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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 21, 2018 | ื™ืดื’ ื‘ื˜ื‘ืช ืชืฉืขืดื˜

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Chullin 24

Differences in laws of priests and levitesย and between earthenware vessels and other vessels.


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

ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ืฉื—ื˜ ื•ื—ื•ืงื” ื‘ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืขืจื™ืคื” ืœื

The Gemara answers that the verse states with regard to the red heifer: โ€œAnd he shall slaughter itโ€ (Numbers 19:3), and it mentions the term statute: โ€œThis is the statute of the Torahโ€ (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.

ื•ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื™ื” ื—ื•ืงื” ืœื ื“ืจืฉื™ื ืŸ ืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ ื•ื”ื ื’ื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื™ื” ื—ื•ืงื” ื•ืชื ื™ื ื•ืขืฉื”ื• ื—ื˜ืืช ื”ื’ื•ืจืœ ืขื•ืฉื” ื—ื˜ืืช ื•ืื™ืŸ ื”ืฉื ืขื•ืฉื” ื—ื˜ืืช

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: โ€œAnd this shall be an everlasting statute unto youโ€ (Leviticus 16:34), and nevertheless it is taught in a baraita: โ€œAnd Aaron shall bring forward the goat upon which the lot came up for the Lord, and he shall offer it for a sin offeringโ€ (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.

ืฉื™ื›ื•ืœ ื•ื”ืœื ื“ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื•ืžื” ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืฉืœื ืงื“ืฉ ื”ื’ื•ืจืœ ืงื“ืฉ ื”ืฉื ืžืงื•ื ืฉืงื“ืฉ ื”ื’ื•ืจืœ ืื™ื ื• ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉืงื“ืฉ ื”ืฉื ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื•ืขืฉื”ื• ื—ื˜ืืช ื”ื’ื•ืจืœ ืขื•ืฉื” ื—ื˜ืืช ื•ืื™ืŸ ื”ืฉื ืขื•ืฉื” ื—ื˜ืืช

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, isnโ€™t it logical that a verbal designation as a sin offering sanctifies it? Therefore, the verse states: โ€œAnd render it a sin offering;โ€ the lottery renders the goat a sin offering, but a verbal designation of a sin offering does not render the goat a sin offering.

ื˜ืขืžื ื“ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ื•ืขืฉื”ื• ื—ื˜ืืช ื”ื ืœืื• ื”ื›ื™ ื“ืจืฉื™ื ืŸ ืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ

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

ืžื™ืขื˜ ืจื—ืžื ื ื’ื‘ื™ ืขื’ืœื” ื”ืขืจื•ืคื” ื–ืืช ื‘ืขืจื™ืคื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ืื—ืจืช ื‘ืขืจื™ืคื”

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: โ€œAnd all the Elders of that cityโ€ฆshall wash their hands over the heifer whose neck is brokenโ€ (Deuteronomy 21:6). From the relative pronoun โ€œwhoseโ€ 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.

ื•ืชื”ื ืขื’ืœื” ื›ืฉืจื” ื‘ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืžืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ ื•ืžื” ืคืจื” ืฉืœื ื”ื•ื›ืฉืจื” ื‘ืขืจื™ืคื” ื›ืฉืจื” ื‘ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืขื’ืœื” ืฉื›ืฉืจื” ื‘ืขืจื™ืคื” ืื™ื ื• ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉื”ื•ื›ืฉืจื” ื‘ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ืขืจืคื• ื”ืขื’ืœื” ื‘ืขืจื™ืคื” ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืœื

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, isnโ€™t it logical that it is rendered fit with slaughter? The Gemara responds that the verse states: โ€œAnd shall break the neck of the heifer there in the valleyโ€ (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.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื›ืฉืจ ื‘ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืคืกื•ืœ ื‘ืœื•ื™ื ื›ืฉืจ ื‘ืœื•ื™ื ืคืกื•ืœ ื‘ื›ื”ื ื™ื

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.

ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื‘ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ืคืกื•ืœื™ื ื‘ืฉื ื™ื ื›ืฉืจื™ื ืœื•ื™ื ื‘ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ื›ืฉืจื™ื ื‘ืฉื ื™ื ืคืกื•ืœื™ื ื ืžืฆื ื›ืฉืจ ื‘ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืคืกื•ืœ ื‘ืœื•ื™ื ื›ืฉืจ ื‘ืœื•ื™ื ืคืกื•ืœ ื‘ื›ื”ื ื™ื

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 21:16โ€“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.

