Tamid 27

פרחי כהונה אמרי אין התם דלא מטו למעבד עבודה קרי להו רובים הכא דמטו להו למעבד עבודה קרי להו פרחי

the young men of the priesthood [pirḥei khehunna]? Is there a distinction between these different terms? The Sages say: Yes, there is a distinction. There, with regard to the priests who keep watch in the Chamber of Avtinas and in the Chamber of the Spark, the mishna is referring to priests who have not reached the age at which they are eligible to perform the Temple service, and therefore the tanna calls them young priests. The older priests would not keep watch, as they preferred to perform the Temple service. Here, with regard to the priests who sleep in the Chamber of the Hearth in order to be ready to perform the morning rites, the mishna is referring to priests who have reached the age at which they are eligible to perform the Temple service, and consequently the tanna calls them the young men of the priesthood.

תנן התם בשלשה מקומות הכהנים שומרים בבית המקדש בבית אבטינס ובבית הניצוץ ובבית המוקד

§ We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Middot 1:1): The priests would keep watch in three places in the Temple courtyard: In the Chamber of Avtinas, and in the Chamber of the Spark, and in the Chamber of the Hearth.

והלוים בעשרים ואחד מקומות חמשה על חמשה שערי הר הבית ארבעה על ארבע פנותיו מבפנים חמשה על חמשה שערי עזרה וארבעה על ארבע פנותיו מבחוץ אחד בלשכת הקרבן ואחד בלשכת הפרוכת ואחד אחורי בית הכפורת

And the Levites would keep watch in twenty-one places, as follows: Five upon the five gates of the Temple Mount; four upon the four corners of the Temple Mount, within the wall surrounding the Temple Mount; five upon the five gates of the Temple courtyard, and four upon the four corners of the Temple courtyard outside the courtyard wall, surrounding the Temple courtyard. One watch is observed in the Chamber of the Offering, where animals that had been checked for blemishes were held in readiness for sacrifice; one watch is kept in the Chamber of the Curtain, where the Curtain separating the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies was woven; and finally, one watch is kept behind the Chamber of the Ark Cover, in the area between the Holy of Holies and the western wall of the Temple Mount.

מנהני מילי אמר רב יהודה מסורא ואמרי לה במתניתא תנא דכתיב למזרח הלוים ששה לצפונה לוים ארבעה לנגבה לוים ארבעה ולאספים שנים שנים לפרבר למערב ארבעה למסלה שנים לפרבר

With regard to these twenty-one places where the Levites keep watch, the Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav Yehuda of Sura said, and some say that it was taught in a baraita: This is derived as it is written with regard to the Levites assigned by David to serve as gatekeepers upon the future construction of the Temple: Eastward were six Levites, northward four Levites, southward four Levites, and for the Asuppim two and two. For the Parbar westward, four at the causeway, and two at the Parbar (see I Chronicles 26:17–18).

אמרי הני עשרים וארבעה הוו אמר אביי הכי קאמר לאספים שנים (שנים)

The Sages say that if these verses are the source for the twenty-one places in which the Levites keep watch, that is difficult, as these watches enumerated in the verse are twenty-four in total. Abaye said: This is what the verse is saying: “For the Asuppim two,” and they are always only two. It is not uncommon for a verse to repeat a word for emphasis in this manner, especially at the end of a verse.

אכתי עשרין ותרי הוו היאך דפרבר חד הוה ואחרינא בצוותא הוא דאזיל ויתיב גביה משום דקאי אבראי

The Gemara objects: Even if two locations are removed from the list, according to the verse there are still twenty-two watches, rather than twenty-one. The Gemara explains: That watch, which was situated at the Parbar, was composed of only one watchman, and as for the other Levite mentioned in the verse, it was merely to serve as company that he went and sat with the watchman, due to the fact that the Parbar was situated on the outer side and was isolated from the other watches.

