012a – אין נערכין – פרק שני – ערכין, דף יב ע”א

They asked: Do libations brought on their own require song, or do they not require song?^[1]

נסכים הבאין בפני עצמן - For example, where they brought a communal offering today and did not bring its libations with it, and brought them the next day; as the master said (Menachos 44b): “Their minchah and their libations” – even at night; “their minchah and their libations” – even the next day.^[2]

Since Shmuel bar Nachmani said in the name of Rabbi Yonasan: “From where do we know that song is said only over wine?”^[3] [etc.], do we say [it over the wine alone]? Or perhaps we say it over eating and drinking [together], but over drinking alone we do not say it?

אכילה ושתיה - The offering and the libations.

Come and hear: Rabbi Yosi says: Merit is brought about on a day of merit, etc.^[4]

This song – what was its purpose?

If you say [it was the song] of the obligatory olah – was there one? On the seventeenth of Tammuz the tamid ceased!^[5]

And if [it was the song] of a voluntary olah – but Rav Mari the son of Rav Kahana taught that it does not need [song]!^[6]

והא תני רב מרי בריה דרב כהנא - Above: that a voluntary olah does not require song, since its time is not fixed.

Rather, was it not [the song] of libations?

Rava said, and some say Rav Ashi: And do you think so? The song of that day was (Tehillim 24:1) “The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof,” while (Tehillim 94:23) “And He shall bring back upon them their iniquity” is in the song of the fourth day of the week!^[7]

ותסברא - [Do you think] that they said it as the song [of the day], on the first day of the week?

Rather, it was a mere lament that fell into their mouths.^[8]

But it teaches “standing on their platform”!^[9]

[It is] like Reish Lakish, for Reish Lakish said: One says song even without an offering.^[10]

If so, let them say it over libations [brought on their own] too!

Harm would come of it.

נפיק מיניה חורבא - For people would come to say: just as [song over] libations brought on their own is optional, so [song over] libations brought with the offering is optional too.

The matter itself: Rabbi Yosi says: Merit is brought about on a day of merit, etc.^[11]

“The first time, at the close of a shemittah year” – can you find it so?^[12]

But it is written (Yechezkel 40:1): “In the twenty-fifth year of our exile, at the beginning of the year, on the tenth of the month, in the fourteenth year after the city was struck”!^[13]

לגלותנו - The exile of Yehoyachin, with “the craftsmen and the smiths”;^[14] and Yechezkel was among them.

Which is the year whose beginning is on the tenth of the month? You must say: this is the Yovel.^[15]

יובל - Its new year is on Yom Kippur, for the court blows the shofar, slaves are released to their homes and fields return to their owners, and then it is seen to be a Yovel. Thus the Yovel year was in the fourteenth year from the destruction of the Temple; and it was presumed that [the verse] counts together with the year of the destruction. And the Yovel is always at the close of a shemittah year, for the 49th year is a shemittah.

And if you suppose it was destroyed in the first year of the cycle: from the first of a cycle to the first of a cycle is eight, to the first of another cycle fifteen!^[16]

ואי ס"ד במוצאי שביעי' חרוב - How can you find fourteen, together with [the year of the destruction], so that [the Yovel] falls at the close of a shemittah, the first of the cycle, etc.?

Rabina said: “In the fourteenth year after” – [after] the year in which the city was struck.^[17]

אחר שנה - And when you count fifteen years backwards from the Yovel year, you find the destruction at the close of a shemittah, which is the 36th year in the count of that Yovel.

If so, “in the twenty-fifth year”? It is twenty-six!^[18]

אי הכי - That if that prophecy was in the fifteenth year after the destruction, it was the 26th of Yehoyachin’s exile.

For the master said: They were exiled in the seventh, they were exiled in the eighth, they were exiled in the eighteenth, they were exiled in the nineteenth.^[19]

דאמר מר גלו - Israel, with Yehoyachin.

בשבע - In the seventh year of the subjugation of Yehoyakim.

גלו בשמונה - That is, that same exile was in the eighth year of Nevuchadnezzar’s reign, for in the second year of his reign he subdued Yehoyakim, as is explained below.

