The Eri B. Sit edition and audio series of the Talmud Bavli is dedicated to Shemuel, Avraham, Shaul, and Simcha, whom their parents have given to them, that they should find favor in the eyes of both people and God, and that the Holy One, blessed be He, should fill their hearts with good things for His work. Amen and amen.
Today’s page is Daf Yud-Gimel, studied in memory of Mishmat Avraham ben Esther. Let us review the sugya in which we are involved.
We had a baraita in the name of Rabbi Yosef. Basically, the baraita said that the two Temples were destroyed on the same date, Tisha B’Av, and that both destructions took place in the year following Shemitah, meaning the first year of the next Shemitah cycle.
The Gemara went through a lengthy discussion about how this could be possible, based on the calendar, the years, and the various calculations. The Gemara concluded that it works only according to the position of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yehuda holds that the Jubilee year, which is year fifty, is also year one of the next Shemitah cycle. It functions in both ways. If one uses his calculation, it emerges that both Temples were destroyed in the year following Shemitah.
However, it does not work according to the opinion of the Rabbis. The Rabbis hold that year fifty is the Jubilee year, and only afterward does year one of the next cycle begin. According to their calculation, the dates do not work out. The Gemara therefore said that the baraita cannot be following the opinion of the Rabbis; it must be following Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that year fifty and year one are the same year.
Now the Gemara will try to explain how the baraita could nevertheless be understood according to the Rabbis. The baraita said, “And similarly in the second Temple.” We understood this to mean that just as the first Temple was destroyed, so too the second Temple was destroyed under the same circumstances.
That presents a question according to the Rabbis. It cannot mean that every detail was the same. There were other events that occurred during the destruction of the first Temple, such as the cessation of the daily offering. On that day, the Levites were singing a song whose words were placed in their mouths by God to symbolize that destruction was coming. There were many other factors as well.
Perhaps, then, when the baraita says, “And similarly in the second Temple,” it does not mean that everything was identical. How will the Gemara prove this?
The Gemara says that this interpretation makes sense, because otherwise you would have to say that everything that happened in the first Temple also happened in the second Temple. Yet we know that, in the first Temple, the priestly family serving during the week of the destruction was the family of Jehoiarib. It is impossible for Jehoiarib to have held that same position in the second Temple. This clearly shows that when the baraita says, “And similarly in the second Temple,” it does not mean every detail.
Why was Jehoiarib not serving in the second Temple? The Gemara answers with a baraita: “Four priestly watches came up from the exile.” When the Jews returned from Babylonia during the period of the second Temple, most of the priests remained in Babylonia. They did not want to go up. Only four families came up: Jedaiah, Harim, Pashhur, and Immer.
The prophets of that time said that these were the only priestly families who had come up, so the entire rotation of the priests would be divided among these four groups. There were twenty-four priestly watches, and there were now four groups. Each group was therefore given six weeks of service.
They mixed the assignments and placed them into a lottery. Each of those families took its own portion and five additional portions, so that each family would receive six weeks altogether. Later, additional priests decided to come up, including Jehoiarib, who had been the head of all the priestly watches. But it was too late. Once the arrangements had been established, the families of Jedaiah would go first and draw their six portions, and only afterward would Jehoiarib draw.
This meant that Jehoiarib was no longer the primary priestly watch. They became secondary to the families that had already been there. We therefore see that Jehoiarib did not have the same status in the second Temple. We cannot say that everything that happened in the first Temple also happened in the second Temple. In the first Temple, the priestly watch was Jehoiarib; in the second Temple, Jehoiarib did not come up at the beginning and did not have that position.
Therefore, when the baraita says “and similarly in the second Temple,” it must be referring to the destruction on the date of Tisha B’Av and to other similarities, but not to every individual detail. Accordingly, we can say that, according to the Rabbis, the first Temple was destroyed in the year following Shemitah, while the second Temple was destroyed in the Shemitah year. That is how the calculation works according to them.
