Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

December 21, 2018 | 讬状讙 讘讟讘转 转砖注状讟

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Chullin 24

Differences in laws of priests and levites聽and between earthenware vessels and other vessels.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讗诪专 拽专讗 讜砖讞讟 讜讞讜拽讛 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讗讬谉 讘注专讬驻讛 诇讗

The Gemara answers that the verse states with regard to the red heifer: 鈥淎nd he shall slaughter it鈥 (Numbers 19:3), and it mentions the term statute: 鈥淭his is the statute of the Torah鈥 (Numbers 19:2), indicating that with slaughter, yes, the red heifer is rendered fit; with breaking the neck, the red heifer is not rendered fit.

讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讞讜拽讛 诇讗 讚专砖讬谞谉 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜讛讗 讙讘讬 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讞讜拽讛 讜转谞讬讗 讜注砖讛讜 讞讟讗转 讛讙讜专诇 注讜砖讛 讞讟讗转 讜讗讬谉 讛砖诐 注讜砖讛 讞讟讗转

The Gemara asks: And is it so that anywhere that statute is written with regard to a certain matter, we do not learn an a fortiori inference? But what about Yom Kippur, with regard to which statute is written: 鈥淎nd this shall be an everlasting statute unto you鈥 (Leviticus 16:34), and nevertheless it is taught in a baraita: 鈥淎nd Aaron shall bring forward the goat upon which the lot came up for the Lord, and he shall offer it for a sin offering鈥 (Leviticus 16:9). The verse indicates that the lottery renders the goat a sin offering, but a verbal designation of the goat with the status of a sin offering does not render it a sin offering.

砖讬讻讜诇 讜讛诇讗 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖诇讗 拽讚砖 讛讙讜专诇 拽讚砖 讛砖诐 诪拽讜诐 砖拽讚砖 讛讙讜专诇 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖拽讚砖 讛砖诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜注砖讛讜 讞讟讗转 讛讙讜专诇 注讜砖讛 讞讟讗转 讜讗讬谉 讛砖诐 注讜砖讛 讞讟讗转

The baraita continues: A verse is necessary to teach this halakha, as one might have thought that the opposite conclusion is correct: Could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference: If in a case where the lottery does not sanctify the animal with a specific designation, such as in the case of two birds brought by a woman after childbirth, and nevertheless a verbal designation of that offering sanctifies it, in a case where the lottery sanctifies the animal on Yom Kippur, isn鈥檛 it logical that a verbal designation as a sin offering sanctifies it? Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd render it a sin offering;鈥 the lottery renders the goat a sin offering, but a verbal designation of a sin offering does not render the goat a sin offering.

讟注诪讗 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜注砖讛讜 讞讟讗转 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讚专砖讬谞谉 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专

The Gemara infers: The reason that the a fortiori inference is not learned is that the Merciful One writes: 鈥淎nd he shall offer it for a sin offering.鈥 But otherwise we would learn an a fortiori inference, despite the fact that statute is written with regard to the Yom Kippur service.

诪讬注讟 专讞诪谞讗 讙讘讬 注讙诇讛 讛注专讜驻讛 讝讗转 讘注专讬驻讛 讜讗讬谉 讗讞专转 讘注专讬驻讛

The Gemara explains: Actually, one may learn an a fortiori inference even in a case where statute is written. Nevertheless, with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken, the Merciful One restricts the use of breaking the neck: 鈥淎nd all the Elders of that city鈥hall wash their hands over the heifer whose neck is broken鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:6). From the relative pronoun 鈥渨hose鈥 it is derived: This heifer is killed by breaking the neck, but no other, i.e., the red heifer, is killed by breaking the neck.

讜转讛讗 注讙诇讛 讻砖专讛 讘砖讞讬讟讛 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 驻专讛 砖诇讗 讛讜讻砖专讛 讘注专讬驻讛 讻砖专讛 讘砖讞讬讟讛 注讙诇讛 砖讻砖专讛 讘注专讬驻讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讛讜讻砖专讛 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜注专驻讜 讛注讙诇讛 讘注专讬驻讛 讗讬谉 讘砖讞讬讟讛 诇讗

The Gemara challenges: And let it be derived that the heifer whose neck is broken is rendered fit with slaughter by means of an a fortiori inference: If a red heifer, which is not rendered fit with breaking the neck, is rendered fit with slaughter, then with regard to a heifer whose neck is broken, which is rendered fit with breaking the neck, isn鈥檛 it logical that it is rendered fit with slaughter? The Gemara responds that the verse states: 鈥淎nd shall break the neck of the heifer there in the valley鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:4). The doubled reference to breaking the neck in the two verses indicates that by breaking the neck, yes, the heifer may be killed; by slaughter, the heifer may not be killed.

诪转谞讬壮 讻砖专 讘讻讛谞讬诐 驻住讜诇 讘诇讜讬诐 讻砖专 讘诇讜讬诐 驻住讜诇 讘讻讛谞讬诐

MISHNA: There is an element with which priests remain fit and Levites are unfit, and there is also an element with which Levites remain fit and priests are unfit.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讛谞讬诐 讘诪讜诪讬谉 驻住讜诇讬诐 讘砖谞讬诐 讻砖专讬诐 诇讜讬诐 讘诪讜诪讬谉 讻砖专讬诐 讘砖谞讬诐 驻住讜诇讬诐 谞诪爪讗 讻砖专 讘讻讛谞讬诐 驻住讜诇 讘诇讜讬诐 讻砖专 讘诇讜讬诐 驻住讜诇 讘讻讛谞讬诐

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita in explanation of the mishna: Priests are rendered unfit for Temple service with the blemishes enumerated in the Torah (see Leviticus 21:16鈥23), but remain fit with the passage of years, as from the moment that they reach majority they are fit for service for the rest of their lives. Levites remain fit for Temple service with the blemishes enumerated in the Torah but are unfit with the passage of years, as they are fit for service only between the ages of thirty and fifty (see Numbers 4:47). It is found that there is an element with which priests remain fit and Levites are unfit, and there is an element with which Levites remain fit and priests are unfit.

诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讝讗转 讗砖专 诇诇讜讬诐 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 讜诪讘谉 讞诪砖讬诐 砖谞讛 讬砖讜讘 诇诪讚谞讜 诇诇讜讬诐 砖讛砖谞讬诐 驻讜住诇讬谉 讘讛诐 讬讻讜诇 诪讜诪讬谉 驻讜住诇讬谉 讘讛诐 讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 讻讛谞讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讛砖谞讬诐 驻讜住诇讬谉 讘讛谉 诪讜诪讬谉 驻讜住诇讬谉 讘讛谉 诇讜讬诐 砖讛砖谞讬诐 驻讜住诇讬谉 讘讛诐 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬讛讜 诪讜诪讬谉 驻讜住诇讬谉 讘讛诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讝讗转 讗砖专 诇诇讜讬诐 讝讗转 诇诇讜讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讗讞专转 诇诇讜讬诐

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: It is as the Sages taught in a baraita: 鈥淭his is that which pertains to the Levites鈥 (Numbers 8:24); why must the verse state this? Since it is stated: 鈥淎nd from the age of fifty years he shall return from the service鈥 (Numbers 8:25), we learned with regard to the Levites that the passage of years disqualifies them. One might have thought that blemishes disqualify them too. And ostensibly, it could be learned through logical inference: If priests, with regard to whom the passage of years does not disqualify them, blemishes disqualify them, then in the case of Levites, with regard to whom the passage of years disqualifies them, isn鈥檛 it logical that blemishes disqualify them? Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭his is that which pertains to the Levites,鈥 from which it is derived: 鈥淭his,鈥 the passage of years, is a disqualification that pertains to the Levites, and there is no other disqualification that pertains to the Levites.

讬讻讜诇 讬讛讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 驻住讜诇讬谉 讘砖谞讬诐 讜讛诇讗 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 诇讜讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讜诪讬谉 驻讜住诇讬谉 讘讛诐 砖谞讬诐 驻讜住诇讬谉 讘讛诐 讻讛谞讬诐 砖讛诪讜诪讬谉 驻讜住诇讬谉 讘讛诐 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬讛讜 砖谞讬诐 驻讜住诇讬谉 讘讛诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 诇诇讜讬诐 讜诇讗 讗砖专 诇讻讛谞讬诐

One might have thought that priests would be disqualified with the passage of years. And ostensibly, could this not be derived through the following a fortiori inference: If Levites, with regard to whom blemishes do not disqualify them, the passage of years disqualifies them, then in the case of priests, with regard to whom blemishes disqualify them, isn鈥檛 it logical that the passage of years disqualifies them? Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淲hich pertains to the Levites,鈥 and not which pertains to the priests.

讬讻讜诇 讗祝 讘砖讬诇讛 讜讘讘讬转 注讜诇诪讬诐 讻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇注讘讚 注讘讚转 注讘讜讚讛 讜注讘讚转 诪砖讗 诇讗 讗诪专转讬 讗诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讛注讘讜讚讛 讘讻转祝

One might have thought that the Levites were disqualified with the passage of years even in Shiloh, the permanent place of the Tabernacle, and in the eternal Temple. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭o perform the work of service, and the work of bearing burdens鈥 (Numbers 4:47), juxtaposing the two forms of Levite service to teach: I stated the disqualification of the passage of years only at a time when there is Levite service involving carrying the Tabernacle on their shoulders.

讻转讜讘 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 诪讘谉 讞诪砖 讜注砖专讬诐 砖谞讛 讜诪注诇讛 讜讻转讜讘 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 诪讘谉 砖诇砖讬诐 讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讜诪专 砖诇砖讬诐 砖讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讞诪砖 讜注砖专讬诐 讜讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讜诪专 讞诪砖 讜注砖专讬诐 砖讻讘专 谞讗诪专 砖诇砖讬诐 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讞诪砖 讜注砖专讬诐 诇转诇诪讜讚 讜砖诇砖讬诐 诇注讘讜讚讛

The baraita notes that one verse states: 鈥淔rom twenty-five years old and upward鈥 (Numbers 8:24), and one verse states: 鈥淔rom thirty years old and upward鈥 (Numbers 4:47). It is impossible to say thirty, as twenty-five is already stated, and it is impossible to say twenty-five, as thirty is already stated. How can these verses be reconciled? Twenty-five years old is the time for apprenticeship and thirty for service.

诪讻讗谉 诇转诇诪讬讚 砖诇讗 专讗讛 住讬诪谉 讬驻讛 讘诪砖谞转讜 讞诪砖 砖谞讬诐 砖讜讘 讗讬谞讜 专讜讗讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜诇讙讚诇诐 砖谞讬诐 砖诇砖 讜诇诇诪讚诐 住驻专 讜诇砖讜谉 讻砖讚讬诐

From here it is derived that a student who did not see a positive indication in his studies after five years will no longer see a productive result from those studies. Rabbi Yosei says that the period is three years, as it is stated with regard to Daniel and his cohort who instructed the king of Babylonia: 鈥淎nd they should be raised three years鈥 (Daniel 1:5), 鈥渁nd he should teach them the books and the language of the Chaldeans鈥 (Daniel 1:4).

