Sukkah — Daf 51a

כתנאי (דתניא) עבדי כהנים היו דברי ר' מאיר רבי יוסי אומר משפחת בית הפגרים ומשפחת בית ציפריא ומאמאום היו שהיו משיאין לכהונה

ר' חנינא בן אנטיגנוס אומר לוים היו מאי לאו בהא קא מיפלגי דמאן דאמר עבדים היו קסבר עיקר שירה בפה ומאן דאמר לוים היו קסבר עיקר שירה בכלי

ותסברא רבי יוסי מאי קסבר אי קסבר עיקר שירה בפה אפילו עבדים נמי אי קסבר עיקר שירה בכלי לוים אין ישראלים לא

אלא דכולי עלמא עיקר שירה בפה ובהא קא מיפלגי דמר סבר הכי הוה מעשה ומר סבר הכי הוה מעשה

למאי נפקא מינה למעלין מדוכן ליוחסין ולמעשר קא מיפלגי

מאן דאמר עבדים היו קסבר אין מעלין מדוכן ליוחסין ולא למעשר ומאן דאמר ישראל היו קסבר מעלין מדוכן ליוחסין אבל לא למעשר ומאן דאמר לוים היו קסבר מעלין מדוכן בין ליוחסין בין למעשר

ורבי ירמיה בר אבא אמר מחלוקת בשיר של שואבה דרבי יוסי בר יהודה סבר שמחה יתירה נמי דוחה את השבת ורבנן סברי שמחה יתירה אינה דוחה את השבת אבל בשיר של קרבן דברי הכל עבודה היא ודוחה את השבת

מיתיבי שיר של שואבה דוחה את השבת דברי רבי יוסי בר יהודה וחכמים אומרים אף יום טוב אינו דוחה תיובתא דרב יוסף תיובתא

לימא בשיר של שואבה הוא דפליגי אבל בשיר של קרבן דברי הכל דוחה את השבת לימא תיהוי תיובתא דרב יוסף בתרתי

אמר לך רב יוסף פליגי בשיר של שואבה והוא הדין לקרבן והאי דקמיפלגי בשיר של שואבה להודיעך כחו דרבי יוסי בר יהודה דאפילו דשואבה נמי דחי

והא קתני זהו חליל של בית השואבה שאינו דוחה לא את השבת ולא את יום טוב זהו דאינו דוחה אבל דקרבן דוחה מני אי נימא רבי יוסי בר יהודה האמר שיר של שואבה נמי דוחה אלא לאו רבנן ותיובתא דרב יוסף בתרתי תיובתא

מאי טעמא דמאן דאמר עיקר שירה בכלי דכתיב (דברי הימים ב כט, כז) ויאמר חזקיהו להעלות העולה להמזבח ובעת החל העולה החל שיר ה' והחצוצרות ועל ידי כלי דויד מלך ישראל

מ"ט דמאן דאמר עיקר שירה בפה דכתיב (דברי הימים ב ה, יג) ויהי כאחד למחצצרים ולמשוררים להשמיע קול אחד

ואידך נמי הא כתיב ויאמר חזקיהו הכי קאמר החל שיר ה' בפה על ידי כלי דויד מלך ישראל לבסומי קלא

ואידך נמי הא כתיב ויהי כאחד למחצצרים ולמשוררים הכי קאמר משוררים דומיא דמחצצרים מה מחצצרים בכלי אף משוררים בכלי:

מתני׳ מי שלא ראה שמחת בית השואבה לא ראה שמחה מימיו במוצאי יום טוב הראשון של חג ירדו לעזרת נשים ומתקנין שם תיקון גדול מנורות של זהב היו שם וארבעה ספלים של זהב בראשיהם וארבעה סולמות לכל אחד ואחד וארבעה ילדים מפירחי כהונה ובידיהם כדים של מאה ועשרים לוג שהן מטילין לכל ספל וספל מבלאי מכנסי כהנים ומהמייניהן מהן היו מפקיעין ובהן היו מדליקין ולא היה חצר בירושלים שאינה מאירה מאור בית השואבה

