The Ancient Mediterranean Religions Index Database
Home About Network of subjects Linked subjects heatmap Book indices included Search by subject Search by reference Browse subjects Browse texts

Tiresias: The Ancient Mediterranean Religions Source Database

Mishnah, Sukkah, 3.1

nanA stolen or a dried up lulav is invalid. One [that came] from an asherah tree or from a condemned city is invalid. If its top was broken off or its leaves were detached, it is invalid. If its leaves are spread apart it is valid. Rabbi Judah says he should tie it at the top. The thorny palms of the iron mountain are valid. A lulav which is three handbreadths in length, long enough to wave, is valid."

Intertexts (texts cited often on the same page as the searched text):

13 results
1. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 14.42, 23.40 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

14.42. וְלָקְחוּ אֲבָנִים אֲחֵרוֹת וְהֵבִיאוּ אֶל־תַּחַת הָאֲבָנִים וְעָפָר אַחֵר יִקַּח וְטָח אֶת־הַבָּיִת׃ 14.42. And they shall take other stones, and put them in the place of those stones; and he shall take other mortar, and shall plaster the house." 23.40. And ye shall take you on the first day the fruit of goodly trees, branches of palm-trees, and boughs of thick trees, and willows of the brook, and ye shall rejoice before the LORD your God seven days."
2. Hebrew Bible, Malachi, 1.13 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

1.13. וַאֲמַרְתֶּם הִנֵּה מַתְּלָאָה וְהִפַּחְתֶּם אוֹתוֹ אָמַר יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת וַהֲבֵאתֶם גָּזוּל וְאֶת־הַפִּסֵּחַ וְאֶת־הַחוֹלֶה וַהֲבֵאתֶם אֶת־הַמִּנְחָה הַאֶרְצֶה אוֹתָהּ מִיֶּדְכֶם אָמַר יְהוָה׃ 1.13. Ye say also: ‘Behold, what a weariness is it!’ And ye have snuffed at it, Saith the LORD of hosts; And ye have brought that which was taken by violence, And the lame, and the sick; Thus ye bring the offering; Should I accept this of your hand? Saith the LORD."
3. Hebrew Bible, Isaiah, 40.15, 61.8 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)

40.15. הֵן גּוֹיִם כְּמַר מִדְּלִי וּכְשַׁחַק מֹאזְנַיִם נֶחְשָׁבוּ הֵן אִיִּים כַּדַּק יִטּוֹל׃ 61.8. כִּי אֲנִי יְהוָה אֹהֵב מִשְׁפָּט שֹׂנֵא גָזֵל בְּעוֹלָה וְנָתַתִּי פְעֻלָּתָם בֶּאֱמֶת וּבְרִית עוֹלָם אֶכְרוֹת לָהֶם׃ 40.15. Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, And are counted as the small dust of the balance; Behold the isles are as a mote in weight." 61.8. For I the LORD love justice, I hate robbery with iniquity; And I will give them their recompense in truth, And I will make an everlasting covet with them."
4. Mishnah, Bava Qamma, 10.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

10.2. If excise collectors took his donkey and gave him another donkey, or if bandits robbed a man of his coat and gave him another coat, they are his own, since the original owners gave up hope of recovering them. If a man saved something from a flood or from marauding troops or from bandits: if the owner gave up hope of recovering [the item], it belongs to him. So too with a swarm of bees: if the owner gave up hope of recovering [the swarm], it belongs to him. Rabbi Yocha ben Baroka said: “A woman or child may be believed if they say, ‘The swarm of bees went away from here.’” A man may go into his fellow’s field to save his swarm and if he causes damage he must pay for the damage that he has caused; but he may not cut off a branch of the tree [to save his swarm] even on condition that he pay its value. Rabbi Yishmael, the son of Rabbi Yocha ben Baroka, says: “He may even cut off [the branch] and repay the value.”"
5. Mishnah, Eduyot, 7.9 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

