The Eri B. Sit edition and audio series of the Talmud Bavli is dedicated in the names of Shmuel, Avraham, and Shaul ben Simcha, so that their parents should see good from them, and so that they should find favor in the eyes of people and of God. May the Holy Spirit fill all the requests in their hearts for the good of His work. Amen and amen.
Daf 11. Today’s daf discusses the magrefah. A magrefah was a type of instrument. Rashi explains that it was used to clear the ashes from the altar, and that it was like a spoon. Tosafot asks: What are you saying? It was an instrument. Tosafot explains that there were two types of magrefah. One was a spoon-like utensil used to clear the ashes from the altar, while the other was indeed a musical instrument.
There were ten holes in this magrefah. From each hole came ten different sounds, so altogether it produced one hundred sounds. The Mishnah and the Beraita discuss its dimensions. Its width was one cubit, and its height was also one cubit. In the hollow handle were ten holes, and each hole produced one hundred sounds. Thus, the Beraita says that altogether it produced one thousand sounds.
One way to remember these opinions is the expression, “The Beraita exaggerates.” It is common for Mishnayot and Braitot to speak in exaggerated terms. Therefore, the Beraita is the source that says the magrefah produced one thousand sounds, as opposed to the first opinion, that of Rabbah bar Sheila, which says that it produced only one hundred.
Let us now review the Mishnah. The Mishnah presented three opinions concerning who played the flutes in the Temple. One opinion said that they were the servants of the priests. That was Rabbi Meir’s opinion. Rabbi Yosei said that they were members of the families of Bet Pega’im and Bet Tzipaya, Jewish families who had proper lineage. Ben Antigonos said that they were Levites. Thus, there is a three-way dispute: were they the servants of the priests, Israelites with established lineage, or Levites?
The Gemara initially suggests that this dispute is based on the following question: Is the primary form of song in the Temple vocal, with the instruments serving only to enhance the sound, or is the primary form of song performed through instruments?
The opinion that says the instruments were handled by servants of the priests would hold that the primary song is vocal. Since the instruments merely enhance the sound and are not essential, the Levites performed the actual singing, while servants could play the instruments. The opinion that says the Levites played the instruments would hold that the primary song is performed through instruments. Therefore, Levites are required for the musical instruments.
The Gemara rejects this explanation. What about the third opinion, that Israelites played the instruments? If that opinion holds that the primary song is vocal and that the instruments merely enhance the sound, even servants should be permitted. If it holds that the primary song is performed through instruments, Levites should be required. Thus, the original distinction does not explain all three opinions.
The Gemara therefore says that everyone may agree that the primary song is vocal. The real question concerns the status conveyed by serving on the platform in the Temple. If one sees a person serving there—whether at the platform, near the altar, singing, or playing an instrument—does that automatically establish his lineage? Does it qualify him as a Levite and allow him to receive the first tithe?
The one who says that servants of the priests played the instruments holds that serving on the platform does not establish a person’s lineage and does not qualify him to receive the first tithe. Since serving there does not confer any such status, even servants may play the instruments. The opinion that says the performers were Levites holds that serving on the platform establishes both lineage and the status of a Levite, including eligibility to receive the first tithe. Therefore, a Levite is required. The opinion that says Israelites played the instruments holds that serving on the platform establishes lineage, but does not establish that the person is a Levite for purposes of receiving the first tithe. Therefore, Israelites may serve in that role. That is the basis of the dispute.
The Gemara then quotes a Beraita: “The song is essential.” The song that the Levites sang when a sacrifice was brought was essential, and if the Levites did not sing when the sacrifice was brought, the sacrifice was not valid. This is the opinion of Rabbi Meir. The Sages say that the song is not essential.
What is the reason for Rabbi Meir’s opinion? Rabbi Elazar says that a verse connects the service of the Levites with atonement. The verse speaks of God giving the Levites to serve in the Tent of Meeting and to bring atonement for the Children of Israel. The Torah is indicating that the service of the Levites is connected in some way to atonement.
We know that atonement is accomplished through the sprinkling of the blood. Just as the sprinkling of the blood is essential to the sacrifice, so too the song is essential. The verse mentions the Levites next to the concept of atonement, and this teaches that the song is likewise essential.
The Sages, however, explain the verse differently. Just as atonement is performed during the day—the sprinkling of the blood must be performed during the day—so too the song must be performed during the day. The verse teaches the time of the song, not that the song is essential to the sacrifice. According to the Sages, even if the Levites did not sing, the sacrifice remains valid.
This is a fundamental dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Sages: Is the song that the Levites sing when a sacrifice is brought a condition of the sacrifice, so that the sacrifice is invalid without it, or is it not a condition? Each side derives its position from a different interpretation of the verse.
