talmud sukkah 1:5a

 

5a

וְתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: מֵעוֹלָם לֹא יָרְדָה שְׁכִינָה לְמַטָּה, וְלֹא עָלוּ מֹשֶׁה וְאֵלִיָּהוּ לַמָּרוֹם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הַשָּׁמַיִם שָׁמַיִם לַה׳ וְהָאָרֶץ נָתַן לִבְנֵי אָדָם״. and it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: The Divine Presence never actually descended below, and Moses and Elijah never actually ascended to heaven on high, as it is stated: “The heavens are the heavens of the Lord, and the earth He gave to the children of man” (Psalms 115:16), indicating that these are two distinct domains. Apparently, from ten handbreadths upward is considered a separate domain. Consequently, any sukka that is not at least ten handbreadths high is not considered an independent domain and is unfit.

וְלֹא יָרְדָה שְׁכִינָה לְמַטָּה? וְהָכְתִיב: ״וַיֵּרֶד ה׳ עַל הַר סִינַי״! לְמַעְלָה מֵעֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים. וְהָכְתִיב: ״וְעָמְדוּ רַגְלָיו בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא עַל הַר הַזֵּיתִים״! לְמַעְלָה מֵעֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים. The Gemara asks: And did the Divine Presence never descend below ten handbreadths? But isn’t it written: “And God descended onto Mount Sinai” (Exodus 19:20)?
The Gemara answers: Although God descended below, He always remained ten handbreadths above the ground. Since from ten handbreadths and above it is a separate domain, in fact, the Divine Presence never descended to the domain of this world.
The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written: “And on that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives” (Zechariah 14:4)? The Gemara answers: Here, too, He will remain ten handbreadths above the ground.

וְלֹא עָלוּ מֹשֶׁה וְאֵלִיָּהוּ לַמָּרוֹם? וְהָכְתִיב: ״וּמֹשֶׁה עָלָה אֶל הָאֱלֹהִים״! לְמַטָּה מֵעֲשָׂרָה. וְהָכְתִיב: ״וַיַּעַל אֵלִיָּהוּ בַּסְעָרָה הַשָּׁמָיִם״! לְמַטָּה מֵעֲשָׂרָה. וְהָכְתִיב: ״מְאַחֵז פְּנֵי כִּסֵּא פַּרְשֵׁז עָלָיו עֲנָנוֹ״, וְאָמַר רַבִּי תַּנְחוּם: מְלַמֵּד שֶׁפֵּירַשׂ שַׁדַּי מִזִּיו שְׁכִינָתוֹ וַעֲנָנוֹ עָלָיו! לְמַטָּה מֵעֲשָׂרָה. The Gemara asks: And did Moses and Elijah never ascend to the heavens on high? But isn’t it written: “And Moses went up to God” (Exodus 19:3)?
The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, he remained below ten handbreadths adjacent to the ground.
The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written: “And Elijah went up by a whirlwind heavenward” (II Kings 2:11)?
The Gemara answers: Here, too, it was below ten handbreadths.
The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written: “He grasps the face of the throne, and spreads His cloud upon him” (Job 26:9)? And Rabbi Tanḥum said: This teaches that the Almighty spread of the radiance of His Divine Presence and of His cloud upon him. Apparently, Moses was in the cloud with God.
The Gemara answers: Here, too, it was below ten handbreadths.

מִכׇּל מָקוֹם ״מְאַחֵז פְּנֵי כִּסֵּא״ כְּתִיב! אִישְׁתַּרְבּוֹבֵי אִישְׁתַּרְבַּב לֵיהּ כִּסֵּא עַד עֲשָׂרָה, וּנְקַט בֵּיהּ. The Gemara asks: In any case: “He grasps the face of the throne,” is written, indicating that Moses took hold of the Throne of Glory. The Gemara rejects this: The throne was extended for him down to ten handbreadths and Moses grasped it; however, he remained below ten handbreadths. And since the Divine Presence speaks to Moses from above the Ark cover ten handbreadths above the ground, clearly a height of ten handbreadths is a distinct domain.

