Talmud - Sukkah 56a סוכה נ״ו א׳

The verse states: “They shall have like portions to eat” (Deuteronomy 18:8); just as all the watches receive an equal portion of the service, so too all the watches receive an equal portion in the eating. The Gemara asks: What is the eating mentioned in this verse? If you say it is the eating of offerings, the verse is superfluous, as it is derived from there: “And every meal-offering…shall be the priest’s that offers it” (Leviticus 7:9), which, although it was written with regard to meal-offerings, applies to all offerings. Moreover, it teaches that a priest who participates in the sacrifice of the offering shares in eating the offering. Rather, the verse is referring to the shewbread that was not part of the service this Shabbat, as it was baked the previous Shabbat.

One might have thought that all the watches should be equal even with regard to obligations that come not due to the Festival but are brought on the Festival nevertheless, as there were many vow-offerings and free-will offerings brought to the Temple that were not part of the Festival rite, but simply the result of people taking advantage of their presence in Jerusalem to fulfill their outstanding obligations. Therefore, the verse states: “Besides the transactions of their fathers’ houses” (Deuteronomy 18:8). What did the forefathers of each watch sell each other? They agreed with regard to the service of the watches: I will serve during my week, and you will serve during your week. Each watch has the right to perform the Temple service during its appointed weeks and to receive all priestly gifts offered during those weeks.

§ The mishna continues: On Shavuot that coincides with Shabbat the priest charged with the distribution says to each priest: Here is matza from the shewbread for you, and here is leavened bread from the two loaves for you. It was stated that there is a dispute between the amora’im, and Rav said: When one enters the sukka, he recites the blessing of the sukka: Who has made us holy through His mitzvot and has commanded us to sit in the sukka, and then the blessing of time: Who has given us life, sustained us, and brought us to this time. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: One recites the blessing of time, and then the blessing of the sukka.

The Gemara elaborates: Rav said that one recites the blessing of sukka and then the blessing of time because the obligation of the day takes precedence. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that one recites the blessing of time and then the blessing of the sukka because when a frequent practice and an infrequent practice clash, the frequent practice takes precedence over the infrequent practice, and the blessing of time is recited more frequently.

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that Rav and Rabba bar bar Ḥana disagree in the dispute of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. As the Sages taught in a baraita: These are the matters of dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel with regard to the halakhot of a meal. Beit Shammai say: When one recites kiddush over wine, he recites a blessing over the sanctification of the day and then recites a blessing over the wine. And Beit Hillel say: One recites a blessing over the wine and then recites a blessing over the day.

The Gemara elaborates: Beit Shammai say: One recites a blessing over the sanctification of the day and then recites a blessing over the wine, as the day causes the wine to come before the meal. And Beit Shammai offer an additional reason: The day has already been sanctified and the wine has not yet come. Since Shabbat was sanctified first, it should likewise be mentioned first. And Beit Hillel say: One recites a blessing over the wine and then recites a blessing over the day, as the wine causes the kiddush to be recited. Were there no wine, kiddush would not be recited. Alternatively, Beit Hillel say: The blessing over wine is recited frequently, and the blessing over the day is not recited frequently, and when a frequent practice and an infrequent practice clash, the frequent practice takes precedence over the infrequent practice.

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that it was Rav who stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai that the blessing over the sanctification of the day takes precedence over the blessing over the wine, and it was Rabba bar bar Ḥana who stated his opinion in accordance with Beit Hillel, i.e., that the frequent blessing takes precedence.

The Gemara rejects this suggestion. Rav could have said to you: It is I who stated my opinion even in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, as Beit Hillel stated their opinion there in the case of kiddush only due to the additional reason that the wine causes the kiddush to be recited. But here there is no similar connection between the two blessings, and if there was no blessing on time, wouldn’t we recite the blessing of the sukka anyway? The fact is that the blessing on the sukka is recited throughout the week of the Festival, when no blessing on time is recited.

And Rabba bar bar Ḥana could have said to you: It is I who stated my opinion even in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, as Beit Shammai only stated their opinion there in the case of kiddush, and only due to the additional reason that the day causes the wine to come before the meal. However, here, if there was no blessing of sukka, wouldn’t we recite the blessing of time even without sitting in the sukka, simply due to the onset of the Festival?

