Rav Miller: “This so geshmak, we could sit here in the air conditioned room studying for the next two hundred years!”

Today’s learning is sponsored

 In honor of Rabbi Yoshi Wolhendler Shlita 

Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here

 https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause_pdetails/ODUwOTU=

 Rav Yosef: Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda holds that the primary component of Shira is the musical instruments, so they’re considered Avodah which overrides Shabbos. 

 Beraisa: Vessels of avodah that are made of wood; Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi deems them unfit and Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda deems them fit. 

 Rav Yosef: It seems that Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda who deems the wooden vessel fit learns from Moshe’s flute. This is because he holds that musical instruments are vessels of avodah since they are necessary for shira. 

 And Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi who deems the wooden vessel unfit holds that the primary shira is singing with the mouth, and the wooden flute was not an instrument of avodah. 

 Response: That is not a proof. We could say that everyone agrees that shira is singing accompanied by musical instruments. Here, the question is whether we can learn “the possible from the impossible”. 

 Summary 

 Response 2: We can say that everyone agrees that the primary component of shira is singing with the mouth, or that we do not “learn the possible from the impossible”. But we learn a law from the golden Menorah. Here, the question is which method we use to learn this law.

 There is a system of Klal uPrat uKlal. When there’s a general statement followed by a specific detail, then this detail defines the entire general statement; that’s Klal uPrat. When this detail is followed by another general statement, it includes more but is still limited to what is similar to the detail. For instance: “Make a utensil (Klal) out of gold (Prat); a carved work (Klal)”, this teaches that it must be made out of metal, similar to gold.

The other system is Ribui, Miut v’Ribui. According to this system, a Miut does not define the general statement, rather it accomplishes what a Klal uPrat uKlal accomplishes. An additional Ribui includes everything originally included by the general statement. The Miut only comes to exclude one thing. In the case of the Menorah: “Make a utensil (Ribui - out of any material) out of gold (Miut - any metal, similar to gold); a carved work (Ribui - make it out of anything but the cheapest material; clay)” 

 Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi follows the system of Klal uPrat uKlal, so he deems wood unfit for the sacred vessels, and Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda follows the system of Ribui Miut v’Ribui, according to which only clay vessels are unfit.

Today’s learning is sponsored

Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here

 https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause_pdetails/ODUwOTU=

 Summary 

 Beraisa: Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda: The flute overrides Shabbos. Chachomim: It does not override even a yom tov. 

 Rav Yosef: The dispute is with regard to the shir that accompanied the daily korban [at the time that they would pour wine all year and water on Sukkos].

 Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda holds that the primary component of Shira is the musical instruments, and so they’re considered Avodah which overrides Shabbos.

 The Chachomim hold that the primary component of Shira is singing with the mouth, and consequently the instruments are mere accessories which do not override Shabbos.

With regard to the flute of Beis Hashoeiva, everyone agrees that it is not an avodah and does not override Shabbos. [Later the gemara refutes this, but this is the shittah of Rav Yosef]. 

 Rav Yosef: I have proof to this from the following beraisa: Vessels of avodah that are made of wood; Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi deems them unfit and Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda deems them fit.

It seems that Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda who deems the wooden vessel fit learns from Moshe’s flute [they had an ancient relic in the Beis Hamikdash, a flute used by Moshe which was made of wood]. This is because he holds that musical instruments are vessels of avodah since they are necessary for shira. 

And Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi who deems the wooden vessel unfit holds that the primary shira is singing with the mouth, and the wooden flute was not an instrument of avodah. 

 Response: That is not a proof. We could say that everyone agrees that shira is singing accompanied by musical instruments. Here, the question is whether we can learn “the possible from the impossible”. It was ‘impossible’ to make this flute of other materials [once a king coated this flute with gold and it no longer had the same sound, so they were forced to remove the coating].

 Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda says that the same law applies where it is ‘possible’ to use different materials, wood is still fit for the Mikdash vessels. Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi holds that what was done in a case where it is ‘impossible’ is not a proof for and in other situations wooden vessels are unfit.

Today’s learning is sponsored

Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here

 https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause_pdetails/ODUwOTU=

 Summary 

 Mishna: 

The Chalil [a fife; a musical instrument] is played for five or six days of Yom Tov (up til here is the original mishna which was very brief. Here the mishna adds an explanation). This is the Chalil of Beis Hashoeiva, which overrides neither Shabbos nor Yom Tov*.

