Sukkah, Daf Nun Aleph, Part 2
Introduction
This section goes all the way back to the interpretation of the baraita that contained a dispute about the flute overriding Shabbat. R. Joseph had interpreted the baraita to mean that there was a dispute over the flute that accompanied the sacrifices. Here we see a different context for the baraita.
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.
R. Yirmiyah b. Abba said that the dispute concerns only the music at the Simchat Bet Hashoevah, since R. Yose b. Judah holds that even an added expression of rejoicing overrides the Shabbat, while the Rabbis hold that an added expression of rejoicing does not override [either] the Shabbat [or the Festival], but as regards the music which accompanied the sacrifices, all agree that it is [an integral part of] the worship and it overrides the Shabbat.
R. Yirmiyah b. Abba now offers a different interpretation altogether about the dispute concerning the flute overriding the Shabbat. That flute was not the flute that accompanied the sacrifices. All agree that his flute overrides Shabbat, for all agree that the instruments are an integral part of the worship service. The dispute was with regard to the special flute played only during the Simchat bet Hashoevah service, the Sukkot ritual described in the Mishnah. R. Yose b. Judah holds that even though this ritual is not essential to Sukkot and it is just extra rejoicing, the flute still overrides the Shabbat. But the other sages hold that since it is only added rejoicing it does not override the Shabbat.
מיתיבי: שיר של שואבה דוחה את השבת – דברי רבי יוסי בר יהודה, וחכמים אומרים: אף יום טוב אינו דוחה. תיובתא דרב יוסף, תיובתא.
They raised an objection: [It was taught:] The music which accompanied the Simchat Bet Hashoevah overrides Shabbat, the words of R. Yose b. Judah. The sages, however, rule that it does not override even the Festival.
Is not this a refutation of R. Joseph?
It is indeed a refutation.
R. Joseph had said earlier that the dispute was about the flute that accompanies the sacrifice. But, according to his opinion, all sages agree that the flute that accompanies the Simchat Bet Hashoevah does not override the laws of Shabbat. This baraita conclusively proves that there is a dispute about the Simchat Bet Hashoevah flute. Thus at least one part of R. Joseph’s statement has been refuted.
לימא בשיר של שואבה הוא דפליגי, אבל בשיר של קרבן – דברי הכל דוחה את השבת, לימא תיהוי תיובתא דרב יוסף בתרתי! –
Can we also say that they dispute only concerning the music which accompanied the Simchat Bet Hashoevah, but that with regard to the music that accompanied the sacrifices all agree that it overrides Shabbat, and this would, therefore, constitute a double refutation of R. Joseph?
There were two parts of R. Joseph’s statement. R. Joseph claimed that there is a dispute about the song that accompanies the sacrifices and second that there is no dispute about the song that accompanies the Simchat Bet Hashoevah. The second part of his statement was refuted. But what about the first part if the sages don’t disagree about this flute, then both parts of his statement have been rejected.
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.
R. Joseph could answer you: They dispute concerning the music that accompanied the Simchat Bet Hashoevah and the same applies also to [that which accompanied] the sacrifices, and the reason that they disagree with regard to the Simchat Bet Hashoevah was in order to inform you of the extent of the view of R. Yose b. Judah, that even the music of the Simchat Bet Hashoevah overrides [the Shabbat].
R. Joseph could reply that the sages actually disagree about the flute that accompanied the sacrifices as well. They disagree about all flutes. The reason that we find the dispute specifically about Simchat Bet Hashoevah is to let you know just how radical R. Yose b. Judah’s opinion is even the flute of Simchat Bet Hashoevah, which is only "extra rejoicing" overrides the rules of Shabbat. All the more so, everyone would agree that the flute accompanying the sacrifices overrides Shabbat.
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.
But didn’t we teach: This refers to the flute at the Bet Hashoevah, which overrides neither Shabbat nor the festival day. This [playing] does not override the Shabbat, but the playing which accompanied the sacrifices does override [the Shabbat]?
Now whose view is it? If you were to say that it is that of R. Yose b. Judah, did he not state that the playing which accompanies the Simchat Bet Hashoevah also overrides Shabbat? Consequently it must be, the view of the Rabbis, and thus there is a double refutation of R. Joseph? It is indeed a refutation.
The Talmud now uses the mishnah itself to refute R. Joseph. The mishnah clearly rules that the flute of the Simchat Bet Hashoevah is not played on Shabbat. From the mishnah, we can deduce that flute that accompanies the sacrifices does override the Shabbat. The mishnah emphasizes this is the flute that doesn’t override Shabbat. Now this mishnah is clearly the rabbis’ opinion, for we know that R. Yose b. Judah allows the flute to be played on Simchat Bet Hashoevah. Thus we can see that the rabbis do allow the flute to accompany the other sacrifices, thereby contradicting the opinion of R. Joseph.
מאי טעמא דמאן דאמר עיקר שירה בכלי – דכתיב +דברי הימים ב כט+ ויאמר חזקיהו להעלות העולה להמזבח ובעת החל העולה החל שיר ה’ והחצוצרות ועל ידי כלי דוד מלך ישראל.
What is the reason of the one 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" (II Chronicles 29:27).
This section returns to the earlier subject of whether the essential element of the Temple music was with an instrument or by voice. The one who holds this position offers proof from a verse in II Chronicles that the song was done with trumpets.
מאי טעמא דמאן דאמר עיקר שירה בפה – דכתיב +דברי הימים ב, ה+ ויהי כאחד למחצצרים ולמשררים להשמיע קול אחד.
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" (II Chronicles 5:13).
This verse serves as proof for the opposite position, that the essential element of the Temple music was by voice, for in this verse voice is emphasized.
ואידך נמי, הא כתיב ויאמר חזקיהו – הכי קאמר: החל שיר ה’ – בפה, על ידי כלי דוד מלך ישראל – לבסומי קלא.
As to the other also, is it not written, "And Hezekiah commanded etc."?
This is what he meant: "The song of the Lord began" vocally "together with the instruments of David, King of Israel," which were but to sweeten the voice.
This is the response to the one who says that instruments were essential, by the person who holds the position that the voice was essential. He interprets this specific verse to mean that the song began by voice, and the instruments were just to make the voices sound better.
ואידך נמי, הא כתיב, ויהי כאחד למחצצרים ולמשררים! – הכי קאמר: משוררים דומיא דמחצצרים, מה מחצצרים בכלי – אף משוררים בכלי.
And as to the other one too, is it not written, "It came even to pass, when the trumpeters and singers were as one"?
This is what he 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.
The position that holds that instruments were essential interprets the verse used by the opposite position as if it compares singers with trumpeters. Even the singers held instruments.
We should note that this ending is very typical of the Babylonian Talmud. Each position has a midrashic proof of its correctness and a refutation of the other’s proof.