תלמוד בבלי

1By contrast, if he first gave four sela for payment of the first vow and then one sela for payment of the second vow, he has fulfilled his obligation with regard to the second vow, because all he had at that stage was one sela . But he has not fulfilled his obligation with regard to the first vow, because all five sela in his possession were liened for payment of the first vow, and therefore he did not fulfill his obligation by paying only four.

2Rav Adda bar Ahava raises a dilemma: If one had in his possession five sela and he said: It is hereby incumbent upon me to donate my valuation twice, and consequently both obligations take effect simultaneously, what is the halakha ? One can claim that since he vowed both vows simultaneously, they take effect together, and therefore he gives two and a half sela for this vow and two and a half sela for that vow; or perhaps all of the five sela are fit for this vow and all of them are also fit for that vow, and therefore he must pay five sela for each vow? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

3§ The mishna teaches at its conclusion that there is no payment of valuations less than a sela ; nor is there a payment greater than fifty sela . The Gemara asks: Why do I also need this statement, as this halakha was already stated at the beginning of the mishna?

4The Gemara answers: This additional statement teaches us that there is no payment of valuations less than a sela , but, by inference, there is a payment of valuations more than a sela . Similarly, there is no payment of valuations for a sum greater than fifty sela , but there is a payment that is less than fifty sela . And this unattributed statement of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who maintain that if one cannot pay the full amount of the valuation, he pays however much he can afford, even if it is more than a sela , rather than paying only one sela , as stated by Rabbi Meir.

5MISHNA: If a woman experienced a discharge of blood and is unsure whether it was during her days of menstruation or during the eleven days that would render her a zava , the alleviation of her state of uncertainty does not occur in fewer than seven clean days, nor in more than seventeen clean days, depending on the number of days that she experiences the discharge.

6GEMARA: The Sages elaborated on the principle of the mishna, as taught in a baraita : With regard to a woman who had a discharge of blood and is unsure whether it was during her days of menstruation or during the eleven days that would render her a zava , who said: I saw one impure day, i.e., I had a discharge of blood for one day, the alleviation of her state of uncertainty occurs after seventeen clean days, i.e., seventeen days without any discharge. If her discharge occurred on the first of her days of menstruation, she has another six days of menstruation followed by eleven days of ziva ; if she experiences a discharge after these seventeen clean days, she has certainly returned to her days of menstruation. If the initial discharge had been on any of the other days of the seven-day followed by eleven-day cycle, she would return to her days of menstruation after fewer days, but the definitive alleviation of her uncertainty does not occur until seventeen days.

7If she said: I saw two impure days, i.e., I had a discharge of blood for two days, the alleviation of her state of uncertainty occurs after she experiences seventeen clean days. If the two days had been at the beginning of the days of her menstrual cycle, she would begin another menstrual cycle if she experienced her next discharge after sixteen clean days. Yet, there is a possibility that the first day of her discharge was on the last of the eleven days of ziva , and the second day was on the first of the days of her menstrual cycle. In that case, she would return to the beginning of her menstrual cycle only after the six remaining days of menstruation followed by eleven additional days, for a total of seventeen.

8If she said: I saw three impure days, i.e., I had a discharge of blood for three days, the alleviation of her state of uncertainty occurs after she experiences seventeen clean days, as it is possible that the first two days of discharge were on the last two of the eleven days of ziva , and the third day of discharge was on the first of the days of her menstrual cycle.

9If she said: I saw four impure days, i.e., I had a discharge of blood for four days, the alleviation of her state of uncertainty occurs after she experiences sixteen clean days. This is because the longest possible interval between these days of discharge and the beginning of her next menstrual cycle would occur if the first two days of discharge were at the end of her days of ziva and the other two were at the beginning of the days of her menstrual cycle. She would then require another five days of menstruation and the eleven days of ziva , for a total of sixteen.

10If she said: I saw five impure days, i.e., I had a discharge of blood for five days, the alleviation of her state of uncertainty occurs after she experiences fifteen clean days, to account for the possibility that the first two days of discharge occurred on the last two of the eleven days of ziva and the other three were on her days of her menstrual cycle. If she said: I saw six impure days, i.e., I had a discharge of blood for six days, the alleviation of her state of uncertainty occurs after she experiences fourteen clean days, to account for the possibility that the first two days of discharge occurred at the end of her days of ziva and the other four occurred at the beginning of her days of menstruation.

11If she said: I saw seven impure days, i.e., I had a discharge of blood for seven days, the alleviation of her state of uncertainty occurs after she experiences thirteen clean days, to account for the possibility that the first two days of discharge occurred on the last two of the eleven days of ziva and the other five occurred at the beginning of her menstrual cycle. In that case, she would have another two days to conclude her days of menstruation, followed by the eleven days of ziva , before she would start a new menstrual cycle.

12If she said: I saw eight impure days, i.e., I had a discharge of blood for eight days, the alleviation of her state of uncertainty occurs after she experiences twelve clean days, to account for the possibility that the first two days of discharge occurred on the last two of the eleven days of ziva and the other six occurred at the beginning of her menstrual cycle.

13If she said: I saw nine impure days, i.e., I had a discharge of blood for nine days, the alleviation of her state of uncertainty occurs after she experiences eleven clean days, to account for the possibility that the first two days of discharge occurred at the end of her days of ziva and the other seven occurred on the days of her menstrual cycle. In that case, she would have only the eleven days of ziva before beginning a new menstrual cycle.

14If she said: I saw ten impure days, i.e., I had a discharge of blood for ten days, the alleviation of her state of uncertainty occurs after she experiences ten clean days, to account for the possibility that the first two days of discharge occurred on the last two of the eleven days of ziva and the other eight occurred on the seven days of her menstrual cycle and one additional day. If she said: I saw eleven impure days, i.e., I had a discharge of blood for eleven days, the alleviation of her state of uncertainty occurs after she experiences nine clean days, to account for the worst-case scenario that the first two days of discharge occurred on the last two of the eleven days of ziva and the other nine occurred on the seven days of her menstrual cycle, followed by two additional days.

1If she said: I saw twelve impure days, i.e., I had a discharge of blood for twelve days, the alleviation of her state of uncertainty occurs after she experiences eight clean days, to account for the worst-case scenario that the first two days of discharge occurred on the last two of the eleven days of ziva and the other ten occurred on the seven days of her menstrual cycle and the three subsequent days. If so, she would have another eight days until the end of the full eighteen-day cycle, and when she next experiences a discharge it is the beginning of her new menstrual cycle.

2If she said: I saw thirteen impure days, i.e., I had a discharge of blood for thirteen days, the alleviation of her state of uncertainty occurs after she experiences seven clean days, to account for the possibility that the first two days of discharge occurred on the last two of the eleven days of ziva and the others occurred on the seven days of her menstrual cycle and the four subsequent days. If so, she would be left with only seven more days until the end of the full eighteen-day cycle, and when she next experiences a discharge it is the beginning of her new menstrual cycle.

3All this shows that there is no alleviation of a woman’s state of uncertainty if she had a discharge of blood and is unsure whether it was during her days of menstruation or during her days of ziva in fewer than seven clean days and in no more than seventeen clean days.

4Rav Adda bar Ahava said to Rabba: Why do I need all of these clean days? Let her count a mere seven clean days and be permitted to her husband. Regardless of whether the bleeding occurred during her days of menstruation or during her days of ziva , a woman can immerse in a ritual bath and become ritually pure and permitted to her husband after a maximum of seven clean days.

5Rabba said to him: We say that she must experience seventeen clean days only with regard to setting her right concerning her status as a menstruating woman and the alleviation of her state of uncertainty. It is true that a woman can always become permitted to her husband after seven clean days. The discussion in the mishna and baraita concerns the resolution of uncertainty about whether her next discharge of blood will render her a menstruating woman or a zava . This is significant because if she is menstruating she can become ritually pure and permitted to her husband after seven days even if none of them are clean days, whereas if the discharge occurred over one or two days during the eleven days of ziva , she becomes pure after one clean day; and if the bleeding lasts three days or more during that time, she must wait for seven clean days.

6§ The Sages taught in a baraita : All women who experience a discharge of blood and are unsure whether it is during the days of menstruation or the days of ziva are considered zavot . Therefore, they must bring the offering of a zava , in case they have this status; but it is not eaten by the priests, due to the possibility they were not actually zavot . This is the case for all women, except for a woman who experiences a discharge for thirteen consecutive days, whose alleviation of her state of uncertainty occurs after seven clean days, and for a woman who experiences a discharge for twelve consecutive days, whose alleviation of her state of uncertainty occurs after eight clean days. In those two instances, the women bring the offering of a zava and it is eaten by the priests.