מאי לפרבר אמר רבה בר רב שילא כמאן דאמר כלפי בר

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the term “at the Parbar [laParbar]” (I Chronicles 26:18)? Rabba bar Rav Sheila said: This term is a contraction of two Aramaic words, and it is like one who says: Toward the outside [kelapei bar].

ואיבעית אימא לעולם עשרים וארבעה כדכתיב תלתא מינייהו דכהנים ועשרין וחד דלוים

The Gemara presents an alternative answer to the question with regard to the verse: And if you wish, say instead that actually there are twenty-four watches, and the verse may be interpreted literally as it is written. Three of them are the watches kept by the priests, and the remaining twenty-one are the watches kept by the Levites.

והא הכא לוים הוא דכתיב כרבי יהושע בן לוי דאמר רבי יהושע בן לוי בעשרים וארבעה מקומות נקראו כהנים לוים וזה אחד מהן והכהנים הלוים בני צדוק

The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written here in the verse that all twenty-four watches are kept by the Levites? The Gemara answers: This interpretation is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: In twenty-four places in the Bible the priests are called Levites, and this is one of them: “But the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok, that kept the charge of My Sanctuary when the children of Israel went astray from Me, they shall come near to Me to serve Me” (Ezekiel 44:15).

חמשה על חמשה שערי הר הבית וארבעה על ארבעה פנותיו מתוכו חמשה על חמשה שערי עזרה וארבעה על ארבעה פנותיו מבחוץ מאי שנא הר הבית דעבדינן מתוכו ומאי שנא עזרה דעבדינן מבחוץ

The mishna (Middot 1:1) teaches that five watches are kept upon the five gates of the Temple Mount, and four watches are kept upon the four corners of the Temple Mount within the Temple Mount wall. Five watches are kept upon the five gates of the Temple courtyard, and four are kept upon the four corners of the Temple courtyard outside the courtyard wall, on the Temple Mount. The Gemara asks: What is different with regard to the Temple Mount that we perform the watch within the walls, and what is different with regard to the Temple courtyard that we perform the watch outside its walls?

אמרי הר הבית דאי תמה ובעי מיתב יתיב אמרינן מתוכו עזרה דאי תמה ובעי למיתב לא מצי יתיב דאמר מר אין ישיבה בעזרה אלא למלכי בית דוד בלבד אמרינן מבחוץ

The Sages say: With regard to the watches on the Temple Mount, if the watchman tires and wants to sit down, he may sit down, as it is permitted to sit on the Temple Mount. Therefore, we say that the watch is kept within the Temple Mount. By contrast, if a watch is observed in the Temple courtyard, even if the watchman tires and wants to sit down, he may not sit down, as the Master said: Sitting in the Temple courtyard is permitted only for kings of the house of David. Therefore, we say that the watch is kept outside the walls of the Temple courtyard, so that the watchman may sit down if he wishes.

אמר מר חמשה על חמשה שערי עזרה וחמשה שערים הוא דהוי בעזרה ורמינהי שבעה שערים היו בעזרה שלשה בצפון ושלשה בדרום ואחד במזרח

The Master said above that five watches are kept upon the five gates of the Temple courtyard. The Gemara asks: But was it only five gates that were constructed in the walls of the Temple courtyard? And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Middot 1:4): There were seven gates in the Temple courtyard: Three in the north, and three in the south, and one in the east.

אמר אביי תרי מינייהו לא צריכי שימור רבא אמר תנאי היא דתניא אין פוחתין משלשה עשר גזברין ומשבעה אמרכלין רבי נתן אומר אין פוחתין משלשה עשר גזברין כנגד שלשה עשר שערים דל חמשה דהר הבית פשו להו תמניא דעזרה אלמא איכא תנא דאמר תמניא הוו ואיכא תנא דאמר שבעה ואיכא תנא דאמר חמשה הוו

Abaye said: Although there were seven gates, two of them, the gate to the Chamber of the Spark and the gate to the Chamber of the Hearth, did not require a watch of the Levites, as the priests kept watch there. Rava said: The number of gates is a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: There must be no fewer than thirteen treasurers and seven trustees appointed over the Temple administration. Rabbi Natan says: There must be no fewer than thirteen treasurers, corresponding to the thirteen gates. Remove from the total of thirteen gates the five gates of the Temple Mount, and there remain eight gates to the Temple courtyard. Evidently, there is a tanna who said that there were eight gates, and there is a tanna who said that there were seven gates, and there is also a tanna who said that there were five gates.