בִּשְׁלָמָא אָרוֹן תִּשְׁעָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְעָשׂוּ אֲרוֹן עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים אַמָּתַיִם וָחֵצִי אׇרְכּוֹ וְאַמָּה וָחֵצִי רׇחְבּוֹ וְאַמָּה וָחֵצִי קוֹמָתוֹ״. אֶלָּא כַּפּוֹרֶת טֶפַח, מְנָלַן? דְּתָנֵי רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: כׇּל הַכֵּלִים שֶׁעָשָׂה מֹשֶׁה, נָתְנָה בָּהֶן תּוֹרָה מִדַּת אׇרְכָּן וּמִדַּת רׇחְבָּן וּמִדַּת קוֹמָתָן. כַּפּוֹרֶת, מִדַּת אׇרְכָּהּ וּמִדַּת רׇחְבָּהּ — נָתְנָה, מִדַּת קוֹמָתָהּ — לֹא נָתְנָה. The Gemara wonders about the proof offered: Granted, the height of the Ark was nine handbreadths, as it is written: “And they shall make an Ark of acacia wood; two cubits and a half shall be its length, and a cubit and a half its breadth, and a cubit and a half its height” (Exodus 25:10), and one and a half cubits equal nine handbreadths. However, from where do we derive the fact that the thickness of the Ark cover was one handbreadth? The Torah never states its dimensions explicitly, as Rabbi Ḥanina taught: For all the vessels that Moses crafted for the Tabernacle, the Torah provided in their regard the dimension of their length, the dimension of their width, and the dimension of their height. However, for the Ark cover, the Torah provided the dimension of its length and the dimension of its width; but the Torah did not provide the dimension of its height.

צֵא וּלְמַד מִפָּחוּת שֶׁבַּכֵּלִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְעָשִׂיתָ לּוֹ מִסְגֶּרֶת טֹפַח סָבִיב״, מָה לְהַלָּן טֶפַח, אַף כָּאן טֶפַח. וְנֵילַף מִכֵּלִים גּוּפַיְיהוּ! תָּפַשְׂתָּ מְרוּבֶּה — לֹא תָּפַשְׂתָּ, תָּפַשְׂתָּ מוּעָט — תָּפַשְׂתָּ. The Gemara answers: Go out and learn from the smallest dimension mentioned in connection with any of the Tabernacle vessels, as it is stated with regard to the shewbread table: “And you shall make unto it a border of a handbreadth around” (Exodus 25:25). Just as there, the frame measures one handbreadth, so too, here, the thickness of the Ark cover measures a single handbreadth. The Gemara asks: And let us derive the thickness of the Ark cover from the vessels themselves, the smallest of which measures a cubit. The Gemara answers: If you grasped many, you did not grasp anything; if you grasped few, you grasped something. If there are two possible sources from which to derive the dimension of the Ark cover, then without conclusive proof one may not presume that the Torah intended to teach the larger dimension. Rather, the presumption is that the Torah is teaching the smaller dimension, which is included in the larger measure.

וְנֵילַף מִצִּיץ, דְּתַנְיָא: צִיץ דּוֹמֶה כְּמִין טַס שֶׁל זָהָב, וְרָחָב שְׁתֵּי אֶצְבָּעוֹת וּמוּקָּף מֵאֹזֶן לְאֹזֶן, וְכָתוּב עָלָיו שְׁתֵּי שִׁיטִין: ׳יוֹד הֵא׳ מִלְּמַעְלָה, וְ׳קֹדֶשׁ לָמֶד׳ מִלְּמַטָּה. וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי: אֲנִי רְאִיתִיו בְּרוֹמִי, וְכָתוּב עָלָיו ״קֹדֶשׁ לַה׳״ בְּשִׁיטָה אַחַת! The Gemara asks: If so, let us derive the thickness of the Ark cover from the frontplate, which is even smaller than a handbreadth, as it is taught in a baraita: The frontplate is a type of plate made of gold that is two fingerbreadths wide and stretches from ear to ear. And written upon it are two lines: The letters yod, heh, vav, heh, the name of God, above; and the word kodesh, spelled kuf, dalet, shin, followed by the letter lamed, below. Together it spelled kodesh laHashem, meaning: Sacred to the Lord, with yod, heh, vav, heh written on the upper line in deference to the name of God. Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: I saw the frontplate in the emperor’s treasury in Rome, where it was taken together with the other Temple vessels when the Temple was destroyed, and upon it was written: Sacred to the Lord, on one line. Why not derive the thickness of the Ark cover from the frontplate and say that it was only two fingerbreadths?

דָּנִין כְּלִי מִכְּלִי, וְאֵין דָּנִין כְּלִי מִתַּכְשִׁיט. The Gemara answers: One derives the dimension of a vessel from the dimension of a vessel, and one does not derive the dimension of a vessel from the dimension of an ornament. The frontplate is not one of the Tabernacle vessels but one of the ornaments of the High Priest.

וְנֵילַף מִזֵּר. דְּאָמַר מָר: זֵר מַשֶּׁהוּ! דָּנִין כְּלִי מִכְּלִי, וְאֵין דָּנִין כְּלִי מֵהֶכְשֵׁר כְּלִי. אִי הָכִי, מִסְגֶּרֶת נָמֵי הֶכְשֵׁר כְּלִי הוּא! מִסְגַּרְתּוֹ לְמַטָּה הָיְתָה. The Gemara suggests: Let us derive the thickness of the Ark cover from the crown featured atop several of the Tabernacle vessels, as the Master said: This crown, with regard to which the Torah did not specify its dimensions, could be any size. The Gemara answers: One derives the dimension of a vessel from the dimension of a vessel, and one does not derive the dimension of a vessel from the dimension of the finish of a vessel that serves decorative purposes. The Gemara asks: If it is so that one does not derive the dimensions of a vessel from the dimensions of the finish of a vessel, then how can dimensions be derived from the border of the table, which is also the finish of a vessel and not an integral part of the table? The Gemara answers: The border of the table was below, between the legs of the table, and the tabletop rested upon it. As it supports the table, it is an integral part of the table and not merely decoration.

