Sukkah 56a — the Talmud in English

The verse teaches

in the continuation of the verse, which we established as referring to the time of the pilgrimage: [Deuteronomy 18:8]] “

a portion like the portion—

they shall eat.”

Work was juxtaposed with eating, to tell you:

Like the portion of the work,

in which all the priests are equal on the pilgrimage [as was explained above]—

so

will be

the portion of the eating,

in which they will all be equal on the pilgrimage.

And the Gemara explains the words of the beraita:

And what is meant by “

eating,”

with regard to which eating did the verse need to innovate and say that all the priests divide it equally on the pilgrimage?

If you say

the eating of

sacrifices,

of the communal goats brought on account of the pilgrimage, and of the breast and thigh of the pilgrimage sacrifices brought on account of the pilgrimage—this matter already

emerges from there,

from there, from another place—

it emerges!

For we already learned from what is stated concerning the meal-offering [Leviticus 7:9]: “

To the priest who offers it—

it shall belong,”

that the priest who offers it is the priest entitled to eat the sacrifice.

And since all the priests are equal in offering the sacrifices of the pilgrimage on the pilgrimage, they are consequently also equal in eating them, and there is no need for a special teaching concerning the sacrifices of the pilgrimage.

Rather, this verse came to innovate concerning the eating of

of the Presence,

the bread

of the Presence,

which they divide among all of them, despite the fact that no work was performed in it by the priests on the Shabbat on which it is divided. For the work of the bread, which is its arrangement upon the table, was performed on the previous Shabbat, by the previous watch, when they placed it upon the table.

And now the Gemara brings the continuation of the beraita:

One might have thought even with regard to

sacrifices that are

“obligatory offerings that come not on account of the pilgrimage,”

which come

on the pilgrimage,

all the priests would be entitled to their service, and they would also divide in their eating?

The verse teaches [Deuteronomy 18:8]

concerning the priestly watches: “

Apart from what he sold according to the fathers.”

And

what did the “

fathers”

of the twenty-four priestly watches

sell to one another?

This is what they did: they divided the service in the Temple among themselves, so that each “paternal house,” called a “watch,” would serve for one week, one after the other, and thus they stipulated among themselves:

I

will serve in the Temple

during my week,

during my week,

and you—

during your week.

Therefore, all the services and the right to eat sacrifices that are not on account of the pilgrimage belong exclusively to the watch serving on the pilgrimage, according to its turn.

And necessarily, the analogy “a portion like the portion they shall eat” did not teach that all the priests should also have a right to sacrifices not brought on account of the pilgrimage.

Therefore, we have no basis for learning from the analogy, except to expound the meaning of the verse in itself: “

A portion like the portion they shall eat”—a matter in which there is no work, but only eating, namely, the bread of the Presence, in which there is no work for the watch entitled to eat it [for the work of arranging the bread upon the table was performed on the preceding Shabbat, by the preceding watch]—all the priests shall divide it on the Shabbat that occurs during the pilgrimage.

We learned in the Mishna:

On Shavuot he says to him, ‘Here is

matza; here is leavened bread.’

We learned above, on page 46a:

One who makes a sukka before the festival of Sukkot recites the Shehecheyanu blessing at the time of making the sukka.

And when he enters the sukka on the night of the festival of Sukkot, he recites the blessing over the mitzva, “to sit in the sukka.”

And one who did not recite the Shehecheyanu blessing at the time of making it recites it when he enters to sit in it during the festival, together with the blessing over the mitzva of sitting in the sukka.

And Rav and Rabba bar bar Ḥana disputed the law concerning a person who did not recite Shehecheyanu at the time of making it and came to recite two blessings at the time of sitting in the sukka—which blessing precedes the other.

It was stated

concerning the blessing over the mitzva and the blessing of the time [Shehecheyanu] in the sukka:

Rav said:

He first recites the blessing over the mitzva of sitting in the

sukka, and afterward

he recites the blessing of the

time.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said:

First he recites the blessing of the

time, and afterward

he recites the blessing over the mitzva of sitting in the

sukka.

