High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
Full Paper
There are a range of issues involved in the question of the use of musical instruments inJewish contexts. Among these is the question of whether it is
ever
permissible to use musicalinstruments in the wake of the destruction of the Temple. Additionally, the use of certaininstruments in specific ways—particularly in the context of prayer—might be considered aforbidden imitation of Gentile norms. Those conversations are relevant for both Shabbat andweekdays. The following analysis addresses solely the concerns that are specific to the use of musical instruments on Shabbat and Yom Tov.
Bemidbar 10:10
is explicit that horns are used as part of the Temple service, at least onYom Tov and seemingly on Shabbat as well.
Vayikra 23:24
and
Bemidbar 29:1
describe thesounding of a horn (a העורת) on the first day of the seventh month, which is described there as aשדק ארקמ, or a Yom Tov.
Vayikra 25:9
commands the sounding of a
shofar
in the
yovel
(Jubilee) year on the tenth day of the seventh month—Yom Hakippurim, described elsewhere not just as a שדק ארקמ but also as a ןותבש תבש—throughout the land, not just in the Temple precincts.
Tehilim 92:1-4
may make this more explicit with regard to Shabbat, if the phrase לבנ ילע רושע ילערונכב ןויגה ילע is interpreted as an instruction to play these various stringed instruments onShabbat as part of the Temple liturgy for that day. In any event, rabbinic sources clearly statethat instruments of all sorts were used in the Temple on Yom Tov (
Mishnah Arakhin 2:3
) andthat a harp was played in the Temple on Shabbat (
Tosefta Eruvin 8:19
). The natural question iswhether these practices reflect a broadly held assumption that musical instruments may generally be played on Shabbat or Yom Tov, or whether these, like other activities in the Temple, wereseen as exceptional and specific to the Temple.Other rabbinic sources clearly problematize the use of at least some musical instrumentson Shabbat and/or Yom Tov.
Tosefta Arakhin 1:13
features a debate between an anonymousruling that the
halil
does not supersede Shabbat, and
R. Yose bR. Yehudah
, who rules that itdoes supersede Shabbat. The
halil
here most likely refers to the wind instrument discussed inMishnah Arakhin 2:3 (mentioned above). While all agree that the sacrificial
halil
is played onYom Tov, the anonymous view here rules that at least the
halil
—and perhaps all of the musicalinstruments accompanying holiday sacrifices—was not played on Shabbat, even when itcoincided with a Yom Tov. An alternative reading might see the
halil
here as the one used as part of the הבאושה תיב תחמש (the water drawing festival), which took place in the Temple onSukkot. That
halil
is discussed in
Tosefta Sukkah 4:14
, where
R. Yose bR. Yehudah
permitsthe playing of this
halil
—and via synecdoche engaging in all the associated festivities describedin Mishnah Sukkah 5:1-4—on the first day of Sukkot, even when it falls on Shabbat (though noton any other day of Sukkot if it falls on Shabbat).
Sages
there disagree and forbid this
halil
(and all of its associated activities) on both Shabbat and Yom Tov.
1
For the debate over whether this verse includes Shabbat, see Sifrei Bemidbar 77 and Sifrei Zuta 10:10.
2
See, however, Lieberman
TK
IV:899, who argues that the word ותלחתב does not belong here—despite itsappearance in three witnesses to the text—and that R. Yose bR. Yehudah’s position here permits the use of thecelebratory לילח on Shabbat generally, and not just when it coincides with the first day of Sukkot. But Liebermanthen blunts the potentially radical nature of this position by asserting that the text here is talking about the לילח usedin the context of sacrificial worship, thus just making it the exact parallel of Tosefta Arakhin 1:13. There wouldthen be no Tannaitic record of a view ever permitting the playing of the לילח associated with the הבאושה תיב תחמש onShabbat, as claims R. Yosef on Bavli Shabbat 50b.
Reading synthetically, R. Yose bR. Yehudah always permits the use of the
halil
in thecontext of the sacrifices, permits the joyous use of the
halil
on the Yom Tov of Sukkot and onlyforbids the
halil
in the Temple for joyous usage on a Shabbat that coincides with one of the 6latter days of Sukkot. His opponents (assuming we view them as the same in both passages inthe Tosefta) rule that the
halil
is
never
played on Shabbat or Yom Tov for merely joyous purposes and is
never
played on Shabbat as part of sacrificial worship. Only on Yom Tov canthe
halil
be sounded for explicitly cultic purposes. Note that both positions here consider thereto be a greater problem with the
halil
on Shabbat than on Yom Tov
and both also agree that itsuse in joyous celebrations is more problematic than in the context of sacrificial worship.