גלו בי"ח - With Tzidkiyahu; that was the destruction of Yerushalayim, in the 18th year of the subjugation of Yehoyakim, which is the 19th year of Nevuchadnezzar.

From seven until eighteen is eleven, and fifteen [more] – it is twenty-six!^[20]

משב ועד תמני סרי - From the seventh year, the exile of Yechezkel, until eighteen, the destruction of the Temple, is eleven – together with the year in which Yechezkel was exiled, and without the year of the destruction, which we counted with those from the destruction to the Yovel; and fifteen from the destruction to the Yovel, with the year of the destruction and the year of the Yovel. It turns out there were 26 from the year they were exiled until the Yovel. So how did Yechezkel say that the Yovel was “in the twenty-fifth of our exile”? For it was presumed that he counts together with the year they were exiled.

Rabina can say to you: And for you, is it settled?

ולדידך - You who wish to count the year of the destruction among those fourteen – is it settled?

Since they were also exiled in the nineteenth, from seven until nineteen is twelve, and fourteen [more] – it is twenty-six!

מכדי גלו נמי בי"ט - For it was presumed that this answerer held there were three exiles, since what is taught, “they were exiled in the eighteenth and in the nineteenth,” are two exiles, and he held that the destruction was in the eighteenth. So when you count fourteen too, together with the year of the destruction and the year of the Yovel, you find twenty-six from Yehoyachin’s exile, which was in the seventh year, together with the year they were exiled.

Rather, what must you say?

אלא מאי אית לך למימר. - [That] what Yechezkel says, “in the twenty-fifth of our exile” [means:]

Apart from the year in which they were exiled.

לבר משתא דגלו בה - Yehoyachin and Yechezkel.

For me, too: apart from the year in which they were exiled.^[21]

In any case, the nineteenth is difficult for Rabina!^[22]

מ"מ תשסרי לרבינא קשיא - For certainly the destruction came with the last exile; and since Rabina said fifteen years until the Yovel, and from Yehoyachin’s exile until the year of the destruction, which was in the nineteenth, there are eleven, apart from the year they were exiled and apart from the year of the destruction, plus fifteen – that is twenty-six.

Do you think there were three exiles?

מי סברת ג' גליות הוו - It is the Gemara that answers: what we said above, “they were also exiled in the nineteenth,” is nothing, for it was one exile. In the eighteenth of the subjugation of Yehoyakim came the destruction of Yerushalayim, which is the nineteenth of Nevuchadnezzar. Therefore from seven until nineteen, apart from the year in which Yehoyachin and Yechezkel were exiled and apart from the year of the destruction, and fifteen with the year of the destruction and the year of the Yovel – that makes twenty-five.

They were exiled in the seventh of the subjugation of Yehoyakim, which is the eighth of Nevuchadnezzar; they were exiled in the eighteenth of the subjugation of Yehoyakim, which is the nineteenth of Nevuchadnezzar.^[23]

For the master said: In the first year he conquered Nineveh, …^[24]

דאמר מר - In Seder Olam.

כיבש יהויקים - It was not an exile, for he exiled no one; rather he subdued him to serve under him, and he served him three years, as it is written (Melachim II 24): “And Yehoyakim became his servant three years”; then he turned and rebelled against him three years. As it is written at the beginning of Daniel: “In the third year of the reign of Yehoyakim, Nevuchadnezzar (came up) to Yerushalayim.” And it is taught in Seder Olam: Is it possible to say so? Nevuchadnezzar did not reign until the fourth year of Yehoyakim, as it is written (in Yirmeyahu 25): “The word that came to Yirmeyahu concerning all the people of Yehudah in the fourth year of Yehoyakim, that was the first year of Nevuchadnezzar.” If so, what does “in the third year” teach? Of his rebellion, which is the sixth of his subjugation. And he went to Bavel and made Yehoyachin king in his place. And it is written at the end of Divrei Hayamim: “And at the turn of the year” etc.; thus Yehoyachin was exiled in the seventh year of the first subjugation of Yehoyakim. And it is written at the end of Melachim: “And Yehoyachin king of Yehudah went out to him” etc.; thus the seventh of the subjugation of Yehoyakim is the eighth of the reign of Nevuchadnezzar …^[25]