And the Gemara explains the reason for their dispute:

Rav said

he recites the blessing over the

sukka, and afterward

he recites the blessing of the

time,

since the obligation of the sukka is

the obligation

of the day,

and therefore it is

preferable.

Accordingly, the blessing of the sukka should precede the blessing of the time.

Whereas

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said

he recites

the time, and afterward the sukka,

in accordance with the principle that when a person encounters a mitzva matter that is

frequent and

a mitzva matter

that is not frequent—

the frequent precedes.

Here too, the blessing of the time is more frequent than the blessing of the sukka, for the blessing of the time applies on all three pilgrim festivals, whereas the blessing of the sukka applies only on the festival of Sukkot; therefore, the blessing of the time should precede the blessing of the sukka.

And we considered it:

Shall we say,

should we say that

Rav and Rabba bar bar Ḥana—

dispute in accordance with the dispute of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel!?

For the Sages taught:

These are the

matters between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel,

in which they disputed

the

laws of

the meal:

Beit Shammai say:

A person sanctifies the day at the entrance of Shabbat over wine, and

recites

first

over the day,

the blessing of the sanctification of Shabbat,

and

only

afterward,

at the conclusion of the sanctification,

recites

the blessing, “Who creates the fruit of the vine,”

over the wine.

And Beit Hillel say: He recites over the wine

first,

and afterward he recites

the blessing of the sanctification of Shabbat

over the day.

And the beraita explains the reasons for their dispute:

Beit Shammai say: He recites over the day and afterward he recites over the wine,

because of two reasons:

The first, since

the day

is what

causes the wine to come

before the meal. For if there were no need for the sanctification of the day, he would not need to recite a blessing over a cup of wine before the meal; and since the sanctification of the day is what causes the blessing over the wine now, the sanctification of the day should precede the blessing over the wine.

And

another reason:

the day has already been sanctified

from the time it became dark,

but wine has still not come.

That is to say: the sanctification of the day precedes the blessing over the wine because the holiness of the day takes effect automatically, even without wine coming before the day. Whereas the wine comes only after the holiness of the day has taken effect.

And Beit Hillel say: He recites over the wine and afterward he recites over the day

because of two reasons:

The first, since

the wine

is what

causes the sanctification to be recited.

For had he not had wine, he would not recite the sanctification, and it follows that the sanctification depends on the wine; therefore, the blessing over the wine should precede.

Alternatively: The blessing over the wine

is

frequent, and the blessing over the day is not frequent.

Therefore, the blessing over the wine should precede, in accordance with the principle:

the frequent and the non-frequent—

the frequent precedes.

If so,

shall we say Rav,

who holds that the blessing of the sukka should precede the blessing of the time because it is the obligation of the day, despite the fact that the blessing of the time is more frequent than the blessing of the sukka,

spoke in accordance with Beit Shammai.

And

if

Rabba bar bar Ḥana,

who holds that the frequent blessing of the time should precede the non-frequent blessing of the sukka,

spoke in accordance with Beit Hillel,

who hold that the frequent is preferable to the obligation of the day!?

Rav could say to you: I—

speak even in accordance with Beit Hillel.

For

Beit Hillel stated their view there only,

in the sanctification, that the frequent is preferable to the obligation of the day,

rather

because there is an additional reason there,

that the wine causes the sanctification to be recited. But the frequent alone is not preferable.

But here

there is no blessing of the time that constitutes a cause for the blessing of the sukka. For

if not for the blessing of the

time,

who would not recite,

do we not say

the blessing of

the sukka!?

After all, throughout all the days of the festival one recites the blessing of the sukka without the blessing of the time!

And Rabba bar bar Ḥana could say to you: I—

speak even in accordance with Beit Shammai.

For

Beit Shammai stated their view there only,

that the sanctification should precede the blessing over the wine despite the fact that the blessing over the wine is frequent,

rather

because

the day causes the wine to come.

But here, if not for the sukka—

would we not say the time!?

After all, even people exempt from the sukka, such as travelers, recite the blessing of the time over the festival of Sukkot.

And now the Gemara challenges Rav’s words from our Mishna:

We learned:

On Shavuot, when they bring the two loaves made of leavened bread,

he says to him, “

Here is matza; here is leavened bread.”

And it is evident that they precede the division of the bread of the Presence, which is made of matza, to the division of the two loaves, which are made of leavened bread. This is so despite the fact that the obligation of the day on Shavuot is the two loaves, whereas the division of the bread of the Presence is on account of the work performed in it on the preceding Shabbat.

But here, where

the two loaves, which are

leavened bread,

are

the principal

obligation of the day,

and

the bread of the Presence, which is

matza,

is

secondary,

since the work of arranging it was performed on the previous Shabbat,

and

nevertheless

it is taught: “

Here is matza, and here is leavened bread.”

And it is evident that the division of the bread of the Presence, which is frequent, precedes the division of the two loaves, despite the fact that the two loaves are the obligation of the day!?

A refutation of Rav!

Rav could say to you:

Our Mishna is not according to everyone. Rather,

it is a dispute among the tannaim,

who disputed this law, and I hold in accordance with the opinion of the tanna who disputes the opinion of the tanna in our Mishna!

For it was taught:

This is how they would exchange among themselves, saying:

Here is matza; here is leavened bread.

And according to this, the frequent matza preceded the leavened bread, which is the obligation of the day.

Abba Shaul says:

This is what they would say:

Here is leavened bread; here is matza.

And according to him, the obligation of the day is preferable to the frequent. And Rav holds in accordance with his opinion.

Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda taught: We do not

practice

in accordance with Rav’s words, who says, ‘the sukka and afterward the time,’ rather

we first recite the blessing of the

time, and afterward

over sitting in the

sukka.

And Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: The sukka and afterward the time.

And the conclusion of the Gemara is:

And the halakha

is in accordance with Rav:

the sukka and afterward the time.

We learned in the Mishna:

A watch whose time is fixed

offers the daily offerings, vow-offerings, freewill offerings,

and the other communal sacrifices.

And we considered it: “And the other communal sacrifices”—

what does this come to include?

It comes to include

bringing the sacrifice

“the bull for the unintentional matter”

of the community,

for if the Great Court issued a ruling in error and the community acted on the basis of their ruling, the community is obligated to bring a bull as a sin-offering for their action in an “unintentional matter” [and this sacrifice is called a sacrifice brought by the community, and not an individual sacrifice of the judges of the court].

And

also

the goats for idolatry,

which the community is obligated to bring if they acted according to the erroneous ruling of the Great Court concerning the sin of idolatry [for example, if they ruled that a certain act is not prohibited as idolatry].

We learned further in the Mishna:

And it [

the watch whose time is fixed on the pilgrimage]

offers everything.

And we considered it:

What does this come to include?

And we answer:

It comes to include “

the summer offerings of the altar.”

For they would offer burnt-offerings from the communal freewill offerings on the altar when no other sacrifices were being offered upon it.

These burnt-offerings were purchased with the money that was placed in “shofar-shaped collection boxes,” which were intended to receive coins that were “surplus,” left over from money designated for the purchase of particular sacrifices. [And likewise wherever the law states: “They shall graze until they become blemished, and their value shall fall to a freewill offering.”]

Mishna:

A festival adjacent to Shabbat,

whether

the festival was adjacent to Shabbat

before it,

for example, when the Eighth Day of Assembly occurred on Friday, with the result that this was not the Shabbat of the festival, but the Shabbat after the festival,

whether

the festival was adjacent to Shabbat

after it,

for example, when the first day of the festival occurred on Sunday, with the result that the Shabbat preceding it was not the Shabbat of the festival—

all the watches were equal in the division of the bread of the Presence

on that Shabbat, despite the fact that this Shabbat was not itself during the pilgrimage.

And the reason for the matter is that the watches that came before the festival were required to come before Shabbat, and likewise the watches that were on the Eighth Day of Assembly were required to remain also for Shabbat; the Sages therefore instituted that this Shabbat should have the status of a Shabbat during the pilgrimage, and they should divide the bread of the Presence on it among all the priests.

But if

one day [

to interrupt

in between ]

occurred, for example, when the first day of the festival occurred on Monday, or when the Eighth Day of Assembly occurred on Thursday, and there were watches that came early, before Shabbat, or that delayed leaving until after Shabbat—the Sages did not institute for it that the law of this Shabbat should be like the law of a Shabbat during the pilgrimage. For since a weekday separates Shabbat from the pilgrimage, they are not required to remain in Jerusalem on that Shabbat, and if they nevertheless remained, they were given only a small entitlement.

Therefore,

the watch whose time is fixed would take ten loaves,

and the outgoing watch would divide those ten loaves with the incoming watch, just as they divide equally on every Shabbat.

And

if the watch

delaying

before or after Shabbat—

takes two

loaves, which they gave them as a small entitlement for their delaying.

And on the other days of the year—

the

incoming watch takes six

loaves,

and

the

outgoing watch takes six

loaves.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

The

incoming watch takes seven, and

the

outgoing watch takes five.

The members of the

incoming watch divide

their bread of the Presence

in the north,

so that the incoming ones would see that the north is primary, since there they slaughtered the most holy sacrifices.

And the outgoing ones

divide

in the south,

as a sign that they are leaving and are no longer serving, through the difference between them and the incoming ones: the outgoing ones divide in the south, which is not the primary place of the service.

The watch of

Bilgah

was penalized for the reason that will be explained in the Gemara. And they penalized it in three matters:

A.

Always,

even when it entered, it

would divide

the bread of the Presence

in the south,

and not in the north, like the other watches.

B.

And its ring,

of the watch of Bilgah in the Temple courtyard, designated for fastening the animal’s head at the time of slaughter, was

fixed,

so that they could not open it in order to insert the animal’s head. Consequently, the members of the watch of Bilgah were required to use the rings of other watches, and the matter was disgraceful for them.

C.

And its window,

of the watch of Bilgah in the “House of the Knives” [the place where each watch had a “window” in the thickness of the wall, in which they would place their knives]—was

sealed.

For they sealed the window, and they had no place of their own in which to place their knives.

Gemara:

And we considered the explanation of the Mishna:

What is the meaning of a festival adjacent to Shabbat

“

before it,”

and what is the meaning of adjacent

“

after it”?

If you say that “adjacent

before it”

before it”

means

the first day of the festival,

and the Mishna means that it occurred before Shabbat, and Shabbat followed it—according to this, the Mishna’s intention is the Shabbat of the intermediate days, which is within the pilgrimage.

And “a festival adjacent

after it”

is

the final day of the festival,

which occurred after Shabbat, and this Shabbat is a Shabbat during the pilgrimage.

If so,

this is the Shabbat during the festival,

and this is not the law of an ordinary Shabbat adjacent to a festival. And one could challenge: what does it teach us, that they divide equally?

Rather, necessarily, “adjacent

before it”

before it”

is

the final day of the festival,

which occurred on Friday, before Shabbat.

And “adjacent

after it”

is

the first day of the festival,

which occurred on Sunday, after Shabbat.

And this Shabbat is not a Shabbat during the pilgrimage, but is merely adjacent to it, and nevertheless all the watches divide equally in it in the bread of the Presence.

What is the reason?

Since these,

the priests coming for the first day of the festival that occurred on Sunday, after Shabbat [and this is the one adjacent “after it”],

advance,

they are required to come early, before Shabbat, for they cannot come on Sunday because it is a festival, but they must come early, on Friday, before Shabbat.

And these,

the priests coming for the final day of the festival that occurred on Friday,

delay,

they must delay returning home and wait and remain also on Shabbat [and this is the one adjacent “after it”].

Therefore

the Sages instituted a matter,

that the law of the division of the bread of the Presence on a Shabbat adjacent to the pilgrimage, both before it and after it, should be as though it were a Shabbat during the pilgrimage—

so that they would eat together,

so that they would all divide equally in eating the bread of the Presence, since the priests coming for the pilgrimage are required to remain on this Shabbat.

We learned in the Mishna:

If one day

intervenes between Shabbat and the pilgrimage.