7The Gemara asks: Is that to say that all women who experience a discharge of blood and are unsure whether it is during the days of menstruation or the days of ziva are considered zavot ? It is in fact unknown whether they are menstruating or are zavot . And furthermore, is a woman who experienced a discharge for one day or for two days fit to bring an offering? Only a zava who experienced a discharge for three consecutive days is required to bring an offering.

8The Gemara answers: Rather, the baraita means that all zavot , i.e., women who experienced a discharge for three consecutive days, who are unsure whether their discharge took place during the seven days of menstruation or the eleven days of ziva , can become ritually pure after seven clean days, at which point they bring an offering, but it is not eaten by the priests. This, the baraita continues, is the case for all women except for a woman who experiences a discharge for thirteen consecutive days, whose alleviation of her state of uncertainty occurs after seven clean days, and for a woman who experiences a discharge for twelve consecutive days, whose alleviation of her state of uncertainty occurs after eight clean days. These women bring the offering of a zava and it is eaten by the priests.

9MISHNA: There are symptoms of leprosy that a priest will immediately confirm to be ritually pure or ritually impure, and there are others for which the priest quarantines the leper in order to determine his status. With regard to leprous marks, there is no quarantine that is less than one week and none greater than three weeks.

10GEMARA: When the mishna states that there is no period of quarantine less than one week, it is referring to leprous marks that affect a person, as the priest issues a definitive decision about leprous symptoms on an inflammation or a burn after one week (see Leviticus 13:18–28). When the mishna states: And none greater than three weeks, it is referring to leprous marks that affect houses, as there are instances when a definitive decision is rendered only after the house has been quarantined for three weeks.

11§ Rav Pappa says: In the phrase: “Your benevolence is like the mighty mountains” (Psalms 36:7), these acts of benevolence are referring to leprous marks that affect a person. When God punishes someone with benevolence, He afflicts the individual with leprous symptoms on his body that can be resolved in just one week. When the verse continues with the phrase, “Your judgments are like the great deep,” these judgments are referring to leprous marks that appear on houses, the status of which can take up to three weeks to be determined.

12The Gemara asks: To what does the plain meaning of the aforementioned verse refer? Rav Yehuda said that the plain meaning of the verse is as follows: If not for the fact that Your benevolence is like the mighty mountains, who could withstand Your judgments, which are like the great deep? Rabba says the verse should be understood differently: Your benevolence is like the mighty mountains, because Your judgments are like the great deep.

13The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do Rav Yehuda and Rabba disagree? The Gemara answers that they disagree with regard to the dispute between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, about how God applies His attribute of “abundant in kindness” (Exodus 34:6) when He judges a person whose merits and sins are equal. As it was stated that Rabbi Elazar says: He hides away some sins and does not put them on the scale, thereby allowing the merits to outweigh the sins. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: He lifts the side of the scale that holds the sins so that the merits outweigh the sins.

14The Gemara explains the connection between the two disputes: Rabba holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, and therefore he interprets the verse as saying that God is benevolent because He discards one’s judgments, i.e., sins, by throwing them to the great deep, thereby allowing his merits to outweigh his sins. And Rav Yehuda holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, and therefore he interprets the verse to mean that God lifts the side of merits as high as the mighty mountains, and were it not for this act of benevolence no one could stand before God’s judgments, which are like the great deep.

1then the new moon of Tishrei would arrive three days before Rosh HaShana. A lunar month is twenty-nine and a half days, and therefore a twelve-month period should have six full months of thirty days and six deficient months of twenty-nine days. If there were nine full months, this would cause subsequent months to start three days after the new moon. This in turn would lead people to deride the rabbinical court and accuse it of declaring the new month whenever it wanted, without regard for the astronomical facts. The Gemara explains its question: Now, too, when there are eight full months in one year, the new moon of Tishrei will arrive two days before Rosh HaShana, which will also cause people to disparage the court.

2The Gemara answers: It is as Rav Mesharshiyya says, with regard to a different question: This is referring to a case where the year before was a leap year. Here, too, one can answer that it is a case where the year before it was a leap year, and the extension of the year was accomplished with an added month of twenty-nine days. Accordingly, remove a full, thirty-day month from the calculation of the current year corresponding to the extra deficient, twenty-nine-day month of the previous year, and the result is that only seven thirty-day months have an impact on the appearance of the new moon relative to the following Rosh HaShana. The Gemara asks: But even in a year with only seven thirty-day months the new moon would still precede Rosh HaShana by one day. The Gemara answers: People do not pay attention to a difference of one day, and therefore they will not deride the court.

3Until this point the Gemara has discussed Rav Huna’s interpretation of the mishna, that the statement: It did not seem appropriate to establish more than eight, means that the Sages did not wish to establish more than eight full months in one year. The Gemara presents an alternative opinion. Ulla says: The mishna means that it did not seem appropriate to the Sages to establish more than eight deficient, twenty-nine-day months. And the mishna is saying what the reason is for the previous statement in the mishna, as follows: What is the reason that no fewer than four full, thirty-day months may be established during a year? It is because it did not seem appropriate to the Sages to establish more than eight deficient, twenty-nine-day months, so that the shortest possible year would comprise four full months and eight deficient months.

4The Gemara asks: What is different about nine deficient months, in that the Sages did not deem it appropriate to have so many deficient months in one year? Apparently, the Sages were concerned that if so, i.e., if there were nine deficient months, the new moon of Tishrei would appear three days after Rosh HaShana. But now, too, if there are eight deficient months in one year, the new moon will appear two days after Rosh HaShana.

5The Gemara answers: It is as Rav Mesharshiyya says with regard to a different question: This is referring to a case where the year before was a leap year. Here, too, one can answer that it is a case where the year before it was a leap year, and the added month was a thirty-day month. Accordingly, remove a deficient, twenty-nine-day month from the calculation of the current year corresponding to the extra full, thirty-day month of the previous year, and the result is that only seven deficient months have an impact on the appearance of the new moon relative to the following Rosh HaShana.

6The Gemara asks: But even in a year with seven deficient months there is still one day between Rosh HaShana and the appearance of the new moon, and therefore people will deride the court. The Gemara answers: People will assume that the new moon was sighted by witnesses and reported to the court, and they will say: The new moon was visible yesterday but we did not pay attention and did not notice it.

1The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do Rav Huna and Ulla disagree? The Gemara answers: They disagree about the length of the month added in the intercalation of the year, as it is taught in a baraita : How many days are added in the intercalation of the year? Thirty days. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A deficient month, i.e., one of twenty-nine days. Rav Huna accepts the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, whereas Ulla accepts the opinion of the first tanna .

2The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav Huna from a baraita : The festival of Shavuot occurs only on the same day of the week as the day of waving the omer offering, i.e., the sixteenth of Nisan, which is the second day of Passover. And Rosh HaShana also occurs only on the same day of the week as the day of waving the omer offering of the preceding year, or on the day of the week that occurs on the night after the waving, i.e., the seventeenth of Nisan, which is the third day of Passover. Granted, according to the opinion of Ulla, who says that we may establish eight deficient months in a year but we may not establish eight full months in a year, you find that Rosh HaShana can occur on either of the two days mentioned in the baraita .

3The Gemara elaborates: There are six ends of months between the omer offering and Rosh HaShana. In an ordinary year the months alternate in length, so these six months will comprise three full and three deficient months. If so, Rosh HaShana will occur on the same day of the week as the third day of Passover. If a year has eight deficient months, one of the two extra deficient months will presumably occur in the summer, between the day of waving and Rosh HaShana, which would mean that Rosh HaShana would occur one day earlier, on the same day of the week as the second day of Passover, the day of the waving of the omer offering.

4And if no extra deficient months are added that year, but the standard format of alternating lengths of months, one full and one deficient, is applied, Rosh HaShana will occur on the day of the week that occurs on the night after the waving of the omer offering.

5But according to Rav Huna, who says: We may establish eight full, thirty-day months in a year, there are also times when you find that Rosh HaShana occurs on the night after the night after the extra day, i.e., the thirtieth of Nisan, two days after the day of the week of the omer offering. This would occur on a Rosh HaShana following a year with eight full months, i.e., two more full months than usual, when one of the extra full months would occur between Passover and Rosh HaShana. In such a case, Rosh HaShana would be delayed from occurring on the same day of the week as the third day of Passover, which is the usual situation, to the same day as the fourth day of Passover.