7.9. Rabbi Nehunia ben Gudgada testified concerning a deaf-mute whose father had given her in marriage, that she could be sent away with a bill of divorcement; And concerning a minor, daughter of an Israelite who married a priest, that she could eat terumah, and if she died her husband inherited from her; And concerning a stolen beam that had been built into a palace, that it might be restored by the payment of its value; And concerning a sin-offering that had been stolen, and this was not known to many, that it caused atonement because of the welfare of the altar."
6. Mishnah, Gittin, 5.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

5.5. Rabbi Nehunia ben Gudgada testified concerning a deaf-mute whose father had given her in marriage, that she could be sent away with a bill of divorcement; And concerning a minor, daughter of an Israelite who married a priest, that she could eat terumah, and if she died her husband inherited from her; And concerning a stolen beam that had been built into a palace, that it might be restored by the payment of its value, because of the enactment to encourage repentance. And concerning a sin-offering that had been stolen, and this was not known to many, that it caused atonement because of the welfare of the altar."
7. Mishnah, Hagigah, 2.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

2.7. The garments of an am haaretz possess midras-impurity for Pharisees. The garments of Pharisees possess midras-impurity for those who eat terumah. The garments of those who eat terumah possess midras-impurity for [those who eat] sacred things. The garments of [those who eat] sacred things possess midras-impurity for [those who occupy themselves with the waters of] purification. Yose ben Yoezer was the most pious in the priesthood, yet his apron was [considered to possess] midras-impurity for [those who ate] sacred things. Yoha ben Gudgada all his life used to eat [unconsecrated food] in accordance with the purity required for sacred things, yet his apron was [considered to possess] midras-impurity for [those who occupied themselves with the water of] purification."
8. Mishnah, Sukkah, 3.5, 3.8-3.9, 3.13, 4.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

3.5. An etrog which is stolen or withered is invalid. One from an asherah or a condemned city is invalid. of orlah or of unclean terumah it is invalid. of clean terumah, he should not take it, but if he did take it, it is valid. of demai (doubtfully-tithed): Bet Shammai says it invalid, And Bet Hillel says it valid. of second tithe, it should not be taken [even] in Jerusalem, but if he took it, it is valid." 3.8. They may not bind the lulav except with [strands of] its own species, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir says: it may be bound even with a cord. Rabbi Meir said: it happened that the men of Jerusalem used to bind their lulavs with strands of gold. They answered him: but they bound it with [strands of] its own species underneath [the strands of gold]." 3.9. And where [in the service] do they wave [the lulav]? At “Give thanks to the Lord” (Psalm, at the beginning and at the end, and at “O Lord, deliver us” (118:25), the words of Bet Hillel. Bet Shammai say: also at “O Lord, let us prosper.” Rabbi Akiva says: I was watching Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua, and while all the people were waving their lulavs [at “O Lord, let us prosper”] they waved them only at “O Lord deliver us.” One who was on a journey and had no lulav to take, when he enters his house he should take it [even if he is] at his table. If he did not take the lulav in the morning, he should take it at any time before dusk, since the whole day is valid for [taking] the lulav." 3.13. If the first day of the festival falls on Shabbat, all the people bring their lulavim to the synagogue [on Friday]. The next day they arise early [and come to the synagogue] and each one recognizes his own [lulav] and takes it, since the sages said “one cannot fulfill his obligation on the first day of the festival with his friend’s lulav.” But on the other days of the festival one may fulfill his obligation with the lulav of his fellow." 4.4. The mitzvah of the lulav how was it carried out? If the first day of the festival fell on Shabbat, they brought their lulavim to the Temple Mount, and the attendants would receive them and arrange them on top of the portico, and the elders laid theirs in the chamber. And they would teach the people to say, “Whoever gets my lulav in his hand, let it be his as a gift.” The next day they got up early, and came [to the Temple Mount] and the attendants threw down [their lulavim] before them, and they snatched at them, and so they used to come to blows with one another. When the court saw that they reached a state of danger, they instituted that each man should take [his lulav] in his own home."
9. Tosefta, Berachot, 3.19 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

