Mishnah Arakhin 2:5-6

Sugya Map

• Issue: The Mishnah in Arakhin 2:5-6 enumerates various quantitative limits – minimums and maximums – across diverse halakhic and Temple-related domains. These limits appear arbitrary at first glance, prompting inquiry into their underlying rationale and halakhic significance.
• Nafka Mina(s):
  • Valuation (Arakhin): Understanding the limits of a person's obligation to contribute to the Temple treasury based on their financial status.
  • Niddah/Zavah: Determining the precise duration of impurity based on the uncertainty of menstruation versus zivah status.
  • Tzara'at (Leprosy): Establishing the definitive quarantine periods for suspected tzara'at.
  • Yearly Cycles: Defining the permissible temporal parameters for establishing thirty-day months within a year.
  • Temple Offerings & Rituals: Specifying the timing and quantities for bringing shtei halechem, the duration of lechem hapanim consumption, and the age for brit milah.
  • Temple Music & Service: Dictating the number of instruments, blasts, and Levites involved in Temple worship, and the role of minor Levites.
  • Temple Animal Offerings: Setting the minimum number of inspected lambs for Shabbat and Rosh HaShana.
• Primary Sources:
  • Mishnah Arakhin 2:5-6
  • Talmud Bavli (Arakhin 14b-17a, Pesachim 96a-b, Nedarim 31a, Yoma 21a, Nazir 57b, etc.)
  • Tanakh (e.g., Vayikra, Bamidbar, Shemot)

Text Snapshot

Mishnah Arakhin 2:5: "One cannot be charged for a valuation less than a sela, nor can one be charged more than fifty sela."

• Dikduk/Leshon Nuance: The phrase "אין חייבין" (ein chayavin - "one is not obligated/charged") signifies a legal ceiling or floor. The repetition of the structure "אין פוחתין... ואין מוסיפין..." (ein pofachtin... v'ein musafin... - "there is no less than... and there is no more than...") underscores the fixed nature of these boundaries.

Mishnah Arakhin 2:6: "No fewer than four full thirty-day months may be established during the course of a year, and it did not seem appropriate to establish more than eight."

• Dikduk/Leshon Nuance: "לא יפחותו" (lo yipachtu - "they shall not be less than") and "ולא יתר" (v'lo yoter - "and not more") are again structural imperatives. The phrase "ולא נראו" (v'lo nir'u - "and it did not seem") suggests a reasoned decision or established practice, rather than a strict biblical prohibition.

Readings

Rambam on Mishnah Arakhin 2:5:1 (Minimum Six Inspected Lambs)

The Rambam, in his commentary on the Mishnah, addresses the requirement of "no fewer than six lambs that have been inspected for blemishes in the Chamber of the Lambs, which are sufficient for the offerings of Shabbat and for the two festival days of Rosh HaShana." He explains that this Mishnah reflects the opinion of Ben Bag Bag, who posits that temidim (daily offerings) must be prepared four days prior to their slaughter. This opinion is derived by analogy from the Passover offering of Egypt, which was taken on the tenth of Nisan and slaughtered on the fourteenth, as indicated by the shared phrase "במועדו" (b'mo'ado - "at its appointed time") in relation to both pesach and tamid.¹ The Rambam clarifies that "inspected" (מְבוּקָרִין - mevukarin) means that the lambs were examined and scrutinized for blemishes to prepare them for slaughter.²

Regarding the quantity of six lambs, the Rambam clarifies that it is not to say that exactly six lambs are needed for Shabbat and the two festival days of Rosh HaShana. Rather, it means that these six lambs, prepared in advance, are sufficient to cover the needs of Shabbat and the two festival days of Rosh HaShana, which together constitute three days. The remaining four days of the week would then require additional offerings. He views the number "six" as a general example or a mnemonic device (סימנא בעלמא - simana ba'alma).³

Tosafot Yom Tov on Mishnah Arakhin 2:5:1 (Ben Bag Bag and the Four-Day Preparation)

The Tosafot Yom Tov (TYT) engages deeply with the Rambam's explanation, particularly the derivation of the four-day preparation period for temidim from the Passover offering. He expresses a perplexity (תימה - tima) regarding the source of this analogy. The verse concerning the Passover offering ("בְּמוֹעֲדוֹ" - b'mo'ado) is found in Parashat Behaalotecha, which discusses the Passover offering.⁴ However, the TYT questions whether the Passover offering of Egypt (פסח מצרים - Pesach Mitzrayim) is implicitly included within the general category of Passover offerings (פסח דורות - Pesach Dorot).⁵