6The Gemara responds with a counter objection. Rav Huna could say to you: And does the baraita really work out well according to Ulla? Even according to Ulla, it is eight full months that we may not establish in one year, but we may establish seven full months in a single year, one more than the usual. Consequently, there may be times when we do not establish the extra full month in the winter, but we establish it in the summer, between Passover and Rosh HaShana. In such a case, Rosh HaShana would be two days after the day of the week of the omer offering. Consequently, even according to Ulla, the baraita should have mentioned this possibility.

7Rather, in accordance with whose opinion is this baraita ? It is in accordance with Aḥerim , as it is taught in a baraita : Aḥerim say that the difference between Shavuot of one year and Shavuot of the following year, and similarly, the difference between Rosh HaShana of one year and Rosh HaShana of the following year, is only four days of the week. In an ordinary year, when full and deficient months alternate, there are 354 days. Therefore, every year is exactly fifty weeks and four days long, which means that any calendar date one year would occur four days later in the week in the following year. And if it was a leap year, in which case the year contains 383 days, or fifty-four weeks and five days, there is a difference of five days between them.

8The Gemara asks: Ultimately, the baraita remains difficult, because according to Aḥerim you do not find that Rosh HaShana ever occurs on the same day of the week as the day of waving the omer offering. This is because Aḥerim maintain that the months always alternate between full and deficient months and therefore there is never an additional full month between Passover and Rosh HaShana.

9Rav Mesharshiyya said in response: Rosh HaShana can occur on the same day of the week as the day of the omer offering, in a case where it was a leap year and the intercalated month added to create the leap year was thirty days. This would cause Rosh HaShana to occur six days of the week later than the year before, but Aḥerim maintain that it must occur exactly five days of the week later. Consequently, one of the months after Passover must be changed from a full month to a deficient one: Remove from the calculation one full month after Passover corresponding to the extra full month added before Passover in order to ensure that Rosh HaShana occurs five days of the week later than the previous year. This ensures that you will find a case where Rosh HaShana occurs on the same day of the week as the day of waving the omer offering.

10Rav Adda bar Ahava said to Rava: Did Aḥerim come to teach us the number of days between one Rosh HaShana and the next? Why didn’t Aḥerim simply say that the months of the year always alternate between full and deficient months, and the calculation of the number of days between the Festivals in one year and the next would be obvious? Rava answered: This statement of Aḥerim teaches us that we do not need to take into consideration the possibility that it is a mitzva to sanctify the new month according to the sighting of the new moon. Rather, if the order of the months dictates that a new month should be deficient, the start of the following month may be declared despite the fact that the new moon has not been sighted.

11Ravina objects to the opinion of Aḥerim for a different reason: But how is it possible that there is always a difference of four weekdays between one Rosh HaShana and the next? The length of a lunar month is not precisely twenty-nine and a half days, but twenty-nine days, twelve hours and 793/1080 of an hour. This extra fraction beyond twenty-nine and a half days is compounded month after month and year after year, and as a result, eventually there is an additional day that must be added to the calendar every three years due to the accumulation of hours, and an additional day that must be added every thirty years due to a further accumulation of the extra parts of an hour. The Gemara answers: Since these days do not appear on the calendar every year, the baraita did not account for them.

12§ The Gemara returns to the dispute between Rav Huna and Ulla over the interpretation of the mishna. And Shmuel also holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, that it is permitted to establish eight full months in a year, as Shmuel says: The year in a lunar calendar has no less than 352 days, and no more than 356 days.

13How so? An ordinary year, consisting of alternating full and deficient months, consists of 354 days. If two months that are generally deficient are made full, there are three hundred and fifty- six days in the year. If two months that are generally full are made deficient, there are three hundred and fifty- two days in the year. If the months alternate as usual, one full and one deficient, there are three hundred and fifty- four days in the year. This shows that according to Shmuel it is permitted to change two months from deficient to full months, which leads to a total of eight full months in one year.

14The Gemara raises an objection against Shmuel from a baraita . If one says: I am hereby a nazirite for a duration that is like the number of days in a solar year, he counts 365 days for his term of naziriteship, corresponding to the number of days in a solar year. If he says: Like the days in a lunar year, i.e., a year comprising twelve lunar months, he counts 354 days for his term of naziriteship, corresponding to the number of days in a lunar year. The Gemara explains the objection: And if it is so, that there can be eight full months in a year, there are times when you find that a lunar year has three hundred and fifty- six days. Why, then, shouldn’t the period of naziriteship last for 356 days?

1and the month that was intercalated, added for the leap year, was thirty days, and last year we turned two months that are generally deficient into full months, which meant that it had eight full months instead of the usual six. Consequently, remove from consideration the three months that were made deficient this year corresponding to the three extra months that were made full last year, and the moon is restored to its place, i.e., it is properly aligned with the months. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: Lamp of Israel! Indeed, so it was.

2MISHNA: No fewer than twenty-one trumpet blasts are sounded daily in the Temple, as each day three blasts were sounded for the opening of the gates in the morning, nine for the daily morning offering, and nine for the daily afternoon offering, totaling twenty-one. And no more than forty-eight are ever sounded on a single day. This would occur on the Friday of Sukkot , when they would sound an additional twelve blasts during the ritual of drawing the water for the water libation; nine for the additional offerings; three to signal the population to cease their work before Shabbat; and three more to mark the beginning of Shabbat.

3When accompanying their song with instruments, the Levites do not use fewer than two lyres and do not use more than six. When flutes are played, they do not use fewer than two flutes and do not use more than twelve. And there are twelve days during the year when the flute plays before the altar: At the time of the slaughter of the first Paschal offering, on the fourteenth of Nisan; and at the time of the slaughter of the second Paschal offering, on the fourteenth of Iyyar; and on the first festival day of Passover; and on the festival of Shavuot ; and on all eight days of the festival of Sukkot . And one would not play with a copper flute; rather, one would play with a flute of reed, because its sound is more pleasant. And one would conclude the music only with a single flute, because it concludes the music nicely.

4The Temple musicians were slaves of priests; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: The musicians were not slaves, but Israelites from the family of the house of Pegarim and the family of the house of Tzippara from the city of Emaum, and their lineage was sufficiently pure that they would marry their daughters to members of the priesthood. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: They were Levites.

5GEMARA: The mishna teaches that no fewer than twenty-one trumpet blasts are sounded daily in the Temple and no more than forty-eight. The Gemara notes: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: One may not blow fewer than seven blasts, and one may not blow more than sixteen blasts.

6The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do the tanna of the mishna and Rabbi Yehuda disagree? The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yehuda holds: A series of blasts consisting of tekia , terua , tekia is counted as one unit. And the Rabbis hold: A tekia is counted as a discrete unit and a terua is also counted as a discrete unit, and the final tekia is again counted as a discrete unit. They agree with regard to the sequence and the number of the blasts; their disgreement is only with regard to how the blasts are tallied.

7The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda? As it is written in the verse: “And you shall sound [ utkatem ] a terua ” (Numbers 10:5), and it is written: “A terua they will sound [ yitke’u ]” (Numbers 10:6). Conclude from the fact that the Torah uses a verb from the root tekia when referring to a terua that a tekia , terua , and tekia together constitute one unit. And how do the Rabbis interpret these verses? They explain that these verses come to teach that each terua blast is accompanied by a plain blast, a tekia , preceding it and another plain blast following it.

8The Gemara asks: And what is the reasoning of the Rabbis? As it is written: “And when congregating the people you shall sound a tekia and shall not sound a terua ” (Numbers 10:7). And if it enters your mind that a series of tekia , terua , and tekia are considered one unit, would the Merciful One say to perform only half a mitzva? Rather, each sound constitutes a separate mitzva. The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Yehuda explain this verse? The Gemara answers: That single tekia mentioned in the context of congregating the people was blown merely as a signal to the people to assemble, not for the purpose of fulfilling a mitzva, which, in Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion, always comes in units of three sounds.

9The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which Rav Kahana said? As Rav Kahana said: There is to be no pause between a tekia and a terua at all, but rather they are sounded in one continuous series of blasts. In accordance with whose opinion is this statement? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious? Why was it necessary to point this out?

