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.

§ 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.

Rav Pappa said: Rav Yosef stated that the dispute between Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda and the Rabbis concerning whether or not the flute overrides Shabbat and Festivals is based on the significance and the role of song in the sacrifice of offerings.