סוכה 56 — Soncino English Talmud

¹From Scripture which teaches, They shall have portion to portion to eat, meaning, as the division of the service [is equal for all], so is the division of the food. Now what food [could this mean]? If you will say that it means the sacrifices, do we not deduce that from a different verse, It shall be the priest's that offers it? Consequently it must refer to the shewbread. As one might assume that the same applies also to obligatory offerings that are offered on the Festival, though not on account of the Festival, Scripture explicitly teaches, Except for that which is sold according to the fathers’ houses; now what is it that the fathers have sold to each other? [The week allotted to each course, each one having agreed] ‘I shall be in charge in my week and you in your week’. ON PENTECOST THEY USED TO SAY TO THE PRIEST etc. It was stated, Rab ruled, [The benediction of] the Sukkah [comes first] and then that of the season. Rabbah b. Bar Hana ruled, [The benediction of] the season [is first] and then that of the Sukkah. ‘Rab ruled, [The benediction of] the Sukkah [comes first] and then that of the season’, since the obligation of the day is more important. ‘Rabbah b. Bar Hana ruled, [The benediction of] the season [is first]’, since that which is more constant precedes that which is less constant. Must we say that Rab and Rabbah b. Bar Hana differ on the same principles as those on which Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel differed? For our Rabbis have taught, These are the points of difference between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel with regard to [the ritual at] a meal: Beth Shammai rule that one recites the benediction of the day and then the benediction over the wine, whereas Beth Hillel rule that one recites the benediction over the wine and then the benediction of the day. ‘Beth Shammai rule that one recites the benediction of the day and then the benediction over the wine’, since it is the day which is the cause of the wine being brought, and [moreover] the sanctification of the day comes before the wine is brought; ‘whereas Beth Hillel rule that one recites the benediction over the wine first and then the benediction of the day’, since the wine is the cause of the sanctification being recited. Another reason: The benediction over wine is more common, and the benediction of the day less common, and that which is more common takes precedence over that which is less common. Now must we say that Rab is in agreement with Beth Shammai and Rabbah b. Bar Hana with Beth Hillel? — [No,] Rab can answer you, I may uphold my view even according to Beth Hillel, for Beth Hillel maintain their ruling only in that case, since the wine is the cause of the sanctification being recited, but not in this case, since even if there were no benediction of the season, do we not say [the benediction of] the Sukkah? And Rabbah b. Bar Hana can answer you, I may maintain my view even according to Beth Shammai, for Beth Shammai gave their ruling only in that case, since it is the day which is the cause of the wine being brought, but not in this case, since even without a Sukkah do we not recite [the benediction of] the season? We have learnt, ON PENTECOST THEY USED TO SAY TO THE PRIEST, ‘HERE IS UNLEAVENED BREAD FOR YOU, HERE IS LEAVENED BREAD’. Now here, surely, the leavened bread is the essential feature [of the Festival] and the unleavened bread an unessential one, and yet it teaches, ‘HERE IS UNLEAVENED BREAD FOR YOU, HERE IS LEAVENED BREAD’. Is not this then a refutation of Rab? — Rab can answer you, This point is one in dispute between Tannas; for it has been taught [elsewhere], ‘Here is unleavened bread for you, here is leavened bread’. Abba Saul, [however] stated, [They said,] ‘Here is leavened bread for you, here is unleavened’. R. Nahman b. R. Hisda expounded: The law is not according to Rab who said, [First the benediction