ืžื ื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื“ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื–ืืช ืืฉืจ ืœืœื•ื™ื ืžื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืœืคื™ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืžื‘ืŸ ื—ืžืฉื™ื ืฉื ื” ื™ืฉื•ื‘ ืœืžื“ื ื• ืœืœื•ื™ื ืฉื”ืฉื ื™ื ืคื•ืกืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ื ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ืคื•ืกืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ื ื•ื“ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื•ืžื” ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ื”ืฉื ื™ื ืคื•ืกืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ืคื•ืกืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืœื•ื™ื ืฉื”ืฉื ื™ื ืคื•ืกืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ื ืื™ื ื• ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉื™ื”ื• ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ืคื•ืกืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ื ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื–ืืช ืืฉืจ ืœืœื•ื™ื ื–ืืช ืœืœื•ื™ื ื•ืื™ืŸ ืื—ืจืช ืœืœื•ื™ื

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: It is as the Sages taught in a baraita: โ€œThis is that which pertains to the Levitesโ€ (Numbers 8:24); why must the verse state this? Since it is stated: โ€œAnd from the age of fifty years he shall return from the serviceโ€ (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, isnโ€™t it logical that blemishes disqualify them? Therefore, the verse states: โ€œThis is that which pertains to the Levites,โ€ from which it is derived: โ€œThis,โ€ the passage of years, is a disqualification that pertains to the Levites, and there is no other disqualification that pertains to the Levites.

ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื™ื”ื• ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืคืกื•ืœื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉื ื™ื ื•ื”ืœื ื“ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื•ืžื” ืœื•ื™ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ืคื•ืกืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ื ืฉื ื™ื ืคื•ืกืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ื ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืฉื”ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ืคื•ืกืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ื ืื™ื ื• ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉื™ื”ื• ืฉื ื™ื ืคื•ืกืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ื ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืืฉืจ ืœืœื•ื™ื ื•ืœื ืืฉืจ ืœื›ื”ื ื™ื

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, isnโ€™t it logical that the passage of years disqualifies them? Therefore, the verse states: โ€œWhich pertains to the Levites,โ€ and not which pertains to the priests.

ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืืฃ ื‘ืฉื™ืœื” ื•ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ืขื•ืœืžื™ื ื›ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืœืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ื“ืช ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื•ืขื‘ื“ืช ืžืฉื ืœื ืืžืจืชื™ ืืœื ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื”ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื‘ื›ืชืฃ

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: โ€œTo perform the work of service, and the work of bearing burdensโ€ (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.

ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืื—ื“ ืื•ืžืจ ืžื‘ืŸ ื—ืžืฉ ื•ืขืฉืจื™ื ืฉื ื” ื•ืžืขืœื” ื•ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืื—ื“ ืื•ืžืจ ืžื‘ืŸ ืฉืœืฉื™ื ืื™ ืืคืฉืจ ืœื•ืžืจ ืฉืœืฉื™ื ืฉื›ื‘ืจ ื ืืžืจ ื—ืžืฉ ื•ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ืื™ ืืคืฉืจ ืœื•ืžืจ ื—ืžืฉ ื•ืขืฉืจื™ื ืฉื›ื‘ืจ ื ืืžืจ ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื”ื ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื—ืžืฉ ื•ืขืฉืจื™ื ืœืชืœืžื•ื“ ื•ืฉืœืฉื™ื ืœืขื‘ื•ื“ื”

The baraita notes that one verse states: โ€œFrom twenty-five years old and upwardโ€ (Numbers 8:24), and one verse states: โ€œFrom thirty years old and upwardโ€ (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.

ืžื›ืืŸ ืœืชืœืžื™ื“ ืฉืœื ืจืื” ืกื™ืžืŸ ื™ืคื” ื‘ืžืฉื ืชื• ื—ืžืฉ ืฉื ื™ื ืฉื•ื‘ ืื™ื ื• ืจื•ืื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืœืฉ ืฉื ื™ื ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืœื’ื“ืœื ืฉื ื™ื ืฉืœืฉ ื•ืœืœืžื“ื ืกืคืจ ื•ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื›ืฉื“ื™ื

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: โ€œAnd they should be raised three yearsโ€ (Daniel 1:5), โ€œand he should teach them the books and the language of the Chaldeansโ€ (Daniel 1:4).