לא היו ישנים בבגדי קדש כו׳ שינה הוא דלא אבל הילוך מהלכים שמעת מינה בגדי כהונה ניתנו ליהנות בהן

§ The mishna (25b) teaches that the priests would not sleep dressed in the sacred vestments; rather, they would remove them and place them beneath their heads. The Gemara infers from here that it is only sleep that is not permitted while a priest is dressed in the sacred vestments, lest he pass wind during his sleep. But with regard to wearing such vestments while the priests are awake and engaged in various activities, e.g., walking, they may walk about dressed in the vestments, even when they do not need to wear them for the Temple service. You may therefore conclude from the mishna that it is permitted to derive benefit from priestly vestments.

אמרי הוא הדין דאפילו הילוך נמי לא והא דקתני לא היו ישנים משום דבעי למיתנא סיפא אלא פושטין ומקפלין ומניחין אותן תחת ראשיהן קתני רישא נמי לא היו ישנים

The Sages say that this inference is incorrect. The same is true of walking, as even walking while wearing the vestments is not permitted, and the reason that the tanna teaches specifically that the priests would not sleep dressed in the vestments is due to the fact that the tanna wanted to teach the latter clause: Rather, they would remove them and fold them, and then they would place them beneath their heads. Since the latter clause is referring specifically to sleeping, the tanna teaches in the former clause as well that the priests would not sleep dressed in the vestments.

והא גופה קא קשיא ומניחין אותן תחת ראשיהן שמע מינה בגדי כהונה ניתנו ליהנות בהם אימא נגד ראשיהם

The Gemara objects: But according to this interpretation, the mishna itself is difficult, as the mishna states: And they would place the priestly vestments beneath their heads, as a cushion. One may conclude from this statement that it is permitted to derive benefit from priestly vestments. The Gemara rejects this interpretation: Say that the mishna means that they would place the vestments next to their heads, not literally beneath them.

אמר רב פפא שמע מינה תפילין מן הצד שריין ולא חיישינן דלמא מיגנדר ונפיל עלייהו

Rav Pappa said: One may conclude from this interpretation of the mishna that if one places phylacteries by the side of his head while he sleeps, they are in a permitted place. And we are not concerned that perhaps he will roll over in his sleep and fall upon them, which would degrade the phylacteries.

הכי נמי מסתברא דכנגד ראשיהן דאי אמרת תחת ראשיהן נהי דניתנו ליהנות בהן תיפוק ליה משום איסורא דכלאים

The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable to say that the mishna permits the vestments to be placed only next to their heads. As, if you say that the mishna permits the vestments to be placed literally beneath their heads, this is difficult. Granted that it is permitted to derive benefit from them, but one could derive that it is prohibited to sleep upon them due to the prohibition of diverse kinds of wool and linen. The priestly vestments contain both wool and linen, which is a prohibited mixture in every other context. The Torah specifically permits the priests to wear them while they are performing the Temple service, but this does not extend to using the vestments as a cushion while sleeping.

הניחא למאן דאמר אבנטו של כהן גדול לא זהו אבנטו של כהן הדיוט אלא למאן דאמר אבנטו של כהן הדיוט זהו אבנטו של כהן גדול מאי איכא למימר

The Gemara explains the difficulty: If one maintains that the mishna permits the priests to place the vestments beneath their heads, this works out well according to the one who said that the belt of the High Priest is not the same as the belt of an ordinary priest. Although the belt of the High Priest was made of both wool and linen, the belt of ordinary priests, like the rest of their vestments, were made entirely of linen and did not contain diverse kinds. But according to the one who said that the belt of an ordinary priest is the same as the belt of the High Priest, what is there to say? Since the belt contained diverse kinds, how could the mishna possibly permit the priests to sleep upon their vestments?