of] the Sukkah and then [that of] the season, but first [is the benediction of] the season and then [is that of] the Sukkah. R. Shesheth the son of R. Idi however, laid down, First [the benediction of] the Sukkah and then [that of] the season; and the law is that the benediction of Sukkah is first and then follows that of the season. THE COURSE OF PRIESTS WHOSE PERIOD OF SERVICE WAS FIXED etc., AND ALL OTHER CONGREGATIONAL OFFERINGS. What does [this] include? — It includes the bullock brought as a result of a transgression caused by the forgetfulness of the congregation and the he-goats brought as an atonement for idolatry. AND IT OFFERED THEM ALL. What does this include? — It includes the slack season of the altar. MISHNAH. IF A FESTIVAL FELL NEXT TO THE SABBATH, EITHER BEFORE OR AFTER IT, ALL THE COURSES SHARED EQUALLY IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE SHEWBREAD. IF ONE DAY INTERVENED BETWEEN THEM, THE COURSE WHOSE PERIOD OF SERVICE WAS FIXED [FOR THAT WEEK] TOOK TEN [OF THE] LOAVES, WHILE THEY THAT WERE DETAINED TOOK TWO. ON ALL OTHER DAYS OF THE YEAR THE INCOMING COURSE TOOK SIX LOAVES AND THE OUTGOING COURSE SIX. R. JUDAH STATED, THE INCOMING COURSE TOOK SEVEN AND THE OUTGOING FIVE. THE INCOMING COURSE DIVIDED IT IN THE NORTH, AND THE OUTGOING IN THE SOUTH. [THE COURSE OF] BILGAH ALWAYS DIVIDED IT IN THE SOUTH, SINCE THEIR RING WAS IMMOVABLE AND THEIR ALCOVE WAS BLOCKED UP. GEMARA. What is meant by BEFORE and what by AFTER? If you will say that BEFORE refers to the First Day of the Festival and AFTER to the Last Day of the Festival, is not then [the Sabbath referred to] the very Sabbath of the Intermediate Days? But the fact is that BEFORE refers to the Last Day of the Festival and AFTER refers to the First Day of the Festival. What is the reason? — Since the one course had to arrive early and the other had to leave late, the Rabbis made the provision in order that they might have their meals together. IF ONE DAY INTERVENED.^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ

^ᵃnote:Deut. XVIII, 8.
^ᵇnote:Lit., ‘eating’.
^ᶜnote:Lit., ‘from there’.
^ᵈnote:Lev. VII, 9, i.e., the priest who offers it is entitled to its dues.
^ᵉnote:Since it cannot refer to the ordinary sacrifices.
^ᶠnote:Obligatory offerings which happen to be offered on the Festival, but are not prescribed for the Festival.
^ᵍnote:E.V., ‘his due’.
^ʰnote:I.e., that each course shall officiate for one week in rotation. Hence it is only in the sacrifices that are specially prescribed for the Festival that all the courses have an equal share.
^ⁱnote:Cf. P.B. p. 232.
^ʲnote:If one did not recite the benediction of the season when the Sukkah was made in consequence of which (cf. supra 46a) the benedictions of Sukkah and the season have to be recited on entering the Sukkah for the first time during the Festival.
^ᵏnote:The benediction of the season is recited at all Festivals.
^ˡnote:That of Sukkah is recited during Tabernacles only.
^ᵐnote:In the course of the recital of the kiddush on Friday nights (cf. P.B. p. 124).
^ⁿnote:The Sabbath.
^ᵒnote:If not for the Sabbath there would have been no need at all to bring wine.
^ᵖnote:I.e., the Sabbath is automatically sanctified at sunset.
^ᵠnote:Without it the sanctification (kiddush) is not said.
^ʳnote:It has to be said whenever one drinks wine.
^ˢnote:It occurs only once in seven days.
^ᵗnote:Ber. 51b.
^ᵘnote:Who laid down that the obligation of the day is more important.
^ᵛnote:Who holds that the more constant takes precedence.
^ʷnote:Of course we do. Hence it takes precedence on account of the precedence of the obligation of the day.
^ˣnote:We do; and since the latter is more constant it takes precedence.
^ʸnote:Since it is prescribed for the ritual of the day (cf. Lev. XXIII, 17).
^ᶻnote:It is the ordinary shewbread of the previous Sabbath.
^ᵃᵃnote:Since that which is constant, though unessential is mentioned first.
^ᵃᵇnote:The addition of ALL OTHER.