ื•ืื™ื“ืš ืฉืื ื™ ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื›ืฉื“ื™ื ื“ืงืœื™ืœ ื•ืื™ื“ืš ืฉืื ื™ ื”ืœื›ื•ืช ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื“ืชืงื™ืคื™ืŸ

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.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื›ื”ืŸ ืžืฉื™ื‘ื™ื ืฉืชื™ ืฉืขืจื•ืช ืขื“ ืฉื™ื–ืงื™ืŸ ื›ืฉืจ ืœืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื•ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ืคื•ืกืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืžื‘ืŸ ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื•ืขื“ ื‘ืŸ ื—ืžืฉื™ื ื›ืฉืจ ืœืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื•ืฉื ื™ื ืคื•ืกืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ื‘ืžื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืืžื•ืจื™ื ื‘ืื”ืœ ืžื•ืขื“ ืฉื‘ืžื“ื‘ืจ ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืฉื™ืœื” ื•ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ืขื•ืœืžื™ื ืื™ืŸ ื ืคืกืœื™ืŸ ืืœื ื‘ืงื•ืœ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืžืื™ ืงืจื

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?

ื•ื™ื”ื™ ื›ืื—ื“ ืœืžื—ืฆืฆืจื™ื ื•ืœืžืฉืจืจื™ื ืœื”ืฉืžื™ืข ืงื•ืœ ืื—ื“

โ€œIt came to pass, when the trumpeters and singers were as one, to make one sound to be heardโ€ (IIย 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.

ืขื“ ืฉื™ื–ืงื™ืŸ ืขื“ ื›ืžื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืขื“ ืฉื™ืจืชืช

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 แธคanina says: Until his hands and feet begin to tremble.

ืชื ืŸ ื”ืชื ื‘ืขืœ ืงืจื™ ืฉื˜ื‘ืœ ื•ืœื ื”ื˜ื™ืœ ืžื™ื ืœื›ืฉื™ื˜ื™ืœ ื˜ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื—ื•ืœื” ื•ื‘ื–ืงืŸ ื˜ืžื ื‘ื™ืœื“ ื•ื‘ื‘ืจื™ื ื˜ื”ื•ืจ

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.

ื™ืœื“ ืขื“ ื›ืžื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื›ืœ ืฉืขื•ืžื“ ืขืœ ืจื’ืœื• ืื—ืช ื•ื—ื•ืœืฅ ืžื ืขืœื• ื•ื ื•ืขืœ ืžื ืขืœื• ืืžืจื• ืขืœื™ื• ืขืœ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืฉื”ื™ื” ื‘ืŸ ืฉืžื•ื ื™ื ืฉื ื” ื•ื”ื™ื” ืขื•ืžื“ ืขืœ ืจื’ืœื• ืื—ืช ื•ื—ื•ืœืฅ ืžื ืขืœื• ื•ื ื•ืขืœ ืžื ืขืœื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื—ืžื™ืŸ ื•ืฉืžืŸ ืฉืกื›ืชื ื™ ืืžื™ ื‘ื™ืœื“ื•ืชื™ ื”ืŸ ืขืžื“ื• ืœื™ ื‘ืขืช ื–ืงื ื•ืชื™

Until when is one considered a young person? Rabbi Ela says that Rabbi แธคanina 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 แธคanina that he was eighty years old and would stand on one of his legs and remove his shoe or put on his shoe. Rabbi แธคanina says: The hot water and oil that my mother smeared on me in my youth benefited me in my old age.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื ืชืžืœื ื–ืงื ื• ืจืื•ื™ ืœื™ืขืฉื•ืช ืฉืœื™ื— ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ื•ืœื™ืจื“ ืœืคื ื™ ื”ืชื™ื‘ื” ื•ืœื™ืฉื ืืช ื›ืคื™ื• ืžืื™ืžืชื™ ื›ืฉืจ ืœืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ืžืฉื™ื‘ื™ื ืฉืชื™ ืฉืขืจื•ืช ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืื ื™ ืขื“ ืฉื™ื”ื ื‘ืŸ ืขืฉืจื™ื