This is what the baraita means by “and similarly,” and I am pointing to one of the other differences: the priestly family was not the same, because the priests of Jehoiarib did not even come back at the beginning. Look at the top of Rashi: “Similarly—the priestly watches of Jedaiah, Harim, Pashhur, and Immer, as it says, ‘Jehoiarib returned but did not come up.’” Jehoiarib did not go up. Therefore, we cannot say that Jehoiarib was the priestly family serving in the second Temple.
The Gemara now returns and gives another answer as to how the baraita could be understood according to the Rabbis. Rav Ashi said: “When Ezra came up and sanctified the land, he counted the years for them again.”
Rav Ashi explains that the words “and similarly in the second Temple” really do refer to everything, including the year following Shemitah. According to the Rabbis, the second Temple was also destroyed in the year following Shemitah.
We had a problem. We made the calculation, and it did not work. We asked above: According to the Rabbis, what happened to the Shemitah years? There were six years during which the count was suspended, from the time the Jews returned to build the Temple until Ezra the Scribe came up to sanctify the Land of Israel. Since there were six years during which they did not count, we can push the calculation back by six years.
According to the ordinary count, the destruction took place in the first year of Shemitah. If you subtract six years, you move back to the first year of the Shemitah cycle. Continue the calculation: after removing those six years, the four hundred and twenty-first year, in which the Temple was destroyed, would become the year following Shemitah. Four hundred years are eight Jubilees, and the additional fourteen years amount to another two Shemitah cycles. The calculation therefore seems to work perfectly once the six years are subtracted.
The Gemara says that we know about these six years. It says that construction of the second Temple ceased until the prophet instructed them to resume it in the second year of Darius, the king of Persia.
What happened? The first year in which they began building the Temple was the second year of Darius’s reign. The Temple was completed on the third day of the month of Adar in the sixth year of Darius’s reign. If that was the sixth year of Darius, and construction began in the second year, then the second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth years constitute five years of construction.
At that point, they received authorization. One year later, Ezra the Scribe came with his exiles. Ezra arrived in the sixth year of the Temple’s construction, during the seventh year of King Darius’s reign. Since construction had begun in the second year, this was six years into the building of the Temple.
Ezra arrived in the month of Av. Beginning with the following Tishrei, they resumed counting the Shemitah years. Thus, there was a six-year interruption in the count. This is the way the calculation is explained.
The Gemara now returns to something we discussed earlier. It says: “It was taught that Israel counted seventeen Jubilees from the time they entered the Land until they were exiled. You cannot say that they counted the Jubilees immediately upon entering the Land, because if they had done so, the calculation would show that the first Temple was destroyed during a Jubilee year.”
What would be wrong with saying that the Temple was destroyed during a Jubilee year? We learned above that Ezekiel had a prophecy fourteen years after the Temple was destroyed, and that prophecy took place during a Jubilee year. Ezekiel could not have had that prophecy fourteen years later if the Temple had already been destroyed during a Jubilee year. Therefore, we must determine that there was a fourteen-year period during which they did not count Jubilees.
Accordingly, the first Temple must have been destroyed in year thirty-six of the Jubilee cycle, fourteen years before the actual Jubilee. Fourteen years later, Ezekiel gave his prophecy in the Jubilee year. They did not begin counting the Jubilees immediately upon entering the Land. They must have waited fourteen years. Once those fourteen years are added to the calculation, the destruction of the Temple falls in year thirty-six of the Jubilee, and Ezekiel’s prophecy comes fourteen years later.
What were those fourteen years during which they did not count Jubilees? The Gemara says: the seven years during which Joshua son of Nun was occupied with conquering the Land, and the seven years during which the Land was divided.
How do we know that it took seven years to conquer the Land? The Gemara derives it from the seven years of conquest and the seven years of division.
Rashi explains that when they began dividing the Land, Caleb son of Jephunneh made the following statement: “I was exactly forty years old when Moses our Teacher sent me to be one of the spies, and now I am eighty-five years old.”