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִסְגַּרְתּוֹ לְמַטָּה הָיְתָה, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִסְגַּרְתּוֹ לְמַעְלָה הָיְתָה, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? הַאי הֶכְשֵׁר כְּלִי הוּא! The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who said that its border was below the tabletop; however, according to the one who said that its border was above the tabletop, what can be said? According to that opinion, this border is indeed the finish of a vessel.

אֶלָּא: דָּנִין דָּבָר שֶׁנָּתְנָה בּוֹ תּוֹרָה מִדָּה מִדָּבָר שֶׁנָּתְנָה בּוֹ תּוֹרָה מִדָּה, וְאַל יוֹכִיחוּ צִיץ וְזֵר, שֶׁלֹּא נִתְּנָה בָּהֶן תּוֹרָה מִדָּה כְּלָל. Rather, the thickness of the Ark cover must be derived from a different source. One derives the missing dimensions of an object for which the Torah provided part of its dimension, e.g., the Ark cover, for which the Torah provided the dimensions of length and width, from an object for which the Torah provided its dimension, e.g., the border of the table. And the frontplate and the crown, for which the Torah did not provide any dimension at all, and their dimensions were determined by the Sages, will not prove anything. It is certainly appropriate to derive the dimension of the thickness of the Ark cover from that which was stated clearly in the Torah.

רַב הוּנָא אָמַר, מֵהָכָא: ״עַל פְּנֵי הַכַּפּוֹרֶת קֵדְמָה״, וְאֵין פָּנִים פָּחוֹת מִטֶּפַח. Rav Huna said that the thickness of the Ark cover is derived from here: “Upon the face of [penei] the Ark cover on the east” (Leviticus 16:14), and there is no face [panim] of a person that measures less than one handbreadth.

וְאֵימָא כְּאַפֵּי The Gemara asks: And why say that the face in the verse is specifically the face of a person? Say that the Ark cover is like the face

 

 

 

 

55a

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֵידַע שֶׁהוּקְבַּע רֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ בִּזְמַנּוֹ. תְּרֵי הֶיכֵּירָא עָבְדִינַן. דְּחָזֵי הַאי — חָזֵי, וְחָזֵי בְּהַאי — חָזֵי. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Why was it placed in this manner? It was as an indicator for the people to know that the New Moon was established at its proper time, after the twenty-ninth day of the previous month. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as they implemented two indicators: One who saw this one, i.e., the sequence of the songs, saw it; and one who saw that one, i.e., where the fats were placed, saw it, and there is no contradiction.

מֵיתִיבִי, דְּתָנֵי רָבָא בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל: יָכוֹל כְּשֵׁם שֶׁתּוֹקְעִין עַל שַׁבָּת בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְעַל רֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ, כָּךְ יִהְיוּ תּוֹקְעִין עַל כׇּל מוּסָף וּמוּסָף — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וּבְרָאשֵׁי חׇדְשֵׁיכֶם״, תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַבִּי אַחָא! תְּיוּבְתָּא. The Gemara raises another objection to the opinion of Rabbi Aḥa, as Rava bar Shmuel taught this baraita: I might have thought that just as when Shabbat and the New Moon do not coincide they sound the trumpets for the additional Shabbat offering in and of itself, and for the additional New Moon offering in and of itself, so too would they sound the trumpets for each and every additional offering when the days coincide. Therefore, the verse states: “And on the day of your rejoicing, and at your appointed times, and on your New Moons, and you shall sound the trumpets for your burnt-offerings and your peace-offerings, and they will be a memorial for you before your God. I am the Lord your God” (Numbers 10:10), indicating that one blast is sounded for all. The Gemara suggests: This is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Aḥa. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is a conclusive refutation.

