Sukkah, Daf Nun Daled, Part 3
Introduction
Yesterday’s section ended with the resolution that there were not fifty-one blasts on Shabbat Hol Hamoed Sukkot because they didn’t sound the trumpet for the opening of the gates. In our section Rava raises some difficulties on this resolution and then offers an alternative.
אמר רבא: מאן הא דלא חש לקימחא? – חדא: דבכל יום תנן.
ועוד: אי נמי כהדדי נינהו, ליתני: שבת שבתוך החג היו שם ארבעים ושמנה, דשמעת מינה תרתי: שמעת מינה דרבי אליעזר בן יעקב, ושמעת מינה דרבי אחא בר חנינא.
Rava said: Who is not concerned about the flour [he grinds out]?
First, because we have learned every day;
And secondly, even if there were the same number, it should still have been stated "on the Shabbat of the Festival they blew forty-eight blasts" since from this statement you could make two deductions, that of R. Eliezer b. Jacob and that of R. Aha b. Hanina.
Rava begins with an insult whoever made the previous resolution doesn’t care about "the flour" he grinds, meaning the quality of the resolution he offers.
The first difficulty Rava raises is that the mishnah says that there were at least twenty-one blasts every day, and included in the list of twenty-one are those for the opening of the gates. Clearly, they sounded the blasts at the opening of the gates every day.
Second, if on the Shabbat of the festival there were forty-eight, but not fifty-one, the mishnah should have stated this directly. From this we could have learned that the halakhah is like R. Eliezer b. Jacob who said that they don’t blow the shofar on the tenth step (see above) and we could have learned like R. Aha b. Hanina who held that we blow two sets for the two different musaf offerings, but we don’t blow for the opening of the gates on Shabbat. Instead the mishnah taught that there were forty-eight on erev Shabbat during the festival, from which we can only learn R. Eliezer b. Jacob’s ruling.
אלא אמר רבא: לפי שאין תוקעין למילוי מים בשבת, דבצרי טובא.
Rather Rava explained: Because the trumpet was not sounded for the Water-Drawing on the Sabbath, so that the number was far less.
Rava offers an alternative reason why the mishnah didn’t refer to Shabbat during Sukkot on Shabbat they don’t blow the shofar for the water-drawing. This was because they drew the water before Shabbat. This would have reduced the number greatly, making it far lower than erev Shabbat during Sukkot.
וליתני נמי: ראש השנה שחל להיות בשבת, דהא איכא תלתא מוספין: מוסף דראש השנה, מוסף דראש חודש, מוסף דשבת!
But let it also teach Rosh Hashanah that fell on Shabbat for on it there are three additional sacrifices: The additional offering of Rosh Hashanah, the additional offering of Rosh Hodesh, and the additional offering of Shabbat?
There is yet another case where there would have been 48 shofar blasts on Rosh Hashanah that fell on Shabbat. On this day the usual 21 would have been blown, plus another 27 for the three additional offerings. This would accord with R. Aha b. Hanina who holds that there are separate sets of blasts for each musaf offering. The fact that the mishnah didn’t cite this example is a difficulty for R. Aha.
ערב שבת שבתוך החג איצטריך ליה, לאשמעינן כדרבי אליעזר בן יעקב.
It was necessary to teach the instance of the eve Shabbat during Hol Hamoed in order to teach us that the law is in agreement with R. Eliezer b. Jacob.
The reason that the mishnah cited the example of erev Shabbat during Sukkot was to teach that the halakhah is in accord with R. Eliezer b. Jacob who said that they don’t blow the shofar on the tenth step. Had the mishnah used the example of Rosh Hashanah that falls on Shabbat, we would not have known this.
אטו מי קאמר ליתני הא ולא ליתני הא? ליתני הא וליתני הא! – תנא ושייר. –
Did he say let it teach one case instead of the other? [The question in fact was] let this one and that one be taught?
[The Tanna of our Mishnah] might mentioned some and omitted others.
The problem still remains why didn’t the mishnah teach both cases where there could be forty-eight blasts?
The answer is that the mishnah cited one case, but there are other instances where forty-eight blasts were sounded. The idea behind this common resolution is that if there are two cases that belong to a certain category, the Mishnah should have taught both of them. But if there are more than two, then it is possible the mishnah cited one and simply left out the others.
Now the Talmud will have to find a third instance where 48 blasts are sounded in one day.
מאי שייר דהאי שייר? – שייר ערב הפסח.
But what else did he omit to justify this omission also?
He omitted the instance of the eve of Pesah.
The first possibility is that he omitted erev Pesah. On that day there would be an additional 27 blasts. This is because the pesah sacrifice was offered in three groups. Each group ended up singing Hallel three times, since it took a while to offer up all the sacrifices. The shofar was sounded at the beginning of each round of Hallel. This adds up to an additional 27 blasts, bringing the total to 48.
אי משום ערב הפסח – לאו שיורא הוא, דהא מני – רבי יהודה היא, דאמר: מימיהם של כת שלישית לא הגיעה לומר +תהלים קטז+ אהבתי כי ישמע ה’ מפני שהיו עמה מועטין.
If [the omission is to be justified] on account of the omission of the eve of the Pesah, this is not really an omission, for this statement is made according to R. Judah who stated: Never did the third group reach the verse, "I love the Lord, for He hears my voice" (Psalms 16:1) for they were few in number.
The problem is that this case might not really be an omission. It is possible that the mishnah holds like R. Judah who said that the third group was always a smaller group and they would offer all of their sacrifices even before the first reading of Hallel was complete. So according to R. Judah, there never were 48 blasts on erev Pesah.
והא אמרת רישא דלא כרבי יהודה!
ודלמא האי תנא סבר לה כוותיה בחדא, ופליג עליה בחדא.
But did you not say that the earlier part of our Mishnah is not in agreement with R. Judah?
Is it not possible that our Tanna agrees with R. Judah on one point though he disagrees with him on another point?
The problem is that earlier we had stated that this mishnah does not agree with R. Judah, who holds that a set of tekiah, teruah, tekiah counts as only one blast. So how could the mishnah disagree with R. Judah about that point, and count the three notes as three, but agree with him that on erev Pesah the third group never read Hallel three times.
This question is easily answerable the mishnah indeed agrees with R. Judah about one issue but disagrees with him on the other.
This now means that the case of erev Pesah was not an omission for the mishnah might hold like R. Judah that the third group never read Hallel three times. So we still need to find another case of 48 blasts that the mishnah did omit.
אלא: מאי שייר דהאי שייר? – שייר ערב הפסח שחל להיות בערב שבת, אפיק שית ועייל שית.
What else then was omitted that we might say that this also was similarly omitted? The other omission was the eve of Pesah which fell on the eve of Shabbat, when six blasts are to be subtracted and six are to be added.
The other omission was erev Pesah that fell on erev Shabbat. The mishnah could agree with R. Judah who holds that the third group only read Hallel once. This would cause us to lose six blasts. But then we could add in six more for erev Shabbat, the six blasts that would cause the people to stop working and then distinguish between the week day and Shabbat. This would leave the total at 48.