on an earthenware shard? If it is permitted, we will write it and throw it into the depths, and they will subside. There was no one who said anything to him. David said: Anyone who knows what to say and does not say anything may he be strangled in his throat. Then Ahithophel raised an a fortiori argument on his own and said: And just as in order to make peace between a man and his wife in the case of sota, when the husband suspects his wife of having committed adultery, the Torah said: My Name that was written in sanctity will be erased on the water to establish peace for the whole world in its entirety, all the more so it is permitted. He said to David: It is permitted.

He wrote the sacred name on an earthenware shard and cast it into the depths, and the waters in the depths subsided sixteen thousand cubits. When he saw that they subsided excessively, he said: The higher the waters in the aquifers, the moister and more fertile the soil of the world. He recited the fifteen Songs of the Ascents and elevated them fifteen thousand cubits, and established them at a depth of one thousand cubits. Ulla said: Learn from here that the thickness of the earth above the waters of the depths is one thousand cubits. The Gemara asks: But don’t we see that when we dig a little, significantly less than one thousand cubits, water emerges? Rav Mesharshiyya said: That is from the ascent of the Euphrates River, which flows at a higher altitude than do other rivers. The water flows up through underground passages to reach the river. That is why water emerges when one digs in the hills of Babylonia.

§ The mishna continues: And two priests stood with two trumpets at the Upper Gate that descends from the Israelites’ courtyard to the Women’s Courtyard, and when those drawing the water reached the tenth stair they sounded the trumpets. Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma: Does the phrase reached the tenth stair mean that he would descend five stairs and stand on the tenth from the bottom? Or perhaps it means that he would descend ten stairs and stand on the fifth from the bottom? The Gemara notes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

The mishna describes: When they reached the gate through which one exits to the east, they turned from facing east to facing west toward the Holy of Holies, and said: Our ancestors who were in this place during the First Temple period did not conduct themselves appropriately and stood “with their backs toward the Sanctuary of the Lord, and their faces toward the east; and they worshipped the sun toward the east” (Ezekiel 8:16), and we, our eyes are to God. The Sages taught: By inference, from the fact that it is stated: “And their faces toward the east,” don’t I know that “their backs were toward the Sanctuary of the Lord”? The Sanctuary was to the west.

Rather, to what purpose does the verse state: “Their backs toward the Sanctuary of the Lord”? It is an allusion to the fact that in addition to turning their backs on the Sanctuary of the Lord, they performed an additional evil. It teaches that they would expose themselves and defecate downward, a euphemism for the direction of the Divine Presence.

The mishna continues: In the Second Temple period they would say: We are to God, and to God are our eyes. The Gemara asks: Is that so? May one pray in that manner? Didn’t Rabbi Zeira say: One who repeats himself while reciting Shema and says: Listen, listen, is like one who says: We give thanks, we give thanks, and he is silenced, as it appears that he is worshipping two authorities. How then did they recite God’s name twice, consecutively? Rather, this is what they said: They bow toward the east, while we give thanks to God, and our eyes turn in hope to God, so that they would not recite God’s name consecutively.

MISHNA: One sounds no fewer than twenty-one trumpet blasts in the Temple, and one sounds no more than forty-eight. The mishna elaborates: Each day there were twenty-one trumpet blasts in the Temple: Three blasts were sounded for the opening of the gates in the morning, nine for the daily morning offering, and nine for the daily afternoon offering, totaling twenty-one. And on a day when the additional offerings were sacrificed, e.g., the New Moon, with the additional offerings they would add nine additional blasts.

And on Shabbat eve they would add six blasts sounded adjacent to the onset of Shabbat: Three to stop the people from their labor, as the blasts inform the people that Shabbat is approaching and they stop working, and three at the onset of Shabbat to demarcate between sacred and profane.

On Shabbat eve during the festival of Sukkot, there were forty-eight blasts. How so? Three in the morning for the opening of the gates; three for the upper gate; and three for the lower gate; and three for the filling of the vessel with water, as described in the sequence of the ritual of drawing the water for the water libation (48b); and three when pouring the water libation upon the altar; nine for the daily morning offering; and nine for the daily afternoon offering; and nine for the additional offerings; three to stop the people from work; and three more to demarcate between sacred and profane, totaling forty-eight blasts.

GEMARA: The Gemara notes: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: The one who seeks to minimize the number of blasts shall not minimize their number to fewer than seven blasts. And one who seeks to add to the number of blasts shall not add beyond sixteen. The Gemara asks: With regard to what do they disagree? The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yehuda holds: A series of blasts consisting of tekia, terua, tekia is counted as one blast. And the Rabbis hold: A tekia is counted separately and a terua is counted separately. They agree with regard to the sequence and the number of the blasts, and disagree only with regard to how the blasts are tallied.

The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? It is as the verse states: “And you shall sound [utkatem] a terua” (Numbers 10:5), and it is written: “A terua they will sound [yitke’u]” (Numbers 10:6). How is it that the Torah uses a verb from the root of tekia to describe the sounding of a terua? Apparently, a tekia and a terua together compose one blast. And how do the Rabbis interpret these verses? This comes to teach that each terua blast is accompanied by a plain unembellished blast, a tekia, preceding it and following it. The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Yehuda derive that each terua must be accompanied by a tekia preceding it and following it? The Gemara explains: He derives it from the verse when it says: “And you shall sound [utkatem] a terua a second time” (Numbers 10:6), indicating an additional tekia.

The Gemara asks: And what is the rationale for the opinion of the Rabbis? It is as it is written: “And when congregating the people you shall sound a tekia and shall not sound a terua” (Numbers 10:7). And if it enters your mind that a tekia and a terua are considered one blast, would the Merciful One say to perform half a mitzva and not to perform the other half of the mitzva? Apparently, each is a separate mitzva. The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Yehuda interpret the verse? The Gemara answers: That single tekia mentioned in the context of congregating the people came merely as a signal to the camps and was not for the purpose of fulfilling the mitzva, which, in Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion, always comes in groups of three.

And how do the Rabbis counter that assertion? They say: Indeed, it is a signal to assemble the people; however, the Merciful One rendered it a mitzva. Therefore, one can derive that a single tekia blast is a distinct mitzva. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this statement of Rav Kahana: There is no pause between a tekia and a terua at all and they are sounded in one continuous blast? In accordance with whose opinion is it? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara asks: If Rav Kahana’s statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda; that is obvious. Why was it necessary for the Gemara to raise the matter at all?