^ᵃᶜnote:V. Lev. IV, 13 — 14. If the congregation as a whole erred on the Festival through the forgetfulness of a law.
^ᵃᵈnote:Committed during the Festival.
^ᵃᵉnote:.hhe Lit., ‘summer time’ or ‘summer fruit’. V. Shebu., Sonc. ed., p. 50, n. 3.
^ᵃᶠnote:When there were not sufficient private offerings to supply the altar, freewill-offerings were offered from the public funds.
^ᵃᵍnote:The Gemara infra explains this.
^ᵃʰnote:The Sabbath and the Festival.
^ᵃⁱnote:If the Festival fell, for instance, on a Thursday, and the outgoing course instead of leaving on Friday remained over the Sabbath.
^ᵃʲnote:Since they could have left on the Friday which was an ordinary weekday, if they wanted.
^ᵃᵏnote:V. I Chron. XXIV, 14.
^ᵃˡnote:Which was on the north side.
^ᵃᵐnote:And useless. Twenty-four rings were attached to the floor of the Temple court, corresponding to the number of courses, to hold the necks of the animals sacrificed by each course respectively. Since Bilgah was debarred from officiating (v. infra) their ring was fixed and made immovable.
^ᵃⁿnote:A sort of niche in which were kept the sacrificial instruments etc. (cf. Mid. IV, 7).
^ᵃᵒnote:I.e., the first day fell on Friday or the last day fell on Sunday.
^ᵃᵖnote:I.e., the last day fell on Friday or the first day on Sunday. There was no Intermediate Sabbath, since the Sabbath either immediately preceded the first day or immediately followed the last.
^ᵃᵠnote:That the outgoing course received a share in the shewbread.
^ᵃʳnote:The incoming.
^ᵃˢnote:Before the Sabbath.
^ᵃᵗnote:After the Festival.
^ᵃᵘnote:The two courses.

²But why the extra two? - R. Isaac answered, They were a reward for the closing of the doors. But [why should not the outgoing course] say to the other, ‘Less for less’? — Abaye replied, ‘A young pumpkin [in hand] is better than a full-grown one [in the field]’. Rab Judah stated, In the same manner they divided the additional offerings. An objection was raised: ‘The outgoing course offered the Daily Morning Sacrifice and the additional offerings, and the incoming course offered the Evening Daily Sacrifice and the censers’; but it does not state, [does it,] that they divided the additional offerings? — That Tanna does not deal with the question of division. Rab objected, But the Tanna cited at the school of Samuel does deal with the question of division, and yet does not mention the division of the additional offerings, for at the school of Samuel it was taught: The outgoing course offered the Daily Morning Sacrifice and the additional offerings; the incoming course offered the Daily Evening Sacrifice and the censers; four priests entered there, two from one course and two from the other and they divided the shewbread. But it does not mention that they divided the additional offerings. Is not this a refutation of Rab Judah? It is indeed a refutation. THE INCOMING COURSE DIVIDED IT IN THE NORTH. Our Rabbis taught, The incoming priests divided their shares in the north in order that it should be seen that they were the incoming course, and the outgoing priests divided theirs in the south, so that it should be seen that they were the outgoing course. [THE COURSE OF] BILGAH ALWAYS DIVIDED IT IN THE SOUTH. Our Rabbis taught, It happened that Miriam the daughter of Bilgah apostatized and married an officer of the Greek kings. When the Greeks entered the Sanctuary, she stamped with her sandal upon the altar, crying out, ‘Lukos! Lukos! How long wilt thou consume Israel's money! And yet thou dost not stand by them in the time of oppression!’ And when the Sages heard of the incident, they made her ring immovable and blocked up her alcove. Some however, say that the course [of Bilgah] was dilatory in coming and [that of] Jeshebeab his brother , entered with him and served in their stead. Although the neighbours of the wicked have no profit [from their proximity] the neighbours of Bilgah did have profit, since [after the imposition of the penalty, the course of] Bilgah always divided their shares in the south, while that of his brother Jeshebeab did it in the north. It is well according to him who stated that his course was dilatory in coming, since for this reason the whole course might well be penalized; but according to him who stated that it was Miriam the daughter of Bilgah who apostatized, do we [it may be objected] penalize [even a] father on account of his daughter? Yes, replied Abaye, as the proverb has it, ‘The talk of the child in the market-place, is either that of his father or of his mother’. May we then penalize the whole course on account of her father or mother? — ‘Woe’, replied Abaye ,’to the wicked, woe to his neighbour; it is well with the righteous and well with his neighbour; as it is said, Say ye of the righteous, that it shall be well with him, for they shall eat the fruit of their doings’.32^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ^ᵇᵠ^ᵇʳ^ᵇˢ^ᵇᵗ^ᵇᵘ^ᵇᵛ^ᵇʷ^ᵇˣ^ᵇʸ^ᵇᶻ^ᶜᵃ

^ᵃᵛnote:The question concerns R. Judah. Why, according to him, does the incoming course receive two more loaves than the outgoing one?