וכי תימא כלאים בעליה ולבישה הוא דאסור אבל מימך תותיה שפיר דמי והתניא לא יעלה עליך אבל אתה מציעו תחתיך אבל אמרו חכמים אסור לעשות כן שמא תיכרך נימא אחת על בשרו

And if you would say that with regard to diverse kinds it is only placing the garment upon oneself or wearing it that is prohibited, but as for spreading it beneath you, it is permitted, this explanation is difficult. But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The verse states: “Neither shall there come upon you a garment of diverse kinds” (Leviticus 19:19). One should infer as follows: But you may spread a garment of diverse kinds beneath you, in order to lie upon it. The baraita continues: This is the halakha by Torah law, but the Sages said that it is prohibited to do so, lest a single fiber wrap itself upon his flesh, which would cause him to be in transgression of the Torah prohibition. Accordingly, the priests should not be permitted to place vestments made of diverse kinds beneath their heads.

וכי תימא דמפסיק מידי והאמר רבי שמעון אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי אמר רבי יוסי בן שאול משום קהלא קדישא שבירושלים אפילו עשר מצעות זו על גב זו וכלאים תחתיהן אסור לישן עליהן אלא שמע מינה נגד ראשיהן

And if you would say that the priests could place the vestments beneath their heads in such a manner that something separates between their flesh and the vestments, as the fibers could not wrap themselves upon their flesh, such conduct would still be prohibited. Doesn’t Rabbi Shimon say that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says that Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul says in the name of the holy community in Jerusalem: Even if there are ten mattresses piled one atop the other and a garment of diverse kinds is placed beneath all of them, it is prohibited to sleep upon them? This is because the rabbinic decree applies equally to all cases, irrespective of whether the concern that motivated the decree exists. Rather, one may conclude from here that the mishna permits the vestments to be placed only next to their heads.

ואי בעית אימא באותן שאין בהן כלאים רב אשי אמר בגדי כהונה קשין הן דאמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע הא נמטא גמדא דנרש שריא

The Gemara suggests alternative solutions: And if you wish, say instead that the mishna does permit the priests to place the vestments beneath their heads, as it is referring to those vestments that do not contain diverse kinds. Rav Ashi says: The mishna permits the priests to place even the belt that contains diverse kinds beneath their heads. This is because the priestly vestments, and specifically the belt, are stiff, and therefore it is not prohibited to lie on them. As Rav Huna, son of Rabbi Yehoshua, said: This stiff felt [namta], which is manufactured in the city of Neresh and is made of diverse kinds, is permitted. The prohibition of diverse kinds applies only to items that are similar to garments, which one derives pleasure from wearing. A stiff garment does not provide warmth, and is therefore not included in this prohibition.

תא שמע בגדי כהונה היוצא בהן למדינה אסור ובמקדש בין בשעת עבודה ובין שלא בשעת עבודה מותר מפני שבגדי כהונה ניתנו ליהנות בהן שמע מינה

The Gemara returns to discuss the earlier dilemma, of whether it is permitted to derive benefit from priestly vestments. Come and hear a baraita: With regard to the priestly vestments, the act of one who leaves the Temple dressed in them and goes out to the country, i.e., outside the Temple, is prohibited. But in the Temple, both at the time of the Temple service and not at the time of the service, wearing the vestments is permitted, as it is permitted to derive benefit from the priestly vestments. The Gemara concludes: One may conclude from the baraita that it is permitted to derive benefit from the priestly vestments.

