Kollel Commentary on Sukkah 50

An introduction to Simcha and Nostalgia

By Jeremy Borovitz

The last line of the first Mishnah of the fifth chapter of Masechet Sukkah is what first drew me into this chapter: One who did not see the Simcha of the Place of the Drawing of the Water never saw Simcha in their days.

If you weren’t there, you could never know joy. Except, of course, that none of us have been there, and in fact, none of them had been there---by the time that the Mishnah is collated, the Temple has long been destroyed. The ultimate joy is a nostalgic one. It used to be better, back then.

Sukkot is the time of the rain, and the Tosefta Sukkah 3:7 tells us, this desire for rain was the impetus for this water drawing extravaganza. The Mishnahs describes a ceremony that would take place every year during Chol Hamoed sukkot, an elaborate choreography involving the priests and the springs of Gihon and the dancing and singing and musical playing that lifted us all into a joyful place of ecstasy.

I might have thought that the chapter would talk about water, or joy, I might have thought that we would discuss the specifics of Sukkot and the commandment of it being zman simchateinu, the era of our happiness. And it does. But the focus of the chapter, or at least the way the chapter will come to a close, is on the Temple itself.

What is this nostalgia we feel for times we never knew? When the Israelites were wandering in the desert, they were always looking backwards to Egypt, where at least they knew they would have food to eat. It is no different now; we cannot know joy without the Temple, we cannot know glory without the Great Synagogue of Alexandria, the present is constantly enslaved and entranced by a past we cannot touch or see.

And so our chapter is obsessed with questions recreating this Temple. For the Temple was our compass and our calendar, our marker of gladness and our marker of time. And now we are just left with these books, and these stories. What will we do with them?

There are ruins of this Temple being uncovered every day, and many look inside these stones for the keys to our past. But what if, like the evil inclination, the keys are deep inside of us, the joy and the glory and the contradictions and the direction is actually buried in the depths of our collective memories and souls, and by reading these words, and having them come out, we are continuing the process of unlocking life’s true purpose and meaning.

This is a chapter about the Temple. It’s also a chapter about us. Because the holy of holies is gone, but there is godliness within us. And we hope that these words, these drawings, this music and creativity will inspire you to find the holiness inside yourself, to realize that real joy and real glory and real meaning and real water that quenches the thirst of humanity is just around the corner. In comes the messiah, the heralder of a better tomorrow, and with them, comes a nostalgia for the future by their side.

הֶחָלִיל חֲמִשָּׁה וְשִׁשָּׁה זֶהוּ הֶחָלִיל שֶׁל בֵּית הַשּׁוֹאֵבָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ דּוֹחֶה לֹא אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת וְלֹא אֶת יוֹם טוֹב:
MISHNA: The flute is played on the festival of Sukkot for five or six days. This is the flute of the Place of the Drawing of the Water, whose playing overrides neither Shabbat nor the Festival. Therefore, if the first Festival day occurred on Shabbat, they would play the flute for six days that year. However, if Shabbat coincided with one of the intermediate days of the Festival, they would play the flute for only five days.
גְּמָ׳ אִיתְּמַר רַב יְהוּדָה וְרַב עֵינָא חַד תָּנֵי שׁוֹאֵבָה וְחַד תָּנֵי חֲשׁוּבָה אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא מַאן דְּתָנֵי שׁוֹאֵבָה לָא מִשְׁתַּבַּשׁ וּמַאן דְּתָנֵי חֲשׁוּבָה לָא מִשְׁתַּבַּשׁ מַאן דְּתָנֵי שׁוֹאֵבָה לָא מִשְׁתַּבַּשׁ דִּכְתִיב וּשְׁאַבְתֶּם מַיִם בְּשָׂשׂוֹן וּמַאן דְּתָנֵי חֲשׁוּבָה לָא מִשְׁתַּבַּשׁ דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן מִצְוָה חֲשׁוּבָה הִיא וּבָאָה מִשֵּׁשֶׁת יְמֵי בְּרֵאשִׁית
GEMARA: It was stated that Rav Yehuda and Rav Eina disagreed: One of them teaches that the celebration was called the Celebration of Drawing [sho’eva] and one of them teaches that it was called the significant [ḥashuva] celebration. Mar Zutra said: The one who taught sho’eva is not mistaken, and the one who taught ḥashuva is not mistaken. The one who taught sho’eva is not mistaken, as it is written: “And you shall draw [ushavtem] water with joy from the wells of salvation” (Isaiah 12:3), and its name reflects the fact that it is a celebration of the water libation. And the one who taught ḥashuva is not mistaken, as Rav Naḥman said: It is a significant mitzva and it originated from the six days of Creation.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן הֶחָלִיל דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר יְהוּדָה וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים אַף יוֹם טוֹב אֵינוֹ דּוֹחֶה אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּשִׁיר שֶׁל קׇרְבָּן דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי סָבַר עִיקַּר שִׁירָה בִּכְלִי וַעֲבוֹדָה הִיא וְדוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי עִיקַּר שִׁירָה בַּפֶּה וְלָאו עֲבוֹדָה הִיא וְאֵינָהּ דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת אֲבָל שִׁיר שֶׁל שׁוֹאֵבָה דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל שִׂמְחָה הִיא וְאֵינָהּ דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף מְנָא אָמֵינָא דִּבְהָא פְּלִיגִי דְּתַנְיָא כְּלֵי שָׁרֵת שֶׁעֲשָׂאָן שֶׁל עֵץ רַבִּי פּוֹסֵל וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר יְהוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר מַאי לָאו בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי מַאן דְּמַכְשַׁיר סָבַר עִיקַּר שִׁירָה בִּכְלִי וְיָלְפִינַן מֵאַבּוּבָא דְמֹשֶׁה וּמַאן דְּפָסֵיל סָבַר עִיקַּר שִׁירָה בַּפֶּה וְלָא יָלְפִינַן מֵאַבּוּבָא דְמֹשֶׁה לָא דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא עִיקַּר שִׁירָה בִּכְלִי וְהָכָא בְּדָנִין אֶפְשָׁר מִשֶּׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר קָמִיפַּלְגִי מַאן דְּמַכְשַׁיר סָבַר דָּנִין אֶפְשָׁר מִשֶּׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר וּמַאן דְּפָסֵיל סָבַר לָא דָּנִין אֶפְשָׁר מִשֶּׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא דְּעִיקַּר שִׁירָה בַּפֶּה וְאֵין דָּנִין אֶפְשָׁר מִשֶּׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר וְהָכָא בְּמֵילַף מְנוֹרָה בִּכְלָלֵי וּפְרָטֵי אוֹ בְּרִבּוּיֵי וּמִיעוּטֵי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי רַבִּי דָּרֵישׁ כְּלָלֵי וּפְרָטֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר יְהוּדָה דָּרֵישׁ רִיבּוּיֵי וּמִיעוּטֵי רַבִּי דָּרֵישׁ כְּלָלֵי וּפְרָטֵי וְעָשִׂיתָ מְנוֹרַת כָּלַל זָהָב טָהוֹר פָּרַט מִקְשָׁה תֵּעָשֶׂה הַמְּנוֹרָה חָזַר וְכָלַל כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל אִי אַתָּה דָן אֶלָּא כְּעֵין הַפְּרָט מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת אַף כֹּל שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר יְהוּדָה דָּרֵישׁ רִיבּוּיֵי וּמִיעוּטֵי וְעָשִׂיתָ מְנוֹרַת רִיבָּה זָהָב טָהוֹר מִיעֵט מִקְשָׁה תֵּעָשֶׂה הַמְנוֹרָה חָזַר וְרִיבָּה רִיבָּה וּמִיעֵט וְרִיבָּה רִיבָּה הַכֹּל מַאי רַבִּי רַבִּי כֹּל מִילֵּי מַאי מַיעֵט מַיעֵט שֶׁל חֶרֶס
§ The Sages taught: The flute overrides Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: It does not override even a Festival. Rav Yosef said: The dispute is with regard to the song that the Levites sang accompanying the daily offering. As Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda holds that the primary essence of song is the accompaniment by musical instruments, and consequently these instruments are a component of the Temple service and override Shabbat. The Rabbis hold that the primary essence of song is singing with the mouth, and consequently the instruments are not a component of the service; they merely accompany the singing on occasion and therefore they do not override Shabbat. However, with regard to the song of the Drawing of the Water, everyone agrees that it is rejoicing and not a component of the Temple service; therefore it does not override Shabbat. Rav Yosef said: From where do I say that they disagree about this matter? It is as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to Temple service vessels that one crafted of wood, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems them unfit and Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda deems them fit. What, is it not that they disagree with regard to this matter? The one who deems the wooden vessel fit holds that the primary essence of song is accompaniment by musical instruments, and we derive that sacred vessels may be crafted of wood from the wooden flute of Moses, which according to this opinion was a service vessel. And the one who deems the wooden vessel unfit holds that the primary essence of song is singing with the mouth, and therefore we do not derive any halakha relevant to service vessels from the wooden flute of Moses, as according to this opinion it was not a service vessel. The Gemara rejects this explanation of the baraita. No, that is not necessarily the matter that they dispute, as one could say that everyone agrees: The primary essence of song is singing accompanied by musical instruments. And here, it is with regard to whether one derives the possible from the impossible that they disagree. Can one establish a principle that applies in all cases based on a case with a unique aspect? The one who deems wooden service vessels fit holds that one derives the possible, i.e., Temple service vessels, from the impossible, i.e., the flute of Moses. Although there was no alternative to crafting the flute of Moses from wood, one may derive from this that sacred service vessels, even when the alternative to craft them from metal exists, may be crafted from wood. And the one who deems wooden service vessels unfit holds that one does not derive the possible from the impossible. And if you wish, say instead in rejection of Rav Yosef’s proof that everyone agrees that the primary essence of song is singing with the mouth, and one does not derive the possible from the impossible. And here, it is with regard to deriving the halakhot of the Temple candelabrum by means of the hermeneutic principle of generalizations and details or by means of the principle of amplifications and restrictions that they disagree. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi interprets verses by means of the principle of generalizations and details, and Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda interprets verses by means of the principle of amplifications and restrictions. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi interprets the verse “And you shall make a candelabrum of pure gold: of beaten work shall the candelabrum be made” (Exodus 25:31), by means of the principle of generalizations and details. “And you shall make a candelabrum of,” is a generalization, as the material of the candelabrum is not specified; “pure gold,” that is a detail, limiting the material exclusively to gold; “of beaten work shall the candelabrum be made,” the verse then generalized again. The result is a generalization and a detail and a generalization, from which you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items that are similar to the detail; just as the detail is explicit that the candelabrum is crafted from gold, which is a metal, so too all other materials used in crafting the candelabrum must be of metal. The candelabrum is a prototype for all other Temple service vessels. Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda, however, who deems wooden Temple service vessels fit, interprets verses by means of the principle of amplifications and restrictions. “And you shall make a candelabrum of,” is an amplification, as the material of the candelabrum is not specified; “pure gold,” is a restriction, limiting the material exclusively to gold; “of beaten work shall the candelabrum be made,” the verse repeated and amplified. The result is amplification and restriction and amplification, from which one derives to amplify all items except for those items most dissimilar to the restriction. What did the verse amplify? It amplified all materials, even wood. And what did the verse exclude with this restriction? It excluded a candelabrum crafted of earthenware.