10The Gemara answers: It is not obvious that Rav Kahana’s statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Lest you say that Rav Kahana comes to teach his halakha even in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and that he is coming to exclude only the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who says: If one heard nine blasts in nine different hours on the day of Rosh HaShana, despite the considerable gap between them, he has fulfilled his obligation. One might have thought that Rav Kahana meant only that there should not be such long gaps between the sounds. Therefore, the Gemara teaches us that Rav Kahana’s ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as he does not allow any pause at all between the shofar blasts.

11The Gemara asks: And how do you know that this was Rav Kahana’s intent? One can say it is indeed so, that Rav Kahana holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis and he merely excludes the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan. The Gemara answers that if so, what is the meaning of the phrase “at all” when Rav Kahana said that there is no pause between a tekia and a terua at all? This phrase indicates that Rav Kahana does not allow even a slight pause between blasts, which is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

12§ The mishna teaches that there are twelve days during the year when the flute plays before the altar, and it proceeds to list them. The Gemara asks: What is different about these days enumerated in the mishna that the flute is played before the altar specifically on those occasions? The Gemara answers: They are unique, since these are the days on which the individual completes the full hallel .

13As Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: There are eighteen days a year on which the individual completes the full hallel : The eight days of the festival of Sukkot , including the Eighth Day of Assembly; and the eight days of Hanukkah; and the first festival day of Passover; and the festival day of Assembly, i.e., Shavuot . And in the Diaspora, where a second day is added to each Festival due to uncertainty over the precise date, there are twenty-one days: The nine days of the festival of Sukkot ; and the eight days of Hanukkah; and the first two festival days of Passover; and the two festival days of Assembly, i.e., Shavuot .

14The Gemara asks: What is different about the festival of Sukkot , that we say hallel every day, and what is different about Passover, that we do not say hallel

1every day, but only on the first day? The Gemara answers: The days of the festival of Sukkot are distinct from one another with regard to their additional offerings, as the number of bulls offered changes each day of Sukkot (see Numbers 29:12–38). Since each day is unique, the full hallel is recited on each day. By contrast, the days of Passover are not distinct from one another with regard to their additional offerings (see Numbers 28:24), and therefore the full hallel is recited only on the first day, which is the first day on which the additional offerings for a Festival are sacrificed.

2The Gemara objects: On Shabbat, which is also distinct from the other days of the week with regard to its additional offerings, let us say hallel . The Gemara explains: Shabbat is not called an appointed day in the Torah, and hallel is recited only on days that are referred to in the Torah as appointed days (see Leviticus 23:4), which are days of rejoicing.

3The Gemara objects: On the New Moon, which is called an appointed day, let us say hallel . The Gemara explains: The New Moon is not sanctified with regard to the prohibition against the performance of labor, and hallel is recited only on a day that is sanctified, as it is written: “You shall have a song as in the night when a festival is sanctified” (Isaiah 30:29), which indicates that a night that is sanctified as a Festival, which includes a prohibition of labor, requires song, but one that is not sanctified as a Festival does not require song.

4The Gemara objects: On Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur, which are called an appointed day and also are sanctified with regard to the prohibition against the performance of labor, let us say hallel . The Gemara explains: Hallel is not recited on those days due to the statement of Rabbi Abbahu.

5As Rabbi Abbahu said that the ministering angels said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, for what reason do the Jewish people not recite songs of praise, i.e., hallel , before You on Rosh HaShana and on Yom Kippur? He said to them: Is it possible that while the King is sitting on the throne of judgment and the books of life and the books of death are open before Him, the Jewish people would be reciting joyous songs of praise before Me? Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur are somber days of judgment whose mood is incompatible with the recitation of hallel .

6The Gemara objects: But what about Hanukkah, which has neither this or that, i.e., there is no special offering on it, nor is labor prohibited, and yet one says hallel . The Gemara explains: Hallel is recited on Hanukkah not because of its status as a Festival, but because of the miracle that occurred on those days. The Gemara objects: If so, on Purim, when there is also this factor, i.e., a miracle occurred on that day, let us say hallel . Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Hallel is not recited on Purim because one does not recite a song of praise for a miracle that occurred outside of Eretz Yisrael.

7Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak objects to this explanation: But there is the exodus from Egypt, which was a miracle that took place outside of Eretz Yisrael, and yet we say hallel on Passover night in commemoration of it? The Gemara responds that this is as it is taught in a baraita : Until the Jewish people entered Eretz Yisrael, all lands were deemed fit for songs of praise to be recited for miracles performed within their borders, as all lands were treated equally. But once the Jewish people entered Eretz Yisrael, that land became endowed with greater sanctity, and all the other lands were no longer deemed fit for songs of praise to be recited for miracles performed within them.

8Rav Naḥman says an alternative answer as to why hallel is not recited on Purim: The reading of the Megilla, i.e., the Scroll of Esther, is equivalent to reciting hallel . Rava says a third reason: Granted, hallel is said there, when recalling the exodus from Egypt, as after that salvation one can recite the phrase in hallel : “Give praise, O servants of the Lord” (Psalms 113:1), since after the Israelites’ servitude to Pharaoh ended with their salvation, they were truly servants of the Lord and not servants of Pharaoh. But can it be said here, after the salvation commemorated on Purim: “Give praise, O servants of the Lord,” which would indicate that after the salvation the Jewish people were only servants of the Lord and not servants of Ahasuerus? Not so, as even after the miracle of Purim, we are still the servants of Ahasuerus, since the Jews remained in exile under Persian rule.

9The Gemara objects: And according to the opinion of Rav Naḥman, who says that the reading of the Megilla itself is an act of reciting hallel , there is a difficulty: Isn’t it taught in a baraita : Once the Jewish people entered Eretz Yisrael, that land became endowed with greater sanctity, and all the other lands were no longer deemed fit for songs of praise to be recited for miracles performed within them. How, then, may one recite a form of hallel by reading the Megilla? The Gemara answers: He maintains that once the people were exiled from Eretz Yisrael, the other lands returned to their initial suitability, and were once again deemed fit for reciting hallel , in commemoration of miracles performed within them.

10§ The mishna teaches: And one would not play a copper flute [ abuv ]; rather, one would play a flute [ abuv ] of reed, because its sound is pleasant. The Gemara asks: The mishna opens by referring to flutes and calls them ḥalil and then concludes by referring to playing an abuv . Rav Pappa said: A ḥalil is the same as an abuv . Its original name was abuv ; and why does the mishna call it a ḥalil ? The reason is that its sound is sweet [ ḥali ].

11The Sages taught in a baraita : There was a flute in the Temple; it was smooth and it was thin, i.e., its sides were thin; it was made from reed, and it was in existence from the days of Moses. The king issued a command and they plated the flute with gold, but then its sound was not as pleasant as it was previously. They therefore removed its plating and its sound was then as pleasant as it was before. Similarly, there was a cymbal in the Temple; it was made from copper and its sound was pleasant. It became damaged and the Sages sent for and brought artisans from Alexandria in Egypt and they repaired it, but its sound was not as pleasant as before. They removed the materials with which the cymbal had been repaired and its sound was then as pleasant as it had been before the repair.

12There was a mortar in the Temple; it was made of copper and it was from the days of Moses, and it was used to compound the spices for the incense. It became damaged and they brought artisans from Alexandria in Egypt and they repaired it, but it did not compound the spices as well as it had before. They removed the materials with which the mortar had been repaired and it then compounded the spices as it had before it was repaired.

13The baraita concludes: These two copper vessels, the cymbal and the mortar, were remnants from the First Temple and they were damaged and they could not be repaired in an effective manner. And it was with regard to the copper vessels constructed for the First Temple that David said: “All these vessels, which Hiram made for King Solomon, in the House of the Lord, were of burnished brass” (I Kings 7:45), and, in a parallel verse, “bright brass” (II Chronicles 4:16). And with regard to these two items it states in the verse describing the vessels that Ezra brought to Jerusalem: “And vessels of fine golden brass, two, precious as gold” (Ezra 8:27).

14Rav and Shmuel disagree as to the meaning of the phrase: Two, precious as gold. One said: Each and every one of these brass vessels was as valuable as two vessels made from gold. And the other one said: The two of them together were as valuable as one vessel made from gold. Similarly, Rav Yosef teaches the following explanation found in a baraita : The two of them together were as valuable as one vessel made from gold.

