Sukkah, Daf Nun Vav, Part 5

 

Introduction

The mishnah had stated: "A festival which fell next to Shabbat, either before or after it, all the watches shared equally in the distribution of the showbread." Our sugya discusses the precise meaning of this mishnah and then discusses other parts of the mishnah.

 

גמרא. מאי מלפניה ומאי מלאחריה? אילימא לפניה – יום טוב ראשון, לאחריה – יום טוב אחרון, היינו שבת שבתוך החג! – אלא: לפניה – יום טוב אחרון, לאחריה – יום טוב ראשון.

 

Gemara. What is meant by before and what by after? If you say that before refers to the first day of the Festival and after to the last day of the festival, isn’t this then the Shabbat of Hol Hamoed?

Rather before refers to the last day of the festival and after refers to the first day of the festival.

 

If "before" means that the first day of the festival fell before Shabbat and "after" means that the last day of the festival fell after Shabbat, then the Shabbat is Shabbat Hol Hamoed. We already know from earlier in the mishnah that on this Shabbat the watches divide the showbread equally.

Therefore, it must mean that the last day of the festival fell right before Shabbat or the first day of the festival fell right after Shabbat.

 

מאי טעמא? כיון דהני מקדמי והני מאחרי – תיקנו רבנן מילתא, כי היכי דניכלו בהדי הדדי..

 

What is the reason?

Since the one watch had to arrive early and the other had to leave late, the Rabbis made an enactment in order that they might eat together.

 

If the last day of the festival comes right before Shabbat, then the watch that serves after the festival will have to arrive early and the watch that is leaving will have to stay an extra day. So too if the first day of the festival fell right after Shabbat. Since in either case both watches had to stay in Jerusalem an extra day, thereby overlapping with the other watch, the rabbis made an enactment such that they would eat together.

חל יום אחד…: והני תרתי מאי עבידתייהו? – אמר רבי יצחק: בשכר הגפת דלתות. –

ונימא ליה: דל בדל! – אמר אביי: בוצינא טבא מקרא.

 

If there was one day . But why the extra two?

R. Yitzchak said: As a reward for the closing of the doors.

But [why should not the outgoing watch] say to the other, "Take less for less"?

Abaye said: A young pumpkin [in hand] is better than a full-grown one [in the field].

 

In the mishnah R. Judah had stated that the watch that is incoming gets seven loaves whereas the watch that is outgoing takes only five. Why the extra two loaves?

R. Yitzchak says that this is a reward for closing the doors, which were opened by the watch that was leaving in the morning. I guess this was a lot of work.

The problem is that this system doesn’t really make sense. Why not just make it even every week? After all, the entering watch is going to receive less next week.

Abaye answers with a maxim that is equivalent to our "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." The incoming watch would prefer to receive an extra two loaves now, even if that means they will receive less next week.

 

אמר רב יהודה: ובמוספין חולקין. מיתיבי: משמרה היוצאת עושה תמיד של שחר ומוספין. משמרה הנכנסת עושה תמיד של בין הערבים ובזיכין. ואילו מוספין חולקין לא קתני! – האי תנא בחלוקה לא קא מיירי. –

 

Rav Judah said: [And so too] do they divide the musaf offerings.

They objected: "The outgoing watch offered the morning Tamd and the musaf offerings, and the incoming watch offered the evening Tamud and the incense dishes" and it does not state, that they divided the musaf offerings?

This Tanna does not deal with the question of division.

 

According to Rav Judah, the incoming and outgoing watches also share in the hides of the musaf offerings offered on Shabbat. [The musaf offering was fully burned on the altar, so there was no division of the meat].

An objection is raised against Rav Judah from a baraita. This baraita discusses who offers what on Shabbat the incoming or outgoing watch. At first, the baraita is understood as refuting Rav Judah because it doesn’t state that they shared the offerings. It seems therefore that the outgoing watch would have received the musaf offering hides.

However, Rav Judah could resolve the difficulty by claiming that the baraita simply does not discuss dividing the offerings. It only discusses who offers what.

 

אמר רבא: והא תנא דבי שמואל, דמיירי בחלוקה, ובמוספין חולקין לא קתני, דתנא דבי שמואל: משמרה היוצאת – עושה תמיד של שחר ומוספין, משמרה הנכנסת – עושה תמיד של בין הערבים ובזיכין. ארבעה כהנים היו נכנסין שם, שנים ממשמר זו ושנים ממשמר זו, וחולקין לחם הפנים. ואילו במוספין חולקין לא קתני, תיובתא דרב יהודה! תיובתא

 

Rava said: But the Tanna of the house of Shmuel does deal with the question of division, and yet does not mention the division of the additional offerings, as it was taught in the school of Shmuel: The outgoing watch offered the morning Tamid and the musaf offerings; the incoming watch offered the Evening Tamid and the incense dishes. Four priests entered there, two from one watch and two from the other and they divided the showbread.

But it does not mention that they divided the musaf offerings.

This is a refutation of Rav Judah? It is indeed a refutation.

 

Rava now cites a baraita that is almost the same as the above baraita. The main difference is that this baraita does briefly discuss the division of offerings, when it discusses how the showbread was divided. Therefore, the baraita can be read as evidence that just at the outgoing watch offered the musaf sacrifices, so too the outgoing watch received the hides of the musaf offerings. They were not divided between the two watches.

Thus Rav Judah’s statement that they divided the musaf offerings is thus refuted.