מַאי תַּלְמוּדָא? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וּבְרָאשֵׁי חׇדְשֵׁיכֶם״ — הוּקְּשׁוּ כׇּל חֳדָשִׁים כּוּלָּם זֶה לָזֶה. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: כְּתִיב ״חׇדְשְׁכֶם״, וּכְתִיב ״וּבְרָאשֵׁי״ — וְאֵיזֶה חֹדֶשׁ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שְׁנֵי רָאשִׁים, הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: זֶה רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה, וְאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא ״חׇדְשְׁכֶם״, חַד הִיא. Since the baraita was cited, the Gemara asks: What is the derivation cited in this baraita? How does the phrase: And on your New Moons, prove that the trumpets are sounded once for all the additional offerings? Abaye said: The verse states: “And on your New Moons,” in plural, indicating that all the months are equated to each other, and just as on a typical New Moon the trumpets are sounded once for the additional offering, so too when Shabbat and the New Moon coincide the trumpets are sounded once and no more. Rav Ashi said that in this verse it is written: Your moon [ḥodshekhem], without a yod, in the singular, and in the same verse it is written: “And on your new [uverashei],” in the plural. And which is the month that has two new beginnings? You must say it is Rosh HaShana, which is the beginning of both the new year and the new month. And yet the Merciful One says: Your moon, in the singular, indicating it is one and the trumpets are sounded once.

וְעוֹד, תַּנְיָא: בְּחוּלּוֹ שֶׁל מוֹעֵד, בָּרִאשׁוֹן מֶה הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים: ״הָבוּ לַה׳ בְּנֵי אֵלִים״. בַּשֵּׁנִי מֶה הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים: ״וְלָרָשָׁע אָמַר אֱלֹהִים״. בַּשְּׁלִישִׁי מֶה הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים: ״מִי יָקוּם לִי עִם מְרֵעִים״. And furthermore, contrary to the statement of Rabbi Aḥa, it was taught in a baraita: On the intermediate days of the Festival, on the first day, what would they say as the song accompanying the offering on that day? “Ascribe [havu] unto the Lord, O you sons of might” (Psalms 29:1). On the second day, what would they say? The psalm that contains the verse: “But unto the wicked [velarasha] God says: What have you to do to declare My statutes?” (Psalms 50:16). On the third day, what would they say? The psalm containing the verse: “Who [mi] will rise up for me against the evildoers?” (Psalms 94:16).

בָּרְבִיעִי מֶה הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים: ״בִּינוּ בּוֹעֲרִים בָּעָם״. בַּחֲמִישִׁי מֶה הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים: ״הֲסִירוֹתִי מִסֵּבֶל שִׁכְמוֹ״. בַּשִּׁשִּׁי מֶה הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים: ״יִמּוֹטוּ כׇּל מוֹסְדֵי אָרֶץ״. וְאִם חָל שַׁבָּת בְּאֶחָד מֵהֶם, ״יִמּוֹטוּ״ יִדָּחֶה. On the fourth day, what would they say? “Consider [binu], you brutish among the people” (Psalms 94:8). On the fifth day, what would they say? “I removed [hasiroti] his shoulder from the burden” (Psalms 81:7). On the sixth day, what would they say? “All the foundations of the earth are moved [yimotu]” (Psalms 82:5). And if Shabbat occurred on any of the intermediate days of the Festival, since Shabbat has its own song (Psalms 92), the last of the songs of the intermediate days, i.e., “All the foundations of the earth are moved,” is superseded, and all the other songs are recited in their proper sequence.

רַב סָפְרָא מַנַּח בְּהוּ סִימָנָא: ״הוּמְבָּהֵ״‎י״. רַב פָּפָּא מַנַּח בְּהוּ סִימָנָא: ״הוּמְהָבֵּ״‎י״. וְסִימָנָךְ, ״אַמְבּוּהָא דְסָפְרֵי״. Rav Safra established a mnemonic for the sequence of the psalms recited during the intermediate days of the Festival: Heh, vav, mem, beit, heh, yod, the first letters of the transliterated word in the verses cited. Rav Pappa established a different mnemonic for a different sequence of the Psalms: Heh, vav, mem, heh, beit, yod, as in his opinion, the psalm containing: “I removed” is recited before the psalm containing: “Consider.” The Gemara notes: A mnemonic to identify which amora established which mnemonic is the expression: Convoy [ambuha] of scribes [desafrei], as the spelling of ambuha is like the mnemonic of Rav Safra.

תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַבִּי אַחָא בַּר חֲנִינָא! תְּיוּבְתָּא. וְהָא רַבִּי אַחָא בַּר חֲנִינָא קְרָא וּמַתְנִיתָא קָאָמַר? The Gemara concludes: This baraita is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina, as on Shabbat the song for Shabbat was recited alone without the song for the Festival, and similarly, separate trumpet blasts are not sounded for the various additional offerings. Rabbi Aḥa’s opinion was rejected based on several sources. The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rabbi Aḥa say a verse and a baraita in support of his opinion? How can those citations be rejected?

אָמַר רָבִינָא: לוֹמַר שֶׁמַּאֲרִיכִין בִּתְקִיעוֹת. רַבָּנַן דְּקֵיסָרִי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַחָא אָמְרִי: לוֹמַר שֶׁמַּרְבֶּה בְּתוֹקְעִין. Ravina said: The verse and the baraita that he cited do not teach that trumpet blasts were sounded for each additional offering. Rather, they come to say that one extends the duration of the blasts to honor the added additional offerings, but does not sound even one additional blast. The Sages of Caesarea, in the name of Rabbi Aḥa, said: The verse and the baraita cited by Rabbi Aḥa come to say that one increases the number of trumpeters to honor the added additional offerings, but not the number of blasts sounded.