The Sages taught: If oneโ€™s 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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ืขืžื™ื“ื• [ืืช] ื”ืœื•ื™ื ืžื‘ืŸ ืขืฉืจื™ื ืฉื ื” ื•ืžืขืœื” ืœื ืฆื— ืขืœ ืžืœืื›ืช ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืณ ื•ืื™ื“ืš ืœื ืฆื— ืฉืื ื™

Rav แธคisda said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? The reason is as it is written: โ€œAnd appointed the Levites, from twenty years old and upward, to oversee of the work of the House of the Lordโ€ (Ezra 3:8). And what does the other tanna hold? He holds that to oversee is different and requires an older priest.

ื•ื”ื ื”ืื™ ืงืจื ื‘ืœื•ื™ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ื‘ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ืืจื‘ืขื” ืžืงื•ืžื•ืช ื ืงืจืื• ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืœื•ื™ื ื•ื–ื” ืื—ื“ ืžื”ืŸ ื•ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื”ืœื•ื™ื ื‘ื ื™ ืฆื“ื•ืง

The Gemara asks: But what proof can be cited from this verse with regard to priests; isnโ€™t 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: โ€œAnd the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadokโ€ (Ezekiel 44:15). The verse in Ezra is another one of the verses.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื™ืฉ ืžื–ืจืขืš ืœื“ืจืชื ืžื›ืืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืงื˜ืŸ ืคืกื•ืœ ืœืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืชื ืžืื™ืžืชื™ ื›ืฉืจ ืœืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ืžืฉื™ื‘ื™ื ืฉืชื™ ืฉืขืจื•ืช ืื‘ืœ ืื—ื™ื• ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืžื ื™ื—ื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืœืขื‘ื•ื“ ืขื“ ืฉื™ื”ื ื‘ืŸ ืขืฉืจื™ื

The Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: โ€œAny man of your descendants throughout their generations that has a blemish shall not approach to offer the bread of his Godโ€ (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.

ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ื”ื™ื ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืคืกื•ืœ ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื•ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืคืกื•ืœ ืžื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ื”ื ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื™ื ื•ืœื›ืชื—ืœื” ื”ื•ื ื“ืœื ืื‘ืœ ื“ื™ืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ื•ื“ืชื• ื›ืฉืจื”

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.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื‘ื›ืœื™ ื—ืจืฉ ื˜ืžื ื‘ื›ืœ ื”ื›ืœื™ื ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื‘ื›ืœ ื”ื›ืœื™ื ื˜ืžื ื‘ื›ืœื™ ื—ืจืฉ

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.

ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื•ื™ืจ ื›ืœื™ ื—ืจืฉ ื˜ืžื ื•ื’ื‘ื• ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืื•ื™ืจ ื›ืœ ื”ื›ืœื™ื ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื•ื’ื‘ืŸ ื˜ืžื ื ืžืฆื ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื‘ื›ืœื™ ื—ืจืฉ ื˜ืžื ื‘ื›ืœ ื”ื›ืœื™ื ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื‘ื›ืœ ื”ื›ืœื™ื ื˜ืžื ื‘ื›ืœื™ ื—ืจืฉ

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.

ืžื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื“ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืชื•ื›ื• ื•ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืœื ื ื’ืข

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

ืืชื” ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืœื ื ื’ืข ืื• ืื™ื ื• ืืœื ืื ื›ืŸ ื ื’ืข ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื ืชืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืื‘ื˜ื•ืœืžื•ืก ืื•ืžืจ ื ืืžืจ ืชื•ื›ื• ืœื˜ืžื ื•ื ืืžืจ ืชื•ื›ื• ืœื™ื˜ืžื ืžื” ืชื•ื›ื• ื”ืืžื•ืจ ืœื˜ืžื ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืœื ื ื’ืข ืืฃ ืชื•ื›ื• ื”ืืžื•ืจ ืœื™ื˜ืžื ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืœื ื ื’ืข

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: โ€œWhatever is in it [tokho] shall be impure,โ€ and tokho is stated with regard to becoming impure, as it is stated: โ€œInto which [tokho] any of them fallsโ€; 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.

