חולין 24 — Soncino English Talmud

¹The verse, therefore, says: And he shall slaughter it, and in addition [the law is stated to be] a statute, in order to indicate that it is rendered valid only by slaughtering and not by breaking its neck. But is it established that whenever ‘statute’ is written [in connection with a law] one may not apply to it an a fortiori argument? But what of the Day of Atonement ln connection wherewith statute’ is written, nevertheless, it was taught: [Upon which the lot fell for the Lord,] and it shall determine it for the sin-offering, implies that only the lot can determine it for the sin-offering, but designation cannot determine it for the sin-offering. For [without this Biblical direction] I would have argued by an a fortiori argument thus: If offerings which are not consecrated by lot are nevertheless consecrated by designation, an offering which is consecrated by lot should surely be consecrated by designation! It is therefore written: ‘And it shall determine it for the sin-offering’, to indicate that the lot only can determine it for a sin-offering, but designation will not determine it for a sin-offering. Now this is so, only because it is written in the Divine Law, ‘And it shall determine it for the sin-offering’, but without this verse one would have applied the a fortiori argument! — The Divine Law excluded all others when it stated in connection with the Heifer, ‘Whose neck was broken’, indicating that only this shall have its neck broken, but no other. And should not the Heifer be rendered valid by slaughtering by the following a fortiori argument? Thus, if the Red Cow which is not rendered valid by breaking its neck is nevertheless rendered valid by slaughtering, the Heifer which is rendered valid by breaking its neck should surely be rendered valid by slaughtering! The verse states: And they shall break the neck, and also, ‘Whose neck was broken’, thus emphasizing that the Heifer is rendered valid only by breaking its neck and not by slaughtering. MISHNAH. [THE DISABILITY] WHICH DOES NOT DISQUALIFY PRIESTS DISQUALIFIES LEVITES, AND [THE DISABILITY] WHICH DOES NOT DISQUALIFY LEVITES DISQUALIFIES PRIESTS. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: priests are disqualified by reason of a bodily blemish, and not by reason of age; Levites are disqualified by age and not by bodily blemish. It follows, therefore, that [the disability] which does not disqualify priests disqualifies Levites, and [the disability] which does not disqualify Levites disqualifies priests. Whence do we know this? — From the following Baraitha. Our Rabbis taught: It is written: This is that which pertaineth unto the Levites. Now what does this teach us? From the verse: And from the age of fifty years they shall return [from the service of the work], we know that Levites are disqualified by age. Now I might have argued [by an a fortiori argument] that they are disqualified by bodily blemish too; thus, if priests who are not disqualified by age are nevertheless disqualified by bodily blemish, Levites who are disqualified by age should surely be disqualified by bodily blemish! It is therefore written: ‘This is that which pertaineth unto the Levites’, that is to say, this only disqualifies Levites, but nothing else disqualifies them. Now I might also have argued [by an a fortiori argument] that priests are disqualified by age too; thus, if Levites who are not disqualified by bodily blemish are nevertheless disqualified by age, priests who are disqualified by bodily blemish should surely be disqualified by age! It is therefore written: ‘Which pertaineth unto the Levites’, and not ‘unto the priests’. I might further have supposed that this rule [as regards Levites] obtains even at Shiloh and at the permanent House; It is, therefore, written: To do the work of service and the work of bearing burdens, that is to say: ‘I ordained this rule only when the work was that of bearing burdens upon the shoulder’. One verse says: From twenty and five years old and upward; and another verse says: From thirty years old and upward. Now one cannot accept the age of thirty because of the verse which mentions twenty-five, and one cannot accept the age of twenty-five because of the verse which mentions thirty. How are these verses to be reconciled? Thus: at the age of twenty-five [the Levite enters the service] for training, and at the age of thirty he performs service. Hence the dictum: If a student does not see a sign of blessing [progress] in his studies after five years, he never will. R. Jose says, [After] three years, for it is written: That they be trained three years. And that they be taught the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans. And the other, [how does he explain these latter verses]? — He would say that the Chaldean language is an exception, for It is easy [to master]. And the other, [R. Jose]? — He would say that the Temple service is an exception, for its rules are difficult. Our Rabbis taught: A priest, from the time that he has grown two hairs until he grows old, is qualified for service; a bodily blemish, however, disqualifies him. A Levite, from thirty years old until fifty years old, is qualified for service; and becomes disqualified by age. This law [of the Levite], however, applied only at the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness; but at Shiloh or at the Permanent House they were only disqualified because of their voices. Said R. Jose: Where is this indicated in any verse? —^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ

^ᵃnote:Sc. the Red Cow; Num. XIX, 3.
