

that the

essence of the song

is

instrumental.

And the Gemara rejects the statement of Rav Pappa, who says that whether the essence of the song is vocal or instrumental is a dispute between tannaim.

Can it enter your mind

that this is what Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus disputed? But if so, according to your reasoning,

Rabbi Yosei,

who said that they were distinguished Israelites —

what does he hold!?

If he holds that the essence of the song is vocal —

even servants as well [would be fit to play the instruments].

If he holds that the essence of the song is instrumental, Levites —

yes

[that would follow],

but Israelites —

no!

And necessarily, the tannaim did not disagree over this matter.

Rather, everyone holds that the essence of the song is vocal.

Everyone is fit to play the instruments, even servants.

And this is the point over which they disagree

the tannaim in the Mishna in tractate Arakhin:

One master holds: This is what happened, and the other master holds: That is what happened.

The difference among the three tannaim concerns only the account of what happened—who the instrumental musicians were—and not the halakha of who is fit to play.

And the Gemara explains:

What practical difference does it make

who those men were, if this has no bearing on the law of song?

For

elevating someone from the platform to matters of lineage and to tithe —

they disagree.

The question is whether one who stands in the Temple on the platform together with the Levites and plays an instrument may be deemed a distinguished Israelite, who requires no investigation before marrying him to a woman of distinguished lineage, and likewise whether he may be given first tithe as a Levite.

The one who says that they were servants holds

that

one does not elevate someone from the platform to matters of lineage, nor to tithe.

For servants, too, played there.

And the one who says that they were Israelites holds

that one

elevates someone from the platform

only

to matters of lineage,

since they were careful not to appoint there Israelites who were not of distinguished lineage,

but not to tithe,

for Israelites, too, played there.

And the one who says that they were Levites holds: One elevates someone from the platform both to matters of lineage and to tithe.

The Gemara now cites another opinion explaining the dispute in the beraita [on the previous page] as to whether the flute overrides Shabbat:

And Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said: The dispute

over whether the flute overrides Shabbat applies only

to the song of the Drawing of the Water,

which they sang all night on the steps, and which was not part of the Temple service accompanying an offering, but was only intended to increase the joy.

For Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda holds: The additional joy

of the Drawing of the Water

also overrides Shabbat.

Since playing the flute is not a Torah-prohibited labor, but only a rabbinic prohibition of shevut, it is overridden by the mitzva of joy.

And the Rabbis hold:

“The additional joy”

does not override Shabbat,

even a rabbinic prohibition of shevut.

But with the song accompanying an offering,

whose essence is instrumental —

everyone agrees that it is a Temple service and overrides Shabbat.

The Gemara raises an objection

to Rav Yosef, who said above [on the previous page] that Rabbi Yosei ben Yehuda concedes to the Rabbis that the song of the Drawing of the Water, which is for the sake of joy, does not override Shabbat, from an explicit beraita.

As it was taught:

The song of the Drawing of the Water overrides

even

Shabbat —

the statement of Rabbi Yosei ben Yehuda.

And the Sages say: It does not override even a Festival.

And we conclude:

The refutation of Rav Yosef is a conclusive refutation.

We inquire:

Shall we say that it is only with regard to the song of the Drawing of the Water

alone

that they disagree,

the Rabbis and Rabbi Yosei ben Yehuda—

but with regard to the song accompanying an offering,

which is a Temple service —

everyone agrees that it overrides Shabbat?

And if so,

shall we say that this is a refutation of Rav Yosef —

in two respects!

For this beraita would refute two statements of Rav Yosef.

For he also said that the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yosei concerns the song accompanying an offering, whereas the beraita indicates that everyone agrees that the song accompanying an offering is a Temple service and overrides Shabbat. For they disagree only with regard to the joy of the Drawing of the Water.

Rav Yosef could have said to you: They disagree with regard to the song of the Drawing of the Water, and the same law applies

that they disagree

with regard to

the song of an

offering,

as to whether it overrides Shabbat.