3.19. [If a person] woke up early to go on a journey, he [should] take the Shofar and blow it [at dawn], [or he should take] the Lulav and shake it [at dawn], [or he should take] the Megillah and read it [at dawn], [or he should] pray [Shemoneh Esreh at dawn], and when it will come time to read the Shema, he should read it [then]. [If] he woke up to [travel while] sitting in a coach or on a ship he should pray [Shemoneh Esreh first at dawn], and when it will come time to read the Shema he [should] read [it then]. Rebbi Shimon Ben Elazar says, “Either way, he [should] read the Shema [first] and [only then] pray [Shemoneh Esreh].”"
10. Tosefta, Hagigah, 1.2 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

11. Tosefta, Sukkah, 2.10 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

2.10. If one does not have a citron, he must not take in his hand a quince, or any other fruit. Withered fruits are valid, but dried ones are not valid. Rabbi Yehudah, however, says that even dried-up ones are valid. And again he says: There is a story of the men of Carbin that they used to transmit their lulavs in the time of persecution. They said to him, The time of persecution is no proof."
12. Tosefta, Shekalim, 2.14 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

13. Babylonian Talmud, Arakhin, None (6th cent. CE - missingth cent. CE)

11b. על עסקי קול רב אשי אמר מהכא (דה"ב ה, יג) ויהי כאחד למחצצרים ולמשוררים להשמיע קול אחד,רבי יונתן אמר מהכא (במדבר יח, ג) ולא ימותו גם הם גם אתם מה אתם בעבודת מזבח אף הם בעבודת מזבח,תניא נמי הכי ולא ימותו גם הם גם אתם אתם בשלהם והם בשלכם במיתה הם בשלהם אינן במיתה אלא באזהרה,אמר אביי נקיטינן משורר ששיער בשל חבירו במיתה שנאמר (במדבר ג, לח) והחונים לפני המשכן קדמה לפני אהל מועד וגו' והזר הקרב יומת מאי זר אילימא זר ממש הכתיב חדא זימנא אלא לאו זר דאותה עבודה:,מיתיבי משורר ששיער ומשוער ששורר אינן במיתה אלא באזהרה,תנאי היא דתניא מעשה בר' יהושע בר חנניה שהלך לסייע בהגפת דלתות אצל ר' יוחנן בן גודגדא אמר לו בני חזור לאחוריך שאתה מן המשוררים ולא מן המשוערים,מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר מיתה היא וגזרו בה רבנן ומ"ס אזהרה היא ולא גזרו בה,דכ"ע אזהרה היא מר סבר מסייע גזרו ביה רבנן ומר סבר לא גזרו ביה רבנן,בעי רבי אבין עולת נדבת ציבור טעונה שירה או אינה טעונה שירה {במדבר י } עולותיכם אמר רחמנא אחת עולת חובה ואחת עולת נדבה או דלמא עולותיכם דכולהו ישראל קאמר רחמנא,ת"ש (דה"ב כט, כז) ויאמר חזקיהו להעלות העולה (על המזבח) ובעת החל העולה החל שיר ה' והחצוצרות ע"י כלי (שיר) דוד מלך ישראל האי שירה מאי עבידתה אילימא דעולת חובה ל"ל אימלוכי אלא לאו דעולת נדבה,א"ר יוסף לא עולת ראש חודש הוה וקא מיבעיא להו מי הוקבע ר"ח בזמנו דליקרב או לא,אמר ליה אביי ומי מצית אמרת הכי והכתיב (דה"ב כט, יז) ביום ששה עשר לחדש הראשון וגו' ויאמר חזקיהו להעלות העולה (על המזבח),אלא אמר רמי בריה דרב ייבא כבש הבא עם העומר קמיבעיא להו מי קבע ר"ח בזמנו דליקריב או לא,מתקיף לה רב אויא וליחזי פסח היכי עביד מצה היכי אכיל,אלא אמר רב אשי מידי דהוה אשליחא דציבורא דממליך השתא דאתית להכי אפילו תימא עולת חובה מידי דהוה אשליחא דציבורא דממליך,ת"ש רבי יוסי אומר מגלגלין זכות ליום זכאי וחובה ליום חייב,אמרו כשחרב הבית בראשונה אותו היום תשעה באב היה ומוצאי שבת היה ומוצאי שביעית היתה ומשמרתו של יהויריב היתה והיו כהנים ולוים עומדים על דוכנן ואומרים שירה ומה שירה אמרו (תהלים צד, כג) וישב עליהם את אונם וברעתם יצמיתם ולא הספיקו לומר יצמיתם ה' אלהינו עד שבאו אויבים וכבשום וכן בשניה,האי שירה מאי עבידתיה אילימא דעולת חובה מי הואי בי"ז בתמוז בטל התמיד אלא לאו דעולת נדבה,ותסברא מ"ש דעולת חובה דלא הואי ומ"ש דעולת נדבה דהואי הא לא קשיא בן בקר אקראי בעלמא הוא דאיתרמיא להו,אמר רבא ואיתימא רב אשי ותסברא שירה דיומיה (תהלים כד, א) לה' הארץ ומלואה וישב עליהם את אונם בשיר דארבעה בשבת הוא אלא אילייא בעלמא הוא דנפל להו בפומייהו,והא עומדין על דוכנן קתני כדר"ל דאמר אומר שלא על הקרבן אי הכי בעולת נדבה נמי לימא נפיק מינה חורבא,מאי הוה עלה ת"ש דתני רב מרי בריה דרב כהנא (במדבר י, י) על עולותיכם ועל זבחי שלמיכם,מה עולה קודש קדשים אף שלמים קודש קדשים ומה שלמים קבוע להם זמן אף עולה קבוע לה זמן: 11b. This indicates that God responded to Moses, who was a Levite, by commanding him babout matterspertaining to the bvoice,i.e., that the Levites must accompany the sacrifices with song. bRav Ashi saysthat the obligation for the Levites to sing in the Temple is derived bfrom here: “It came to pass, when the trumpeters and singers were as one, to make one soundto