The Gemara cites proof from that which we learned in the mishna: On Shavuot the priest charged with the distribution of the shewbread and the two loaves says to each priest: Here is matza for you, here is leavened bread for you. But here, where the ḥametz is primary and the matza is subordinate to it, as it is the festival of Shavuot when the two loaves of leavened bread are the offering of the day, and yet the mishna teaches: Here is matza for you, and here is leavened bread for you, it accords precedence to the frequent shewbread over the obligation of the day. This is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav.

The Gemara responds that Rav could have said to you: This matter is a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita that the priest charged with distribution says: Here is matza for you, here is leavened bread for you. Abba Shaul says that he would say: Here is leavened bread for you, here is matza for you.

With regard to the final halakhic decision: Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda taught: The halakha is not in accordance with the statement of Rav, who said: One recites the blessing of sukka and then the blessing of time; rather, one recites the blessing of time and then the blessing of sukka. Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: One recites the blessing of sukka and then the blessing of time, in accordance with the opinion of Rav. And the Gemara concludes that the halakha is: One recites the blessing of sukka and then the blessing of time.

§ The mishna continues: The priestly watch whose time is scheduled during the Festival, sacrifices the daily offerings during the Festival, as well as vow-offerings, free-will offerings, and all other communal offerings. The Gemara asks: What additional communal offerings does the mishna come to include? The Gemara answers: It comes to include a bull brought for an unwitting communal sin, which is brought by the community due to a transgression committed by the community as a whole as a result of an erroneous halakhic decision issued by the Great Sanhedrin, although it has no fixed time and need not be brought during the Festival; and it includes goats brought for the unwitting transgression of the prohibition against idol worship. If these offerings are brought during the Festival, they are sacrificed by members of the watch whose shift is scheduled for that week.

The mishna concludes: And that watch sacrifices all of them. The Gemara asks: What does this phrase come to include? The Gemara explains: It comes to include the summer fruits of the altar. Whenever the altar was inactive, special burnt-offerings were sacrificed as communal donations in deference to the Divine Presence so that the altar would not remain empty. These offerings were sacrificed by the scheduled watch.

MISHNA: In the case of a Festival that occurs adjacent to Shabbat, both when it occurs preceding it and when it occurs following it, all the watches that arrived early or remained late to serve in the Temple were of equal status in the distribution of the shewbread on that Shabbat. If one day happened to separate between the Festival and Shabbat, the watch whose time was scheduled would take ten of the twelve loaves of shewbread, and the watch that was detained after the Festival because there was insufficient time to get home before Shabbat takes two loaves. And during the rest of the days of the year, when the changing of the watches takes place on Shabbat, the incoming watch takes six loaves and the outgoing watch takes six loaves. Rabbi Yehuda says: The incoming watch takes seven loaves and the outgoing takes five.

The standard procedure was that the members of the incoming watch divide the shewbread in the north section of the courtyard, and the outgoing watch in the south. However, there was one exception: The watch of Bilga, due to a penalty imposed upon it, always divides the shewbread to its members in the south, even when it is the incoming watch. And its ring used to facilitate slaughter of the animals was fixed in place, rendering it useless, and its niche among the niches in the wall of the Chamber of Knives, where the priests would store their knives and other vessels, was sealed.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the meaning in the mishna of preceding it and what is the meaning of following it? If we say preceding it is referring to the first Festival day preceding Shabbat and following it is referring to the last day of the Festival following Shabbat, then this is the case of Shabbat that is during the Festival, and that is how the mishna should have presented it.

Rather, preceding it is referring to the last day of the Festival that precedes Shabbat and following it is referring to the first Festival day that follows Shabbat. What is the reason that the watches share equally in these cases? Since these are coming early, as the arriving watch cannot arrive after Shabbat because the Festival begins right away, and these remain late, as the outgoing watch cannot leave at the end of the Festival due to the immediate onset of Shabbat, the Sages instituted this matter so that they would eat the shewbread together.

The mishna continues: If one day happened. During the rest of the days of the year, the incoming watch takes six loaves and the outgoing watch takes six loaves. Rabbi Yehuda says: The incoming watch takes seven loaves and the outgoing takes five.

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Succah 56a examines equal distribution of shewbread among priestly watches and clarifies how vow-offerings and personal obligations are handled separately during Festival service.