And the fact that they disagree with regard to the song of the Drawing of the Water

is

to inform you of the force of Rabbi Yosei ben Yehuda, for even

the song

of the Drawing of the Water,

which is not a Temple service, but only for the sake of joy,

also overrides

Shabbat.

The Gemara now infers from our Mishna against the words of Rav Yosef:

But it was taught

in our Mishna:

This is the flute of the House of the Drawing of the Water, which does not override either Shabbat or a Festival.

And we should infer:

This

flute of the House of the Drawing of the Water

is what does not override

Shabbat or a Festival.

But

the flute

accompanying an offering —

does override

Shabbat and a Festival, since it is included among the Temple services accompanying the offering.

And now we must determine: Our Mishna —

whose opinion is it?

According to whose view was it taught?

If you say it is Rabbi Yosei ben Yehuda,

it is—

It cannot be said so, because

he said: The song of the Drawing of the Water also overrides [Shabbat].

Rather, is it not —

the Rabbis

?

Then it is a refutation of Rav Yosef in two respects!

And we conclude:

Conclusive refutation.

The Gemara now explains the essence of the dispute as to whether the song is vocal or instrumental:

What is the reason of the one who says that the essence of the song is instrumental?

Because this is demonstrated by

what is written

in II Chronicles [chapter 29]: “

And Hezekiah said to bring up the burnt offering to the altar. And when the burnt offering began, the song of the Lord began, together with the trumpets and by means of the instruments of David, king of Israel.”

And it is evident that David’s instruments are called song.

There is no proof from the trumpets, for they were not for the purpose of song, but for the mitzva of sounding the blasts; they sounded them over the daily and additional offerings.

What is the reason of the one who says that the essence of the song is vocal?

Because of

what is written

in II Chronicles [chapter 5]: “

And it came to pass, when the trumpeters and singers were as one, to make one sound.”

No musical instrument is mentioned in this verse.

[As stated, the trumpets mentioned here were not used for song, but for the mitzva of sounding blasts over the daily and additional offerings.]

And we challenge this:

But the other one

[who holds that the essence of the song is vocal]

also—look, it is written “

And Hezekiah

said to bring up the burnt offering to the altar. And when the burnt offering began, the song of the Lord began, together with the trumpets and by means of the instruments of David, king of Israel”!

And we answer:

This is what the verse is saying

: “

The song of the Lord began” —

vocally.

For the vocal song is the essence of the mitzva. “

And

by means of the instruments of David, king of Israel” —

to sweeten

and enhance

the sound,

the sound of the vocal song.

And we challenge this:

But the other one

[who holds that the essence of the song is instrumental]

also—look, it is written “

And it came to pass, when the trumpeters and singers were as one,”

and no musical instrument is mentioned there at all!

And we answer:

This is what it is saying: The singers were analogous to the trumpeters.

Just as

the trumpeters

sound

with instruments,

so

the singers

play

with instruments.

Mishna:

One who has never seen the rejoicing at the Place of the Drawing of the Water —

has never seen rejoicing in his life!

On the conclusion of the first Festival day of Sukkot, they descended

the priests and Levites from the Israelite Courtyard, which was elevated,

to the Women’s Courtyard,

which was lower than it.

And

they

would make there “

a great enactment,”

which will be explained in the Gemara.

There were golden menorot there, with four golden bowls at the top of each one

of the menorot.

And there were four ladders

for

each and every one

of the four bowls at the top of the menorot.

And

four boys would climb and ascend the ladders,

four young men

of

the young men of the priesthood,

one young man for each ladder,

and in their hands

were

jugs

of oil

containing one hundred and twenty log, which they

would

pour

from the jugs

into each and every bowl.

From the worn-out trousers of the priests and from their belts,

their sashes —

from them they would tear

strips of fabric, in order to make wicks from them.

And with them,

these wicks,

they would kindle

the oil in the bowls at the top of the menorot.

And there was no courtyard in Jerusalem that was not illuminated by the light of the Place of the Drawing of the Water.