1There were ten holes in it and each and every one would emit ten types of tone. It therefore emerges that the entire instrument emitted one hundred types of tone. It was taught in a baraita : The magreifa was one cubit wide and one cubit tall, and a handle protruded from it. It was hollow and there were ten holes in it and each one would produce one hundred types of tone. It therefore emerges that that the entire instrument emitted one thousand types of tone. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: And your mnemonic to remember which of these two statements was said by Shmuel and which was taught in a baraita is that the baraita expresses itself with exaggeration, as it is common for baraitot to exaggerate numbers.

2§ The mishna teaches that the Temple musicians were slaves of priests according to Rabbi Meir, whereas according to Rabbi Yosei they were Israelites of pure lineage, and according to Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus they were Levites. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that they disagree about this; that the one who says they were slaves holds that the primary component of song in the Temple service is singing with the mouth, and the instrumental music was performed merely to sweeten the sound of the singing. Since the instrumental music is mere accompaniment, it could be performed by slaves. And the one who says that the musicians were Levites holds that the primary component of song in the Temple service is the music played with instruments. Therefore, the musicians had to be Levites, who were tasked with the song that was part of the Temple service.

3The Gemara responds: And can you understand the disagreement in this manner? According to this suggestion, what does Rabbi Yosei, who says that the musicians were Israelites of pure lineage, hold? If he holds that the primary component of song in the Temple service is singing with the mouth, then it should be sufficient if slaves play the instruments. Why would he require Israelites of pure lineage? And if he holds that the primary component of song in the Temple service is the music played with instruments, we should require Levites to play the instruments.

4The Gemara responds: Actually, Rabbi Yosei holds that the primary component of song in the Temple service is singing with the mouth. And here, the tanna’im disagree about whether the musicians in the Temple may be elevated from the musical platform to the presumptive status of pure lineage with regard to marriage and eligibility to receive Levitical tithes.

5The one who says that the musicians were slaves holds that people cannot be elevated from the Temple musical platform to the presumptive status of pure lineage with regard to marriage and eligibility to receive tithes. The one who says that the musicians were Levites holds that one elevates from the platform both to the presumptive status of pure lineage and eligibility to receive tithes. And according to the one who says that the musicians were Israelites, he holds that one elevates from the platform to the presumptive status of pure lineage but not with regard to the eligibility to receive tithes.

6§ The Sages taught in a baraita : The song that the Levites sing while a communal offering is being sacrificed is an indispensable component of the offering, which means that if the Levites did not sing, the offering is invalid. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: It is not indispensable.

7The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Meir, i.e., from where does he derive his opinion? The Gemara answers: It is as the verse states: “And I have given the Levites, they are given to Aaron and to his sons from among the children of Israel, to do the service of the children of Israel in the Tent of Meeting, and to make atonement for the children of Israel” (Numbers 8:19). The verse compares the atonement for the Jewish people, which is caused by the sprinkling of the blood of offerings on the altar, to the service of the Levites, which is their singing. This teaches that just as the atonement caused by the sprinkling of the blood is an indispensable component of the offering, so too the song of the Levites is indispensable.

8The Gemara asks: And what do the Rabbis derive from the comparison in this verse? The Gemara answers: That comparison serves to teach another halakha , which was stated by Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar says: Just as the atonement achieved by the sprinkling of the blood must take place during the day, so too the song must be sung during the day.

9Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: From where is it derived that the basic requirement to accompany communal offerings with song applies by Torah law? As it is stated with regard to a Levite who serves in the Temple: “Then he shall serve with the name of the Lord his God” (Deuteronomy 18:7). What is this service that is performed with the name of God? You must say that this is the song, in which the Levites mention and praise the name of God.

10The Gemara objects: But you can say that this service with the name of God is referring to the lifting of the hands for the Priestly Benediction, which also includes the mention of the name of God. If so, the verse is referring to priests, not ordinary Levites. The Gemara responds: From the fact that it is written: “At that time the Lord separated the tribe of Levi… to serve Him, and to bless in His name” (Deuteronomy 10:8), it can be derived by inference that the Priestly Benediction is not considered service, as the verse mentions service and the Priestly Benediction as distinct rituals.

11Rav Mattana said that the source for the requirement to accompany the Temple offerings with song is derived from here: “Because you did not serve the Lord your God with joyfulness, and with goodness of heart” (Deuteronomy 28:47). What is this service of God that is performed with joyfulness and with goodness of heart? You must say that this is song. The Gemara objects: But you can say that this service is studying the words of Torah, as it is written: “The precepts of the Lord are upright, rejoicing the heart” (Psalms 19:9). The Gemara explains: Torah is indeed called a matter that rejoices the heart, but it is not called “goodness.”

12The Gemara objects: But you can say that the joyful service of God referred to above is the bringing of the first fruits, as it is written in that context: “And you shall rejoice in all the goodness that the Lord your God has given you” (Deuteronomy 26:11). The Gemara answers: Bringing the first fruits is indeed called goodness, but it is not called something that involves goodness of heart.

13The Gemara discusses a related matter. Rav Mattana says: From where is it derived that bringing the first fruits to the Temple requires the accompaniment of song? The Gemara answers: It is derived from here, i.e., from the requirement to accompany communal offerings with song, by means of a verbal analogy of the word goodness in the verse “And with goodness of heart” and the word goodness in the verse “You shall rejoice in all the goodness.”

14The Gemara asks: Is that so? But doesn’t Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani say that Rabbi Yonatan said: From where is it derived that songs of praise in the Temple are recited only over the wine libation accompanying the sacrifice? As it is stated: “And the vine replied: Should I leave my wine, which gladdens God and man, and go and wave above the trees” (Judges 9:13). If it is clear that wine gladdens people, in what way does it gladden God? Rather, derive from here that songs of praise in the Temple are recited only over the wine of libation, and it is this song that gladdens God. This is difficult, as since there is no wine libation associated with the bringing of first fruits, how can it be accompanied by song?

1This indicates that God responded to Moses, who was a Levite, by commanding him about matters pertaining to the voice, i.e., that the Levites must accompany the sacrifices with song. Rav Ashi says that the obligation for the Levites to sing in the Temple is derived from here: “It came to pass, when the trumpeters and singers were as one, to make one sound to be heard in praising and thanking the Lord” (II Chronicles 5:13). This indicates that just as there is a requirement for trumpets to be sounded during the sacrifice of communal offerings (see Numbers 10:10), there is likewise a requirement for the Levites to sing.

2Rabbi Yonatan says that the requirement for the Levites to sing in the Temple is derived from here: The Torah commands the priests with regard to the Levites: “They shall not come near the altar, that they die not, neither they nor you” (Numbers 18:3). The verse equates the Levites with the priests, indicating that just as you, the priests, are obligated to perform the service on the altar, so too they, the Levites, are obligated to perform a service pertaining to the altar, i.e., the song that accompanies the offerings.

3A derivation of halakhot based on the comparison between priests and Levites in this verse is also taught in a baraita : It is stated: “That they die not, neither they nor you.” This indicates that if you, the priests, perform their duties, i.e., the Levites’ duties, or they, the Levites, perform yours, e.g., the sacrificial rites, the perpetrator is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven. But if they, the Levites, perform a function that belongs to a different group of Levites, but is nevertheless a duty of theirs, i.e., the Levites in general, e.g., if Levites assigned to open and close the gates of the Temple decide instead to sing, they are not punished with death; rather, they have merely violated a prohibition.

4Abaye said: We hold that a Levite designated to serve as a singer who instead served in another Levite’s position as a gatekeeper is liable to be put to death, as it is stated: “And those that were to pitch tent before the Tabernacle eastward, before the Tent of Meeting toward the sunrising, were Moses and Aaron and his sons, keeping the charge of the Sanctuary, for the charge of the children of Israel; and the stranger that drew near was to be put to death” (Numbers 3:38). What is the meaning of the term “stranger” in this verse? If we say it is referring to an actual stranger, i.e., a non-Levite, isn’t it written already on another occasion that he is liable to be put to death (see Numbers 3:10)? Rather, this is not its meaning; instead, it is referring to one who is a Levite but is a stranger to that service.

5The Gemara raises an objection to Abaye’s statement from a baraita : A singer who served as a gatekeeper and a gatekeeper who sang are not punished with death; rather, they have merely violated a prohibition.

6The Gemara explains that this matter is a dispute between tanna’im , as it is taught in a baraita : There was an incident involving Rabbi Yehoshua bar Ḥananya, a Levite, who went to Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Gudgeda, also a Levite, in order to assist in closing the doors of the Temple. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Gudgeda said to him: My son, go back, as you are among the singers and not among the gatekeepers.