^ᵃʷnote:The incoming course had to close the Temple Gates which the outgoing course had left open.
^ᵃˣnote:Lit., ‘take off for take off’, sc. you take one less now and when it is your turn to go out, the next incoming course will in its turn be one less.
^ᵃʸnote:Proverb. Cf. ‘A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush’.
^ᵃᶻnote:As the shewbread.
^ᵇᵃnote:The outgoing and incoming courses.
^ᵇᵇnote:Of the Sabbath, sc. both had equal shares in the skills of the offerings.
^ᵇᶜnote:Of frankincense. Before these were burnt the shewbread could not be eaten.
^ᵇᵈnote:Of the Baraitha cited.
^ᵇᵉnote:The Temple courtyard.
^ᵇᶠnote:Tosef. Sukkah IV.
^ᵇᵍnote:Of the course of Bilgah, although her father's name also might have been Bilgah (v. infra).
^ᵇʰnote:Sc. Syrian Greek.
^ᵇⁱnote:Cf. prev. n.
^ᵇʲnote:In 168 B.C.E., during the persecutions of Antiochus IV that culminated in the same year in the Maccabean revolt. [Buchler, Priester, p. 76, n. 3 places this incident during the Roman wars, the terms Greek and Roman being frequently interchangeable in the Talmud].
^ᵇᵏnote:**, ‘Wolf’, name for the altar. [For this expression applied to the altar, with an allusion to its construction and situation rather than to its voraciousness, v. Gen. R. XCIX and Brull, Jahrbucher I, p. 63].
^ᵇˡnote:After the Maccabean victory.
^ᵇᵐnote:Sc. that of her course.
^ᵇⁿnote:The justice of the penalty is discussed infra.
^ᵇᵒnote:When it was their turn to take charge of the Temple service.
^ᵇᵖnote:Cf. I Chron. XXIV, 13.
^ᵇᵠnote:Cf. ‘woe to the wicked, woe to his neighbour’ (Neg. XII, 6, Num. R. XVIII, 5 and infra).
^ᵇʳnote:Sc. the course of his brother Jeshebeab.
^ᵇˢnote:Even on entering.
^ᵇᵗnote:Even when leaving.
^ᵇᵘnote:Cf. Tosef. Suk. III. The north was deemed to be superior to the south.
^ᵇᵛnote:As a reason for the penalty imposed on the course of Bilgah.
^ᵇʷnote:Bilgah's.
^ᵇˣnote:As a reason for the penalty imposed on the course of Bilgah.
^ᵇʸnote:Parents are held responsible for the character and upbringing of their offspring.
^ᵇᶻnote:The neighbours of the wicked suffer with him.
^ᶜᵃnote:Isa. III, 10. The verse is omitted in some editions since it does not conclusively prove Abaye's statement. It may have been quoted merely in order to conclude the Tractate with a happy Scriptural verse.