וַאֲנַן, דְּאִית לַן תְּרֵי יוֹמֵי, הֵיכִי עָבְדִינַן? אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: שֵׁנִי יִדָּחֶה. Apropos the psalms recited during the Festival, the Gemara asks: And we, outside Eretz Yisrael, who have two days of Festival due to the uncertainty, as well as uncertainty with regard to each of the intermediate days, how do we conduct ourselves with regard to the mention of the additional offerings in the additional prayer of the Festival during the intermediate days, and with regard to Torah reading on those days? Abaye said: Mention of the second day will be superseded. Since the first of the intermediate days outside Eretz Yisrael is the third day of the Festival in Eretz Yisrael, the additional offering for the third day alone is mentioned, and the offerings for the fourth day on the fourth day, etc. No mention is made of the second day outside Eretz Yisrael.

רָבָא אָמַר: שְׁבִיעִי יִדָּחֶה. תַּנְיָא כְּוָתֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: אִם חָל שַׁבָּת לִהְיוֹת בְּאֶחָד מֵהֶן, ״יִמּוֹטוּ״ יִדָּחֶה. Rava said: Mention of the seventh day will be superseded. On the first of the intermediate days outside Eretz Yisrael, the third day of the Festival, the passage beginning “And on the second day” (Numbers 29:17) is mentioned in the additional Amida prayer and read in the Torah, and on each succeeding day the succeeding passage is mentioned and read. There is no mention of the seventh day on the eighth day, as that is no longer Sukkot but rather the Eighth Day of Assembly. The Gemara notes: A baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rava: And if Shabbat occurs on any of the intermediate days of the Festival, the song of the seventh day of Sukkot: “All the foundations of the earth are moved,” is superseded.

אַתְקִין אַמֵּימָר בִּנְהַרְדְּעָא, דִּמְדַלְּגִי דַּלּוֹגֵי. The Gemara cites a third opinion: Ameimar instituted in his city of Neharde’a that during the intermediate days, one repeats the second of the additional offerings that he mentioned the day before and adds the additional offerings of the subsequent day. On the first of the intermediate days in the Diaspora, one mentions the additional offerings of both the second and third days of Sukkot. On the second of the intermediate days, one repeats the verses of the third day of Sukkot and adds the verses of the fourth day. 

 

51a

This dispute is parallel to another dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a mishna in tractate Arakhin: The Temple musicians were slaves of priests; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: The musicians were not slaves; they were Israelites from the family of the House of Happegarim and the family of the House of Tzipperaya. And they were from the city of Emma’um, and their lineage was sufficiently distinguished that they would marry their daughters to members of the priesthood.

Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: They were Levites. What, is it not that they disagree with regard to this; that the one who said that the musicians were slaves holds that the primary essence of song is singing with the mouth. Since the instrumental music is mere accompaniment, it could be performed by slaves. And the one who said that the musicians were Levites holds that the primary essence of song is accompaniment by musical instruments. Therefore, the musicians were Levites, who were tasked with the song that was part of the Temple service.

The Gemara asks: And how can you understand the mishna that way? According to that explanation, what does Rabbi Yosei hold? If he holds that the primary essence of song is singing with the mouth, then even slaves can also play the instruments. Why then does he require that the musicians be from Israelite families of distinguished lineage? If he holds that the primary essence of song is accompaniment by musical instruments, he should have said: Levites, yes, they may play the instruments, but Israelites, no, they may not.

Rather, the explanation of the dispute is that everyone agrees that the primary essence of song is singing with the mouth and the musical instruments are merely for accompaniment. And it is with regard to this that they disagree: It is that one Sage holds that the event took place in this manner, i.e., slaves played the instruments, and one Sage holds that the event took place in this manner, i.e., Israelite families of distinguished lineage played the instruments.

The Gemara asks: What practical halakhic difference is there whether one group or another played the instruments? The Gemara answers: It is with regard to whether one elevates a Levite from the platform to the presumptive status of distinguished lineage and eligibility to receive tithes that they disagree. Is it possible to draw the conclusion that a family is of distinguished lineage or eligible to receive tithes based on the fact that a member or ancestor of that family played a musical instrument on the Temple platform?

The one who said that the musicians were slaves holds that one does not elevate from the platform to the presumptive status of distinguished lineage and eligibility to receive tithes. And the one who said that the musicians were Israelites holds that one elevates a Levite from the platform to the presumptive status of distinguished lineage but not eligibility to receive tithes. And the one who said that the musicians were Levites holds that one elevates a Levite from the platform to the presumptive status of distinguished lineage and eligibility to receive tithes.