7The Gemara analyzes the baraita : What, is it not the case that these two Levite Sages disagree about this, that one Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Gudgeda, holds that if a Levite who is a singer closes the gate by himself, it is a prohibition punishable by death, and therefore the Sages decreed that a Levite who is a singer should not even assist the gatekeepers in closing the gates; and one Sage, Rabbi Yehoshua bar Ḥananya, holds that it is a prohibition that is not punishable by death, and therefore the Sages did not decree that a Levite who is a singer should not assist the gatekeepers in closing the gates?

8The Gemara responds: No, that is not necessarily the correct analysis of the baraita . Rather, everyone agrees that one Levite performing another Levite’s task by himself is a prohibition that is not punishable by death. One Sage holds that the Sages nevertheless decreed that a Levite who is a singer should not even assist the gatekeepers, and one Sage holds that the Sages did not decree that a Levite who is a singer should not assist the gatekeepers in closing the gates.

9§ Rabbi Avin raises a dilemma: Does a communal voluntary burnt offering require an accompanying song or does it not require song? He explains the two sides of the dilemma: The Merciful One states in the Torah: “You shall blow with the trumpets over your burnt offerings” (Numbers 10:10). Does the term “burnt offerings” include both an obligatory burnt offering and a voluntary burnt offering, or perhaps the Merciful One is saying that the trumpets and song must accompany the burnt offerings of the entire Jewish people, i.e., they must be burnt offerings that are an obligation of the people?

10The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a verse: “And Hezekiah commanded to offer the burnt offering upon the altar, and when the burnt offering began, the song of the Lord began also, and the trumpets, together with the instruments of David king of Israel …And Hezekiah the king and the princes commanded the Levites to sing praises unto the Lord” (II Chronicles 29:27–30). The Gemara analyzes the description of this service: This song, what was its purpose? If we say that it accompanied an obligatory burnt offering that was brought on that day, why did they have to seek authorization from Hezekiah? Why did Hezekiah need to issue a specific command that they should accompany this offering with song? Rather, is it not the case that this song served to accompany the voluntary burnt offering that Hezekiah brought on that day?

11Rav Yosef said: No, that day was a New Moon, and it was the additional burnt offering of the New Moon, an obligatory burnt offering, that was accompanied by the song. As for the need for Hezekiah’s approval, the explanation is as follows: It was the thirtieth day following the previous New Moon, and they were asking him if the current New Moon was established in its time, i.e., on that day, so that the burnt offering of the New Moon should be sacrificed, or if the New Moon had not been declared on that day. Hezekiah clarified that the court had declared the New Moon, and therefore they should sacrifice the offering.

12Abaye said to Rav Yosef: And how can you say that that day was the New Moon? Isn’t it written: “On the sixteenth day of the first month” (II Chronicles 29:17), and later, in that context, it states: “And Hezekiah commanded to offer the burnt offering upon the altar”?

13Rather, Rami, son of Rav Yeiva, said: The question they were asking Hezekiah referred to the obligatory, communal burnt offering lamb that comes with the omer , i.e., the barley offering brought on the sixteenth of the first month, Nisan. They asked: Was the New Moon of Nisan established in its correct time, which means that it is now in fact the sixteenth of Nisan and the omer offering and the lamb brought with it should be sacrificed, or was it not really the sixteenth of Nisan?

14Rav Avya objects to this explanation: How is it possible that they were unsure whether it was the sixteenth of Nisan? Let them see how the Paschal offering was performed on the fourteenth of Nisan and how matza was eaten the following night. The day of the sixteenth of Nisan could easily be determined from when those mitzvot were performed.

1§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to libations that are brought by themselves, without an animal offering, do they require song on the part of the Levites as the libations are poured on the altar, or do they not require song? The Gemara explains the sides of the dilemma: Should it be assumed that since Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: From where is it derived that one recites a song of praise in the Temple only over wine, it can be inferred that we recite songs whenever wine is poured on the altar? Or perhaps we recite songs only upon the eating and drinking of the altar, i.e., when both an animal offering is burnt and a libation is also poured upon the altar, but upon the drinking of the altar alone, we do not recite songs.

2The Gemara seeks to resolve the dilemma through a baraita cited earlier. Come and hear: Rabbi Yosei says that a fortunate matter is brought about on an auspicious day, and a deleterious matter on an inauspicious day, e.g., the Ninth of Av, on which several tragedies have already occurred. As the Sages said: When the Temple was destroyed for the first time, that day was the Ninth of Av; and it was the conclusion of Shabbat; and it was the year after a Sabbatical Year; and it was the week of the priestly watch of Jehoiarib; and the priests and Levites were standing on their platform and singing the verse: “And He brought upon them their own iniquity, and He will cut them off in their own evil” (Psalms 94:23).

3The Gemara analyzes the baraita : This song, what was its purpose? If we say that it accompanied an obligatory burnt offering, was there any obligatory communal burnt offering sacrificed at that time? The daily offering had ceased to be brought on the seventeenth of Tammuz, three weeks before the Ninth of Av. Rather, it would seem that this song accompanied a voluntary burnt offering. The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, teach that a voluntary burnt offering does not require song? Rather, is it not the case that the song accompanied libations brought without an animal offering? This would prove that the Levites sing when a wine libation is brought, even without an animal offering.

4Rava said, and some say it was Rav Ashi who said: And can you understand that this song was recited over any offering? The song of the day for Sunday, which is when the baraita says that the Temple was destroyed, is the psalm beginning with the verse: “A psalm of David. The earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof” (Psalms 24:1). And yet the verse that the baraita says that the Levites were singing: “And He brought upon them their own iniquity,” is in the song for Wednesday, not the song for Sunday. Rather, it was merely a portentous lamentation that came into their mouths, not a song recited over an offering. Consequently, no proof can be offered from this baraita .

5The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in the baraita that the Levites were standing on their platform near the altar, which is the place where they sing to accompany offerings? The Gemara answers: This can be explained in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish. As Reish Lakish says: The Levites are permitted to recite a song on the platform even when it is not for an offering. The Gemara asks: If so, let them also recite a song for libations that are brought without an animal offering, even if that is not required. The Gemara answers: This could result in a mishap, as the Levites might assume that just as singing for libations which are brought without an animal offering is optional, so too, singing for libations that accompany an animal offering is also optional.

6§ The Gemara discusses the matter itself cited in the baraita . Rabbi Yosei says: A fortunate matter is brought about on an auspicious day, and a deleterious matter on an inauspicious day. As the Sages said: When the Temple was destroyed for the first time, that day was the Ninth of Av; and it was the conclusion of Shabbat; and it was the year after a Sabbatical Year.

7The Gemara asks: Can you find such a possibility, that when the Temple was destroyed for the first time it was in the year after a Sabbatical Year? But isn’t it written in a verse that Ezekiel experienced a prophecy “in the twenty-fifth year of our captivity, at the beginning of the year, on the tenth day of the month, in the fourteenth year after the city was smitten” (Ezekiel 40:1)? Which is the year when the beginning of the year is on the tenth of the month? You must say that this is referring to the Jubilee, which begins on Yom Kippur, the tenth of Tishrei.

8But if it enters your mind to say that the Temple was destroyed in the first year of the Sabbatical cycle, it is impossible that the Jubilee, which follows a Sabbatical Year, occurred on the fourteenth year after the destruction of the Temple: Counting from the first year of the Sabbatical cycle to the next first year of the Sabbatical cycle, one arrives at year eight. If one continues to count to the first year of yet another Sabbatical cycle, it is the fifteenth year after the year of the destruction of the Temple, not the fourteenth year.

9The Gemara answers: Ravina said: The meaning of the verse is that it was in the fourteenth year after the year that the city was smitten. The year of the destruction is not counted as year one of the fourteen years; rather, year one was the following year. The destruction took place in the thirty-sixth year of the Jubilee cycle, and therefore the Jubilee occurred fourteen years later.

10The Gemara objects: If so, when the verse states that Ezekiel’s prophecy fourteen years after the destruction of the Temple was in the twenty-fifth year of captivity, that is not precise; it was actually the twenty-sixth year of captivity. As the Master says in a baraita : The Jews were exiled first in Nebuchadnezzar’s seventh year, and they were also exiled first in Nebuchadnezzar’s eighth year. This first exile took place during Nebuchadnezzar’s eighth year counting from the beginning of his reign; it was Nebuchadnezzar’s seventh year counting from the year he subjugated Jehoiakim, king of Judah.