^ᵇnote:Ibid. 2: This is the statute of the law.
^ᶜnote:Cf. Lev. XVI, 29: And it shall be a statute for ever unto you.
^ᵈnote:Ibid. 9. The usual translation is. And he (sc. the priest) shall offer it for a sin-offering. The Rabbis, however, take ‘the lot’ as the subject of this sentence, and so derive from this verse the rule that it is the lot which decides the animal for the sacrifice.
^ᵉnote:I.e., merely naming or specifying by word of mouth which goat shall be for the sacrifice and which shall be sent away.
^ᶠnote:E.g., when a Pair of doves is offered, one of them for a sin-offering and the other for a burnt-offering (cf. Lev. XII, 8; XIV, 22), it is not the lot that determines them for their respective offerings, for even after the casting of lots they can be changed over; but it is the express designation of the owner that determines them.
^ᵍnote:Although the law in connection with the Day of Atonement is stated to be a statute. This being so, the a fortiori argument should be applied in our Mishnah, with the result that the Red Cow be also rendered valid by breaking its neck.
^ʰnote:Deut. XXI, 6.
^ⁱnote:Ibid. 4.
^ʲnote:This is the reading of MS.M.; v. Rashi. In cur. edd. only one verse is quoted in this final answer; v. Rashal. The injunction ‘to break the neck’ is repeated to indicate that this is the only method of killing the Heifer and no other is admissible. This answer is therefore in accordance with the accepted Rabbinic dictum: Wherever Scripture repeats an injunction it is meant to be indispensable.
^ᵏnote:From taking part in the Temple service.
^ˡnote:V. Lev. XXI, 17.
^ᵐnote:For they are qualified for service only from the age of thirty to fifty.
^ⁿnote:Num. VIII, 24.
^ᵒnote:Ibid, 25.
^ᵖnote:Sc. age.
^ᵠnote:That Levites are disqualified by age.
^ʳnote:I.e., the Temple at Jerusalem where the service of the Levites was to sing in the choir and to guard the doors of the Temple.
^ˢnote:Ibid. IV, 47.
^ᵗnote:The disqualification of Levites by age was, therefore, effective only from the service of the Tabernacle in the wilderness, where their duties consisted of dismantling the entire Tabernacle and bearing the various parts on their shoulders.
^ᵘnote:Ibid. IV, 23.
^ᵛnote:I.e., as the proper age for commencing service.
^ʷnote:Dan. I, 5.
^ˣnote:Ibid. 4.
^ʸnote:Therefore in three years one ought to expect good results.
^ᶻnote:Because of the numerous details that had to be mastered; and, therefore, in such a case even R. Jose admits that five years are necessary.
^ᵃᵃnote:These refer to the pubic hairs which indicate maturity and generally appear in males at the age of thirteen years and one day, and in females at the age of twelve years and one day.
^ᵃᵇnote:I.e., when they lost their voices and thus could no longer sing in the Temple choir.

²It is written: And it came to pass when the trumpeters and singers were as one to make one loud sound. ‘Until he grows old’. Until when is this? — R. Ila'a said in the name of R. Hanina: Until he begins to tremble. We have learnt elsewhere: If a man [who was unclean] by reason of a seminal emission, immersed himself [in a mikweh] but did not first urinate, when he does urinate he [again] becomes unclean. R. Jose says: If he was ill or elderly he [again] becomes unclean, but if he was young and healthy he is clean. How long [is one regarded as young and healthy]? — R. Ila'a said in the name of R. Hanina: As long as one is able to stand on one foot and put on and take off one's shoe. It was said of R. Hanina that at the age of eighty years he was able to stand on one foot and put on and take off his shoe. R. Hanina said: The warm baths and the oil with which my mother anointed me in my youth have stood me in good stead in my old age. Our Rabbis taught: He whose beard is fully grown is qualified to act as the representative of a community, to descend before the Ark and to pronounce the priestly benediction. When does he [the priest] become qualified for Temple service? When he produces two hairs. Rabbi says: I say, only when he is twenty years old. R. Hisda asked: What is Rabbi's reason? — Because it is written: And they appointed the Levites from twenty years old and upward to have oversight of the work of the house of the Lord. And the other Tanna? He maintains that ‘to have oversight’ is quite a different matter. But is not this verse stated in connection with the Levites? — One must accept the statement of R. Joshua b. Levi. For R. Joshua b. Levi said: In twenty-four passages the priests are referred to as Levites, and the following is an example: And the priests the Levites the sons