讜讗讬讚讱 砖讗谞讬 诇砖讜谉 讻砖讚讬诐 讚拽诇讬诇 讜讗讬讚讱 砖讗谞讬 讛诇讻讜转 注讘讜讚讛 讚转拽讬驻讬谉

The Gemara asks: And how does the other tanna explain the verses in Daniel? The Gemara answers: He holds that the verses in Daniel cannot be cited as a source for this principle because the language of the Chaldeans is different, as it is easy and can be learned in a shorter period. The Gemara asks: And how does the other tanna, Rabbi Yosei, explain the verses with regard to the Levites? The Gemara answers: He holds that the halakhot of Temple service are different, as they are difficult and require a longer period of study.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讘讬讗 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 注讚 砖讬讝拽讬谉 讻砖专 诇注讘讜讚讛 讜诪讜诪讬谉 驻讜住诇讬谉 讘讜 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪讘谉 砖诇砖讬诐 讜注讚 讘谉 讞诪砖讬诐 讻砖专 诇注讘讜讚讛 讜砖谞讬诐 驻讜住诇讬谉 讘讜 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 砖讘诪讚讘专 讗讘诇 讘砖讬诇讛 讜讘讘讬转 注讜诇诪讬诐 讗讬谉 谞驻住诇讬谉 讗诇讗 讘拽讜诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讗讬 拽专讗

The Sages taught in a baraita: A priest, from the time he reaches puberty and grows two pubic hairs until he ages, is fit for Temple service, and blemishes disqualify him. A Levite from the age of thirty until the age of fifty is fit for Temple service, and the passage of years disqualifies him. In what case is this statement said? It is said with regard to the Tent of Meeting of the Tabernacle in the wilderness. But with regard to Shiloh and in the eternal Temple, Levites are disqualified only due to a change in voice that renders them unable to recite the songs in the Temple with their brethren. Rabbi Yosei said: What is the verse from which this is derived?

讜讬讛讬 讻讗讞讚 诇诪讞爪爪专讬诐 讜诇诪砖专专讬诐 诇讛砖诪讬注 拽讜诇 讗讞讚

鈥淚t came to pass, when the trumpeters and singers were as one, to make one sound to be heard鈥 (II聽Chronicles 5:13). This indicates that the Levites must be capable of singing in one voice, and one who is unable to do so is unfit for service.

注讚 砖讬讝拽讬谉 注讚 讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 注讚 砖讬专转转

The baraita teaches that the priest is eligible for service until he ages. The Gemara asks: Until when, i.e., what is the definition of aging in this context? Rabbi Ela says that Rabbi 岣nina says: Until his hands and feet begin to tremble.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讘注诇 拽专讬 砖讟讘诇 讜诇讗 讛讟讬诇 诪讬诐 诇讻砖讬讟讬诇 讟诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讘讞讜诇讛 讜讘讝拽谉 讟诪讗 讘讬诇讚 讜讘讘专讬讗 讟讛讜专

We learned in a mishna there (Mikvaot 8:4): With regard to one who experienced a seminal emission who then immersed in a ritual bath and did not urinate before immersing, when he urinates he is ritually impure, because residue of the semen remain in his body and was discharged with the urine, rendering him impure. Rabbi Yosei says: In the case of an ill person and an elderly person, he is ritually impure; in the case of a young person and a healthy person, he is ritually pure, as the semen was presumably discharged in its entirety at the outset.

讬诇讚 注讚 讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讻诇 砖注讜诪讚 注诇 专讙诇讜 讗讞转 讜讞讜诇抓 诪谞注诇讜 讜谞讜注诇 诪谞注诇讜 讗诪专讜 注诇讬讜 注诇 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 砖讛讬讛 讘谉 砖诪讜谞讬诐 砖谞讛 讜讛讬讛 注讜诪讚 注诇 专讙诇讜 讗讞转 讜讞讜诇抓 诪谞注诇讜 讜谞讜注诇 诪谞注诇讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讞诪讬谉 讜砖诪谉 砖住讻转谞讬 讗诪讬 讘讬诇讚讜转讬 讛谉 注诪讚讜 诇讬 讘注转 讝拽谞讜转讬

Until when is one considered a young person? Rabbi Ela says that Rabbi 岣nina says: Anyone who is able to stand on one of his legs and remove his shoe or put on his shoe is considered young. They said about Rabbi 岣nina that he was eighty years old and would stand on one of his legs and remove his shoe or put on his shoe. Rabbi 岣nina says: The hot water and oil that my mother smeared on me in my youth benefited me in my old age.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞转诪诇讗 讝拽谞讜 专讗讜讬 诇讬注砖讜转 砖诇讬讞 爪讬讘讜专 讜诇讬专讚 诇驻谞讬 讛转讬讘讛 讜诇讬砖讗 讗转 讻驻讬讜 诪讗讬诪转讬 讻砖专 诇注讘讜讚讛 诪砖讬讘讬讗 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗讜诪专 讗谞讬 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘谉 注砖专讬诐

The Sages taught: If one鈥檚 beard is fully grown, he is fit to be appointed an emissary of the community for various matters, and to descend before the ark as a prayer leader, and to lift his hands for the Priestly Benediction. From when is a priest fit for Temple service? It is from the time he reaches puberty and grows two pubic hairs. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say that he is not fit for Temple service until he is twenty years of age.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬注诪讬讚讜 [讗转] 讛诇讜讬诐 诪讘谉 注砖专讬诐 砖谞讛 讜诪注诇讛 诇谞爪讞 注诇 诪诇讗讻转 讘讬转 讛壮 讜讗讬讚讱 诇谞爪讞 砖讗谞讬

Rav 岣sda said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? The reason is as it is written: 鈥淎nd appointed the Levites, from twenty years old and upward, to oversee of the work of the House of the Lord鈥 (Ezra 3:8). And what does the other tanna hold? He holds that to oversee is different and requires an older priest.