The Gemara now brings sources for the principle that the song of the Levites is required by the Torah. It may bring as many as ten sources for this idea.
The first source is the verse, “And he shall serve in the name of the Lord his God.” How does one serve in the name of God? What service is performed with the name of God? The Gemara answers that this refers to song, because when the Levites sang, they mentioned God’s name in the song.
The Gemara asks: How do you know that the verse refers to song? Perhaps it refers to the raising of the hands by the priests and the priestly blessing, which also includes God’s name. The Gemara answers that another verse describes the priestly blessing with the language of service, but does not call it “service in the name.” Therefore, the expression “in the name of the Lord” must refer to the song of the Levites. This is the first source.
The second source is a verse that says, “Because you did not serve the Lord your God with joy and with a good heart.” There must be a service that is performed with joy and with a good heart. What service is performed with joy? The Gemara answers that this refers to song. A person cannot sing unless he is happy and has a good heart. The verse in Isaiah says, “My servants shall sing out from the goodness of their hearts.” Therefore, the service performed with joy and a good heart must be the singing of the Levites.
The Gemara again asks: How do you know that the verse refers to song? Perhaps it refers to Torah study, which is also associated with happiness. Perhaps it refers to the bringing of the first fruits, which is also described with the language of joy. The Gemara responds that the expression “with a good heart” indicates song, and therefore the verse is understood as referring to the Levites’ singing.
The Gemara then makes a related observation: From where do we know that the first fruits require song? One verse uses the word “good” in connection with the song of the Levites, and another verse uses the same word in connection with the first fruits. Through this verbal analogy, the repeated word “good” teaches that the first fruits were accompanied by song.
The Gemara raises a contradiction. Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani says in the name of Rabbi Yonatan that song is recited only over wine. The verse states that the vine stopped producing its wine, which makes God and people happy. The Gemara understands from this that wine makes God happy through the song of the Levites. Therefore, song is recited when wine is poured on the altar.
If song is recited only when wine is brought, how can the Gemara say that song accompanied the first fruits? The first fruits consist of produce, not wine. The Gemara answers that there is a case in which wine is brought as first fruits. The rule is that one brings the fruit itself, not its liquids: one brings olives rather than olive oil, and grapes rather than wine. However, if a person brought grapes and pressed them into wine, that wine could also be brought. Thus, there is a case in which wine is brought as first fruits, and the Levites would sing.
That explanation does not account for all other types of first fruits. The commentators explain that because the requirement of song with wine is derived from the Torah, the Sages established that song should also accompany the other fruits brought as first fruits. The verse does not state this specifically with regard to wine; if it did, one might think that the requirement applied only when wine was brought.
The Gemara brings a third source from Chronicles: “And Chenaniah was the officer of the Levites in the song; he taught concerning the song, because he was understanding.” The verse says that Chenaniah was in charge of the song and that he raised his voice because he understood music. This clearly indicates that the head of the Levites was responsible for singing. The Gemara says that the word should be read as referring to singing rather than merely to carrying, demonstrating that the Levites were assigned to perform the song.
The fourth source is brought by a rabbi named Balvatei. The verse says, “To perform the service of a service.” What kind of service requires another service? The song is performed during another service, namely, the pouring of the wine. The service of the Levites is therefore a service performed during another service, and this refers to the song that accompanies the wine libation.
The fifth source is brought by Rabbi Yitzchak from a verse in Psalms: “Sing praises with the harp.” The verse is speaking about the Temple and calls for song accompanied by the various instruments. This demonstrates that song was performed in the Temple.
The sixth source is brought by Rabbi Nachman bar Yitzchak from a verse in Isaiah. The verse speaks about the future redemption, when the people will raise their voices and sing. They will sing even more than they sang at the Sea of Reeds. From this we see that singing will continue as a form of service in the future Temple. Since it will be performed in the future, it must also have been performed in the earlier Temple.
The seventh source is brought by the author of a Beraita from the laws of the wagons given to the Levites. The different families of Levites received wagons to carry and transport the Tabernacle. The family of Kehat, however, did not receive wagons, because they were responsible for carrying the sacred objects. The Ark was carried on their shoulders.
The verse says that the sons of Kehat would carry the sacred objects on their shoulders. The Gemara asks: Why does the verse need to say this? If the objects were placed on their shoulders, obviously they carried them. The Gemara answers that the word used for “on their shoulders” also alludes to song. It teaches that the Levites had an additional responsibility: they carried the sacred objects and were also responsible for singing.
The eighth source comes from a verse concerning Moses. Moses was a Levite, and God commanded him regarding the laws of sound—the singing and the use of the voice at the time of the sacrifices. Rashi explains that Moses was commanded to establish the song because he was a Levite.