Tosfos

נסכים הבאים בפני עצמן טעונין שירה או לאו - Explanation: libations of a communal offering that were not offered on its day and are offered the next day, as we expound (Menachos 44b): “And their minchah” – up to ten days. One cannot explain [the question as] where a person donated a minchah of libations, for even if they brought an obligatory offering, his offering does not require libations. And it certainly speaks where he offers it by day; but where he offers it at night, Rabbi Elazar has said: Just as atonement is by day, so song is by day.^[26]

ותסברא שירה דיומיה לה' - And also, [even if] libations brought on their own require song, that is the song of the day on which they bring them, and not the song that was fit for the day the offering was brought.

מחד בשבוע לחד בשבוע - He counts the fifteen years backwards.

אמר רבינא - In the fourteenth after the year in which the city was struck, [that is,] in the fifteenth year from the destruction – then was the Yovel.

אי הכי - That it was the fifteenth year from the destruction, [instead of] twenty-five it is twenty-six; for the master said “they were exiled in the seventh” – explanation: in the seventh of the subjugation of Yehoyakim, whom he subdued in the fourth [year] of his reign. He reigned eleven years, and in that year he killed Yehoyakim and made Yehoyachin his son king for three months; and at the turn of the year, in that same year, he exiled him to Bavel with the craftsmen and the smiths, and that was the exile of Yechezkel.

גלו בי"ח לכיבוש - That is, when the city was struck.

משבע שגלו בה עד תמניסר שחרבה העיר - Not counting the eighteenth itself, which is in the count of the fifteen: eleven. For the seventh year, in which they were exiled, was the last year of Yehoyakim, and then Tzidkiyahu reigned ten years before the year of the destruction; and with the fifteen it is twenty-six. Granted, if we said the fourteen years are counted from the destruction itself, it would be well, for fourteen and eleven are twenty-five; but since he said it was the fifteenth year, it is difficult. And you could answer that the year they were exiled was the first year of Tzidkiyahu, and there are only ten years from the exile to the year of the destruction; but he holds that it is not so, for the exile was in the year counted to Yehoyakim; if so, there are eleven years.^[27]

ולדידך מי ניחא - Since they were exiled in the nineteenth year, and that is when the city was struck, from seven to nineteen is twelve, and fourteen [more] make twenty-six. He could have objected according to their approach, which held that eighteen and nineteen were two exiles: if so, how can it be set? If it was struck in the eighteenth, it was not struck in the nineteenth! But one need not be strict, for it is a mere working of the sugya, and on the conclusion it is settled.^[28]

Notes

1. 1. Continues from the previous amud [Arachin 11b], where Rabbi Avin asked whether a communal voluntary olah requires the Levites’ song, and Rav Mari’s beraisa showed that it does not. Now the Gemara asks about libations brought on their own, apart from their offering.
2. 2. Nesachim are the wine libation, with its minchah of flour and oil, brought with an olah or a shelamim. They may be brought after the offering, even on the next day [Menachos 44b]. The Levites’ song is sung as the wine is poured.
3. 3. [Berachos 35a]: it is learnt from the verse “my wine, which gladdens God and men”; wine gladdens God through the song said as it is poured. The question is whether the song depends on the wine alone, or on the offering and its wine together.
4. 4. The beraisa was cited on the previous amud [Arachin 11b]: when the First Temple was destroyed it was Tishah b’Av, Motzaei Shabbos, the year after shemittah and the watch of Yehoyariv, and the Levites stood on their platform singing “And He shall bring back upon them their iniquity.”
5. 5. The Mishnah [Taanis 26b] teaches that on the 17th of Tammuz the daily tamid ceased; so on Tishah b’Av there was no obligatory olah for the song to accompany.
6. 6. Rav Mari’s beraisa [Arachin 11b] learns from “over your olos and over your shelamim”: just as those shelamim have a fixed time, so the olah meant is one with a fixed time. A voluntary olah has no fixed time, so it needs no song.
7. 7. The song of the day was a fixed psalm the Levites sang each day. On Sunday it was “The earth is the Lord’s” [Tehillim 24:1]; on Wednesday it was Psalm 94, which ends “And He shall bring back upon them their iniquity” [Tehillim 94:23]. The destruction was on Motzaei Shabbos, a Sunday, so that verse was not the day’s song.
8. 8. Iliya is a lament. The Levites were not singing the offering’s song at all; a verse of lament simply came into their mouths.
9. 9. The duchan is the platform on which the Levites stood to sing. “Standing on their platform” suggests the regular Temple song, not a chance lament.
10. 10. According to Reish Lakish the Levites may sing voluntarily even with no offering, so the beraisa proves nothing about which offering the song accompanied.
11. 11. Gufa: the Gemara turns to the beraisa itself. Rabbi Yosi says good is brought about on a day of merit and harm on a day of guilt, so both Temples fell on Tishah b’Av. The Gemara now tests the beraisa’s details.
12. 12. Shemittah is the seventh year of each seven-year cycle; “Motzaei Shevi’is” is the first year of the next cycle. After seven cycles the fiftieth year is the Yovel.
13. 13. [Yechezkel 40:1]: the vision of the future Temple, dated on Yom Kippur of the 25th year of Yehoyachin’s exile, fourteen years after the city fell.
14. 14. “The craftsmen and the smiths” [Melachim II 24:14–16] went into exile with King Yehoyachin, years before the Temple fell; the Sages read them as Torah scholars.
15. 15. Only in a Yovel year is Yom Kippur called “the beginning of the year”: the shofar is blown, slaves go free and fields return to their owners. So the fourteenth year after the destruction was a Yovel, and a Yovel always follows a shemittah year.
16. 16. If the city fell in the first year of a cycle, counting inclusively to the first year of the next cycle gives eight, and to the one after that fifteen. The Yovel, which also follows a shemittah, would then fall in the fifteenth year, not the fourteenth.
17. 17. Rabina reads the verse as “fourteen years after the year in which the city was struck”: fourteen full years after the year of the destruction, that is, in the fifteenth year.
18. 18. If the Yovel came in the fifteenth year after the destruction, Yechezkel’s vision falls in the 26th year of Yehoyachin’s exile, not the 25th as the verse says.
19. 19. From Seder Olam (Rashi): Yehoyachin’s exile came in the 7th year after Yehoyakim was subdued, the 8th year of Nevuchadnezzar’s reign; Tzidkiyahu’s exile and the destruction came in the 18th year of that conquest, the 19th of his reign.
20. 20. From year 7 to year 18 is eleven years (the year of the exile included, the year of the destruction left for the next count); fifteen more from the destruction to the Yovel make twenty-six.
21. 21. Rabina replies that the questioner too reaches twenty-six if there was an exile in year 19, and must answer that the year of the exile itself is not counted; Rabina may say the same, which leaves twenty-five.
22. 22. Still, the destruction came with the last exile; if there was an exile in year 19, Rabina again reaches twenty-six (Rashi).
23. 23. The answer: there were only two exiles, not three. “Eighteen” and “nineteen” are the same year, one counted from the subjugation of Yehoyakim and the other from the start of Nevuchadnezzar’s reign.
24. 24. The passage continues on the next amud [Arachin 12b]: “in the second he went up and subdued Yehoyakim.” Nevuchadnezzar subdued Yehoyakim in the second year of his reign, so the two counts differ by one year.
25. 25. Rashi’s comment continues on the next amud [Arachin 12b]: “and this is what we say, ‘in the second year he subdued Yehoyakim.’” Here Rashi explains the words “in the second he went up and subdued Yehoyakim” printed in the Gemara there.
26. 26. Tosfos: libations offered at night raise no question, for Rabbi Elazar taught “just as atonement is by day, so song is by day”; the question concerns libations brought by day, after the day of their offering.
27. 27. Tosfos: had the fourteen years been counted from the year of the destruction itself, fourteen and eleven would give twenty-five, as in the verse. One might have said the exile fell in Tzidkiyahu’s first year, leaving only ten; but the exile is counted in Yehoyakim’s last year, so there are eleven.
28. 28. Tosfos: “and for you, is it settled?” argues within the questioner’s view that eighteen and nineteen were two exiles; on the conclusion, that they were one, everything is settled.