讜讛讗 讛讗讬 拽专讗 讘诇讜讬诐 讻转讬讘 讻讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讘注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 诪拽讜诪讜转 谞拽专讗讜 讻讛谞讬诐 诇讜讬诐 讜讝讛 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讜讛讻讛谞讬诐 讛诇讜讬诐 讘谞讬 爪讚讜拽

The Gemara asks: But what proof can be cited from this verse with regard to priests; isn鈥檛 that verse written with regard to Levites? The Gemara answers: It is understood in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: In twenty-four places in the Bible the priests are called Levites. And this is one of those verses: 鈥淎nd the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok鈥 (Ezekiel 44:15). The verse in Ezra is another one of the verses.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬砖 诪讝专注讱 诇讚专转诐 诪讻讗谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 拽讟谉 驻住讜诇 诇注讘讜讚讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 转诐 诪讗讬诪转讬 讻砖专 诇注讘讜讚讛 诪砖讬讘讬讗 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 讗讘诇 讗讞讬讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讗讬谉 诪谞讬讞讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇注讘讜讚 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘谉 注砖专讬诐

The Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淎ny man of your descendants throughout their generations that has a blemish shall not approach to offer the bread of his God鈥 (Leviticus 21:17); from here Rabbi Elazar says: A minor priest is unfit for Temple service, even if he is unblemished, as he is not a man. From when is he fit for service? From the time he reaches puberty and grows two pubic hairs. But his brethren the priests do not allow him to perform the service until he is twenty years of age.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛讗 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 驻住讜诇 讚专讘谞谉 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 专讘讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 驻住讜诇 诪讚专讘谞谉 讜讛讗 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讜诇讻转讞诇讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讗讘诇 讚讬注讘讚 注讘讜讚转讜 讻砖专讛

There are those who say: This is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and he is of the opinion that there is no disqualification for one between puberty and twenty years of age even by rabbinic law. The other priests simply do not allow priests of that age to perform the Temple service ab initio. And there are those who say: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is of the opinion that there is disqualification by rabbinic law in that case, and this statement in the baraita is the opinion of the Rabbis, and they hold that it is ab initio that one may not perform the service, but after the fact, his service is valid.

诪转谞讬壮 讟讛讜专 讘讻诇讬 讞专砖 讟诪讗 讘讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 讟讛讜专 讘讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 讟诪讗 讘讻诇讬 讞专砖

MISHNA: That which is ritually pure in an earthenware vessel is ritually impure in all the other types of vessels; that which is ritually pure in all the other types of vessels is ritually impure in an earthenware vessel.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讜讬专 讻诇讬 讞专砖 讟诪讗 讜讙讘讜 讟讛讜专 讗讜讬专 讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 讟讛讜专 讜讙讘谉 讟诪讗 谞诪爪讗 讟讛讜专 讘讻诇讬 讞专砖 讟诪讗 讘讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 讟讛讜专 讘讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 讟诪讗 讘讻诇讬 讞专砖

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita explaining the mishna: If a primary source of ritual impurity fell into the airspace of an earthenware vessel the vessel is ritually impure, and if it fell on its outer side, the vessel is ritually pure. If a primary source of ritual impurity fell into the airspace of all the other types of vessels, the vessels are ritually pure, and if it fell on their outer side, they are ritually impure. It is found that that which is ritually pure in an earthenware vessel is ritually impure in all the other vessels, and that which is ritually pure in all the other vessels is ritually impure in an earthenware vessel.

诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 转讜讻讜 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞讙注

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? It is as the Sages taught in a baraita based on the verse: 鈥淎nd every earthenware vessel into which [tokho] any of them falls, whatever is in it [tokho] shall be impure, and it you shall break鈥 (Leviticus 11:33); if an impure item fell 鈥渋n it [tokho],鈥 and even in a case where the impure item did not come into contact with the vessel, the vessel becomes impure.

讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞讙注 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 谞讙注 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讘谉 讗讘讟讜诇诪讜住 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪专 转讜讻讜 诇讟诪讗 讜谞讗诪专 转讜讻讜 诇讬讟诪讗 诪讛 转讜讻讜 讛讗诪讜专 诇讟诪讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞讙注 讗祝 转讜讻讜 讛讗诪讜专 诇讬讟诪讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞讙注

The baraita continues: Do you say that it is impure even if the impure item did not come into contact with the vessel, or perhaps it is impure only if it did come into contact with the vessel? Rabbi Yonatan ben Avtolemos says: Tokho is stated with regard to transmitting impurity to food in its airspace, as it is stated: 鈥淲hatever is in it [tokho] shall be impure,鈥 and tokho is stated with regard to becoming impure, as it is stated: 鈥淚nto which [tokho] any of them falls鈥; just as in the case of tokho that is stated with regard to transmitting impurity to food in its airspace, the food is impure even if the impure item did not come into contact with the vessel, so too, in the case of tokho that is stated with regard to the vessel becoming impure, the vessel is impure even if the impure item did not come into contact with it.