ื•ื”ืชื ืžื ืœืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื ืชืŸ ื”ืชื•ืจื” ื”ืขื™ื“ื” ืขืœ ื›ืœื™ ื—ืจืก

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's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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

ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ืฉื—ื˜ ื•ื—ื•ืงื” ื‘ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืขืจื™ืคื” ืœื

The Gemara answers that the verse states with regard to the red heifer: โ€œAnd he shall slaughter itโ€ (Numbers 19:3), and it mentions the term statute: โ€œThis is the statute of the Torahโ€ (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.

ื•ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื™ื” ื—ื•ืงื” ืœื ื“ืจืฉื™ื ืŸ ืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ ื•ื”ื ื’ื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื™ื” ื—ื•ืงื” ื•ืชื ื™ื ื•ืขืฉื”ื• ื—ื˜ืืช ื”ื’ื•ืจืœ ืขื•ืฉื” ื—ื˜ืืช ื•ืื™ืŸ ื”ืฉื ืขื•ืฉื” ื—ื˜ืืช

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: โ€œAnd this shall be an everlasting statute unto youโ€ (Leviticus 16:34), and nevertheless it is taught in a baraita: โ€œAnd Aaron shall bring forward the goat upon which the lot came up for the Lord, and he shall offer it for a sin offeringโ€ (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.

ืฉื™ื›ื•ืœ ื•ื”ืœื ื“ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื•ืžื” ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืฉืœื ืงื“ืฉ ื”ื’ื•ืจืœ ืงื“ืฉ ื”ืฉื ืžืงื•ื ืฉืงื“ืฉ ื”ื’ื•ืจืœ ืื™ื ื• ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉืงื“ืฉ ื”ืฉื ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื•ืขืฉื”ื• ื—ื˜ืืช ื”ื’ื•ืจืœ ืขื•ืฉื” ื—ื˜ืืช ื•ืื™ืŸ ื”ืฉื ืขื•ืฉื” ื—ื˜ืืช

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, isnโ€™t it logical that a verbal designation as a sin offering sanctifies it? Therefore, the verse states: โ€œAnd render it a sin offering;โ€ the lottery renders the goat a sin offering, but a verbal designation of a sin offering does not render the goat a sin offering.

ื˜ืขืžื ื“ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ื•ืขืฉื”ื• ื—ื˜ืืช ื”ื ืœืื• ื”ื›ื™ ื“ืจืฉื™ื ืŸ ืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ

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

ืžื™ืขื˜ ืจื—ืžื ื ื’ื‘ื™ ืขื’ืœื” ื”ืขืจื•ืคื” ื–ืืช ื‘ืขืจื™ืคื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ืื—ืจืช ื‘ืขืจื™ืคื”

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: โ€œAnd all the Elders of that cityโ€ฆshall wash their hands over the heifer whose neck is brokenโ€ (Deuteronomy 21:6). From the relative pronoun โ€œwhoseโ€ 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.

ื•ืชื”ื ืขื’ืœื” ื›ืฉืจื” ื‘ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืžืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ ื•ืžื” ืคืจื” ืฉืœื ื”ื•ื›ืฉืจื” ื‘ืขืจื™ืคื” ื›ืฉืจื” ื‘ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืขื’ืœื” ืฉื›ืฉืจื” ื‘ืขืจื™ืคื” ืื™ื ื• ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉื”ื•ื›ืฉืจื” ื‘ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ืขืจืคื• ื”ืขื’ืœื” ื‘ืขืจื™ืคื” ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืœื

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, isnโ€™t it logical that it is rendered fit with slaughter? The Gemara responds that the verse states: โ€œAnd shall break the neck of the heifer there in the valleyโ€ (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.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื›ืฉืจ ื‘ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืคืกื•ืœ ื‘ืœื•ื™ื ื›ืฉืจ ื‘ืœื•ื™ื ืคืกื•ืœ ื‘ื›ื”ื ื™ื

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.

ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื‘ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ืคืกื•ืœื™ื ื‘ืฉื ื™ื ื›ืฉืจื™ื ืœื•ื™ื ื‘ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ื›ืฉืจื™ื ื‘ืฉื ื™ื ืคืกื•ืœื™ื ื ืžืฆื ื›ืฉืจ ื‘ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืคืกื•ืœ ื‘ืœื•ื™ื ื›ืฉืจ ื‘ืœื•ื™ื ืคืกื•ืœ ื‘ื›ื”ื ื™ื

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 21:16โ€“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.