He further cites the Mishnah in Pesachim (9:5) which distinguishes between Pesach Mitzrayim and Pesach Dorot, noting that the former was taken from the tenth of Nisan. The TYT finds it unclear if the Passover mentioned in Behaalotecha encompasses Pesach Mitzrayim.⁶

The Gemara in Pesachim (96a-b) indeed discusses Ben Bag Bag's opinion that temidim require a four-day inspection period prior to slaughter, derived from the verse "תִּשְׁמְרוּ לְהַקְרִיב לִי בְּמוֹעֲדוֹ" (tishmeru l'hakriv li b'mo'ado - "You shall carefully offer to Me at its appointed time").⁷ The Gemara then contrasts this with the Passover offering, where it states "וְהָיָה לָכֶם לְמִשְׁמֶרֶת עַד אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר יוֹם" (v'hayah lachem l'mishmeret ad arba'ah asar yom - "it shall be kept for you until the fourteenth day").⁸ The analogy is made through the shared root of "שמירה" (shmirah - guarding/keeping).⁹

The TYT grapples with Rashi's explanation in Pesachim, which seems to imply that Pesach Dorot is learned from temidim. This appears to reverse the logic presented in our Mishnah, where temidim are learned from Pesach Mitzrayim. He suggests that Rashi's explanation might be addressing a specific argumentative context within the Gemara, where the argument is that if Pesach Dorot were not derived from temidim, then the principle of preparing offerings in advance would be limited. However, the TYT notes that the derivation of Pesach Dorot from the verse "וְעָבַדְתָּ אֶת הָעֲבֹדָה הַזֹּאת בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַזֶּה" (v'avadtah et ha'avodah hazot bachodesh hazeh - "You shall perform this service in this month") is also a valid approach, implying a uniformity across all Temple services. Therefore, learning about temidim from Pesach Mitzrayim is permissible if Pesach Mitzrayim is indeed included in Pesach Dorot.¹⁰

The TYT concludes that the Rambam's interpretation, aligning with Ben Bag Bag, suggests that the verse "במועדו" in Behaalotecha does indeed teach about the preparation period for temidim, and that Ben Bag Bag learned this from Pesach Mitzrayim. He acknowledges that this is how the Gemara in Pesachim and here in Arakhin presents it, and that the Rambam follows this tradition in his commentary.

Tosafot Yom Tov on Mishnah Arakhin 2:5:2 (Shabbat and Two Rosh HaShana Days)

Regarding the statement "sufficient for Shabbat and for the two festival days of Rosh HaShana," the TYT explains the logic behind preparing lambs for such a confluence. He writes: "If Shabbat and two festival days of Rosh HaShana occur together, it would be necessary to prepare the offering for the third day in advance."¹¹ This implies a need for a reserve of prepared offerings to accommodate overlapping festivals and Shabbat, ensuring that the required sacrifices are ready without delay.

Tosafot Yom Tov on Mishnah Arakhin 2:5:3 (Minimum Two Trumpets)

For the minimum of "two trumpets," the TYT notes that the reason (טעמא - ta'ama) is not explicitly explained. He offers two possibilities:

1. The verse "וּתְקַעְתֶּם בַּחֲצֹצְרוֹת" (u'taka'tem bachatzotzrot - "and you shall blow with trumpets") implies a plurality, meaning at least two.
2. It is analogous to the trumpets made by Moses, for which the verse states, "עֲשֵׂה לְךָ שְׁתֵּי חֲצֹצְרוֹת" (aseh lecha shtei chatzotzrot - "Make for yourself two trumpets").¹²

Tosafot Yom Tov on Mishnah Arakhin 2:5:4 (Trumpets to Infinity)

Concerning the statement that trumpets may be added "up to an infinite number" (עד לעולם - ad l'olam), the TYT refers to the Gemara's explanation that the limit is actually 120. This is derived from a verse that speaks of searching for 120 priests to blow trumpets, implying that beyond this number, it is no longer a communal commandment (הדור מצוה - hadur mitzvah) and might cause confusion. He also suggests that adding more than a certain amount could lead to a cacophony of sound (עירבוב קלא - irbuv kla). The TYT notes that the Rambam, in a later Mishnah, specifies that while other instruments can be added indefinitely, trumpets have a numerical limit of 120.¹³

Tosafot Yom Tov on Mishnah Arakhin 2:5:5 (Minimum Nine Harps)