§ The Gemara cites an opinion that disagrees with that of Rav Yosef. And Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said: The dispute between Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda and the Rabbis is with regard to the song of the Drawing of the Water. Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda holds that extra rejoicing also overrides Shabbat, and the Rabbis hold that extra rejoicing does not override Shabbat. However, with regard to the song that the Levites sang accompanying an offering, everyone agrees that it is part of the Temple service, and overrides Shabbat.

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav Yosef that the dispute is with regard to the song that the Levites sang accompanying the daily offering: The song of the Drawing of the Water overrides Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: It does not override even the Festival. Apparently, their dispute is with regard to the song of the Drawing of the Water. Say that this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Yosef. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is a conclusive refutation.

The Gemara suggests: Let us say, based on this baraita, that it is with regard to the song of the Drawing of the Water alone that they disagree; however, with regard to the song that the Levites sang accompanying the daily offering, everyone says that it overrides Shabbat. If so, let us say that this will be a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Yosef on two counts. According to Rav Yosef, the dispute is with regard to the song of the Drawing of the Water, and not with regard to the song the Levites sang accompanying the daily offering. The above suggestion refutes both aspects of his opinion.

Rav Yosef could have said to you: They disagree with regard to the song of the Drawing of the Water and the same is true for the song that the Levites sang accompanying an offering. And the fact that they disagree specifically with regard to the song of the Drawing of the Water and do not specifically mention the song that the Levites sang accompanying the daily offering is to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda, that even the song of the Drawing of the Water also overrides Shabbat.

The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in the mishna: This is the flute of the Place of the Drawing of the Water, which overrides neither Shabbat nor the Festival. By inference, this is the flute that does not override Shabbat; however, the flute that accompanies the daily offering overrides Shabbat. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna of the mishna? If we say it is Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda, didn’t he say that the song of the Drawing of the Water also overrides Shabbat? Rather, is it not the Rabbis, and say that this is a conclusive refutation of Rav Yosef on two counts. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is a conclusive refutation.

The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of the one who said: The primary essence of song is singing accompanied by musical instruments? The Gemara answers: It is as it is written: “And Hezekiah commanded to sacrifice 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” (II Chronicles 29:27), indicating that the song of God that accompanies the offering is played by trumpets and other instruments.

The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of the one who said: The primary essence of song is singing with the mouth? The Gemara answers: It is as it is written: “And it came to pass, when the trumpeters and the singers were as one to make one sound” (II Chronicles 5:13). Since the verse does not mention any musical instrument played with the singing other than the trumpets, and the trumpets were not sounded as accompaniment for the singers, apparently the primary essence of song is singing with the mouth. The trumpets were sounded in order to accompany the sacrifice of the daily and additional offerings with the requisite sounds of tekia and terua.

The Gemara asks: And according to the other tanna too, who holds that the primary essence of song is singing with the mouth, isn’t it written: “And Hezekiah commanded…the song of the Lord began also, and the trumpets, together with the instruments,” indicating that the instruments are the primary essence? The Gemara answers: This is what the verse is saying: “The song of the Lord began,” indicates that the primary essence is with the mouth; “with the instruments of David, King of Israel,” is to sweeten the sound, as the instruments are merely to accompany and enhance the singing.

The Gemara asks: And according to the other tanna too, who holds that the primary essence of song is singing accompanied by musical instruments, isn’t it written: “And it came to pass, when the trumpeters and the singers were as one,” indicating that the primary essence is with the mouth? The Gemara answers: This is what the verse is saying: Through their juxtaposition, one derives that the singers are similar to the trumpeters; just as trumpeters produce their sound with an instrument, so too the singers produce their song with an instrument.

MISHNA: One who did not see the Celebration of the Place of the Drawing of the Water never saw celebration in his days. This was the sequence of events: At the conclusion of the first Festival day the priests and the Levites descended from the Israelites’ courtyard to the Women’s Courtyard, where they would introduce a significant repair, as the Gemara will explain. There were golden candelabra atop poles there in the courtyard. And there were four basins made of gold at the top of each candelabrum. And there were four ladders for each and every pole and there were four children from the priesthood trainees, and in their hands were pitchers with a capacity of 120 log of oil that they would pour into each and every basin. From the worn trousers of the priests and their belts they would loosen and tear strips to use as wicks, and with them they would light the candelabra. And the light from the candelabra was so bright that there was not a courtyard in Jerusalem that was not illuminated from the light of the Place of the Drawing of the Water.

The pious and the men of action would dance before the people who attended the celebration, 

 

 

 

MOSHE AND ELIYAHU

The Cloud of Glory preceded Israel in the wilderness, as the Ark moved forward. As we mentioned above, there is an unusual opinion that the bracketed section was spoken by Eldad and Medad! In 1897, Elkan Adler published an eleventh-century manuscript, which said,

“Why did the sages place inverted nuns before the verse: “The people took to complaining (Num 11:1)? The sages thereby declared: The entire Torah consists of the prophecy of Moses, except for these two verses which are from the prophecy of Eldad and Medad.” [7].