be heard in praising and thanking the Lord” (II Chronicles 5:13). This indicates that just as there is a requirement for trumpets to be sounded during the sacrifice of communal offerings (see Numbers 10:10), there is likewise a requirement for the Levites to sing., bRabbi Yonatan saysthat the requirement for the Levites to sing in the Temple is derived bfrom here:The Torah commands the priests with regard to the Levites: “They shall not come near the altar, bthat they die not, neither they nor you”(Numbers 18:3). The verse equates the Levites with the priests, indicating that bjust as you,the priests, are obligated btoperform the bserviceon the baltar, so too they,the Levites, are obligated btoperform ba servicepertaining to the baltar,i.e., the song that accompanies the offerings.,A derivation of ihalakhotbased on the comparison between priests and Levites in bthisverse bis also taughtin a ibaraita /i: It is stated: b“That they die not, neither they nor you.”This indicates that if byou,the priests, perform btheirduties, i.e., the Levites’ duties, bor they,the Levites, perform byours,e.g., the sacrificial rites, the perpetrator is liable btoreceive bdeathat the hand of Heaven. But if bthey,the Levites, perform a function that belongs to a different group of Levites, but is nevertheless a duty of btheirs,i.e., the Levites in general, e.g., if Levites assigned to open and close the gates of the Temple decide instead to sing, bthey are notpunished bwith death; rather,they have merely violated ba prohibition. /b, bAbaye said: We holdthat a Levite designated to serve as ba singer whoinstead bserved in anotherLevite’s position bas a gatekeeperis liable to be put bto death, as it is stated: “And those that were to pitch tent before the Tabernacle eastward, before the Tent of Meetingtoward the sunrising, were Moses and Aaron and his sons, keeping the charge of the Sanctuary, for the charge of the children of Israel; band the stranger that drew near was to be put to death”(Numbers 3:38). bWhat isthe meaning of the term b“stranger”in this verse? bIf we sayit is referring to ban actual stranger,i.e., a non-Levite, bisn’t it writtenalready on banother occasionthat he is liable to be put to death (see Numbers 3:10)? bRather,this is bnotits meaning; instead, it is referring to one who is a Levite but is ba stranger to that service. /b,The Gemara braises an objectionto Abaye’s statement from a ibaraita /i: bA singer who served as a gatekeeper and a gatekeeper who sang are notpunished bwith death; rather,they have merely violated ba prohibition. /b,The Gemara explains that this matter bisa dispute between itanna’im /i, as it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: There was ban incident involving Rabbi Yehoshua bar Ḥaya,a Levite, bwho went to Rabbi Yoḥa ben Gudgeda,also a Levite, in order bto assist in closingthe bdoorsof the Temple. Rabbi Yoḥa ben Gudgeda bsaid to him: My son, go back, as you are among the singers and not among the gatekeepers. /b,The Gemara analyzes the ibaraita /i: bWhat, is it notthe case that these two Levite Sages bdisagree about this, thatone bSage,Rabbi Yoḥa ben Gudgeda, bholdsthat if a Levite who is a singer closes the gate by himself, bit isa prohibition punishable by bdeath, andtherefore bthe Sages decreedthat a Levite who is a singer should not even assist the gatekeepers in closing the gates; bandone bSage,Rabbi Yehoshua bar Ḥaya, bholdsthat bit is a prohibitionthat is not punishable by death, bandtherefore the Sages bdid not decreethat a Levite who is a singer should not assist the gatekeepers in closing the gates?,The Gemara responds: No, that is not necessarily the correct analysis of the ibaraita /i. Rather, beveryoneagrees that one Levite performing another Levite’s task by himself is ba prohibitionthat is not punishable by death. One bSage holdsthat bthe Sagesnevertheless bdecreedthat a Levite who is a singer should not even bassistthe gatekeepers, bandone bSage holdsthat bthe Sages did not decreethat a Levite who is a singer should not assist the gatekeepers in closing the gates.,§ bRabbi Avin raises a dilemma:Does ba communal voluntary burnt offering requirean accompanying bsong ordoes it bnot require song?He explains the two sides of the dilemma: bThe Merciful One