| 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:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big 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 | 51a. This dispute is bparallelto another dispute between itanna’im /i, as it is taughtin a mishna in tractate iArakhin /i: The Temple musicians bwere slaves of priests;this is bthe statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says:The musicians were not slaves; they were Israelites from bthe family of the House of Happegarim and the family of the House of Tzipperaya. And they were fromthe city of bEmma’um,and their lineage was sufficiently distinguished bthat they would marrytheir daughters btomembers of bthe priesthood. /b, bRabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: They were Levites. What, is it not that they disagree with regard to this; that the one who saidthat the musicians bwere slaves holdsthat the bprimaryessence of bsongis singing bwith the mouth.Since the instrumental music is mere accompaniment, it could be performed by slaves. bAnd the one who said thatthe musicians bwere Levites holdsthat the bprimaryessence of bsongis accompaniment bbymusical binstruments.Therefore, the musicians were Levites, who were tasked with the song that was part of the Temple service.,The Gemara asks: bAndhow can byou understandthe mishna that way? According to that explanation, bwhat does Rabbi Yosei hold? If he holdsthat the bprimaryessence of bsongis singing bwith the mouth,then beven slavescan balsoplay the instruments. Why then does he require that the musicians be from Israelite families of distinguished lineage? bIf he holdsthat the bprimaryessence of bsongis accompaniment bbymusical binstruments,he should have said: bLevites, yes,they may play the instruments, but bIsraelites, no,they may not., bRather,the explanation of the dispute is bthat everyone agreesthat the bprimaryessence of bsongis singing bwith the mouthand the musical instruments are merely for accompaniment. bAndit is bwith regard to this that they disagree:It is bthatone bSage holdsthat the beventtook place in bthismanner, i.e., slaves played the instruments, bandone bSage holdsthat the beventtook place in bthismanner, i.e., Israelite families of distinguished lineage played the instruments.,The Gemara asks: bWhatpractical halakhic bdifference is therewhether one group or another played the instruments? The Gemara answers: It is with regard btowhether bone elevatesa Levite bfrom the platform tothe presumptive status of distinguished blineage andeligibility btoreceive btithes 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?, bThe one who said thatthe musicians bwere slaves holdsthat bone does not elevate from the platform tothe presumptive status of distinguished blineage andeligibility btoreceive btithes. And the one who said thatthe musicians bwere Israelites holdsthat bone elevatesa Levite bfrom the platformto the presumptive status of distinguished blineage but noteligibility btoreceive btithes. And the one who said thatthe musicians bwere Levites holdsthat bone elevatesa Levite bfrom the platform tothe presumptive status of distinguished blineageand eligibility btoreceive btithes. /b,§ The Gemara cites an opinion that disagrees with that of Rav Yosef. bAnd Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said: The disputebetween Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda and the Rabbis bis with regard to the song ofthe bDrawingof the Water. bRabbi Yosei bar Yehuda holdsthat bextra rejoicing also overrides Shabbat, and the Rabbis holdthat bextra rejoicing does not override Shabbat. However, with regard tothe bsong thatthe Levites sang accompanying ban offering, everyone agreesthat it is part of the Temple bservice, and overrides Shabbat. /b,The Gemara braises an objectionto the opinion of Rav Yosef that the dispute is with regard to the song that the Levites sang accompanying the daily offering: bThe song ofthe bDrawingof the Water boverrides Shabbat;this is bthe 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 ba conclusive refutationof the opinion bof Rav Yosef.The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is ba conclusive refutation. /b,The Gemara suggests: bLet us say,based on this ibaraita /i, that bit is with regard to the song ofthe bDrawingof the Water alone bthat they disagree; however, with regard to the song thatthe Levites sang accompanying bthedaily boffering, everyone saysthat bit overrides Shabbat.If so, blet us saythat bthis will be a conclusive refutation ofthe opinion bof Rav Yosef on twocounts. 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., bRav Yosefcould have bsaid to you: They disagree with regard to the song ofthe bDrawingof the Water band the same is true forthe song that the Levites sang accompanying ban offering. Andthe fact bthat they disagreespecifically bwith regard to the song ofthe bDrawingof the Water and do not specifically mention the song that the Levites sang accompanying the daily offering bis to convey to you the far-reachingnature of the opinion bof Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda, that even thesong bofthe bDrawingof the Water balso overridesShabbat.,The Gemara asks: bBut isn’t it taughtin the mishna: bThis isthe bflute of the Place of the Drawingof the Water, bwhich overrides neither Shabbat northe bFestival.By inference, bthis isthe flute bthat does not overrideShabbat; bhowever,the flute that accompanies bthedaily boffering overridesShabbat. The Gemara asks: bWho isthe itannaof the mishna? bIf we sayit is bRabbi Yosei bar Yehuda, didn’t he say that the song ofthe bDrawingof the Water balso overridesShabbat? bRather, is it not the Rabbis, andsay that this is ba conclusive refutationof bRav Yosef on twocounts. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is ba conclusive refutation. /b,The Gemara asks: bWhat is the rationalefor the opinion bof the one who said:The bprimaryessence of bsongis singing accompanied bbymusical binstruments?The Gemara answers: It is bas 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: bWhat is the rationalefor the opinion bof the one who said:The bprimaryessence of bsongis singing bwith the mouth?The Gemara answers: It is bas 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 itekiaand iterua /i.,The Gemara asks: bAndaccording to bthe other itanna btoo,who holds that the primary essence of song is singing with the mouth, bisn’t it written: “And Hezekiah commanded /b…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: bThis is whatthe verse bis saying: “The song of the Lord began,”indicates that the primary essence is bwith the mouth; “with the instruments of David, King of Israel,”is bto sweeten the sound,as the instruments are merely to accompany and enhance the singing.,The Gemara asks: bAndaccording to bthe other itanna btoo,who holds that the primary essence of song is singing accompanied by musical instruments, bisn’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: bThis is whatthe verse bis saying:Through their juxtaposition, one derives that the bsingersare bsimilar to the trumpeters; just as trumpetersproduce their sound bwith an instrument, so toothe bsingersproduce their song bwith an instrument. /b, strongMISHNA: /strong bOne who did not see the Celebration of the Place of the Drawingof the Water bnever saw celebration in his days.This was the sequence of events: bAt the conclusion of the first Festivalday the priests and the Levites bdescendedfrom the Israelites’ courtyard bto the Women’s Courtyard, where they would introduce a significant repair,as the Gemara will explain. bThere were golden candelabraatop poles btherein the courtyard. bAndthere were bfour basinsmade bof gold at the topof each candelabrum. bAndthere were bfour ladders for each and everypole bandthere were bfour children from the priesthood trainees, and in their handswere bpitcherswith a capacity bof 120 ilog /iof oil bthat they would pour into each and every basin. From the worn trousers of the priests and their belts they would loosenand tear strips to use as wicks, band with them they would lightthe candelabra. bAndthe light from the candelabra was so bright that bthere was not a courtyard in Jerusalem that was not illuminated from the light of the Place of the Drawingof the Water.,The bpious andthe bmen of action would dance beforethe people who attended the celebration |