ืžื ื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื“ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื–ืืช ืืฉืจ ืœืœื•ื™ื ืžื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืœืคื™ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืžื‘ืŸ ื—ืžืฉื™ื ืฉื ื” ื™ืฉื•ื‘ ืœืžื“ื ื• ืœืœื•ื™ื ืฉื”ืฉื ื™ื ืคื•ืกืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ื ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ืคื•ืกืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ื ื•ื“ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื•ืžื” ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ื”ืฉื ื™ื ืคื•ืกืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ืคื•ืกืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืœื•ื™ื ืฉื”ืฉื ื™ื ืคื•ืกืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ื ืื™ื ื• ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉื™ื”ื• ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ืคื•ืกืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ื ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื–ืืช ืืฉืจ ืœืœื•ื™ื ื–ืืช ืœืœื•ื™ื ื•ืื™ืŸ ืื—ืจืช ืœืœื•ื™ื

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: It is as the Sages taught in a baraita: โ€œThis is that which pertains to the Levitesโ€ (Numbers 8:24); why must the verse state this? Since it is stated: โ€œAnd from the age of fifty years he shall return from the serviceโ€ (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, isnโ€™t it logical that blemishes disqualify them? Therefore, the verse states: โ€œThis is that which pertains to the Levites,โ€ from which it is derived: โ€œThis,โ€ the passage of years, is a disqualification that pertains to the Levites, and there is no other disqualification that pertains to the Levites.

ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื™ื”ื• ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืคืกื•ืœื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉื ื™ื ื•ื”ืœื ื“ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื•ืžื” ืœื•ื™ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ืคื•ืกืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ื ืฉื ื™ื ืคื•ืกืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ื ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืฉื”ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ืคื•ืกืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ื ืื™ื ื• ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉื™ื”ื• ืฉื ื™ื ืคื•ืกืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ื ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืืฉืจ ืœืœื•ื™ื ื•ืœื ืืฉืจ ืœื›ื”ื ื™ื

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, isnโ€™t it logical that the passage of years disqualifies them? Therefore, the verse states: โ€œWhich pertains to the Levites,โ€ and not which pertains to the priests.

ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืืฃ ื‘ืฉื™ืœื” ื•ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ืขื•ืœืžื™ื ื›ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืœืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ื“ืช ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื•ืขื‘ื“ืช ืžืฉื ืœื ืืžืจืชื™ ืืœื ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื”ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื‘ื›ืชืฃ

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: โ€œTo perform the work of service, and the work of bearing burdensโ€ (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.

ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืื—ื“ ืื•ืžืจ ืžื‘ืŸ ื—ืžืฉ ื•ืขืฉืจื™ื ืฉื ื” ื•ืžืขืœื” ื•ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืื—ื“ ืื•ืžืจ ืžื‘ืŸ ืฉืœืฉื™ื ืื™ ืืคืฉืจ ืœื•ืžืจ ืฉืœืฉื™ื ืฉื›ื‘ืจ ื ืืžืจ ื—ืžืฉ ื•ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ืื™ ืืคืฉืจ ืœื•ืžืจ ื—ืžืฉ ื•ืขืฉืจื™ื ืฉื›ื‘ืจ ื ืืžืจ ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื”ื ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื—ืžืฉ ื•ืขืฉืจื™ื ืœืชืœืžื•ื“ ื•ืฉืœืฉื™ื ืœืขื‘ื•ื“ื”

The baraita notes that one verse states: โ€œFrom twenty-five years old and upwardโ€ (Numbers 8:24), and one verse states: โ€œFrom thirty years old and upwardโ€ (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.

ืžื›ืืŸ ืœืชืœืžื™ื“ ืฉืœื ืจืื” ืกื™ืžืŸ ื™ืคื” ื‘ืžืฉื ืชื• ื—ืžืฉ ืฉื ื™ื ืฉื•ื‘ ืื™ื ื• ืจื•ืื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืœืฉ ืฉื ื™ื ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืœื’ื“ืœื ืฉื ื™ื ืฉืœืฉ ื•ืœืœืžื“ื ืกืคืจ ื•ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื›ืฉื“ื™ื

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: โ€œAnd they should be raised three yearsโ€ (Daniel 1:5), โ€œand he should teach them the books and the language of the Chaldeansโ€ (Daniel 1:4).