11The baraita continues: They were then exiled a second time in Nebuchadnezzar’s eighteenth year, and they were exiled in Nebuchadnezzar’s nineteenth year, when the Temple was destroyed. This statement will be explained later.

12The Gemara explains the objection: Now, from the seventh year, when the first exile occurred, until the eighteenth year, when the second exile occurred, in conjunction with the Temple’s destruction, is eleven years, not counting the year of the destruction, and an additional fifteen years, until the date mentioned in the verse in Ezekiel, equals twenty-six years from the first exile, not twenty-five.

13The Gemara explains that Ravina could have said to you: And according to you, who maintains that the fourteen years mentioned in the verse include the year of the destruction of the Temple, does it work out well? Now, they were also exiled in the nineteenth year, and it was then that the Temple was destroyed. From the seventh year until the nineteenth year is twelve years, and an additional fourteen years until the date mentioned in the verse in Ezekiel equals twenty-six years from the first exile, not twenty-five. Rather, what have you to say? That the twenty-five years are counted separate from the year when they were exiled for the first time. According to my opinion also, I can say that the twenty-five years are separate from the year when they were exiled for the first time.

14The Gemara objects: In any case, the assertion of the baraita that the destruction of the Temple occurred in the nineteenth year is difficult for Ravina, because there are eleven years from the first exile until the year of the destruction, not counting the year of the exile or the year of the destruction, and then an additional fifteen years, including the year of the destruction, until the date mentioned in the verse in Ezekiel, which is a total of twenty-six years, not twenty-five.

1in his second year he ascended to Eretz Yisrael and conquered Jehoiakim.

2§ The Gemara continues its discussion of the baraita , which teaches: When the Temple was destroyed for the first time, that day was the Ninth of Av; and it was the conclusion of Shabbat; and it was the year after a Sabbatical Year; and likewise, the same happened when the Second Temple was destroyed.

3The Gemara asks: Can you find such a possibility, that the Second Temple was destroyed in the year after a Sabbatical Year? Now, for how many years did the Second Temple stand? It stood for 420 years. Four hundred years include exactly eight Jubilees, as the Jubilee cycle is fifty years. An additional fourteen years consist of two Sabbatical cycles. There are six years remaining during which the Temple stood, which means that the last year was the sixth year of the Sabbatical cycle, and therefore when the Temple was destroyed the following year it was a Sabbatical Year, not the year after the Sabbatical Year.

4The Gemara answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita stated? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that the fiftieth year is counted for here and for there, i.e., it is both the Jubilee Year and the first year of the next Sabbatical cycle and Jubilee cycle, and therefore each Jubilee cycle is only forty-nine years rather than fifty years. Consequently, when calculating the number of years of the Sabbatical and Jubilee cycles until the destruction of the Second Temple, bring an additional eight years from the eight complete Jubilee cycles during which the Temple stood. The eight years and those six years that remained according to the previous calculation equal fourteen years, which are two complete Sabbatical cycles. Therefore, it is found that the Second Temple was destroyed in the year following the Sabbatical Year.

5The Gemara objects: But if one explains the baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, the first clause of the baraita is problematic, as you do not find that the first time the Temple was destroyed was in the year after the Sabbatical Year. As it is taught in a baraita : The Jewish people counted seventeen Jubilees from when they entered Eretz Yisrael until they left, when the First Temple was destroyed. And you cannot say that they counted from the time they entered, because if you say this, the result is that the Temple was destroyed at the beginning of the Jubilee cycle, and you do not find that the Jubilee Year was “in the fourteenth year after the city was smitten” (Ezekiel 40:1).

6Rather, remove from them the seven years when they conquered the land and the seven years when they divided the land, as they did not start counting the first Jubilee cycle until after those events. And you then find that the Jubilee Year was “in the fourteenth year after the city was smitten.”

7The Gemara explains the difficulty from this baraita : But if one holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, that each Jubilee cycle is forty-nine years rather than fifty years, you must bring an additional seventeen years, one from each of the seventeen Jubilee cycles and add them to these seventeen cycles, and it turns out that the destruction of the Temple was in the third year of the Sabbatical cycle.

8The Gemara answers: Throughout those years from when Sennacherib exiled the ten tribes until Jeremiah came and returned them to their land, they did not count the Jubilee cycle, as the Jubilee applies only when all twelve tribes are in their ancestral lands. When the exiles returned, a new Jubilee cycle was started, and the Temple was destroyed thirty-six years later, in the year after a Sabbatical Year.

9The Gemara suggests a second answer to its question about the statement of the baraita which equates the destructions of the First Temple and the Second Temple. And if you wish, say instead: Actually, the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and when it teaches: And likewise, the same happened when the Second Temple was destroyed, it is not asserting that the Temple was destroyed in a year after a Sabbatical Year, because in fact the Second Temple was destroyed during a Sabbatical Year. Rather, it is referring to the other details the baraita provides with regard to the timing of the destruction, i.e., that it occurred on the Ninth of Av and on a Sunday.

10The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable to conclude that not all of the details pertaining to the destruction of the First Temple also apply to the destruction of the Second Temple. As, if you do not say so, then with regard to the statement that the destruction occurred during the week of the priestly watch of Jehoiarib, was the priestly watch of Jehoiarib present during the time of the Second Temple?

11But isn’t it taught in a baraita that the watch of Jehoiarib did not exist during the Second Temple era? As it is taught: Only four priestly watches ascended from the Babylonian exile, while the other twenty stayed in Babylonia. And these are the watches who returned: The descendants of Jedaiah, Harim, Pashḥur, and Immer. The prophets among those who returned arose and divided these four families into twenty-four watches. They achieved this as follows: They wrote the names of these new twenty-four watches on pieces of paper, mixed them up, and put them in a receptacle [ kalpi ] from which lots were drawn. A representative from the family of Jedaiah came and drew his portion and the lot of five other watches, for a total of six.

1Harim came and also drew his portion and the lot of five other watches, for a total of six. And likewise Pashḥur, and likewise Immer. The prophets among them stipulated that even if the descendants of Jehoiarib, who originally headed the priestly watches, would ascend to Eretz Yisrael, Jedaiah would not be demoted from its place as the first of the watches. Rather, the watch of Jedaiah would retain precedence, and Jehoiarib would be subordinate to it. The Gemara concludes: Rather, when the baraita equates the details pertaining to the destruction of the two Temples, it is referring to other details, i.e., that both were destroyed on the Ninth of Av and on a Sunday, but it is not equating them with regard to all the details.

2The Gemara cites a third answer to its question about how the baraita can claim that the Second Temple was destroyed in a year following a Sabbatical Year, when a calculation of the number of years that it stood indicates that it was destroyed in a Sabbatical Year. Rav Ashi said: Those six years from the time the Second Temple was built until Ezra ascended to Eretz Yisrael and sanctified the land are not counted, as the Sabbatical cycle was not in effect during that period. Consequently, the Second Temple was destroyed in a year following a Sabbatical Year.

3It is known that Ezra ascended to Eretz Yisrael six years after the beginning of the construction of the Second Temple, as it is written: “Then ceased the work of the House of God, which is at Jerusalem; and it ceased until the second year of the reign of Darius, king of Persia” (Ezra 4:24). This proves that construction on the Temple started in the second year of the reign of Darius. And it is written: “And this house was finished on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king” (Ezra 6:15), which was the fifth year from when they started building.

4And the Sages taught in a baraita : At that same time in the following year Ezra ascended from Babylonia together with his company of exiles, as it is written, “And he came to Jerusalem in the fifth month, which was in the seventh year of the king” (Ezra 7:8). Accordingly, Ezra came to Eretz Yisrael six years after the beginning of the construction of the Temple. It was at that time that the counting of the Sabbatical and Jubilee cycles began. The counting continued for 414 years until the destruction of the Temple, which means that the Temple was destroyed in a Sabbatical Year.

5§ The Gemara discusses the matter itself that is taught in the baraita cited earlier (12b): The Jewish people counted seventeen Jubilees from when they entered Eretz Yisrael until they left when the Temple was destroyed. And you cannot say that they counted from when they entered, because if you say they counted from when they entered, the result is that the Temple was destroyed at the beginning of the Jubilee cycle, and you do not find that the Jubilee Year was “in the fourteenth year after the city was smitten” (Ezekiel 40:1). Rather, remove from them the seven years when they conquered Eretz Yisrael and the seven years when they divided Eretz Yisrael, as the first Jubilee cycle began after the Jewish people conquered and divided Eretz Yisrael.