statesin the Torah: “You shall blow with the trumpets bover your burnt offerings”(Numbers 10:10). Does the term “burnt offerings” include bboth an obligatory burnt offering and a voluntary burnt offering, or perhaps the Merciful One is sayingthat the trumpets and song must accompany bthe burnt offerings of the entire Jewish people,i.e., they must be burnt offerings that are an obligation of the people?,The Gemara suggests: bComeand bheara proof from a verse: b“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 /b…And Hezekiah the king and the princes commanded the Levites to sing praises unto the Lord” (II Chronicles 29:27–30). The Gemara analyzes the description of this service: bThis song, what was its purpose? If we say thatit accompanied ban obligatory burnt offeringthat was brought on that day, bwhydid they have bto seek authorizationfrom Hezekiah? Why did Hezekiah need to issue a specific command that they should accompany this offering with song? bRather, is it notthe case bthatthis song served to accompany bthe voluntary burnt offeringthat Hezekiah brought on that day?, bRav Yosef said: No,that day was a New Moon, and bit was theadditional bburnt offering of the New Moon,an obligatory burnt offering, that was accompanied by the song. As for the need for Hezekiah’s approval, the explanation is as follows: It was the thirtieth day following the previous New Moon, band they were askinghim bif thecurrent bNew Moon was established in its time,i.e., on that day, so bthatthe burnt offering of the New Moon should bbe sacrificed, orif the New Moon had bnotbeen declared on that day. Hezekiah clarified that the court had declared the New Moon, and therefore they should sacrifice the offering., bAbaye said toRav Yosef: bAnd how can you saythat that day was the New Moon? bIsn’t it written: “On the sixteenth day of the first month”(II Chronicles 29:17), and later, in that context, it states: b“And Hezekiah commanded to offer the burnt offering upon the altar”? /b, bRather, Rami, son of Rav Yeiva, said:The question bthey were askingHezekiah referred to the obligatory, communal burnt offering blamb that comes with the iomer /i,i.e., the barley offering brought on the sixteenth of the first month, Nisan. They asked: bWas the New Moonof Nisan bestablished in itscorrect btime,which means bthatit is now in fact the sixteenth of Nisan and the iomeroffering and the lamb brought with it should bbe sacrificed, orwas it bnotreally the sixteenth of Nisan?, bRav Avya objects to thisexplanation: How is it possible that they were unsure whether it was the sixteenth of Nisan? bLet them see how the Paschal offering was performedon the fourteenth of Nisan and bhow imatzawas eatenthe following night. The day of the sixteenth of Nisan could easily be determined from when those mitzvot were performed., bRather, Rav Ashi said:They asked permission from Hezekiah before sacrificing the lamb that comes with the iomeroffering, bjust as it is withregard to ba prayer leader, who,as a gesture of respect, basks permissionfrom the congregation before leading them in prayer. Likewise, the people asked permission from Hezekiah as a formal gesture of respect, not because they required his advice. The Gemara notes: bNow that you have arrived at thisexplanation, byoumay beven saythat it was a common bobligatory burnt offering,e.g., the daily offering, and they asked permission of Hezekiah before sacrificing it, bjust as it is withregard to ba prayer leader, who asks permissionfrom the congregation before leading it in prayer.,The Gemara has still not proven whether or not a communal voluntary burnt offering must be accompanied with song. The Gemara suggests: bComeand bheara proof from the following ibaraita /i. bRabbi Yosei says: A fortunatematter bis brought about on an auspicious day, and a deleteriousmatter bon an inauspicious day. /b,As the Sages bsaid: When the Temple was destroyed for the firsttime, bthat day was the Ninth of Av,a date on which several calamities had already occurred; band it was the conclusion of Shabbat,i.e., it was on the day after Shabbat, a Sunday; band it was the year after a SabbaticalYear; band it was the week of the priestly watch of Jehoiarib; and the priests and Levites were standing on their platform and