ובמדינה לא והתניא בעשרים ואחד בו יום הר גריזים דלא למיספד כדאיתא ביומא פרק בא לו כהן גדול קרוב וכו׳

According to the baraita, the priestly vestments may not be worn outside the Temple. The Gemara asks: And is it not permitted to wear the priestly vestments in the rest of the country, outside the Temple? But isn’t it taught in a baraita, in connection with a date mentioned in Megillat Ta’anit: On the twenty-first of Tevet, this is the day of Mount Gerizim, which was established as a festive day, and therefore it is not permitted to eulogize. This date was established as a festive day because the Temple was saved from destruction on that day, due to the actions of Shimon HaTzaddik, the High Priest, as it is related in tractate Yoma (69a), in the seventh chapter, which begins: The High Priest came close to read the Torah.

עד איבעית אימא ראויין הן לבגדי כהונה

The baraita relates that Shimon HaTzaddik went to greet Alexander the Macedonian wearing the priestly vestments. The Gemara in Yoma cites the complete baraita, up to the Gemara’s explanation as to why Shimon HaTzaddik wore the priestly vestments outside the Temple: If you wish, say that Shimon HaTzaddik did not wear consecrated priestly vestments. Rather, he wore garments that were fit to be priestly vestments, i.e., they were made of the same material and design.

ואי בעית אימא עת לעשות לה׳ הפרו תורתך

And if you wish, say instead that he did in fact wear consecrated priestly vestments. Although this is usually prohibited, in this instance it was permitted due to the principle: “It is time to act for the Lord; they have nullified Your Torah” (Psalms 119:126). In times of great need, such as when one seeks to prevent the destruction of the Temple, it is permitted to violate the halakha for the sake of Heaven, and the actions of Shimon HaTzaddik indeed averted the destruction.

אירע קרי באחד מהן [וכו׳]

§ The mishna teaches (25b): If a seminal emission befell one of the priests and rendered him ritually impure, he would leave the Chamber of the Hearth and he would walk through the circuitous passage that extended beneath the Temple, as he could not pass through the Temple courtyard, due to his impurity.

מסייע ליה לרבי יוחנן דאמר מחילות לא נתקדשו בעל קרי משתלח חוץ לשני מחנות

The Gemara notes that this mishna supports the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who says: The tunnels beneath the Temple Mount were not sanctified, neither with the sanctity of the Temple courtyard nor with the sanctity of the Temple Mount. The Gemara cites a related statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan: A man who experienced a seminal emission is sent outside of two camps, the camp of the Divine Presence and the camp of the Levites. Accordingly, he may not remain in the Temple courtyard, which has the status of the camp of the Divine Presence, nor on the Temple Mount, which has the status of the camp of the Levites.

והנרות דולקין מכאן ומכאן כו׳ רב ספרא הוה יתיב בבית הכסא אתא רבי אבא נחר ליה אמר ליה ליעול מר

The mishna teaches: And the lamps were burning on this side and on that side of the passage…and there was a bathroom of honor in the Chamber of Immersion. This was its honor: If one found the door closed, he would know that there was a person there, and he would wait for him to exit before entering. The Gemara relates: Rav Safra was sitting in the bathroom when Rabbi Abba came along. Since there was no door, Rabbi Abba coughed outside to alert anyone within of his presence and thereby inquire whether he could enter. Rav Safra said to Rabbi Abba: Enter, Master, and Rabbi Abba therefore entered the bathroom.

בתר דנפיק אמר ליה רבי אבא עד כאן לא סליקת לשעיר גמרת מילי דשעיר לאו הכי תנן מצאו נעול בידוע שיש שם אדם למימרא דלא מיבעי ליה למיעל

When he came out, Rabbi Abba said to Rav Safra: Until now, although you have traveled widely, you have never entered Seir, the land of the Edomites, who behave immodestly. Nevertheless, you have learned the ways of Seir. Didn’t we learn this in the mishna: If one found the door closed, it was known that there was a person there, and one would wait for him to exit before entering. This serves to say that a person should not enter the bathroom while another person is inside. Therefore, Rav Safra should not have told Rabbi Abba to enter.