6The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that there were seven years during which the Jewish people conquered Eretz Yisrael? The Gemara answers: As Caleb said to Joshua, when it came time to divide Eretz Yisrael at the conclusion of part of the conquest: “Forty years old was I when Moses the servant of the Lord sent me from Kadesh-Barnea to spy out the land…and now, behold, I am this day eighty-five years old” (Joshua 14:7, 10).

7And the Master says in a baraita : During the first year after the exodus, Moses constructed the Tabernacle; during the second year, the Tabernacle was erected and Moses sent the spies. Consequently, how old was Caleb when the Jewish people crossed the Jordan? He was eighty less two, i.e., seventy-eight years old. When Joshua was dividing Eretz Yisrael into inheritances, Caleb said to him: I am eighty-five years old. It is therefore found that they conquered the land for seven years.

8The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that there were seven years during which the Jewish people divided up Eretz Yisrael into ancestral portions? The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that from the fact that they conquered the land for seven years, it is reasonable to assume that they divided the land for seven years. And if you wish, say instead: It can be derived from the fact that you do not find that “the fourteenth year after the city was smitten” (Ezekiel 40:1) was a Jubilee Year (see 12a) unless the Jewish people divided Eretz Yisrael for seven years.

9MISHNA: One maintains no fewer than six lambs that have been inspected for blemishes in the Chamber of the Lambs, which are sufficient for the offerings of Shabbat and for the two Festival days of Rosh HaShana that may occur adjacent to it. And one may add inspected lambs up to an infinite number. One plays no fewer than two trumpets and no fewer than nine harps in the Temple, and one may add up to an infinite number. And the cymbal was played alone, and none may be added to it.

10GEMARA: The Gemara assumes that the mishna means that there must be at least six inspected lambs in the Chamber of the Lambs, so that if Rosh HaShana occurs on the two days adjacent to Shabbat, there will be enough lambs available for all the communal offerings that are sacrificed on those days. The Gemara therefore objects: But there are more than six lambs which are required for the daily offerings and additional offerings of a Shabbat and Rosh HaShana that are adjacent to one another, as one day of Rosh HaShana alone requires sixteen lambs.

11The Gemara explains: The tanna is referring to the general policy for the entire year, and he is referring only to the number of lambs necessary for the daily offerings sacrificed over the course of three ordinary days. And what is the meaning of the phrase: Sufficient for Shabbat and for the two Festival days of Rosh HaShana? It is merely a mnemonic device, and this is what he is saying: One maintains no fewer than six lambs

1that have been inspected in the Chamber of the Lambs for four days prior to the time of their slaughter. The reserve of six lambs ensured that each lamb would be available for inspection for three days prior to the day of its sacrifice, for a total of four. And whose opinion is this? It is the opinion of ben Bag Bag, as it is taught in a baraita that ben Bag Bag says: From where is it derived that the daily offering requires examination four days prior to its slaughter?

2The verse states with regard to the daily offering: “My food that is presented unto Me for offerings made by fire, of a pleasing aroma unto Me, shall you safeguard to offer unto Me in its due season” (Numbers 28:2); and it states there, with regard to the Paschal offering: “In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb… and it shall be for you as a safeguard until the fourteenth day of this month” (Exodus 12:3–6), i.e., the first month. Since the word “safeguard” appears in both verses, it is derived that just as in the verse there, the Paschal offering requires examination four days prior to its slaughter, so too here, the daily offering requires examination four days prior to its slaughter.

3The Gemara notes: The language of the mishna is also precise, according to the explanation that the mishna is referring to Shabbat and Rosh HaShana merely as a mnemonic device, as it teaches that the six lambs are sufficient for Shabbat and the two Festival days of Rosh HaShana, and it does not teach that the six lambs are for use on Shabbat and the two days of Rosh HaShana. The Gemara concludes: Learn from the language of the mishna that this explanation is correct.

4§ The mishna teaches that one plays no fewer than two trumpets, and one may add to that number. The Gemara asks: Until how many trumpets may these additions be made? The Gemara answers that Rav Huna says, and some say Rav Zavdi says that Rav Huna says: They may play up to 120 trumpets, as it is stated: “And with them one hundred and twenty priests sounding with trumpets” (II Chronicles 5:12).

5The mishna teaches that one plays no fewer than nine harps and one may add up to an infinite number, and the cymbal was played alone and none may be added to it. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Rav Asi says that it is as the verse states: “And Asaph with the cymbals, sounding aloud” (I Chronicles 16:5), which indicates that only one Levite played the cymbals. The Gemara asks: The word cymbals is in the plural, indicating that there were two; why, then, does the mishna say that there is only one cymbal? The Gemara answers: Since two cymbals perform one act and one person plays them by banging them together, the mishna calls them one instrument.

6MISHNA: In the Temple, there are no fewer than twelve Levites standing on the platform adjacent to the altar and singing, and one may add Levites on the platform up to an infinite number. A minor Levite may enter the Temple courtyard for service only at a time when the Levites are engaging in song, so that he may accompany them. And minors would not engage in playing a lyre and in playing a harp; rather, they would engage in singing with the mouth, in order to provide flavor to the music with their pure, high voices.

7Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: Minors are not tallied in the minimum total of twelve Levites, and they do not ascend to the platform; rather, they would stand on the ground and their heads would reach to between the legs of the Levites, and they were called cadets [ tzoarei ] of the Levites.

8GEMARA: The mishna states that a minimum of twelve Levites would stand on the platform and sing. The Gemara asks: To what does this number correspond? Rav Pappa says: It corresponds to the minimum number of instruments that were played: Nine harps and two lyres and one cymbal. This number is also alluded to in the Bible, as it is stated: “Instructed in singing unto the Lord… he and his brethren and sons were twelve” (I Chronicles 25:7–9).

9§ The mishna teaches: A minor Levite may enter the Temple courtyard for service only at a time when the Levites are engaging in song. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Rabbi Yoḥanan says: As the verse states: “Then stood Jeshua with his sons and his brethren, and Kadmiel and his sons, the sons of Judah, together, to make music for the workmen in the House of God” (Ezra 3:9). This verse shows that in making music it is preferable to have one’s sons, i.e., minors, as accompaniment.

10The mishna teaches: The minors would not engage in playing a lyre and in playing a harp; rather, in singing with the mouth in order to provide flavor to the music with their pure, high voices. The Gemara notes: That is to say that a lyre and a harp are two distinct instruments. Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: The harp used in the Temple was an instrument of seven strings, as it is stated: “In your presence is fullness [ sova ] of joy, in your right hand sweetness for evermore” (Psalms 16:11). Do not read the word as “ fullness [ sova ]” but as seven [ sheva ]. This indicates that the “sweet harp” (see Psalms 81:3) played in the presence of God, i.e., in the Temple, has seven strings.

11Rabbi Yehuda continues: And the harp that will be played in the days of the Messiah will have eight strings, as it is stated: “For the Leader, on the eighth: A Psalm of David” (Psalms 12:1). This indicates that the psalms that will be recited in the time of the Messiah, son of David, will be played on the eighth string that will be added to the harp.

12And the harp that will be played in the World-to-Come will have ten strings, as it is stated: “A Psalm, a song. For the Shabbat… With an instrument of ten strings and with the lyre, with a solemn sound upon the harp” (Psalms 92:1–4). This indicates that in the World-to-Come, which is comparable to Shabbat, songs of praise to God will be played on a ten-stringed instrument, identified here as both a lyre and a harp.

13And similarly, another verse states: “Give thanks unto the Lord with the harp; sing praises unto Him with the lyre of ten strings. Sing unto Him a new song” (Psalms 33:2–3), which is referring to the new song that will be sung only in the World-to-Come. This proof in support of Rabbi Yehuda’s claim that the harp used in the World-to-Come will have ten strings is from a verse that is referring to a ten-stringed lyre, which shows that according to Rabbi Yehuda, the lyre and harp are the same instrument. Therefore, his opinion apparently contradicts the mishna.

14The Gemara answers: You may even say the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as even he agrees that the harp and lyre are essentially two different instruments. But in the World-to-Come, since the strings of the harp will be increased, its sound will be increased like that of the lyre, and therefore he calls the harp a lyre.