סוכה 50 — parallel

50:1

If, therefore, it were brought in a hallowed vessel it would have been rendered invalid by remaining therein overnight. Hezekiah replied, Vessels of ministry do not in fact hallow their contents where there was no intention, but [the use of a hallowed vessel was here forbidden] as a preventive measure lest it be assumed that there was intention that the contents should be hallowed. R. Jannai citing R. Zera replied, You may even say that a fixed amount has been prescribed for the water [of libation] and that vessels of ministry do not hallow their contents unless there was intention, [but the use of a hallowed vessel was nevertheless forbidden] as a preventive measure lest people will think that it was filled with the water for the purpose of using it for the washing of the hands and the feet [of the High Priest]. IF IT WAS POURED AWAY OR UNCOVERED etc. But why? Could it not be filtered through a strainer? Must we then say that our Mishnah does not agree with R. Nehemiah, for it has been taught, [Liquid that has passed through] a strainer is forbidden under the law of uncovering, and R. Nehemiah stated, When does this apply? Only when the receptacle underneath was uncovered, but when the receptacle underneath is covered, even although the upper one was uncovered, the law of uncovering does not apply, since the venom of a serpent is like a fungus which floats on the surface and remains where it is? -You may even maintain that it agrees with R. Nehemiah, since it may be submitted that R. Nehemiah's ruling referred to secular use, but not to one divine, for does not R. Nehemiah uphold [the lesson of the verse,] Present it now to thy governor; will he be pleased with thee? Or will he accept thy person? MISHNAH. THE FLUTE-PLAYING [TOOK PLACE] SOMETIMES [ON] FIVE DAYS AND SOMETIMES ON SIX. THIS REFERS TO THE FLUTE-PLAYING AT BETH HA-SHO'EBAH [THE PLACE OF THE WATER-DRAWING] WHICH OVERRIDES NEITHER THE SABBATH NOR ANY FESTIVAL DAY.16

—

50:2

GEMARA. It was stated, Rab Judah and R. Ina differ, one of them taught Sho'ebah and the other taught Hashubah. Mar Zutra observed, He who teaches, Sho'ebah is not in error, and he who teaches Hashubah is not in error. He who teaches Sho'ebah is not in error, since it is written, And ye shall draw water in joy, and he who teaches Hashubah is not in error, since R. Nahman stated, It is an important precept, dating from the very Creation. Our Rabbis taught, The flute-playing overrides the Sabbath; so R. Jose b. Judah; but the Sages ruled, It does not override even the Festival. R. Joseph explained, The dispute concerns only the song that accompanied the sacrifices, since R. Jose is of the opinion that the essential feature of the [Temple] music is the instrument, in consequence of which it is a Temple service which overrides the Sabbath, whereas the Rabbis are of the opinion that the essential feature of the [Temple] music is the vocal singing, in consequence of which the [playing of the instruments] is not a Temple service and does not, therefore, override the Sabbath; but with regard to the singing at the Festival of Water-Drawing, all agree that it is a mere expression of rejoicing and does not, therefore, override the Sabbath. Whence, said R. Joseph, do I derive that the dispute concerns only that? From what has been taught, If vessels of ministry were made of wood, Rabbi declares them invalid and R. Jose b. Judah holds them to be valid. Now do they not differ on this principle, that he who declares them valid is of the opinion that the essential feature of the [Temple] music is the instrument and [its validity may, therefore,] be deduced from that of the reed-flute of Moses, while he who holds them to be invalid is of the opinion that the essential feature of the Temple music is the vocal singing and its validity, therefore, cannot be deduced from that of the reed-flute of Moses? — No; both of them may agree that the essential feature of the [Temple] music is the instrument, but in this case they differ on the question whether we may deduce what it is possible [to manufacture from another material] from that which it is impossible [to manufacture from another material]. He who declares them valid is of the opinion that we do deduce that which it is possible [to manufacture from another material], from that which it is impossible [to manufacture from another material], whereas he who holds them to be invalid is of the opinion that we do not deduce the possible from the impossible. And if you wish you may say that all are in agreement that the essential feature of the [Temple] music is the vocal singing, and that we do not deduce the possible from the impossible, but in this case they differ on the question whether, in making the deduction concerning the candlestick, we apply the principle of ‘the general and the particular’ or the rule of ‘extension and limitation’. Rabbi applies the principle of ‘the general and the particular’ while R. Jose b. Judah applies the principle of ‘extension and limitation’. Rabbi applies the principle of the ‘general and particular’ [thus:] And thou shalt make a candlestick is a general statement, of pure gold is a particular, of beaten work shall the candlestick be made is again a general statement; [the instruction thus consists of] two general [statements] with a particular [statement between], in which case it includes only such things as are similar to the particular [statement], so that as the particular is specified to be of metal, so must all [vessels] be of metal. R. Jose b. Judah applies the principle of ‘extension and limitation’ [thus:] And thou shalt make a candlestick is an extension, of pure gold is a limitation, of beaten work shall the candlestick be made is again an extension. The text thus gives two extensions with a limitation between in which case it includes everything [and excludes but one thing]. What does it include? All materials, and what does it exclude? [Only] earthenware. R. Papa stated,

—