The Tabernacle was erected in the second year, and the spies were sent at that time. If Caleb was forty years old when the spies were sent, there were then thirty-eight more years in the wilderness before the Jews entered the Land of Israel. He must therefore have been seventy-eight years old when he crossed the Jordan River.
Caleb then said that he was eighty-five years old when the Land began to be divided. If he was seventy-eight when they entered the Land and eighty-five when the division began, it follows that seven years passed during the conquest. This is how the Gemara methodically proves that the conquest took seven years.
But we now have another question: How do we know that it took seven years to divide the Land? The Gemara asks, “The seven years of division—where do we know this?”
It answers that one might say that just as it took seven years to conquer the Land, it also took seven years to divide it. We do not have an explicit verse stating this. Nevertheless, since it was such a large land, if it took seven years to conquer it, it must also have taken seven years to divide it. Moreover, we are forced to say that there were seven years of division, because otherwise the calculation of the fourteen years before Ezekiel’s prophecy would not place the prophecy in a Jubilee year. We therefore have to say that the additional seven years were the years during which the Land of Israel was divided.
We now move on to the next Mishnah. The theme of all the Mishnayot in this chapter is the relationship between a minimum and a maximum in various mitzvot. We are not discussing valuations here. Rather, these are different situations in which the minimum requirement of a mitzvah is one amount, while the maximum is another.
The Mishnah says that there must never be fewer than six inspected lambs in the chamber of the lambs, prepared for Shabbat and the festivals, including Rosh Hashanah. Rosh Hashanah provides the example that teaches us the number of lambs required.
Every day in the Temple, a sacrifice was brought in the morning and another in the afternoon. The animals could not be brought immediately after they were acquired. They had to be kept for at least four days to ensure that they did not develop any blemishes, and they had to be inspected during that period.
The Temple therefore had a chamber called the Chamber of the Lambs, where the sheep were stored. At all times, there had to be at least six inspected lambs in the chamber, ready for use.
It sounds as though the Mishnah is referring specifically to a situation in which Rosh Hashanah immediately follows Shabbat. In that case, there are Shabbat, Sunday, and Monday, and six daily offerings will be needed. The Mishnah therefore seems to be saying that when Shabbat is followed by Rosh Hashanah, there must be six lambs ready.
Again, the Gemara will provide the true interpretation, but that is the initial understanding. Six is the minimum. Obviously, if they wanted to have more than six, they could have as many as they wished.
When the sacrifices were brought, as the verse says, “You shall sound the trumpets,” they blew the trumpets. The minimum number of trumpets was two, and the Levites played the instruments. One of those instruments was a harp, and the minimum number of harps was nine. The Mishnah does not provide a reason for this number; it simply states that there were nine harps.
They could add as many instruments as they wished. As for the cymbals, however, there was only one set of cymbals. There was not more than one set. “One cymbal” does not mean one individual piece; each set consisted of two cymbals that were struck against each other to produce the music.
The Gemara now begins. The first matter we must analyze is the requirement for six animals. We were told that six sheep were needed in order to cover a situation in which Shabbat was followed by two days of Rosh Hashanah. But many more sacrifices were brought on Shabbat and Rosh Hashanah. What about the additional offerings?
The Gemara asks: “The daily offerings and the additional offerings—there are many more.” If you are trying to arrange animals for those three days, you need more than six animals. Why is the Mishnah speaking only about six?
Rashi explains that the Mishnah is not saying that six animals are sufficient for all the sacrifices brought on Shabbat and Rosh Hashanah. Rather, six animals must always be prepared in the Chamber of the Lambs for the daily offerings alone.
The example of Shabbat followed by Rosh Hashanah is merely a way to help one remember the number six. Since there are three consecutive days on which daily offerings are required, one remembers that the minimum number of prepared lambs is six. This number does not include the animals required for the additional offerings. Six lambs must be kept ready in the chamber at all times for the daily offerings.
The Gemara concludes: “The bottom line is that there may not be fewer than six inspected lambs in the Chamber of the Lambs.” Four days before the slaughter, the animal must be inspected. Rashi returns to this point and explains the rotation.