 Gemara: 

 We Learned: Rav Yehuda and Rav Eina disagreed: One of them teaches that the celebration was called the Celebration of Shoeiva [Drawing]** and one of them teaches that it was called the Chashuva [Significant] Celebration [since it was taught orally, this difference came up]. 

 Mar Zutra: The one who taught Shoeiva is not in error, and the one who taught Chashuva is not in error (although only one is correct, there is justification for each version). 

Justification for Shoeiva: The possuk “[Ush’avtem] And you shall draw water with joy from the wells of salvation”.

Justification for Chashuva: As Rav Nachman said: It is a significant mitzvah [chashuva] which originates from the six days of Creation (39.3).

__________

* Tosfos: Playing an instrument is only D’rabbanan which is generally overridden in the Mikdash. But here it is not a necessary part of the Avodah, only a display of excessive simcha. 

* *Tosfos: The Yerushalmi adds that they also drew Ruach Hakodesh from the simcha there.

Rav Miller: “This so geshmak, we could sit here in the air conditioned room studying for the next two hundred years!”

Today’s learning is sponsored

 In honor of Rabbi Yoshi Wolhendler Shlita 

Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here

https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause_pdetails/ODUwOTU=

Rav Yosef: Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda holds that the primary component of Shira is the musical instruments, so they’re considered Avodah which overrides Shabbos.

 Beraisa: Vessels of avodah that are made of wood; Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi deems them unfit and Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda deems them fit. 

Rav Yosef: It seems that Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda who deems the wooden vessel fit learns from Moshe’s flute. This is because he holds that musical instruments are vessels of avodah since they are necessary for shira.

And Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi who deems the wooden vessel unfit holds that the primary shira is singing with the mouth, and the wooden flute was not an instrument of avodah.

 Response: That is not a proof. We could say that everyone agrees that shira is singing accompanied by musical instruments. Here, the question is whether we can learn “the possible from the impossible”. 

 Summary 

 Response 2: We can say that everyone agrees that the primary component of shira is singing with the mouth , or that we do not “learn the possible from the impossible”. But we learn a law from the golden Menorah. Here, the question is which method we use to learn this law.

There is a system of Klal uPrat uKlal. When there’s a general statement followed by a specific detail, then this detail defines the entire general statement; that’s Klal uPrat. When this detail is followed by another general statement, it includes more but is still limited to what is similar to the detail. For instance: “Make a utensil (Klal) out of gold (Prat); a carved work (Klal)”, this teaches that it must be made out of metal, similar to gold.

The other system is Ribui, Miut v’Ribui. According to this system, a Miut does not define the general statement, rather it accomplishes what a Klal uPrat uKlal accomplishes. An additional Ribui includes everything originally included by the general statement. The Miut only comes to exclude one thing. In the case of the Menorah: “Make a utensil (Ribui - out of any material) out of gold (Miut - any metal, similar to gold); a carved work (Ribui - make it out of anything but the cheapest material; clay)”

 Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi follows the system of Klal uPrat uKlal, so he deems wood unfit for the sacred vessels, and Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda follows the system of Ribui Miut v’Ribui, according to which only clay vessels are unfit.

Today’s learning is sponsored

 In honor of Ami and Suri Morgenstern 

 MAZEL TOV!! 

Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here

 https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause_pdetails/ODUwOTU=

 According to Chachomim, the holes in the mizbeach were hewed out from the time of Creation. According to Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok they just led to beneath the mizbeach and were taken out to be burned every seventy years. 

 Summary 

 Question: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna ?

There is me’ilah for the wine before it is poured. However, once they went down into the shittin, there is no me’ilah. 

It seems to be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok, that the wine did not descend to the depths. According to the Chachomim the wine already descended to the depths? [So it seems that we have a mishna in accordance with a minority opinion]. 

 Response: It can be according to the opinion of the Chachomim as well. It could be referring to a case where some of the wine was caught by someone before it fell to the depths.

 Ikka D’omri [a different version]:

 Question: Perhaps the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Chachomim and not Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok.

According to Rabbi Elazar, there should still be me’ilah until the wine is burned at the end of seventy years.

 Response: It can be according to the opinion of the Rabbi Elazar as well, however the main mitzvah is Nisuch Hayayin, since the mitzvah was accomplished, there is no more me’ilah. 