חסידים ואנשי מעשה היו מרקדין בפניהם

[This dispute1 is] on the same principle as the one between the following Tannas concerning which we have learnt,2 [The instrument players in the Temple] were the slaves of the priests; so R. Meir. R. Jose says, They were the families of Beth Ha-Pegarim, and Beth Zipporia who hailed from Emmaus3 and were married into the priestly stock.4 R. Hanina b. Antigonus says, They were Levites.5 Now do they6 not differ on the following principles: He who says that they were slaves is of the opinion that the essential feature of the [Temple] music was the vocal singing,7 while he who says that they were Levites holds the opinion that the essential feature of the [Temple] music was the instrument?8 — But do you understand this? What then is the opinion upheld by R. Jose? If he is of the opinion that the essential feature of the [Temple] music was the singing, then even slaves [should be allowed to play the instruments],9 and if he is of the opinion that the essential feature was the instrument, should not then only Levites [be allowed to play] but not Israelites?10 But the fact is that all agree that the essential feature of the [Temple] music was the vocal singing, but it is on this that they differ: One Master holds that the practice was as he stated11 while the other Master holds that the practice was as he stated.11 In what respect could this12 matter? — In respect of taking the fact that a man stood upon the platform13 as proof of honourable descent14 or [as proof that he is eligible for] tithes.15 He who says that they were slaves is of the opinion that the fact that [one's ancestor] stood upon the platform is proof neither of honourable descent nor that [he is eligible for] tithes;16 he who says that they were Israelites [of honourable family] is of the opinion that we accept the standing upon the platform as proof of honourable descent, but not [of eligibility for] tithes;17 while he who says that they were Levites is of the opinion that the standing upon the platform is accepted as proof in regard to both honourable descent and [eligibility for] tithes. 18 R. Jeremiah b. Abba, however, maintains19 that the dispute20 concerns only the music21 at the Water-Drawing, since R. Jose b. Judah is of the opinion that even an added expression of Rejoicing22 overrides the Sabbath, while the Rabbis are of the opinion that an added expression of Rejoicing does not override [either] the Sabbath [or the Festival], but as regards the music which accompanied the sacrifices, all agree that it is [an integral part of] the Service and overrides the Sabbath. An objection was raised:23 [It was taught,] The music which accompanied the Water-Drawing overrides the Sabbath. So R. Jose b. Judah. The Sages, however, rule that it does not override even the Festival. Is not this a refutation of R. Joseph? 24 — It is indeed a refutation. Can we also say that they25 dispute only concerning the music which accompanied the Water-Drawing, but that with regard to the music that accompanied the sacrifices all26 agree that it overrides the Sabbath, and this27 would, therefore, constitute a double refutation of R. Joseph?28 — [No.] R. Joseph could answer you, They dispute concerning the music that accompanied the Water-Drawing and the same applies also to [that which accompanied] the sacrifices, and the reason that they expressed their different views with regard to the Water-Drawing was in order to acquaint you with the extent of the view of R. Jose b. Judah, viz., that even the music of the Water-Drawing overrides [the Sabbath]. Was it not, however, stated, THIS REFERS TO THE FLUTE-PLAYING AT THE PLACE OF THE WATER-DRAWING, WHICH OVERRIDES NEITHER THE SABBATH NOR ANY FESTIVAL DAY, [from which we can infer that] this [playing] does not override the Sabbath, but the playing which accompanied the sacrifices does override [the Sabbath]?29 Now whose view is it? If you were to say that it is that of R. Jose b. Judah, did he not state that the playing which accompanies the Water-Drawing also overrides the Sabbath?30 Consequently it must be, [must it not,] the view of the Rabbis, and thus31 arises a double refutation of R. Joseph?32 It is indeed a refutation. What is the reason of him who stated that the essential feature of the [Temple] music was the instrument? — Because it is written, 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.33 What is the reason of him who stated that the essential feature of the Temple music was the vocal singing? — Because it is written, It came even to pass, when the trumpeters and the singers were as one, to make one sound to be heard.34 As to the other also,35 is it not written, ‘and Hezekiah commanded etc.’?36 — It is this that was meant: The song of the Lord began’ vocally ‘together with the instruments of David, King of Israel’, which were but to sweeten the voice. And as to the other one too,37 is it not written, ‘it came even to pass, when the trumpeters and singers were as one’?38 — It is this that was meant: ‘The singers’ performed in the same manner as ‘the trumpeters’. Just as the trumpeters [performed] with instruments, so did the singers [perform] with instruments. MISHNAH. HE39 WHO HAS NOT SEEN THE REJOICING AT THE PLACE OF THE WATER-DRAWING HAS NEVER SEEN REJOICING IN HIS LIFE. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE FIRST FESTIVAL DAY OF TABERNACLES THEY40 DESCENDED41 TO THE COURT OF THE WOMEN42 WHERE THEY HAD MADE A GREAT ENACTMENT.43 THERE WERE THERE GOLDEN CANDLESTICKS WITH FOUR GOLDEN BOWLS ON THE TOP OF EACH OF THEM AND FOUR LADDERS44 TO EACH, AND FOUR YOUTHS DRAWN FROM THE PRIESTLY STOCK IN WHOSE HANDS WERE HELD JARS OF OIL CONTAINING ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY LOG WHICH THEY POURED INTO THE BOWLS.45 FROM THE WORN-OUT DRAWERS AND GIRDLES OF THE PRIESTS THEY MADE WICKS AND WITH THEM THEY KINDLED THE LAMPS; AND46 THERE WAS NOT A COURTYARD IN JERUSALEM THAT WAS NOT ILLUMINED BY THE LIGHT OF THE PLACE OF THE WATER-DRAWING. MEN OF PIETY AND GOOD DEEDS47 USED TO DANCE BEFORE THEM investigated the descent of the women whom they wished to marry for four generations back. (V. Kid. IV, 4 and 5). that it does not override the Sabbath, while here it is shown that according to R. Jose it does override it; while in the case of the latter he maintained that the Sages hold that it does not override the Sabbath, from here it might be inferred that according to their view it does. according to their view it does not override it. song of the Lord’; v. next note. instruments that accompanied the singing, but to those who sounded the trumpets at the time of sacrifice. Hence it was ‘the singers’ alone who made here the music (V. Rashi). court was situated.