singing song. And what song were they singing?They were singing the verse: b“And He brought upon them their own iniquity, and He will cut them off in their own evil”(Psalms 94:23). bAnd they did not manage to recitethe end of that verse: b“The Lord our God will cut them off,” before gentiles came and conquered them. And likewise,the same happened bwhen the SecondTemple was destroyed.,The Gemara analyzes the ibaraita /i: bThis song, what was its purpose? If we say thatit accompanied ban obligatory burnt offering, was thereany obligatory communal burnt offering sacrificed at that time? bThe daily offering hadalready bceasedto be sacrificed, due to a lack of animals, bon the seventeenth of Tammuz,three weeks before the Ninth of Av. bRather, is it notcorrect to say bthatthis song accompanied ba voluntary burnt offering? /b,The Gemara asks: bAnd can you understandthis to be the case? bWhat is different about an obligatory burnt offering, which was notsacrificed at this time because they did not have animals to bring, band what is different about a voluntary burnt offering, that it wassacrificed? Just as there were no animals available for obligatory offerings, there were none available for voluntary burnt offerings either. The Gemara answers: bThatis bnot difficult. A young bull,which cannot be sacrificed as the daily offering, for which lambs are required, bhappened to come into theirpossession bmerely by coincidence,and they sacrificed it as a voluntary burnt offering. This indicates that the Levites are required to sing as an accompaniment to the sacrifice of a communal voluntary burnt offering., bRava said, and some say Rav Ashisaid: bAndhow can byou understandthe description of the destruction cited in the ibaraita /i? bThe song of the dayfor Sunday, which is when the ibaraitasays that the Temple was destroyed, is the psalm that begins: b“The earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof”(Psalms 24:1). And yet the verse that the ibaraitasays that the Levites were singing, b“And He brought upon them their own iniquity,” is in the song for Wednesday,not the song for Sunday. bRather, it was merelya portentous blamentation[ieiliyya/b] bthat came into their mouths,not an actual song recited over an offering.,The Gemara asks: bBut isn’t it taughtin the ibaraitathat the Levites were bstanding on their platformnear the altar, which is where they stood when they sang to accompany offerings? The Gemara answers: This can be explained bin accordance withthe opinion of bReish Lakish, who says:The Levites are permitted to brecitesongs on the platform even when it is bnot for an offering.The Gemara asks: bIf so,if the Levites may recite songs on the platform at will, bletthem balso recitea song bfor a voluntary burnt offering,even if it is not required. The Gemara answers: That could bresult in a mishap,as the Levites might assume that just as singing for a voluntary burnt offering is optional, so too singing for an obligatory burnt offering is also optional.,The question of whether a song must be recited for a communal voluntary burnt offering has still not been resolved. The Gemara asks: bWhat came of it,i.e., what is the resolution to that question? The Gemara responds: bComeand bheara proof, bas Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, teachesthat the verse: “You shall blow with the trumpets bover your burnt offerings, and over the sacrifices of your peace offerings”(Numbers 10:10), juxtaposes burnt offerings to peace offerings, which indicates that there is a relevant comparison between them with regard to the sounding of trumpets, and, by extension, to song.,There are two conclusions that are to be drawn from this comparison: bJust asthe bburnt offering is an offering of the most sacred order, so too,the bpeace offeringthat must be accompanied by song is one that is ban offering of the most sacred order,and the only peace offering of this kind is the lambs that are brought together with the two loaves on iShavuot /i. bAnd just asthis bpeace offering has a set timewhen it must be brought, bso too,the bburnt offeringthat must be accompanied by song is one that bhas a set time,which excludes voluntary burnt offerings. Consequently, voluntary burnt offerings are not accompanied by song.