 Reish Lakish: When the wine was poured, they plugged up the shittin so that the basins looked full of wine were visible, as the possuk states: “Pour a wine offering of good drink [ sheichar ] for Hashem”.

 Question: From where do we see that the good drink must accumulate? 

 Rav Papa: Sheichar is an expression of drinking, of satiation, of intoxication. In order to underscore all three aspects, we must be able to see the wine. 

 Rav Papa: We hear from this that when a person is satiated from drinking wine, it is from his throat that he is satiated. The sensation of having a lot of wine in his throat is what satisfies him.

 Rava: Therefore, a young Torah scholar, who does not have much wine, should swallow his wine in a big gulp. 

 Rava himself, when drinking a kos shel bracha, would swallow a large gulp in honor of the mitzvah. 

 A Derasha by Rava: The possuk states: “How beautiful are your feet in shoes, you daughter of that princely man” [Nadiv means a princely man of generous spirit; who volunteers]. It means: How beautiful are the feet of Yisroel at the time when they go up to Yerushalayim for Yom Tov. [They achieved their noble spirit of forsaking their homesteads three times a year, because they are descended from that generous man]. 

“That princely man” refers to Avraham, who was called prince, as it is stated: “The generous ones of the nations [the twelve tribes] are gathered together, they’re the people of Elokei Avraham”. Why are the Jewish people associated specifically with Avraham, and not Yitzchok and Yaakov? Because he was first of the geirim [he left his father’s house to wander after Hashem and that spirit is still in his children].

Today’s learning is sponsored

Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here

 https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause_pdetails/ODUwOTU=

 Summary 

We learned in the mishna (38.5): The basins were perforated like two thin nostrils. One hole was thicker, and one was thinner, so that the wine and water would drain at the same time.

 Question: It seems that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and not the Chachomim, as we learned in the mishna, “Rabbi Yehuda: All eight days 1 lug of water is poured”. But according to the Chachomim both the wine and the water were 3 lug? 

 Response: Even according to the Chachomim, wine is thick and water is thin, and therefore wine flows more slowly than water and requires a wider opening.

This is indeed logical because in a beraisa, Rabbi Yehuda uses different wording to describe the difference between the apertures (and a Tanna’s wording was always preserved as he said it). 

 This is indeed a proof.

 We learned in the mishna (38.5): The western bowl was for the water, and the eastern bowl was for the wine. 

 Beraisa: It once happened that a Tzeduki (they were a sect who sought to seize power. In those days you couldn’t disdain the Torah but they sought to discredit the sages. This Tzeduki refers to Yannai Hamelech - the Hasmonean kings would take the kehunah gedolah. The gemara is very considerate of the honor of Jews and doesn’t speak ill even of the disloyal) poured the water over his feet and the multitude pelted him with their esrogim (the rest of the story is that Yannai had gentile mercenaries waiting outside and he sent them in to massacre the crowd and the sages. Later he ended up giving the power to the Chachomim who led the nation through his wife’s reign. Those were the best 9 years in the second temple period).

On that day, the corner of the mizbeach was broken off. They brought a big chunk of salt (which looks like the material the mizbeach is made from) and repaired that place where it was broken off, the mizbeach remained possul, but they did it for appearances sake - to honor the mizbeach. 

A mizbeach which is missing its kevesh or its karnos (a block that was mounted on the four corners) or its yesod (a step on the bottom of the mizbeach) or is lacking in squareness (that what happened here), it is possul (this is because there is repetition in the possuk regarding these things).

 Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda: Also the soveiv renders the mizbeach possul if it is missing.

Today’s learning is sponsored

Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here

https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause_pdetails/ODUwOTU=

 Summary 

 We learned in the mishna (38.5): The kohen would ascend the kevesh and turn to his left. 

 Beraisa: The procedure was always to come up on the right side and continually turn to the right before finally coming down on the left side with three exceptions: Nisuch Hamayim, Nisuch Hayayin and Olas Ha’of when there were too many on the eastern side of the mizbeach. [An exception was made for Nisuch so that the wine wasn’t ruined by the smoke on the mizbeach. And for the Olas Ha’of for fear it wouldn’t survive the trip around the perimeter of the mizbeach]. 

 We learned in the mishna (38.5): Rabbi Yehuda: The basins were made of lime but blackened by the wine. 

 Question: Why was the water basin blackened by wine?

 Response: Since we learned in the mishna that the wine may occasionally be poured into the water basin.