ื•ืื™ื“ืš ืฉืื ื™ ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื›ืฉื“ื™ื ื“ืงืœื™ืœ ื•ืื™ื“ืš ืฉืื ื™ ื”ืœื›ื•ืช ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื“ืชืงื™ืคื™ืŸ

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.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื›ื”ืŸ ืžืฉื™ื‘ื™ื ืฉืชื™ ืฉืขืจื•ืช ืขื“ ืฉื™ื–ืงื™ืŸ ื›ืฉืจ ืœืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื•ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ืคื•ืกืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืžื‘ืŸ ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื•ืขื“ ื‘ืŸ ื—ืžืฉื™ื ื›ืฉืจ ืœืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื•ืฉื ื™ื ืคื•ืกืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ื‘ืžื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืืžื•ืจื™ื ื‘ืื”ืœ ืžื•ืขื“ ืฉื‘ืžื“ื‘ืจ ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืฉื™ืœื” ื•ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ืขื•ืœืžื™ื ืื™ืŸ ื ืคืกืœื™ืŸ ืืœื ื‘ืงื•ืœ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืžืื™ ืงืจื

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?

ื•ื™ื”ื™ ื›ืื—ื“ ืœืžื—ืฆืฆืจื™ื ื•ืœืžืฉืจืจื™ื ืœื”ืฉืžื™ืข ืงื•ืœ ืื—ื“

โ€œIt came to pass, when the trumpeters and singers were as one, to make one sound to be heardโ€ (IIย 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.

ืขื“ ืฉื™ื–ืงื™ืŸ ืขื“ ื›ืžื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืขื“ ืฉื™ืจืชืช

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 แธคanina says: Until his hands and feet begin to tremble.

ืชื ืŸ ื”ืชื ื‘ืขืœ ืงืจื™ ืฉื˜ื‘ืœ ื•ืœื ื”ื˜ื™ืœ ืžื™ื ืœื›ืฉื™ื˜ื™ืœ ื˜ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื—ื•ืœื” ื•ื‘ื–ืงืŸ ื˜ืžื ื‘ื™ืœื“ ื•ื‘ื‘ืจื™ื ื˜ื”ื•ืจ

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.

ื™ืœื“ ืขื“ ื›ืžื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื›ืœ ืฉืขื•ืžื“ ืขืœ ืจื’ืœื• ืื—ืช ื•ื—ื•ืœืฅ ืžื ืขืœื• ื•ื ื•ืขืœ ืžื ืขืœื• ืืžืจื• ืขืœื™ื• ืขืœ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืฉื”ื™ื” ื‘ืŸ ืฉืžื•ื ื™ื ืฉื ื” ื•ื”ื™ื” ืขื•ืžื“ ืขืœ ืจื’ืœื• ืื—ืช ื•ื—ื•ืœืฅ ืžื ืขืœื• ื•ื ื•ืขืœ ืžื ืขืœื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื—ืžื™ืŸ ื•ืฉืžืŸ ืฉืกื›ืชื ื™ ืืžื™ ื‘ื™ืœื“ื•ืชื™ ื”ืŸ ืขืžื“ื• ืœื™ ื‘ืขืช ื–ืงื ื•ืชื™

Until when is one considered a young person? Rabbi Ela says that Rabbi แธคanina 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 แธคanina that he was eighty years old and would stand on one of his legs and remove his shoe or put on his shoe. Rabbi แธคanina says: The hot water and oil that my mother smeared on me in my youth benefited me in my old age.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื ืชืžืœื ื–ืงื ื• ืจืื•ื™ ืœื™ืขืฉื•ืช ืฉืœื™ื— ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ื•ืœื™ืจื“ ืœืคื ื™ ื”ืชื™ื‘ื” ื•ืœื™ืฉื ืืช ื›ืคื™ื• ืžืื™ืžืชื™ ื›ืฉืจ ืœืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ืžืฉื™ื‘ื™ื ืฉืชื™ ืฉืขืจื•ืช ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืื ื™ ืขื“ ืฉื™ื”ื ื‘ืŸ ืขืฉืจื™ื

The Sages taught: If oneโ€™s 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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ืขืžื™ื“ื• [ืืช] ื”ืœื•ื™ื ืžื‘ืŸ ืขืฉืจื™ื ืฉื ื” ื•ืžืขืœื” ืœื ืฆื— ืขืœ ืžืœืื›ืช ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืณ ื•ืื™ื“ืš ืœื ืฆื— ืฉืื ื™

Rav แธคisda said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? The reason is as it is written: โ€œAnd appointed the Levites, from twenty years old and upward, to oversee of the work of the House of the Lordโ€ (Ezra 3:8). And what does the other tanna hold? He holds that to oversee is different and requires an older priest.