Subjects of this text:

subject book bibliographic info
akiba Rubenstein(1995) 200, 201
albeck,h. Rubenstein(1995) 200
asherot Porton (1988) 248
atonement Klawans (2009) 191
band Rubenstein(1995) 200, 201, 202
blessings Rubenstein(1995) 199
bread Porton (1988) 248
büchler,a. Porton (1988) 248
children Porton (1988) 248
clothes/garments Porton (1988) 248
coins Rubenstein(1995) 197
commandments Rubenstein(1995) 199
dever,w. Porton (1988) 248
dumézil,g. Porton (1988) 248
eliezer Rubenstein(1995) 200, 201
elmslie,w. Porton (1988) 248
epstein,j.n. Rubenstein(1995) 199
etrog,citron Rubenstein(1995) 197, 199, 200, 201, 202
hallel Rubenstein(1995) 197, 199
josephus Rubenstein(1995) 197
lulav Rubenstein(1995) 197, 199, 200, 201, 202
maimonides Rubenstein(1995) 199
men of jerusalem Rubenstein(1995) 197, 201
myrtle Rubenstein(1995) 197, 200, 202
neusner,j. Rubenstein(1995) 199
pharisees Rubenstein(1995) 199
qumran Rubenstein(1995) 199
ritual purity,of temple,according to rabbis Klawans (2009) 191, 192
sabbath Rubenstein(1995) 201, 202
sacrifice,ownership of Klawans (2009) 192
synagogue Rubenstein(1995) 201
temple Rubenstein(1995) 197, 199, 201
theft' Klawans (2009) 191
theft Klawans (2009) 192
willow Rubenstein(1995) 200, 202