On the day the Tabernacle was inaugurated, six animals that had already been inspected for four days were placed there. On the first day, two were taken, leaving four. Two more were then placed in their stead. On the second day, two of the remaining animals were taken, and two more were placed there. On the third day, the final two of the original animals were taken, and two more were added.
By the fourth day, the rotation was already functioning. Each day, two animals were taken and two new animals were placed in the chamber. By the time the new animals were needed, they had reached the required period of inspection. This is why six animals were always maintained: two were taken each day, and two were added to replace them.
According to this interpretation, the day of inspection is counted as the first day, and the day of slaughter is counted as well. The animal does not need four complete twenty-four-hour intervals. Once the fourth day begins in the morning, it is considered the fourth day.
Rashi rejects this interpretation. The law of inspection is derived from the Passover offering. The Passover offering was set aside on the fourteenth of Nisan, but it was taken for inspection on the tenth. The tenth, eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth were four complete days, and the slaughter took place on the fifth day, the fourteenth.
According to the first interpretation, however, the slaughter would take place on the fourth day, which would not constitute the same type of inspection. The inspection follows the model of the Passover offering: four complete days of inspection, followed by slaughter on the fifth day.
Rashi therefore offers another explanation. On the day the Tabernacle was inaugurated, they did not place six animals in the chamber; they placed eight. The same rotation then began. Each day, two animals were taken, and two were added. After the two animals were taken, six remained. Thus, the Mishnah’s statement that there must always be at least six animals means that after the two daily animals are taken, six must remain. It does not mean that they initially began with only six.
On the following day, two more were taken and two were placed there. The same calculation continued. By beginning with eight, there was an additional day in the rotation, allowing four complete days to pass before slaughter. This is the way Rashi explains the requirement.
Who is the author of our Mishnah? The fact that the animals must always be kept for this period is connected to the requirement of inspection. The same requirement appears with the daily offering and with the Passover offering. Regarding the daily offering, the verse says, “You shall guard the lambs.” Regarding the Passover offering, the verse uses the expression “for safekeeping.” This teaches that the animals must be watched for four days.
The Gemara then says that the wording of the Mishnah supports this interpretation. The interpretation we offered was that the six lambs must always be kept in the Chamber of the Lambs, while the reference to the combination of Shabbat and Rosh Hashanah was merely a reminder of the number six.
How do we know that this is correct? The Mishnah says that the number is determined by a situation “like Shabbat.” If it meant that six lambs were required specifically for Shabbat and the two days of Rosh Hashanah, it should have said “a situation such as this.” The key wording shows that the example is intended as a mnemonic, not as the actual reason for the number.
We now proceed to the next part of the Mishnah, concerning the trumpets. The minimum number of trumpets is two, and more may be added. The Gemara understands that after a certain number, adding more trumpets no longer provides any additional benefit. Of course, one could physically add more, but there must be a number that the Mishnah considers the effective maximum.
The Gemara says that this number is one hundred twenty. Once there are one hundred twenty instruments, adding more does not provide any further benefit.
As for the instruments, we said that there were nine harps and one set of cymbals. How do we know that there was only one set of cymbals? Rav Asi said in the name of Rav that Asaph played the cymbals. Since Asaph was one person, one person played one set of cymbals.
The Gemara asks that the cymbals are referred to in the plural. The answer is that one set consisted of two cymbals. It does not mean four pieces. There were two metal pieces that were struck against each other. The Mishnah calls this a single cymbal because it was one set played by one person.
Rashi explains that Asaph was a Levite who played the cymbals. One cymbal could not function without the other; two pieces were needed for the striking. The cymbals were therefore two wide pieces of metal that were used together.
We now come to the final Mishnah of the chapter. The minimum number of Levites singing on the platform is twelve. More may be added. Minors could not be used for other Temple duties, such as cleaning the courtyard or closing the doors. They could assist only when the Levites were standing on the platform and singing the song.