The ninth source is brought by Rav Ashi from a verse describing the inauguration of the Temple by Solomon. The verse mentions the people who played the cymbals and those who sang, together with the trumpeters. The cymbals and trumpets were used at the time of the sacrifice, and the verse places the singers alongside them. Just as there is a mitzvah for the priests to blow the trumpets, there is a mitzvah for the Levites to sing. The verse connects the two services.
The tenth source is brought by Rabbi Yonatan. A verse tells the priests and the Levites not to exchange their duties, lest they die. The priests must perform the service of the priests, and the Levites must perform the service of the Levites. The verse says, “And they shall not die, neither you nor they,” indicating that both groups are subject to this prohibition.
The Gemara explains: Just as the priests serve at the altar, so too the Levites serve at the altar. Where do the Levites serve at the altar? They serve through song. The verse therefore teaches that the Levites have a service connected to the altar, but not the physical service of the altar. Their service at the altar is the singing.
The Gemara brings a Beraita to support this: Just as the priests work at the altar, the Levites work in their assigned service. A priest may not perform the work of a Levite, and a Levite may not perform the work of a priest. There is a punishment for exchanging these roles.
The Gemara then makes a distinction among the Levites themselves. Some Levites were responsible for opening and closing the gates of the Temple, while others were singers. If one Levite switched roles with another—for example, if a singer opened the gates instead of performing the song—the Gemara discusses whether this carries the punishment of death or merely violates a prohibition.
Rashi notes that it is not clear where the prohibition is derived from. Ravina says, for example, that if a singer opened the gates in place of the Levite assigned to that task, there is a tradition that he is subject to the punishment of death.
The Gemara asks how this can be reconciled with the Beraita, which appears to say that switching roles among the Levites involves only a prohibition and not death. The Gemara answers that this is a dispute among the Tannaim. One opinion holds that switching roles among the Levites is punishable by death, while the other holds that it is only a prohibition.
The Gemara illustrates the issue through an incident involving Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananiah, who was a Levite. He went to help Rabbi Yohanan ben Gudgoda, who was also a Levite, open the doors of the Temple. Rabbi Yohanan said to him, “My son, stop. You are from the singers, not from those who open the gates.”
Why did Rabbi Yehoshua want to help open the gates, and why did Rabbi Yohanan stop him? The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yohanan must have held the opinion that switching roles is punishable by death. Therefore, even though Rabbi Yehoshua was not replacing him entirely and was merely helping, Rabbi Yohanan would not allow it. The Sages established a safeguard and prohibited even assistance in another Levite’s assigned task.
Rabbi Yehoshua, however, may have held that switching roles is only a prohibition. Since he was not actually taking over the task but merely helping, he did not consider himself subject to the prohibition. This incident therefore reflects the dispute over whether switching roles among the Levites is punishable by death or only prohibited, and whether the Sages extended the prohibition even to assistance.
The Gemara now asks whether the Levites sang over a communal burnt offering that was brought voluntarily rather than as an obligation. The issue is whether song is required only for a communal offering that is obligatory, or also for a communal offering brought as a donation.
What is the case of a communal burnt offering brought voluntarily? The altar had to remain active, with offerings continually being placed upon it. During periods when no other offering was being brought, money from the communal collection was used to purchase burnt offerings, which were placed on the altar. The question is whether the Levites sang when these voluntary communal burnt offerings were brought.
The Gemara initially says that the question may be answered from the command concerning the trumpets: “You shall sound the trumpets over your burnt offerings.” Since the trumpet blasts and the song of the Levites are associated with one another, whenever the trumpets are sounded, the Levites should also sing. The verse says “your burnt offerings” in the plural, which might include both obligatory and voluntary burnt offerings.
The Gemara rejects this as a proof. The plural could refer to the daily offering and the additional offering. The question remains whether a voluntary communal burnt offering also requires song.
The Gemara then brings a possible proof from the actions of King Hezekiah when he purified the Temple. Ahaz, the king of Judah and Hezekiah’s father, had destroyed the vessels of the Temple and closed its doors. When Hezekiah became king, he removed the impurity his father had introduced into the Temple, purified the altars and the vessels, and completed the purification process over eight days.
At the end of that process, Hezekiah commanded that sin offerings and burnt offerings be brought on the altar. These offerings were not obligatory offerings explicitly required by the Torah at that time. Hezekiah issued a temporary ruling and used them to reestablish and inaugurate the altar.
The verse says that when the offerings were brought, the Levites began to sing. The commentators understand that Hezekiah was asking a question: Should song be recited with these offerings or not? It appears that he wanted guidance concerning whether song accompanied the offerings he was bringing.
