Sukkah, Daf Nun, Part 5

Introduction

In yesterday’s section R. Yose b. R. Yehudah and the sages disagreed as to whether the playing of the flute in the Temple overrides the Shabbat prohibitions. R. Yoseph limited this dispute to the flute that accompanies the sacrifices. But all sages agree that the flute played during the Simchat Bet Hashoevah (the topic of this chapter) does not override the rules of Shabbat.

אמר רב יוסף: מנא אמינא דבהא פליגי – דתניא: כלי שרת שעשאן של עץ, רבי פוסל ורבי יוסי בר יהודה מכשיר. מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי; מאן דמכשיר סבר: עיקר שירה בכלי, וילפינן מאבובא דמשה. ומאן דפסיל, סבר: עיקר שירה בפה, ולא ילפינן מאבובא דמשה.

R. Yoseph said: From where do I derive that the dispute concerns only [the flute that accompanies the sacrifices]?

From that which has been taught: Ministering vessels made of wood: Rabbi declares them invalid and R. Yose b. Judah declares them valid.

Now do they not differ on this: the one who declares them valid is of the opinion that the essential feature of the [Temple] music is with an instrument and [its validity may, therefore,] be deduced from that of the reed-flute of Moses.

While he who holds them to be invalid is of the opinion that the essential feature of the Temple music is the vocal singing and its validity, therefore, cannot be deduced from that of the reed-flute of Moses?

R. Yoseph had said in the previous section that the dispute concerning playing the Temple flute on Shabbat was connected to a larger dispute over whether the main feature of the Temple music was with an instrument. Here he cites another baraita over a different subject whether a vessel made of wood is valid that features the same disputants. R. Yose b. Judah declares such a vessel valid because he holds that the essential feature of Temple music was with vessels. This allows the wood reed-flute used by Moses that had been in the Temple (referred to in Mishnah Arakhin 2:3, which states that they used this flute on Sukkot) to be a precedent for all vessels, which also can be made of wood.

The other sages disagree and say that the essential feature of Temple music is singing with one’s voice. Therefore the reed-flute is not a precedent for other vessels.

לא, דכולי עלמא: עיקר שירה בכלי, והכא בדנין אפשר משאי אפשר קמיפלגי. מאן דמכשיר סבר: דנין אפשר משאי אפשר, ומאן דפסיל סבר: לא דנין אפשר משאי אפשר.

No; both of them may agree that the essential feature of the [Temple] music is with an instrument, but in this case they differ over whether we may deduce what it is possible [to manufacture from another material] from that which it is impossible [to manufacture from another material].

He who declares them valid is of the opinion that we do deduce that which it is possible [to manufacture from another material], from that which is impossible [to manufacture from another material], whereas he who holds them to be invalid is of the opinion that we do not deduce the possible from the impossible.

The Talmud now provides another interpretation for this baraita. The dispute is not about whether the essential feature of Temple music is with an instrument. It is over whether we derive that which is impossible to make from that which is possible to make. Moses’s reed flute had to be made of wood, for according to a story elsewhere in the Talmud, when they covered it with metal and it didn’t sound as good. On the other hand, the other musical instruments can be made of metal. Therefore, according to the sages, they must be made of metal, for they are compared to the menorah, which was made of gold. R. Yose b. Judah, on the other hand, holds that the reed-flute which had to be made of wood can serve as a precedent for the other vessels which also may be made of wood. But this dispute has nothing to do with the dispute over whether the flute may be played on Shabbat.