Mishnah Sukkah 5:1
takes a definite stance on the question of the celebratory
halil
anddeclares that its use supersedes neither Shabbat nor Yom Tov, though it implies that another
halil
—which can only plausibly be the sacrificial
halil
—would indeed supersede at least YomTov, a clear reference to the Mishnah in Arakhin and perhaps even to R. Yose bR. Yehudah’slenient view in the Tosefta there. But most important about all of these texts are their use of theword החוד to describe the potential playing of the
halil
(in both sacrificial and joyous contexts)on Shabbat. When we say that A is החוד B, it means that A is normally a forbidden and problematic activity. The notion of תבש החוד שפנ חוקיפ is that one is allowed, in the name of saving a life, to perform activities otherwise considered core violations of Shabbat. Theseactivities are not normally innocent; it is only their context that renders them permitted.Therefore, when these Tannaitic sources talk about the
halil
potentially superseding Shabbat andYom Tov, the implication is clear: it is normally forbidden to play the
halil
on Shabbat or Yom
3
This distinction might also go a long way to explaining the classic conundrum posed by Mishnah Rosh Hashanah4:1, which lays out the rule that one only sounds the
shofar
on the coincidence of Rosh Hashanah and Shabbat in theTemple (or, according to some, in any place where there is a Jewish court, after the Destruction). It may well be thatthe ban on sounding the
shofar
outside of the Temple on Shabbat may have stemmed from a sense that this sort of loud noise was only justifiable with a clear Biblical imperative to override that concern. Since the requirement tosound the
shofar
could arguably be read as primarily applying in the Temple (it is never says םכיתובשומ לכב as it doeswith other similar general requirements in Vayikra 23), there might have emerged opposition to sounding the
shofar
on Shabbat in any situation that could be interpreted as peripheral to the Biblical command. All efforts in theYerushalmi and the Bavli to understand this law would thus be difficult because they do not directly engage thenotion of לוק תעמשה at the core of this issue. That noise-making concern—which, according to this argument, ismore severe on Shabbat—can only be overridden with a clear Biblical instruction to sound the
shofar
on that dayand in that place.
4
Slightly different versions of these texts exist in the Yerushalmi and the Bavli. Yerushalmi Sukkah 5:1, 55areports that R. Yose bR. Yehudah allowed the
halil
for sacrificial worship on all days, whereas the Sages forbade iton both Shabbat and Yom Tov. The Yerushalmi thus assigns the mishnah in Arakhin to R. Yose bR. Yehudah,since it clearly endorses use of the sacrificial
halil
on Yom Tov. Bavli Sukkah 50b has a text that is a more vagueversion of these texts, simply indicating that R. Yose endorses the use of the
halil
on all days, whereas the Sagesreject its use even on Yom Tov. This vagueness opens up the possibility of two separate interpretations: R. Yosef reads this text in keeping with the Yerushalmi above. R. Yirmiyah b. Abba, however, reads this text as being aboutthe celebratory
halil
and thus creates an extremely lenient version of R. Yose bR. Yehudah, who would now permiteven the celebratory
halil
even on a Shabbat in the middle of Sukkot, whereas the Sages reject the use of the
halil
onShabbat and Yom Tov unless it is for sacrificial purposes. This reading is fairly close to Tosefta Sukkah, albeit evenmore lenient. Note that all of these non-Toseftan versions are somewhat suspect in that not a single one of them preserves any notion of Shabbat being practically stricter than Yom Tov in any way, despite the fact that the wholediscourse here suggests that R. Yose bR. Yehudah and his interlocutor drew that distinction
somewhere
in their fieldof dispute. These other versions all show influence by the Mishnah, which in both Sukkah and Arakhin seems toreject any distinction between Shabbat and Yom Tov on these matters.