ורב ספרא סבר דלמא מסוכן הוא כדתניא רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר עמוד החוזר מביא את האדם לידי הדרוקן סילון החוזר מביא את האדם לידי ירקון

The Gemara explains that Rav Safra told Rabbi Abba to enter because he thought: Perhaps Rabbi Abba is in danger. Rav Safra was concerned that if Rabbi Abba waited for him to exit, Rabbi Abba might jeopardize his health, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A column of feces that is held back, because one refrains from relieving himself, causes a person to suffer from edema [hidrokan]. A stream of urine that is held back causes a person to suffer from jaundice [yerakon].

אמר ליה רב לחייא בריה וכן אמר ליה רב הונא לרבה בריה חשיך תקין נפשך וקדים תקין נפשך כי היכי דלא תרחק תוב וגלי כסי וקום

Rav said to his son Ḥiyya, and likewise Rav Huna said to his son Rabba: Relieve yourself when it gets dark, and relieve yourself before daybreak, even if you have no particular need to do so. The reason is that the streets are mostly empty at these times, and one can relieve himself near his home without concern that he might be seen. This is important, so that you will not have to relieve yourself during the day, when the streets are full, and you will be compelled to retain your feces while you distance yourself, which is liable to jeopardize your health. Furthermore, when relieving yourself, you should behave modestly. Sit down first and only then uncover yourself; afterward, cover yourself first and only then stand up.

שטוף ושתי [שטוף] ואחית וכשאתה שותה מים שפוך מהן ואחר כך תן לתלמידך

With regard to drinking, these amora’im instructed their sons: When you drink wine, rinse the cup first and only then drink from it; after you drink, rinse the cup and only then set it back in its place. But when you drink water, it is not necessary to rinse the cup afterward; rather, pour out some of the water to rinse the rim of the cup, and afterward you may give the cup to your student, if he wants to drink.

כדתניא לא ישתה אדם מים ויתן לתלמידו אלא אם כן שפך מהן ומעשה באחד ששתה מים ולא שפך מהן ונתן לתלמידו ואותו תלמיד איסטניס היה ולא רצה לשתות ומת בצמא באותה שעה אמרו לא ישתה אדם מים ויתן לתלמידו אלא אם כן שפך מהן רב אשי אמר הילכך האי תלמידא דשפיך קמי רביה לית ביה משום אפקירותא

As it is taught in a baraita: A person should not drink water and give the remaining water to his student, unless he first poured some of it out. And there was an incident involving a certain individual who drank water and did not pour some of it out, and he gave the cup to his student. And that student was a delicate person [istenis], and due to his sensitivity he did not want to drink from the cup, and he died of thirst. At that time, the Sages said: A person should not drink water and give the remaining water to his student unless he first poured some of it out. Rav Ashi said: Therefore, in the case of this student who pours water from the cup that his teacher drank from first, even if he does so in the presence of his teacher, his actions are not prohibited due to disrespect [afkiruta].

כל מילי לא תיפלוט באפי רבך בר מקרא ודייסא דכפתילה של אבר דמו

With regard to eating, these amora’im instructed their sons: In the case of anything that you are eating, if the food causes you to salivate and you need to spit out the saliva, do not spit it out in the presence of your teacher, as it is disrespectful, except in the case of a dish of gourd or porridge. If one is eating gourds or porridge he may spit out the saliva even in the presence of his teacher, as the saliva generated by these items is like a molten bar of lead, and refraining from spitting it out would be dangerous.

תנן התם איש הר הבית היה מחזר על כל משמר ומשמר ואבוקות דולקות לפניו וכל משמר שאינו עומד ואומר לו איש הר הבית

§ We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Middot 1:2): The man [ish] in charge of overseeing the watches of the Temple Mount would circulate nightly among each and every watch post, to ascertain that the watchmen were awake and performing their duty properly. And there were lit torches carried before him, so that the watchmen would see him approaching. And at every watch post where the watchman would not stand up, the man would test whether the watchman was sleeping; and the man of the Temple Mount would say to him: