Sukkah 56a (נו.) — the Talmud in English

The verse states

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

A portion like the portion—

they shall eat.”

Work was juxtaposed with eating, to teach you:

Just as the portion of the work,

in which all the priests are equal during the Festival [as explained above],

so

will be

the portion of the eating,

in which they will all be equal during the Festival.

The Gemara explains the statement of the beraita:

And what is meant by “

eating”—

with regard to which eating did the verse have to innovate and state that all the priests share equally during the Festival?

If you say

the eating of

sacrifices,

the goats brought as communal sin-offerings on account of the Festival, and the breast and thigh of the Festival peace-offerings brought on account of the Festival—this matter is already

derived from there,

from another place,

it is derived!

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

For the priest who offers it—

it shall belong to him,” that the priest who offers the sacrifice is the priest entitled to eat it.

Since all the priests are equal in offering the Festival sacrifices during the Festival, they are consequently also equal in eating them; therefore, no special derivation concerning the Festival sacrifices is necessary.

Rather, this verse comes to teach about eating the

bread

of the Presence,

which is divided among all of them, even though the priests perform no work with it on the Shabbat on which it is divided. For the work involving the bread—arranging it on the Table—was performed on the preceding Shabbat by the previous priestly watch, when they placed it on the Table.

Now the Gemara cites the continuation of the beraita:

Could it also be that with regard to

sacrifices that are

“

obligatory offerings that do not come on account of the Festival,”

which are brought

during the Festival,

all the priests are entitled to perform their rites and also share in eating them?

The verse states [Deuteronomy 18:8], concerning the priestly watches: “

Apart from what they 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 Temple service among themselves, so that each “ancestral 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 do not come on account of the Festival belong exclusively to the watch serving during the Festival, according to its turn.

The juxtaposition “a portion like the portion they shall eat” cannot possibly teach that all the priests also have a right to sacrifices that do not come on account of the Festival.

Therefore, we can derive from the juxtaposition only the meaning of the verse itself:

“A portion like the portion they shall eat”—something involving no service but eating alone, namely, the bread of the Presence, with regard to which the watch entitled to eat it performs no service [for the service of arranging the bread on the Table was performed on the preceding Shabbat by the previous watch]—all the priests shall share in it on the Shabbat during the Festival.

We learned in the Mishna:

On Shavuot, he says to him, “Take matza; take leavened bread.”

We learned above, on page 46a:

One who makes a sukka before Sukkot recites the Shehecheyanu blessing at the time he makes the sukka.

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

If one did not recite Shehecheyanu at the time of construction, he recites it when he enters to sit in it during the Festival, together with the blessing over the mitzva of sitting in the sukka.

Rav and Rabba bar bar Ḥana disagree concerning the case of one who did not recite Shehecheyanu at the time of construction and comes to recite both blessings when sitting in the sukka—which blessing takes precedence over the other?

It was stated concerning the mitzva blessing 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 recites the blessing of the

time.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said:

First he recites the blessing of the

time, and afterward recites the blessing over the mitzva of sitting in the

sukka.

The Gemara explains the basis of their dispute:

Rav said that he recites the blessing over the

sukka and afterward the blessing of the

time, because the obligation of the sukka is a “

daily obligation,” and therefore it is

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

But

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that he recites the blessing of the

time and afterward the sukka, in accordance with the principle that when a person encounters a mitzva that is

frequent and a mitzva that is

not frequent—

the frequent takes precedence.

Here too, the blessing of the time is more frequent than the blessing over the sukka, since the blessing of the time applies on all three Festivals, whereas the blessing over the sukka applies only on Sukkot. Therefore, the blessing of the time should precede the blessing over the sukka.

The Gemara raises the matter:

Shall we say that

Rav and Rabba bar bar Ḥana

disagree in accordance with the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel?

As the Sages taught: These are the

matters concerning which Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel

disagreed in the laws of a

meal:

Beit Shammai say: A person sanctifies the onset 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 kiddush,

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.

The beraita explains the reasons for their dispute:

Beit Shammai say: He recites over the day and afterward recites over the wine, for two reasons:

The first is that

the day is what

causes the wine to come before the meal. For if there were no need to sanctify the day, there would be no need to recite a blessing over a cup of wine before the meal. Since the sanctification of the day is what causes the blessing over the wine to be recited now, the sanctification of the day should precede the blessing over the wine.

And there is an additional reason:

the day had already been sanctified when it grew dark,

yet wine had not arrived. That is, the sanctification of the day precedes the blessing over the wine because the sanctity of the day takes effect on its own, even without wine being brought before the day. The wine, by contrast, comes only after the sanctity of the day has taken effect.

And Beit Hillel say: He recites over the wine and afterward recites over the day, for two reasons:

The first is that

the wine is what

causes the kiddush to be recited. Had he no wine, he would not recite the kiddush. It follows that the kiddush depends on the wine, and therefore the blessing over the wine should come first.

Alternatively: The blessing over the wine is

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

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

A frequent mitzva and a non-frequent mitzva—

the frequent takes precedence.

If so,

shall we say that Rav, who holds that the blessing over the sukka should precede the blessing of the time because it is the daily obligation, despite the fact that the blessing of the time is more frequent than the blessing over the sukka,

holds 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 over the sukka,

holds in accordance with Beit Hillel, who hold that the frequent takes precedence over the obligation of the day?

Rav can say to you: I

hold that this is so even according to Beit Hillel.

For

Beit Hillel stated their position there only in the context of kiddush, where the frequent takes precedence over the obligation of the day,

because there is an additional reason there:

the wine causes the kiddush to be recited. But frequency alone does not take precedence.

But here, the blessing of the time does not cause the blessing over the sukka. For

if not for the blessing of the

time, would we not recite the blessing over the

sukka? Indeed, throughout the days of the Festival one recites the blessing over the sukka without the blessing of the time!

And Rabba bar bar Ḥana can say to you: I

hold that this is so even according to Beit Shammai.

For

Beit Shammai stated their position there only that the sanctification of the day should precede the blessing over the wine, despite the fact that the blessing over the wine is frequent,

because

the day causes the wine to come.

But here, if not for the sukka—

would we not recite the blessing of the time? Even people exempt from sukka, such as travelers, recite the blessing of the time over Sukkot.

Now the Gemara challenges Rav from our Mishna:

We learned:

On Shavuot, when the two loaves made of leavened dough are brought,

he says to him, “Take matza; take leavened bread.”

This proves that the distribution of the bread of the Presence, which is made of matza, precedes the distribution of the two loaves, which are made of leavened dough. This is so even though the obligation of the day on Shavuot is the two loaves, whereas the distribution of the bread of the Presence is on account of the service performed with it on the preceding Shabbat.

But here, the two loaves, which are

leavened, are the

primary obligation of the day,

while the bread of the Presence, which is

matza, is

secondary, since the service of arranging it was performed on the previous Shabbat.

And nevertheless it

teaches: “

Take matza and take leavened bread.” This proves that the distribution of the bread of the Presence, which is frequent, precedes the distribution of the two loaves, despite the fact that the two loaves are the obligation of the day!

A refutation of Rav!

Rav can say to you: Our Mishna does not reflect the view of everyone. Rather,

it is a dispute between tannaim, and I hold in accordance with the tanna who disagrees with the tanna of our Mishna!

As it was taught: This is how they would exchange them; they would say:

Take matza; take leavened bread.

According to this view, the frequent matza preceded the leavened bread, which is the obligation of the day.

Abba Shaul says: This is what they would say:

Take leavened bread; take matza.

According to him, the obligation of the day takes precedence over the frequent mitzva. Rav follows his view.

Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda taught: We do not

act

in accordance with Rav’s statement, who says, “sukka and afterward the time”; rather, we first recite the blessing of the

time, and afterward the blessing over sitting in the

sukka.

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

The Gemara concludes:

And the halakha is in accordance with Rav:

sukka and afterward the time.

We learned in the Mishna:

The watch whose appointed time is fixed offers the daily offerings, offerings vowed and donated,

and the other communal sacrifices. We raised the question: “And the other communal sacrifices”—

what does this come to include?

It comes to include the offering called “

the bull for an unintentional matter

of the community,” which applies when the Great Sanhedrin issued an erroneous ruling and the community acted on the basis of its ruling; the community must bring a bull as a sin-offering for having acted in an “unintentional matter” [this sacrifice is called an offering brought by the community, rather than an individual offering of the judges of the court].

And likewise,

goats for idolatry, which the community must bring if it acted according to the erroneous ruling of the Great Sanhedrin in a matter of idolatry [for example, if they ruled that a particular act is not prohibited as idolatry].

We learned further in the Mishna:

And it [the watch whose appointed time is fixed during the Festival]

offers everything.

We raised the question:

What does this come to include?

And we answered:

It comes to include “

the summer offerings of the altar”—burnt-offerings that were offered on the altar from communal donations when no other sacrifices were being offered upon it.