Tov. This prohibition might be overridden by other factors (such as sacrificial worship or potentially even its use in a joyful Temple ceremony). But the default ruling with regard to a
halil
is that one may not play it on Shabbat or Yom Tov.The natural question is: why is it normally forbidden to play a
halil
? What is thesubstance of the ban here that requires overriding? The broader context of Tannaitic sourcessuggests fairly clearly that the problem with the
halil
is that it is
too loud
and thus interferes witha culture of quiet that we try to create on Shabbat and Yom Tov.
A host of sources manifest thisconcern.
Mekhilta de-Rabbi Shimon b. Yohai 12:16
lists clapping, dancing and smacking asnon-
melakhah
activities that are forbidden on Shabbat and derives this ban from verses,indicating that these activities are inherently problematic on Shabbat and not just part of somederivative concern.
Mishnah Beitzah 5:2
affirms this ban as well.
Tosefta Shabbat 17:25
also bans these activities in the context of trying to scare away animals in one’s garden.
Mishnah Shabbat 5:4
forbids one from allowing a donkey to go out into the public domain onShabbat with a bell
even if the bell is plugged up
. One might think that by plugging the bell, onehas addressed the main problem; this text teaches that the bell remains an item that an animalmay not carry from one domain to another on Shabbat. The implication is clear: ringing a bell isforbidden on Shabbat.
Indeed, this is confirmed in
Tosefta Shabbat 13:15-17
, where we learnthat a
shofar
and a rattle—despite being forbidden to be used for their intended purpose, which isto make noise—may be used for other legitimate purposes. Nonetheless, the text clarifies thatone may not jingle a bell or shake a rattle for a child on Shabbat. Other texts may reflect thisnoise-making ban as well.
On Yerushalmi Beitzah 5:2, 63a,
R. Elazar
states a simple, general principle: “All noisemaking is forbidden on Shabbat.”
5
Mishnah Tamid 3:8 describes how the sound of the
halil
could be heard as far as Jericho. Even if this is anexaggeration, it clearly reveals that this instrument made quite an impression in terms of how loud it was. Note thatthe same mishnah comments that the
shofar
could be heard from this distance as well, perhaps supporting theargument advanced above.
6
There is a parallel to this text at Sifra Aharei Mot 5:7:9.
7
See also Tosefta Shabbat 17:29.
8
See Tosefta Shabbat 4:5, which requires one to plug up the bell on one’s animal even when it is just walkingaround the courtyard.
9
Tosefta Shabbat 1:23 permits a host of activities that are started before Shabbat even if they are completed onShabbat. The one exception: one may not place wheat into a water-mill (which will run of its own accord) right before Shabbat; the wheat must be ground before Shabbat starts. This may reflect the fact that the water-mill makesa great deal of noise, unlike the other problematic activities described in that passage. And so explains R. Hagai onYerushalmi Shabbat 1:5, 4a and Rabbah on Shabbat 18a. On the other hand, it might be that this prohibition isgrounded in a concern that the grinding of each individual grain of wheat is a “new” action that cannot bemeaningfully connected to the earlier grains, and thus one is setting up a
melakhah
to be performed start to finish onShabbat itself, as opposed to beginning a process before Shabbat that will merely complete itself before Shabbat.This is R. Yose’s position in the Yerushalmi there. Note, however, that R. Yose does not deny that the loudness of the noise generated would indeed also be a problem in that case (unless one rejected the ban on noise-makingaltogether). See also R. Yosef on Shabbat 18a. Another text, which we will return to below, is Mishnah Eruvin10:14, which seems to imply that only in the Temple was the use of a certain kind of well permitted. One possiblereason it was forbidden elsewhere is because of its noise, though it is more likely that the concern here relates to anassumed general ban on drawing water from a well on Shabbat, already attested to in Jubilees 2:29, 50:8 and theDamascus Document 10-11. Finally, Mishnah Ta'anit 3:7 only allows הערתה on Shabbat in life-threateningcircumstances. On Ta'anit 14a, this is defined either as the blowing of
shofarot
or the recitation of the
aneinu
prayer. This might indicate a normal ban on the sounding of a horn on Shabbat or even a ban on wailing andscreaming.
10
It is of course possible that this sort of attitude to noise on Shabbat is as ancient as Shabbat itself. But given theclear exceptions to this approach in evidence in certain Temple practices and rituals, as well as the decay and
Add a Comment
beninaboxleft a comment
LenMinNJleft a comment