ื•ื”ื ื”ืื™ ืงืจื ื‘ืœื•ื™ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ื‘ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ืืจื‘ืขื” ืžืงื•ืžื•ืช ื ืงืจืื• ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืœื•ื™ื ื•ื–ื” ืื—ื“ ืžื”ืŸ ื•ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื”ืœื•ื™ื ื‘ื ื™ ืฆื“ื•ืง

The Gemara asks: But what proof can be cited from this verse with regard to priests; isnโ€™t 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: โ€œAnd the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadokโ€ (Ezekiel 44:15). The verse in Ezra is another one of the verses.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื™ืฉ ืžื–ืจืขืš ืœื“ืจืชื ืžื›ืืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืงื˜ืŸ ืคืกื•ืœ ืœืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืชื ืžืื™ืžืชื™ ื›ืฉืจ ืœืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ืžืฉื™ื‘ื™ื ืฉืชื™ ืฉืขืจื•ืช ืื‘ืœ ืื—ื™ื• ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืžื ื™ื—ื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืœืขื‘ื•ื“ ืขื“ ืฉื™ื”ื ื‘ืŸ ืขืฉืจื™ื

The Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: โ€œAny man of your descendants throughout their generations that has a blemish shall not approach to offer the bread of his Godโ€ (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.

ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ื”ื™ื ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืคืกื•ืœ ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื•ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืคืกื•ืœ ืžื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ื”ื ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื™ื ื•ืœื›ืชื—ืœื” ื”ื•ื ื“ืœื ืื‘ืœ ื“ื™ืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ื•ื“ืชื• ื›ืฉืจื”

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.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื‘ื›ืœื™ ื—ืจืฉ ื˜ืžื ื‘ื›ืœ ื”ื›ืœื™ื ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื‘ื›ืœ ื”ื›ืœื™ื ื˜ืžื ื‘ื›ืœื™ ื—ืจืฉ

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.

ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื•ื™ืจ ื›ืœื™ ื—ืจืฉ ื˜ืžื ื•ื’ื‘ื• ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืื•ื™ืจ ื›ืœ ื”ื›ืœื™ื ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื•ื’ื‘ืŸ ื˜ืžื ื ืžืฆื ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื‘ื›ืœื™ ื—ืจืฉ ื˜ืžื ื‘ื›ืœ ื”ื›ืœื™ื ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื‘ื›ืœ ื”ื›ืœื™ื ื˜ืžื ื‘ื›ืœื™ ื—ืจืฉ

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.

ืžื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื“ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืชื•ื›ื• ื•ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืœื ื ื’ืข

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

ืืชื” ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืœื ื ื’ืข ืื• ืื™ื ื• ืืœื ืื ื›ืŸ ื ื’ืข ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื ืชืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืื‘ื˜ื•ืœืžื•ืก ืื•ืžืจ ื ืืžืจ ืชื•ื›ื• ืœื˜ืžื ื•ื ืืžืจ ืชื•ื›ื• ืœื™ื˜ืžื ืžื” ืชื•ื›ื• ื”ืืžื•ืจ ืœื˜ืžื ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืœื ื ื’ืข ืืฃ ืชื•ื›ื• ื”ืืžื•ืจ ืœื™ื˜ืžื ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืœื ื ื’ืข

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: โ€œWhatever is in it [tokho] shall be impure,โ€ and tokho is stated with regard to becoming impure, as it is stated: โ€œInto which [tokho] any of them fallsโ€; 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.

ื•ื”ืชื ืžื ืœืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื ืชืŸ ื”ืชื•ืจื” ื”ืขื™ื“ื” ืขืœ ื›ืœื™ ื—ืจืก

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