Regarding the minimum of "nine harps," the TYT states that the reason is not explained (לא אתפרש טעמא - lo itpalesh ta'ama).¹⁴

Tosafot Yom Tov on Mishnah Arakhin 2:5:6 (The Cymbal)

The TYT discusses the cymbal (צלצל - tzaltzel), noting its unique solitary role. He refers to the commentary of the Rav (likely Rabbi Yehonatan of Lunel or a similar authority) and Rashi, who describe it as two pieces of metal struck together. He also mentions the Sefer Sherashim by Radak, which defines it similarly. He then cites the Shiltei HaGiborim, which argues against a simple interpretation of striking two pieces of metal, suggesting instead a more complex mechanism or a specialized instrument that produces a distinct sound, perhaps analogous to the double-ended trumpets used by some, and involving specific hand movements. He concludes by noting that such trumpets are known and called bazra'an in Ashkenazi Hebrew.¹⁵

Rashash on Mishnah Arakhin 2:5:1 (Revisiting Pesach Mitzrayim)

The Rashash, in his glosses on the TYT, questions the TYT's assertion that Pesach Mitzrayim is not necessarily included within Pesach Dorot. He points out that the Mishnah in Pesachim (10:5) describes Pesach Mitzrayim as involving sprinkling blood on the doorposts and eating unleavened bread in haste ("בחפזון" - b'chafetzon). These practices, he argues, were also characteristic of Pesach Dorot. Therefore, he finds it plausible to consider Pesach Mitzrayim as a subset of Pesach Dorot, thus allowing for the analogy concerning the preparation period.

Friction

The Kushya: The Inscrutability of "Nir'u" and Numerical Limits

The most vexing aspect of this Mishnah lies in the seemingly arbitrary numerical limitations it imposes across diverse halakhic spheres. Consider the phrase "ולא נראו" (v'lo nir'u) in the context of establishing thirty-day months, which ranges from a minimum of four to a maximum of eight. This phrasing, "it did not seem appropriate," suggests a rabbinic decree or custom, rather than a direct biblical derivation for these specific numbers. Yet, the Mishnah presents these numbers with a definitive air. How can a seemingly subjective judgment like "it did not seem appropriate" translate into a fixed halakhic boundary?

Furthermore, many of these limits lack an explicit ta'ama (reason). For instance, why a minimum of six lambs for Shabbat and Rosh HaShana, or nine harps? The explanations offered, such as analogy to Moses' trumpets or the risk of a cacophony, feel like post-hoc rationalizations for numbers that are otherwise opaque. The Mishnah itself presents these numbers as given, creating a tension between the appearance of arbitrary decree and the rabbinic imperative for logical and reasoned halakha.

The core of the friction lies in reconciling the peshat (plain meaning) of these numerical limits, particularly those prefaced by "lo nir'u," with the expectation of a profound underlying principle or a clear derivation from Torah sources. If the numbers are truly arbitrary, what is the pedagogical or halakhic purpose of enshrining them? If they are derived, the derivations themselves (as seen in the TYT's struggle with Ben Bag Bag) are often complex and debated. This leads to a fundamental question: are these numbers symbolic, practical, or something else entirely?

The Terutz: The Framework of "Klal U'Prat U'Klal" and Symbolic Significance

One approach to resolving this friction is to view these numerical limits not as inherently meaningful in themselves, but as markers within a broader conceptual framework. The structure of many of these pronouncements, particularly the "no less than... and no more than..." pattern, evokes the hermeneutical principle of Klal U'Prat U'Klal (general, specific, general). This principle suggests that when a general statement is followed by a specific example, and then by another general statement, the law applies to all things that share the characteristic of the specific example within the broader scope of the general statements.

While not always directly applicable to numerical limits, this principle highlights the rabbinic tendency to define boundaries and parameters. In this context, the numbers may serve as practical thresholds that encapsulate a halakhic concept. For example, the limits on arakhin (valuation) from one to fifty sela reflect a concern for both the dignity of the poor (not to demand trivial amounts) and the integrity of the Temple treasury (not to accept excessive, potentially unmanageable sums). The boundaries provide a clear, enforceable rule.

Furthermore, many numbers in Jewish tradition carry symbolic weight. The number seven (clean days for a zava), eight (circumcision), twelve (days for flute playing, Levites), and even multiples thereof, often relate to divine order, completion, or specific covenants. While the Mishnah doesn't always articulate these connections, it is possible that these numbers were chosen for their resonance within the Jewish consciousness, even if the immediate reason for their selection is not explicit.

