Arakhin

[i.e.,] concerning the voice.1 R. Ashi2 derived it from here: It came even to pass when the trumpeters and singers were as one to make one sound to be heard.3 R. Jonathan derived it from here: That they die not, neither they, nor ye.4 [i.e.,] just as you at the service of the altar, so they, too, at the service of the altar. It was taught also thus: ‘That they die not, neither they, nor ye. viz., ye by engaging in their work, or they by engaging in yours, would incur penalty of death; they, however, by engaging in [another's] work of their5 own [group] would be incurring penalty for transgression, but not death. Abaye said: We have it on tradition that a singing Levite who did his colleague's work at the gate incurs the penalty of death,6 as it is said: And those that were to pitch before the tabernacle eastward before the tent of meeting toward the sunrising, were Moses and Aaron, etc. and the stranger that drew nigh was to be put to death.7 What ‘stranger’ is meant here? Would you say a real stranger [non-priest]? But that has been mentioned [by Scripture] already! Rather, must it mean a ‘stranger’ to this particular service. An objection was raised: Concerning a Levite chorister that attended to the Temple gates, or a gate-keeping Levite who sang, as to whether they are guilty of a transgression or incurring penalty of death, that is a matter of dispute among Tannaim, for it was taught: It happened that R. Joshua b. Hananyia went to assist R. Johanan b. Gudgeda in the fastening of the Temple doors,8 whereupon he [the latter] said to him: My son, turn back, for you are of the choristers, not of the door-keepers. Would you not say that they were of divided opinion herein, that one held9 he incurs the penalty of death, and for this reason the Rabbis forbade [their assisting], whereas the other held that only a transgression was involved, whence [the Rabbis] did not decree this preventive measure? — No, both agree that only a transgression is involved; [and their point of issue is the following:] one holds that the Rabbis forbade assisting as a preventive measure, the other holding that they did not forbid assisting as a preventive measure.10 R. Abin asked: Does a freewill burnt-offering of a community require song or not? The Divine Law says: Your burnt-offerings11 , which means no matter whether they are obligatory or freewill-offerings; or in saying ‘your burnt-offerings’ does perhaps the Divine Law mean those of all Israel?12 — Come and hear: 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.13 What need was there here for song? Would you say it was on account of [the daily] obligatory burnt-offering? That surely needed no consultation? Rather, it was one in connection with a freewill burnt-offering! Said R. Joseph: No, it was the burnt-offering [offered] on the new moon, and it was questionable as to whether the new month has been fixed in its right time so that it should be offered up, or not. Said Abaye to him: How can you say so,14 is it not written: And on the sixteenth day of the first month they made an end . . . then Hezekiah commanded to offer the burnt.offering upon the altar, etc.?15 — Rather, said Rami the son of R. Yeba: The question was with reference to the lamb offered up with the ‘Omer,16 [namely]: Was the new month decreed in its right time or not so that the lamb may be offered? — R. Avya demurred to this: They should have seen when the paschal lamb had been sacrificed, when the leavened bread had been eaten!17 Rather, said R. Ashi: It is the same as with the messenger of the congregation, who consults [formally asks for permission to start the prayer].18 Now that you have come to this answer, say: Even if it was the case of the [daily] obligatory burnt-offering, [yet there is no difficulty]: It is the same as with any messenger of a community, who consults [his congregation]. Come and hear: R. Jose said, Good19 things are brought about on a good [auspicious] day, and evil ones on a bad one. It is said, The day on which the first Temple was destroyed was the ninth of Ab, and it was at the going out of the Sabbath,20 and at the end of the seventh [Sabbatical] year. The [priestly] guard was that of Jehojarib, the priests and Levites were standing on their platform singing the song. What song was it? And He hath brought upon them their iniquity, and will cut them off in their evil.21 They had no time to complete [the psalm with] ‘The Lord our God will cut them off’, before the enemies came and overwhelmed them. The same happened the second time [the second Sanctuary's destruction].22 Now what need was there for song? Would you say that it was on account of the [daily] burnt-offering? But that could not be, for on the seventeenth of Tammuz the continual sacrifice had been abolished.23 Hence it was on account of a freewill burnt-offering! But how could you think so? Why should an obligatory-offering have been impossible and a freewill-offering available? — That is no difficulty: A young ox may accidentally have come to them!24 Said Raba, or, as some say, R. Ashi: But how could you think so?25 The song of the day was: The earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof,26 whereas the verse, ‘And He hath brought upon them their iniquity’ belongs to the song due on the fourth day of the week! Rather [what you must say is.] It was just a lamentation text that had come to their mouth. But it says: ‘They were standing upon the platform’?27 [Rather, say] That is in accord with Resh Lakish who said: The song may be sung even without any [attending] sacrifice.28 But that principle might be applied to a voluntary burnt-offering, too?29 — That might lead to an offence.30 How is it therewith?31 — Come and hear: R. Mari the son of R. Kahana taught: Over your burnt-offerings and over the sacrifices of your peace-offerings;32 just as the burntoffering is Most Holy, so are the peace-offerings [referred to] Most Holy;33 and just as the peace-offerings have a definite time fixed for them, so have the burnt-offerings a definite time fixed for them.34 which he is unfitted, as e.g.. exchanging the Levite's task for that of the priest's incurs that penalty. Priest's work; still, it is an offence. death (i.e., by the hand of heaven). Hence the statement involving a similar penalty to the stranger in verse 38 must refer to another ‘stranger’, a Levite who was a ‘stranger’ because unfit for that service allotted to another. work as was not allotted to him, he, at any rate, fell under the interdiction of the Sages, whence he advised him to return; the interdiction of the Sages having for its purpose the prevention of any Levite's doing his neighbour's work unassisted, which offence would involve death as the penalty. But R. Joshua held that even if a Levite did his neighbour's work alone, no more than a transgression of a prohibition, without attendant severe penalty, was involved; hence if one only assisted one's neighbour, not even Rabbinic interdiction was transgressed. thing. Hence the matter must have been non-obvious. offered in connection with the omer, though it was an obligatory one. whole congregation is reported to ‘have lifted up their voice and cried’, complaining against Moses and Aaron, and against God. That evil day fell on the ninth of Ab. The ninth of Ab therefore was a day predestined to disaster. (R. Gershom.) the freewill burnt-offering. stand on the platform for the offering of a freewill sacrifice (v. R. Gershom).] Baraitha may refer to the one sung in connection with the obligatory daily burnt-offerings, affording no solution to R. Abin's query.] above of R. Abin (Tosaf.). present or available, as happened in the time of Ezra, no freewill burnt-offerings would be made at all! (R. Gershom.) According to Rashi: If voluntary singing were permitted, its very voluntariness would occasion legal laxities, and such laxities would be transferred to obligatory songs. too. prescribed music. ones.