The minors could help the Levites sing, but they could not assist with the other services. They also were not permitted to play the instruments. They could participate only in the vocal singing.
The reason was to beautify the sound. The voices of the children, when combined with the voices of the adults, produced a sweeter sound. The adults had deeper voices, while the children’s voices were higher and softer. In order to make the singing pleasant, the children were allowed to sing with the Levites.
The children were not counted as part of the twelve. They also did not go up onto the platform. They stood below, with their heads near the feet of the Levites who were standing above them.
The verse refers to these children as those who bring light to the Levites. Why were they called by this expression? Because they brought brightness to the voices of the Levites and made the sound more pleasant.
Rashi explains that their voices softened and sweetened the voices of the adult Levites. The children did not stand on the platform; they stood below it. They were asked to sing with the Levites, and their voices enhanced the song.
The Gemara asks: What is the number twelve corresponding to? Rav Pappa answers that it corresponds to the nine harps, the two other instruments, and the one set of cymbals. These are the minimum instruments: nine harps, two additional instruments, and one set of cymbals, making twelve.
When the Mishnah says that the children could join the singing, it means that the Levites were able to use their children in the vocal performance. The children did not play the instruments; they participated only verbally in the singing.
The Mishnah says that they did not play the harp or the other stringed instrument. This sounds as though these are two distinct instruments. The Gemara therefore asks whether the two names refer to separate instruments.
Perhaps not. The Gemara suggests that the Mishnah may follow the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that the two terms refer to the same instrument. Rabbi Yehuda teaches that the harp in the Temple had seven strings.
In the future, it will have eight strings, as indicated by the verse concerning the eighth. In the World to Come, it will have ten strings, as the verse says, “Upon an instrument of ten strings.” It therefore appears that the same instrument is described with different names and different numbers of strings at different times.
In the time of the Temple, the instrument had seven strings. In the time of the Messiah, it will have eight. In the World to Come, it will have ten. The verse referring to the ten-stringed instrument uses the other name, which suggests that the two terms can refer to the same instrument.
Why, then, does the Mishnah say that the children could not play either instrument? If they are the same instrument, why mention both names?
The Gemara answers that even if you say the Mishnah follows Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yehuda may still distinguish between the two instruments. One instrument produces more sounds than the other. Although the names can sometimes refer to the same general type of instrument, the Mishnah may be referring to two different instruments in this context.
Alternatively, the Gemara explains that when the instrument has many strings, it sounds like the instrument known by the other name. It is still fundamentally the same harp, but because it has so many strings, it produces a greater range of sounds. Thus, the terminology does not necessarily prove that the instruments were identical in every respect.
We now return to the final point of the Mishnah. We said that the children were called those who brought light because they made the adult Levites’ voices more pleasant. The Gemara discusses another explanation of the name.
According to the Rabbis, they were called helpers because they helped their fathers sing the songs. That is the meaning of the term used by the Tanna of our Mishnah: they assisted the adult Levites with the singing.
According to the other explanation, they were called those who brought light because their voices were superior in a certain way. The children’s voices were able to make the sound smoother and softer. The adults’ voices were deep, and the children’s voices therefore brought brightness to the sound. When the adults heard the beautiful voices of the children, they were able to produce a sound they could not have produced by themselves.
There is one final point from Rashi before we finish the chapter. Rashi discusses the verse about singing a new song with an instrument of ten strings. How do we know that this verse refers to the World to Come?
Rashi explains that throughout the Torah, when the text refers to a song, it uses one form of the word. In this verse, however, it uses another form. One form is feminine, while the other is masculine. A feminine expression suggests that it can give birth to another song, meaning that another song will follow it. A masculine expression does not give birth, indicating that this is the final song and that nothing will follow it.
Thus, the song of the future world will be the final song. That is why we say that in the future we will sing a new song to God. The song at the sea was also called a new song, but it was not the final song, because other troubles and redemptions came afterward.
This is how Rashi explains the distinction between the different expressions for song. Ad kan the explanation of the thirteenth page.