The two prophets, Eldad and Medad form a prototype that is echoed throughout the Tanakh:

• Moshe and Aharon
• Elijah and Elisha
• Yochanan the Immerser and Yeshua
• The Two Prophets before the coming of Mashiach ben David

Every year, through the reading of the Torah, we come to a sad part. After journeying with Moshe Rabbeinu through most the year, we come to his death. He dies before being able to accomplish the holy task, and it is Yehoshua bin Nun who causes the people to inherit the land.

“Moses went up from the plains of Moab to Mount Nebo, to the top of Pisgah, that is over against Jericho. HaShem showed him all the land of Gilead, to Dan, and all Naphtali, and the land of Ephraim and Manasseh, and all the land of Judah, to the hinder sea, and the South, and the Plain of the valley of Jericho the city of palm trees, to Zoar. HaShem said to him, “This is the land which I swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, saying, ‘I will give it to your seed.’ I have caused you to see it with your eyes, but you shall not go over there.” So Moshe the servant of HaShem died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of HaShem.
Deuteronomy 34:1-5

Why was Moshe not allowed to enter the land? It is beyond the scope of this article, but one aspect of the multidimensional reason is that he struck the Rock instead of speaking to it. Yet, when we reach the Gospels, something incredible happens:

“After six days Yeshua took with him Peter, Yaakov, and Yochanan, and brought them up onto a high mountain privately by themselves, and he was changed into another form in front of them. His clothing became glistening, exceedingly white, like snow, such as no launderer on earth can whiten them. Eliyahu and Moshe appeared to them, and they were talking with Yeshua. Peter answered Yeshua, “Rabbi, it is good for us to be here. Let’s make three Sukkot: one for you, one for Moshe, and one for Eliyahu.” For he didn’t know what to say, for they were very afraid. A cloud came, overshadowing them, and a voice came out of the cloud, “This is my beloved Son. Listen to him.” Suddenly looking around, they saw no one with them anymore, except Yeshua only.”
Mark 9:2-8

Moshe Rabbeinu made it! He is in the land! And he is speaking to the Rock, who is the Mashiach! (This will be elaborated on in a different article). Apparently this happened during the Festival of Sukkot, as Peter says, “let us make sukkot”. Sukkot is the picture of the Messianic Kingdom. In a stunning passage, R’ Yehudah Chayoun cites a Midrash describing the vision of the Heavenly Temple that Moshe experienced before he died,

“Our rabbis said: On the day Moshe Rabbeinu’s death approached, God brought him up to the heavens and showed him his Divine reward and what the future held…[he] saw God building the Temple with precious stones and pearls. Between each stone was the glow of the Shechinah, more radiant than pearls. Moshach ben David stood in [the Temple] and Aharon, [Moshe’s] brother, stood on his feet, his cloak upon him. . . Moshe fell on his face before God and said to Him, “Master of the world, give me permission to speak with your anointed one before I die.” Moshe [then] asked Moshiach ben David, “God spoke to me, [saying] He would build the Temple in the land…and behold, I have seen Him build His Temple by hand in the heavens!” Moshiach said to Moshe, “Moshe! Yaakov your forefather saw the house that will be built on earth…’When Moshe Rabbeinu, peace be upon him, heard these words from Moshiach ben David, he felt great happiness…[Then] he gave his soul to God wholeheartedly.”
Midrash Arakim, Midrash “HaShem BeChochmah Yasad Aretz,” cited in Otzros HaAcharis HaYamim, When Moshiach Comes, R’ Yehudah Chayoun, pg. 201-202

CLOUDS OF GLORY

In the above section from the Gospels, the “Cloud” is connected to Sukkot, the booths that the Israelites dwell in during the latter part of the year, according to the Torah,

כִּי בַסֻּכֹּות הֹושַׁבְתִּי אֶת־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל

“You shall dwell in booths for seven days. All who are native-born in Israel shall dwell in booths, that your generations may know that I made the children of Israel to dwell in sukkot (booths), when I brought them out of the land of Egypt. I am HaShem your God.”
Leviticus 23:42-43

R’ Eliezer makes an unusual comment on this passage,

“These were clouds of glory,” (says) R. Eliezer. R. Akiba says, “They made for themselves real booths.”
Sukkah 11b, Soncino Press Edition

The Cloud is connected to the Mishkan,

“Then the cloud covered the Tent of Meeting, and the glory of HaShem filled the tabernacle. Moses wasn’t able to enter into the Tent of Meeting, because the cloud stayed on it, and HaShem glory filled the tabernacle.”
Exodus 40:34-35

Psalms links the Sukkah of HaShem to the Clouds,

“He rode on a cherub, and flew. Yes, he soared on the wings of the wind. He made darkness his hiding place, his Sukkah around him, darkness of waters, thick clouds of the skies.”
Psalms 18:10-11