讜讛转诐 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讛转讜专讛 讛注讬讚讛 注诇 讻诇讬 讞专住

The Gemara asks: And there, with regard to rendering food impure in its airspace, from where do we derive that the food becomes impure even if it did not come into contact with the impure vessel? Rabbi Yonatan said: The Torah testified about an earthenware vessel

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Chullin 24

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 24

讗诪专 拽专讗 讜砖讞讟 讜讞讜拽讛 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讗讬谉 讘注专讬驻讛 诇讗

The Gemara answers that the verse states with regard to the red heifer: 鈥淎nd he shall slaughter it鈥 (Numbers 19:3), and it mentions the term statute: 鈥淭his is the statute of the Torah鈥 (Numbers 19:2), indicating that with slaughter, yes, the red heifer is rendered fit; with breaking the neck, the red heifer is not rendered fit.

讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讞讜拽讛 诇讗 讚专砖讬谞谉 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜讛讗 讙讘讬 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讞讜拽讛 讜转谞讬讗 讜注砖讛讜 讞讟讗转 讛讙讜专诇 注讜砖讛 讞讟讗转 讜讗讬谉 讛砖诐 注讜砖讛 讞讟讗转

The Gemara asks: And is it so that anywhere that statute is written with regard to a certain matter, we do not learn an a fortiori inference? But what about Yom Kippur, with regard to which statute is written: 鈥淎nd this shall be an everlasting statute unto you鈥 (Leviticus 16:34), and nevertheless it is taught in a baraita: 鈥淎nd Aaron shall bring forward the goat upon which the lot came up for the Lord, and he shall offer it for a sin offering鈥 (Leviticus 16:9). The verse indicates that the lottery renders the goat a sin offering, but a verbal designation of the goat with the status of a sin offering does not render it a sin offering.

砖讬讻讜诇 讜讛诇讗 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖诇讗 拽讚砖 讛讙讜专诇 拽讚砖 讛砖诐 诪拽讜诐 砖拽讚砖 讛讙讜专诇 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖拽讚砖 讛砖诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜注砖讛讜 讞讟讗转 讛讙讜专诇 注讜砖讛 讞讟讗转 讜讗讬谉 讛砖诐 注讜砖讛 讞讟讗转

The baraita continues: A verse is necessary to teach this halakha, as one might have thought that the opposite conclusion is correct: Could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference: If in a case where the lottery does not sanctify the animal with a specific designation, such as in the case of two birds brought by a woman after childbirth, and nevertheless a verbal designation of that offering sanctifies it, in a case where the lottery sanctifies the animal on Yom Kippur, isn鈥檛 it logical that a verbal designation as a sin offering sanctifies it? Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd render it a sin offering;鈥 the lottery renders the goat a sin offering, but a verbal designation of a sin offering does not render the goat a sin offering.

讟注诪讗 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜注砖讛讜 讞讟讗转 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讚专砖讬谞谉 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专

The Gemara infers: The reason that the a fortiori inference is not learned is that the Merciful One writes: 鈥淎nd he shall offer it for a sin offering.鈥 But otherwise we would learn an a fortiori inference, despite the fact that statute is written with regard to the Yom Kippur service.

诪讬注讟 专讞诪谞讗 讙讘讬 注讙诇讛 讛注专讜驻讛 讝讗转 讘注专讬驻讛 讜讗讬谉 讗讞专转 讘注专讬驻讛

The Gemara explains: Actually, one may learn an a fortiori inference even in a case where statute is written. Nevertheless, with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken, the Merciful One restricts the use of breaking the neck: 鈥淎nd all the Elders of that city鈥hall wash their hands over the heifer whose neck is broken鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:6). From the relative pronoun 鈥渨hose鈥 it is derived: This heifer is killed by breaking the neck, but no other, i.e., the red heifer, is killed by breaking the neck.

讜转讛讗 注讙诇讛 讻砖专讛 讘砖讞讬讟讛 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 驻专讛 砖诇讗 讛讜讻砖专讛 讘注专讬驻讛 讻砖专讛 讘砖讞讬讟讛 注讙诇讛 砖讻砖专讛 讘注专讬驻讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讛讜讻砖专讛 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜注专驻讜 讛注讙诇讛 讘注专讬驻讛 讗讬谉 讘砖讞讬讟讛 诇讗

The Gemara challenges: And let it be derived that the heifer whose neck is broken is rendered fit with slaughter by means of an a fortiori inference: If a red heifer, which is not rendered fit with breaking the neck, is rendered fit with slaughter, then with regard to a heifer whose neck is broken, which is rendered fit with breaking the neck, isn鈥檛 it logical that it is rendered fit with slaughter? The Gemara responds that the verse states: 鈥淎nd shall break the neck of the heifer there in the valley鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:4). The doubled reference to breaking the neck in the two verses indicates that by breaking the neck, yes, the heifer may be killed; by slaughter, the heifer may not be killed.

诪转谞讬壮 讻砖专 讘讻讛谞讬诐 驻住讜诇 讘诇讜讬诐 讻砖专 讘诇讜讬诐 驻住讜诇 讘讻讛谞讬诐

MISHNA: There is an element with which priests remain fit and Levites are unfit, and there is also an element with which Levites remain fit and priests are unfit.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讛谞讬诐 讘诪讜诪讬谉 驻住讜诇讬诐 讘砖谞讬诐 讻砖专讬诐 诇讜讬诐 讘诪讜诪讬谉 讻砖专讬诐 讘砖谞讬诐 驻住讜诇讬诐 谞诪爪讗 讻砖专 讘讻讛谞讬诐 驻住讜诇 讘诇讜讬诐 讻砖专 讘诇讜讬诐 驻住讜诇 讘讻讛谞讬诐

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita in explanation of the mishna: Priests are rendered unfit for Temple service with the blemishes enumerated in the Torah (see Leviticus 21:16鈥23), but remain fit with the passage of years, as from the moment that they reach majority they are fit for service for the rest of their lives. Levites remain fit for Temple service with the blemishes enumerated in the Torah but are unfit with the passage of years, as they are fit for service only between the ages of thirty and fifty (see Numbers 4:47). It is found that there is an element with which priests remain fit and Levites are unfit, and there is an element with which Levites remain fit and priests are unfit.

诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讝讗转 讗砖专 诇诇讜讬诐 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 讜诪讘谉 讞诪砖讬诐 砖谞讛 讬砖讜讘 诇诪讚谞讜 诇诇讜讬诐 砖讛砖谞讬诐 驻讜住诇讬谉 讘讛诐 讬讻讜诇 诪讜诪讬谉 驻讜住诇讬谉 讘讛诐 讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 讻讛谞讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讛砖谞讬诐 驻讜住诇讬谉 讘讛谉 诪讜诪讬谉 驻讜住诇讬谉 讘讛谉 诇讜讬诐 砖讛砖谞讬诐 驻讜住诇讬谉 讘讛诐 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬讛讜 诪讜诪讬谉 驻讜住诇讬谉 讘讛诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讝讗转 讗砖专 诇诇讜讬诐 讝讗转 诇诇讜讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讗讞专转 诇诇讜讬诐

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: It is as the Sages taught in a baraita: 鈥淭his is that which pertains to the Levites鈥 (Numbers 8:24); why must the verse state this? Since it is stated: 鈥淎nd from the age of fifty years he shall return from the service鈥 (Numbers 8:25), we learned with regard to the Levites that the passage of years disqualifies them. One might have thought that blemishes disqualify them too. And ostensibly, it could be learned through logical inference: If priests, with regard to whom the passage of years does not disqualify them, blemishes disqualify them, then in the case of Levites, with regard to whom the passage of years disqualifies them, isn鈥檛 it logical that blemishes disqualify them? Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭his is that which pertains to the Levites,鈥 from which it is derived: 鈥淭his,鈥 the passage of years, is a disqualification that pertains to the Levites, and there is no other disqualification that pertains to the Levites.

讬讻讜诇 讬讛讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 驻住讜诇讬谉 讘砖谞讬诐 讜讛诇讗 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 诇讜讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讜诪讬谉 驻讜住诇讬谉 讘讛诐 砖谞讬诐 驻讜住诇讬谉 讘讛诐 讻讛谞讬诐 砖讛诪讜诪讬谉 驻讜住诇讬谉 讘讛诐 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬讛讜 砖谞讬诐 驻讜住诇讬谉 讘讛诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 诇诇讜讬诐 讜诇讗 讗砖专 诇讻讛谞讬诐

One might have thought that priests would be disqualified with the passage of years. And ostensibly, could this not be derived through the following a fortiori inference: If Levites, with regard to whom blemishes do not disqualify them, the passage of years disqualifies them, then in the case of priests, with regard to whom blemishes disqualify them, isn鈥檛 it logical that the passage of years disqualifies them? Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淲hich pertains to the Levites,鈥 and not which pertains to the priests.

讬讻讜诇 讗祝 讘砖讬诇讛 讜讘讘讬转 注讜诇诪讬诐 讻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇注讘讚 注讘讚转 注讘讜讚讛 讜注讘讚转 诪砖讗 诇讗 讗诪专转讬 讗诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讛注讘讜讚讛 讘讻转祝

One might have thought that the Levites were disqualified with the passage of years even in Shiloh, the permanent place of the Tabernacle, and in the eternal Temple. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭o perform the work of service, and the work of bearing burdens鈥 (Numbers 4:47), juxtaposing the two forms of Levite service to teach: I stated the disqualification of the passage of years only at a time when there is Levite service involving carrying the Tabernacle on their shoulders.

讻转讜讘 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 诪讘谉 讞诪砖 讜注砖专讬诐 砖谞讛 讜诪注诇讛 讜讻转讜讘 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 诪讘谉 砖诇砖讬诐 讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讜诪专 砖诇砖讬诐 砖讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讞诪砖 讜注砖专讬诐 讜讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讜诪专 讞诪砖 讜注砖专讬诐 砖讻讘专 谞讗诪专 砖诇砖讬诐 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讞诪砖 讜注砖专讬诐 诇转诇诪讜讚 讜砖诇砖讬诐 诇注讘讜讚讛

The baraita notes that one verse states: 鈥淔rom twenty-five years old and upward鈥 (Numbers 8:24), and one verse states: 鈥淔rom thirty years old and upward鈥 (Numbers 4:47). It is impossible to say thirty, as twenty-five is already stated, and it is impossible to say twenty-five, as thirty is already stated. How can these verses be reconciled? Twenty-five years old is the time for apprenticeship and thirty for service.

诪讻讗谉 诇转诇诪讬讚 砖诇讗 专讗讛 住讬诪谉 讬驻讛 讘诪砖谞转讜 讞诪砖 砖谞讬诐 砖讜讘 讗讬谞讜 专讜讗讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜诇讙讚诇诐 砖谞讬诐 砖诇砖 讜诇诇诪讚诐 住驻专 讜诇砖讜谉 讻砖讚讬诐

From here it is derived that a student who did not see a positive indication in his studies after five years will no longer see a productive result from those studies. Rabbi Yosei says that the period is three years, as it is stated with regard to Daniel and his cohort who instructed the king of Babylonia: 鈥淎nd they should be raised three years鈥 (Daniel 1:5), 鈥渁nd he should teach them the books and the language of the Chaldeans鈥 (Daniel 1:4).