The Gemara asks what kind of song was in question. If Hezekiah was asking about an obligatory burnt offering, there would be no question. The question must have concerned a voluntary burnt offering, in which case Hezekiah wanted to know whether the Levites should sing.
Rabbi Yosef rejects this proof. Perhaps the offering was not a voluntary communal offering at all. The question may have concerned the additional offering of the new month. The court sometimes establishes the new month on the thirtieth day and sometimes on the thirty-first day. Hezekiah wanted to know whether the day in question had been established as the new month. If it was the new month, the additional offering was obligatory; if not, it was not yet the proper day for that offering.
Abaye asks whether the story can be explained in that way. The verse indicates that the events occurred on the sixteenth of Nisan, the day after the offering of the omer. If the date was already known, what question could there have been about the new month?
The Gemara answers that the question concerned the previous month. The court may have established the previous month on its thirtieth day, in which case the sixteenth of Nisan had arrived. Alternatively, it may have established the month on the thirty-first day, in which case the following day would be the sixteenth of Nisan. Hezekiah wanted to know whether the offering should be brought on that day or the next.
The Gemara offers another possibility. The issue was not the additional offering of the new month but the offering of the omer. If the previous month had been established on the thirtieth day, that day was the sixteenth of Nisan and the omer offering could be brought. If the month had been extended, the following day would be the sixteenth, and the omer offering would have to wait.
The Gemara rejects this as well. Once the Passover offering had been brought, the date of the sixteenth of Nisan would be known. The question was therefore not which day was the sixteenth, but whether the offerings Hezekiah was bringing required song.
The Gemara says that Hezekiah knew when the new month had been established. He was not asking a question because he was uncertain about the date. Rather, he wanted to know whether the Levites should sing over these offerings, just as a prayer leader asks permission before leading the congregation. Hezekiah was asking for guidance regarding the proper procedure.
The Gemara responds that perhaps this was simply a matter of proper conduct, not a halachic question. Hezekiah was not uncertain about the law; he wanted to ask whether it was appropriate to sing. If so, the incident does not prove that voluntary communal burnt offerings require song.
We therefore still do not have a proof concerning a voluntary communal offering. The Gemara turns to another discussion involving the principle that good things happen on good days and bad things happen on bad days. For example, the day on which the First Temple was destroyed was a Saturday night, the year after the Sabbatical year, during the week in which the priestly family of Yehoyariv was serving. On that day, the Levites sang the regular song, which included the verse stating that God would destroy the Jewish people. They did not finish the verse before the enemies entered the Temple.
The same pattern occurred with the destruction of the Second Temple. The Gemara asks which sacrifice the Levites were accompanying with song at the time of the destruction. If they were singing with a sacrifice, there should not have been any sacrifice at that point, because the supply of animals had already run out several weeks earlier.
The Gemara answers that they found one animal. Since it was not the proper time to bring the daily offering, they brought it as a voluntary offering. The Gemara asks: If so, this supports the idea that the Levites sang over a voluntary communal burnt offering. The Gemara responds that this is not a proof, because the Levites were singing the song of the day, not necessarily a song connected to the sacrifice.
Furthermore, the event occurred on a Sunday. The song of Sunday is the psalm beginning, “A song for the day of Sunday.” The Levites were reciting the song of the day, not a song specifically connected with the offering. The words that came out of their mouths were like a prophecy concerning the destruction, but this does not establish anything about the obligation of song over a voluntary communal offering.
The Gemara notes that they were standing on the platform and singing. It answers that the Levites were permitted to stand on the platform and sing even when their song was not required by a sacrifice. If they could sing voluntarily, however, perhaps they could also sing over a voluntary offering.
The Gemara rejects this. If the Levites were permitted to sing whenever they wished, they might come to treat the obligatory song lightly. Therefore, the Sages prohibited song over a voluntary burnt offering, so that the Levites would not become lax regarding the obligatory offering.
The Gemara has still not established whether song is required for a voluntary communal offering. It brings one final source from a comparison between the laws of a burnt offering and those of a peace offering. The verse describes a peace offering as holy, and the only peace offering treated as having the highest level of sanctity is the communal peace offering brought on Shavuot.
That offering has a fixed time. The Gemara argues that just as the verse’s peace offering refers to an offering with a fixed time, the burnt offering mentioned alongside it must also refer to an obligatory offering with a fixed time, rather than to a voluntary burnt offering. A voluntary burnt offering has no fixed time. Thus, the source is speaking about the obligatory communal offering, not about a voluntary communal offering.
The discussion therefore returns to the original question: whether song is required for a communal offering brought voluntarily.