The Book of Job says,

“Yes, can any understand the spreading of the clouds, and the thunderings of his sukkah?”
Job 36:29

Rashi notes that the Clouds protected Israel,

“The cloud of the L-rd was above them: Seven clouds are recorded in the account of their travels: Four from the four sides, one above, one below, and one in front of them which would flatten the high land, raise the hollows and destroy snakes and scorpions – [from Sifrei].”
Rashi on Numbers 10:34, cited at Chabad.org [8]

So as the Cloud moved forward, as the Ark traveled, there is a connection to Sukkot, the Two Witnesses, and the War of Gog and Magog. According to Jewish tradition, the War of Gog and Magog occurs on Sukkot. This war leads to the ultimate victory of Mashiach ben David, who will come on the “clouds of heaven.”

SON OF THE CLOUDS

Genealogies are often ignored, or maligned as ‘boring.’ Yet within the genealogies, amazing diamonds are found,

“Now these were the sons of David…the sons of Elioenai: Hodaviah, and Eliashiv, and Pelaiah, and Akkub, and Yochanan, and Delaiah, and Anani, seven.”
1 Chronicles 3:1, 24

Based on this seemingly simple passage, Rashi says,

“And from Jeconiah…until “Anani seven,” which is [an allusion to] the King Messiah, as it is written: (Dan. 7:13): “…and behold, with the clouds (anani) of the heavens…”
Rashi on 1 Chronicles 3, cited at Chabad.org [9]

The Talmud says,

“R. Nahman said to R. Isaac: ‘Have you heard when Bar Nafle* will come?’ ‘Who is Bar Nafle?’ he asked. ‘Messiah.’ He answered, ‘Do you call Messiah ‘Bar Nafle?’ ‘Even so,’ he rejoined, ‘as it is written, in that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David ha-nofelet [that is fallen].”
Sanhedrin 96b, Soncino Press Edition

* Literally ‘son of the fallen.’ Bar Nafle is generally assumed to represent the Greek, ‘son of the clouds’, cf. Dan 7:13

Mashiach is said to come one of two ways, slowly and upon a donkey, or quickly upon the clouds.

“R. Alexandri said: R. Joshua b. Levi pointed out a contradiction. it is written, in its time [will the Messiah come], whilst it is also written, I [the Lord] will hasten it! — if they are worthy, I will hasten it: if not, [he will come] at the due time. R. Alexandri said: R. Joshua opposed two verses: it is written, And behold, one like the son of man came with the clouds of heaven whilst [elsewhere] it is written, [behold, thy king comes unto you. . .] lowly, and riding upon a donkey! — if they are meritorious, [he will come] with the clouds of heaven; if not, lowly and riding upon a donkey.”
Sanhedrin 98a, Soncino Press Edition

All of this was and is dependent upon choice. It is well known that first century Israel was unworthy, and that the generation merited the destruction of the Temple. Yeshua of Nazareth wept over Jerusalem, and rode into it upon a donkey. As a donkey is slow, this means that the Redemption would not take place immediately, but slowly, in its own time. Yet, according to the Rabbis, every generation in which the Temple is not rebuilt is equivalent to the generation that merited its destruction. Today, like never before, Israel is preparing herself. The land has been returned, and Jerusalem has been re-united. The color techelet has resurrected and the garments of the Kohanim are ready. Blueprints for the Temple are drawn, and the letter Ayin desires to return to the name Yeshu.

The ball is in our court, the choice in our hands. It is all dependent upon repentance. The passage bracketed by the Two Nuns is waiting to  take its place, for the Shekhina to return, with the King Mashiach riding upon the Clouds of Heaven.

[

“Rise up, HaShem, and let your enemies be scattered! Let those who hate you flee before you!” When it rested, he said, “Return, HaShem, to the ten thousands of the thousands of Israel.”
Numbers 10:34-36

[

---

REFERENCES

1. R’ Ari Kahn, M’oray HaAish, Be’halot’cha; The Seven Books, Aish.com
2. R’ Ari Kahn, M’oray HaAish, Va’et’chanan: Why Couldn’t Moshe Enter the Land of Israel?, cf. Ohr Hachaim Devarim 1:37
3. Likutey Moharan 1:70, cited in The True Tzaddik, Selected Thoughts from Rebbe Nachman of Breslov, published by Rabbi Yisroel Ber Odesser
4. King Solomon’s Throne, Nissan Mindel, Chabad.org
5. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to Numbers 11
6. Jerusalem Targum to Numbers 11
7.  The Inverted Nuns at Numbers 10:35-36 and the Book of Eldad and Medad, Sid Z. Leiman
8. Rashi on Numbers 10:34, cited at Chabad.org
9. Rashi on 1 Chronicles 3, cited at Chabad.org