The phrase "ולא נראו" might signify a consensus reached after careful deliberation and practical consideration. It's not that the numbers are arbitrary, but that after examining all factors – practical needs, symbolic resonance, potential for abuse, and ease of application – these specific limits were deemed the most appropriate for maintaining the integrity and functionality of the respective halakhot. The TYT's explanation for the six lambs, for instance, that they are sufficient for Shabbat and two Rosh HaShana days, points to a practical need for preparedness. The limits on trumpet blasts or Levites on the platform likely relate to achieving the desired solemnity and order in the Temple service without creating chaos.

Therefore, the friction arises from seeking an explicit, universally applicable ta'ama for every number. The resolution lies in recognizing that these limits function as practical, codified boundaries that reflect a combination of halakhic principles, symbolic considerations, and communal consensus, even when the precise reasoning behind each number is not fully elucidated in the text. The very act of setting limits, regardless of the specific number, is itself a significant halakhic act of defining parameters for Divine service and communal obligation.

Intertext

Tanakh: The Principle of "Mo'ed" and "Bemo'ado"

The concept of appointed times (מועדים - mo'adim) is foundational in Tanakh, particularly concerning the Temple service. The repeated emphasis on "במועדו" (b'mo'ado - "at its appointed time") for offerings, as alluded to by the Rambam and TYT in their discussion of the temidim and Passover offering, underscores the importance of precise timing in the execution of mitzvot. The Mishnah's numerical limitations, while not always directly derived from specific verses, operate within this overarching framework of appointed times and prescribed procedures. For example, the limits on lechem hapanim (shewbread) consumption – not before the ninth and not after the eleventh day – are directly tied to the weekly cycle of Temple service and the timing of Shabbat and festivals. This reflects a meticulous adherence to the divine calendar and service schedule. The selection of specific days and durations for the flute playing before the altar (fourteen of Nisan, fourteen of Iyyar, first days of Passover, Shavuot, and all eight days of Sukkot) also demonstrates the integration of these numerical parameters into the tapestry of the appointed festivals.

Shulchan Aruch: The Practical Application of Temporal Limits

While the Shulchan Aruch does not directly quote these specific numerical limits from Arakhin in a general codebase, the underlying principle of establishing fixed temporal and quantitative boundaries for halakhic observance is pervasive. For instance, in Hilkhot Niddah, the precise counting of days of impurity and clean days is paramount, mirroring the Mishnah's discussion of clean days for a zava (seven to seventeen). Similarly, the laws of brit milah strictly adhere to the eighth day, with provisions for postponement based on specific circumstances, reflecting the Mishnah's mention of the eighth to twelfth day range for circumcision. The meticulous counting and definition of periods, whether for impurity, observance, or service, are essential for the consistent application of halakha. The Mishnah's enumerations serve as precedents for the rabbinic approach to defining such boundaries, ensuring clarity and preventing ambiguity in practice.

Psak/Practice

The Mishnah's pronouncements, while seemingly descriptive of Temple practices, offer heuristic principles for halakhic decision-making.

1. The Principle of Proportionality and Dignity: The limits on arakhin (one to fifty sela) teach that obligations should be proportional to one's means and that the purpose of the offering is to be honored, not to burden the giver with triviality or overwhelming debt. This informs meta-halakhic considerations of fairness and practicality in financial obligations.
2. The Necessity of Clear Parameters: The various numerical limits, even if their precise derivation is debated, establish clear boundaries for impurity, ritual, and service. This is crucial for consistent application of halakha. Where a specific number is not given, the principle of establishing reasonable parameters based on context and tradition prevails.
3. The Symbolic Resonance of Numbers: While not always explicit, the selection of certain numbers (e.g., seven, eight, twelve) often carries symbolic weight. This encourages a deeper understanding of halakhic practice beyond the purely literal, recognizing the potential for layered meaning.
4. The Role of Consensus and Tradition: The phrase "ולא נראו" suggests that these limits were arrived at through communal deliberation and established as authoritative practice. This underscores the importance of kabalat hatorah (acceptance of the Torah) and the role of tradition in shaping halakha.

In essence, these pronouncements serve as exemplars of how halakha defines actionable parameters for observance, balancing practical needs with underlying principles and symbolic significance.

Takeaway

The Mishnah in Arakhin, through its seemingly disparate numerical limits, reveals a consistent rabbinic methodology: defining clear, practical boundaries for halakhic observance that often carry deeper symbolic resonance. These numbers, whether derived strictly or established by consensus, serve to structure Divine service and communal obligation with precision and dignity.