讜讗讬讚讱 砖讗谞讬 诇砖讜谉 讻砖讚讬诐 讚拽诇讬诇 讜讗讬讚讱 砖讗谞讬 讛诇讻讜转 注讘讜讚讛 讚转拽讬驻讬谉

The Gemara asks: And how does the other tanna explain the verses in Daniel? The Gemara answers: He holds that the verses in Daniel cannot be cited as a source for this principle because the language of the Chaldeans is different, as it is easy and can be learned in a shorter period. The Gemara asks: And how does the other tanna, Rabbi Yosei, explain the verses with regard to the Levites? The Gemara answers: He holds that the halakhot of Temple service are different, as they are difficult and require a longer period of study.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讘讬讗 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 注讚 砖讬讝拽讬谉 讻砖专 诇注讘讜讚讛 讜诪讜诪讬谉 驻讜住诇讬谉 讘讜 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪讘谉 砖诇砖讬诐 讜注讚 讘谉 讞诪砖讬诐 讻砖专 诇注讘讜讚讛 讜砖谞讬诐 驻讜住诇讬谉 讘讜 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 砖讘诪讚讘专 讗讘诇 讘砖讬诇讛 讜讘讘讬转 注讜诇诪讬诐 讗讬谉 谞驻住诇讬谉 讗诇讗 讘拽讜诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讗讬 拽专讗

The Sages taught in a baraita: A priest, from the time he reaches puberty and grows two pubic hairs until he ages, is fit for Temple service, and blemishes disqualify him. A Levite from the age of thirty until the age of fifty is fit for Temple service, and the passage of years disqualifies him. In what case is this statement said? It is said with regard to the Tent of Meeting of the Tabernacle in the wilderness. But with regard to Shiloh and in the eternal Temple, Levites are disqualified only due to a change in voice that renders them unable to recite the songs in the Temple with their brethren. Rabbi Yosei said: What is the verse from which this is derived?

讜讬讛讬 讻讗讞讚 诇诪讞爪爪专讬诐 讜诇诪砖专专讬诐 诇讛砖诪讬注 拽讜诇 讗讞讚

鈥淚t came to pass, when the trumpeters and singers were as one, to make one sound to be heard鈥 (II聽Chronicles 5:13). This indicates that the Levites must be capable of singing in one voice, and one who is unable to do so is unfit for service.

注讚 砖讬讝拽讬谉 注讚 讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 注讚 砖讬专转转

The baraita teaches that the priest is eligible for service until he ages. The Gemara asks: Until when, i.e., what is the definition of aging in this context? Rabbi Ela says that Rabbi 岣nina says: Until his hands and feet begin to tremble.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讘注诇 拽专讬 砖讟讘诇 讜诇讗 讛讟讬诇 诪讬诐 诇讻砖讬讟讬诇 讟诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讘讞讜诇讛 讜讘讝拽谉 讟诪讗 讘讬诇讚 讜讘讘专讬讗 讟讛讜专

We learned in a mishna there (Mikvaot 8:4): With regard to one who experienced a seminal emission who then immersed in a ritual bath and did not urinate before immersing, when he urinates he is ritually impure, because residue of the semen remain in his body and was discharged with the urine, rendering him impure. Rabbi Yosei says: In the case of an ill person and an elderly person, he is ritually impure; in the case of a young person and a healthy person, he is ritually pure, as the semen was presumably discharged in its entirety at the outset.

讬诇讚 注讚 讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讻诇 砖注讜诪讚 注诇 专讙诇讜 讗讞转 讜讞讜诇抓 诪谞注诇讜 讜谞讜注诇 诪谞注诇讜 讗诪专讜 注诇讬讜 注诇 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 砖讛讬讛 讘谉 砖诪讜谞讬诐 砖谞讛 讜讛讬讛 注讜诪讚 注诇 专讙诇讜 讗讞转 讜讞讜诇抓 诪谞注诇讜 讜谞讜注诇 诪谞注诇讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讞诪讬谉 讜砖诪谉 砖住讻转谞讬 讗诪讬 讘讬诇讚讜转讬 讛谉 注诪讚讜 诇讬 讘注转 讝拽谞讜转讬

Until when is one considered a young person? Rabbi Ela says that Rabbi 岣nina says: Anyone who is able to stand on one of his legs and remove his shoe or put on his shoe is considered young. They said about Rabbi 岣nina that he was eighty years old and would stand on one of his legs and remove his shoe or put on his shoe. Rabbi 岣nina says: The hot water and oil that my mother smeared on me in my youth benefited me in my old age.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞转诪诇讗 讝拽谞讜 专讗讜讬 诇讬注砖讜转 砖诇讬讞 爪讬讘讜专 讜诇讬专讚 诇驻谞讬 讛转讬讘讛 讜诇讬砖讗 讗转 讻驻讬讜 诪讗讬诪转讬 讻砖专 诇注讘讜讚讛 诪砖讬讘讬讗 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗讜诪专 讗谞讬 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘谉 注砖专讬诐

The Sages taught: If one鈥檚 beard is fully grown, he is fit to be appointed an emissary of the community for various matters, and to descend before the ark as a prayer leader, and to lift his hands for the Priestly Benediction. From when is a priest fit for Temple service? It is from the time he reaches puberty and grows two pubic hairs. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say that he is not fit for Temple service until he is twenty years of age.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬注诪讬讚讜 [讗转] 讛诇讜讬诐 诪讘谉 注砖专讬诐 砖谞讛 讜诪注诇讛 诇谞爪讞 注诇 诪诇讗讻转 讘讬转 讛壮 讜讗讬讚讱 诇谞爪讞 砖讗谞讬

Rav 岣sda said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? The reason is as it is written: 鈥淎nd appointed the Levites, from twenty years old and upward, to oversee of the work of the House of the Lord鈥 (Ezra 3:8). And what does the other tanna hold? He holds that to oversee is different and requires an older priest.