These burnt-offerings were purchased with money placed in “shofar-shaped collection boxes,” which were designated for coins left over from money earmarked for the purchase of particular sacrifices. [Likewise, wherever the halakha states: “They shall graze until they become unfit, and their value shall fall to the fund for voluntary offerings.”]

Mishna:

When a Festival day is adjacent to Shabbat,

whether the Festival day was adjacent to Shabbat

before it,

for example, when Shemini Atzeret occurred on Friday, so that this was not the Shabbat of the Festival but the Shabbat after the Festival,

or the Festival day was adjacent to Shabbat

after it,

for example, when the first Festival day occurred on Sunday, so that the Shabbat preceding it was not the Shabbat of the Festival—

all the watches were equal in the distribution of the bread of the Presence on that Shabbat, even though that Shabbat did not fall during the Festival itself.

The reason is that the watches arriving before the Festival were required to arrive before Shabbat, and likewise the watches serving on Shemini Atzeret were required to remain for Shabbat. The Sages therefore instituted that this Shabbat be treated like a Shabbat during the Festival, and that the bread of the Presence be divided among all the priests.

But if

one day [to

intervene]

in between, for example, if the first Festival day occurred on Monday, or if Shemini Atzeret occurred on Thursday, and there were watches that arrived early before Shabbat or delayed their departure until after Shabbat, they did not institute that this Shabbat have the status of a Shabbat during the Festival. Since an ordinary weekday intervenes between Shabbat and the Festival, they are not required to remain in Jerusalem for that Shabbat; and even if they nevertheless remained, they were granted only a small share.

Therefore,

the watch whose appointed time is fixed would take ten loaves, and the outgoing watch would divide those ten loaves with the incoming watch, just as they divide them equally every Shabbat.

And if the watch

delaying

before or after Shabbat—

takes two loaves, which were given to them as a small share in compensation for their delay.

And during the rest 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 those entering will see that the north is the primary area, since there they slaughtered the most sacred offerings.

And the outgoing watch divides

in the south, as a sign that they are departing and will no longer serve, indicated by the difference between them and the incoming watch: the outgoing watch divides 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. They were penalized in three matters:

a.

Forever, even when it entered, it

divided the bread of the Presence

in the south, and not in the north like the other watches.

b.

And its ring in the Temple courtyard, used to secure the animal’s head at the time of slaughter, was

fixed, so that they could not open it to insert the animal’s head. Consequently, the members of the Bilgah watch had to use the rings of other watches, which was a disgrace to them.

c.

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

sealed. They sealed the window, leaving them without their own place to put their knives.

Gemara:

The Gemara considers the meaning of the Mishna:

What is the meaning of a Festival day adjacent to Shabbat

before it,

and what is the meaning of adjacent

after it?

If you say that “adjacent

before it” refers to the

first Festival day of the Festival, meaning that it occurs before Shabbat and Shabbat follows it, then the Mishna is referring to the Shabbat of the intermediate days, which falls during the Festival.

And “a Festival day adjacent

after it” refers to the

last Festival day, which occurs after Shabbat, so that this Shabbat is a Shabbat during the Festival.

If so,

this is the Shabbat during the Festival, and it is not the law of an ordinary Shabbat adjacent to a Festival day. What, then, does the Mishna teach us by stating that they divide equally?

Rather, necessarily, “adjacent

before it” refers to the

last Festival day, which occurs on Friday before Shabbat.

And “adjacent

after it” refers to the

first Festival day, which occurs on Sunday, after Shabbat.

This Shabbat is not a Shabbat during the Festival, but merely adjacent to it; nevertheless, all the watches divide the bread of the Presence equally on it.

What is the reason?

Since these priests, who come for the first Festival day occurring on Sunday, after Shabbat [that is, the one adjacent “after it”],

advance, they must come before Shabbat. They cannot come on Sunday because it is a Festival day; rather, they must come on Friday, before Shabbat.

And these priests, who come for the last Festival day occurring on Friday,

delay; they must delay their return home and wait and remain also on Shabbat [that is, the one adjacent “after it”].

Therefore,

the Sages instituted a measure that the distribution of the bread of the Presence on the Shabbat adjacent to the Festival, both before it and after it, should have the status of the Shabbat during the Festival—

so that they would eat together, that they all divide the bread of the Presence equally, since the priests coming for the Festival are required to remain for this Shabbat.

We learned in the Mishna:

If one day

intervenes between Shabbat and the Festival.

1.

2.

3.

?

before it”