讜讛讗 讛讗讬 拽专讗 讘诇讜讬诐 讻转讬讘 讻讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讘注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 诪拽讜诪讜转 谞拽专讗讜 讻讛谞讬诐 诇讜讬诐 讜讝讛 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讜讛讻讛谞讬诐 讛诇讜讬诐 讘谞讬 爪讚讜拽

The Gemara asks: But what proof can be cited from this verse with regard to priests; isn鈥檛 that verse written with regard to Levites? The Gemara answers: It is understood in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: In twenty-four places in the Bible the priests are called Levites. And this is one of those verses: 鈥淎nd the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok鈥 (Ezekiel 44:15). The verse in Ezra is another one of the verses.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬砖 诪讝专注讱 诇讚专转诐 诪讻讗谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 拽讟谉 驻住讜诇 诇注讘讜讚讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 转诐 诪讗讬诪转讬 讻砖专 诇注讘讜讚讛 诪砖讬讘讬讗 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 讗讘诇 讗讞讬讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讗讬谉 诪谞讬讞讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇注讘讜讚 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘谉 注砖专讬诐

The Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淎ny man of your descendants throughout their generations that has a blemish shall not approach to offer the bread of his God鈥 (Leviticus 21:17); from here Rabbi Elazar says: A minor priest is unfit for Temple service, even if he is unblemished, as he is not a man. From when is he fit for service? From the time he reaches puberty and grows two pubic hairs. But his brethren the priests do not allow him to perform the service until he is twenty years of age.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛讗 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 驻住讜诇 讚专讘谞谉 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 专讘讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 驻住讜诇 诪讚专讘谞谉 讜讛讗 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讜诇讻转讞诇讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讗讘诇 讚讬注讘讚 注讘讜讚转讜 讻砖专讛

There are those who say: This is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and he is of the opinion that there is no disqualification for one between puberty and twenty years of age even by rabbinic law. The other priests simply do not allow priests of that age to perform the Temple service ab initio. And there are those who say: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is of the opinion that there is disqualification by rabbinic law in that case, and this statement in the baraita is the opinion of the Rabbis, and they hold that it is ab initio that one may not perform the service, but after the fact, his service is valid.

诪转谞讬壮 讟讛讜专 讘讻诇讬 讞专砖 讟诪讗 讘讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 讟讛讜专 讘讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 讟诪讗 讘讻诇讬 讞专砖

MISHNA: That which is ritually pure in an earthenware vessel is ritually impure in all the other types of vessels; that which is ritually pure in all the other types of vessels is ritually impure in an earthenware vessel.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讜讬专 讻诇讬 讞专砖 讟诪讗 讜讙讘讜 讟讛讜专 讗讜讬专 讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 讟讛讜专 讜讙讘谉 讟诪讗 谞诪爪讗 讟讛讜专 讘讻诇讬 讞专砖 讟诪讗 讘讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 讟讛讜专 讘讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 讟诪讗 讘讻诇讬 讞专砖

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita explaining the mishna: If a primary source of ritual impurity fell into the airspace of an earthenware vessel the vessel is ritually impure, and if it fell on its outer side, the vessel is ritually pure. If a primary source of ritual impurity fell into the airspace of all the other types of vessels, the vessels are ritually pure, and if it fell on their outer side, they are ritually impure. It is found that that which is ritually pure in an earthenware vessel is ritually impure in all the other vessels, and that which is ritually pure in all the other vessels is ritually impure in an earthenware vessel.

诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 转讜讻讜 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞讙注

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? It is as the Sages taught in a baraita based on the verse: 鈥淎nd every earthenware vessel into which [tokho] any of them falls, whatever is in it [tokho] shall be impure, and it you shall break鈥 (Leviticus 11:33); if an impure item fell 鈥渋n it [tokho],鈥 and even in a case where the impure item did not come into contact with the vessel, the vessel becomes impure.

讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞讙注 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 谞讙注 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讘谉 讗讘讟讜诇诪讜住 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪专 转讜讻讜 诇讟诪讗 讜谞讗诪专 转讜讻讜 诇讬讟诪讗 诪讛 转讜讻讜 讛讗诪讜专 诇讟诪讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞讙注 讗祝 转讜讻讜 讛讗诪讜专 诇讬讟诪讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞讙注

The baraita continues: Do you say that it is impure even if the impure item did not come into contact with the vessel, or perhaps it is impure only if it did come into contact with the vessel? Rabbi Yonatan ben Avtolemos says: Tokho is stated with regard to transmitting impurity to food in its airspace, as it is stated: 鈥淲hatever is in it [tokho] shall be impure,鈥 and tokho is stated with regard to becoming impure, as it is stated: 鈥淚nto which [tokho] any of them falls鈥; just as in the case of tokho that is stated with regard to transmitting impurity to food in its airspace, the food is impure even if the impure item did not come into contact with the vessel, so too, in the case of tokho that is stated with regard to the vessel becoming impure, the vessel is impure even if the impure item did not come into contact with it.

讜讛转诐 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讛转讜专讛 讛注讬讚讛 注诇 讻诇讬 讞专住

The Gemara asks: And there, with regard to rendering food impure in its airspace, from where do we derive that the food becomes impure even if it did not come into contact with the impure vessel? Rabbi Yonatan said: The Torah testified about an earthenware vessel

Scroll To Top