of Zadok. Our Rabbis taught: It is written: Any man of thy seed throughout their generations . . . [let him not approach to offer]; hence R. Eliezer derived the rule that a minor is not qualified for service even though he is without bodily blemish. When does he become qualified for service? When he has grown two hairs. His brother priests, however, would not permit him to take part in the service until he was twenty years old. Some say that this [Baraitha] agrees with the view of Rabbi, for he maintains that [under the age of twenty years] there is no legal disqualification whatsoever, not even by Rabbinic enactment. Others say that Rabbi's view is that [under the age of twenty years] one is disqualified by Rabbinic enactment, and that this [Baraitha], however, agrees with the view of the Sages; for they maintain that [under the age of twenty years] there is a restriction only in the first instance, but if he did serve, the service would be valid. MISHNAH. THAT WHICH CANNOT BE RENDERED UNCLEAN IN EARTHENWARE VESSELS CAN BE RENDERED UNCLEAN IN ALL OTHER VESSELS, AND THAT WHICH CANNOT BE RENDERED UNCLEAN IN ALL OTHER VESSELS CAN BE RENDERED UNCLEAN IN EARTHENWARE VESSELS. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: The air-space of an earthenware vessel can be rendered unclean, but the outside of it cannot. The air-space of all other vessels cannot be rendered unclean, but the outside of them can. It follows, therefore, that that which cannot be rendered unclean in earthenware vessels can be rendered unclean in all other vessels, and that which cannot be rendered unclean in all other vessels can be rendered unclean in earthenware vessels. Whence do we know this? — From [the following Baraitha] which our Rabbis taught: It is written: And every earthen vessel into which [toko] any of them falleth, that is to say, even though it does not actually touch the vessel. You say: ‘Even though it does not actually touch’, but perhaps it is not so but only if it actually touches the vessel! R. Jonathan b. Abtolmos said: There is used the word ‘toko’ in connection with the vessel conveying uncleanness, and also the word ‘toko’ in connection with the vessel receiving uncleanness; therefore, just as ‘toko’, used in connection with the vessel conveying uncleanness, means, ‘even though it does not actually touch’, so, too, ‘toko’, used in connection with the vessel receiving uncleanness, means, ‘even though it does not actually touch’. But whence do we know this in the former case? — R. Jonathan said: The Torah has declared the contents of an earthenware vessel [to be unclean]^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ

^ᵃᶜnote:II Chron. V, 13. This verse shows that the singers in the Temple were chosen because they were able to sing ‘as one’ and could ‘make one loud sound’. Such voices as would introduce a discordant note in the choir were eliminated.
^ᵃᵈnote:I.e., his hands and feet shake because of old age.
^ᵃᵉnote:Mik. VIII, 4.
^ᵃᶠnote:For it is possible that when he suffered the emission not all the semen was ejaculated, but there might have remained some drops in the passage of his organ, which, when he urinates after his immersion, would pass out with the urine and make him unclean again. Cf. Lev. XV, 16.
^ᵃᵍnote:These would have ejaculated the semen completely, whereas a sick or elderly person would not; only the latter, therefore, would again become unclean after urinating.
^ᵃʰnote:Heb. ruchm jhka, lit., ‘messenger of the congregation’. This usually connotes the person who acts as the reader of the congregation in conducting the prayers. Since, however, the subsequent words, ‘descend before the Ark’, clearly refer to the function of the reader, the representative of the community would mean, therefore, the warden or person appointed to attend to the affairs of the community. Cf. R. Gershom and Rashi.
^ᵃⁱnote:V. preceding note.
^ᵃʲnote:Lit., ‘to lift up his hands’. Of course, provided he is a priest. V. Num. VI, 22-27.
^ᵃᵏnote:Ezra III, 8.
^ᵃˡnote:It is conceded that a Levite under the age of twenty years would not be appointed to supervise the work.
^ᵃᵐnote:How, then, can this verse be adduced in support of the rule concerning the priests?
^ᵃⁿnote:Ezek. XLIV, 15. The term ‘Levites’ in this verse means descendants of the tribe of Levi, or it might mean ‘attendants’ (Rashi).
^ᵃᵒnote:Lev. XXI, 17. The Heb., aht, ‘a man’, excludes a minor.
^ᵃᵖnote:The statement of Rabbi, supra, ‘I say, only when he is twenty years old’, is therefore to be interpreted to correspond with this Baraitha; i.e., under the age of twenty years he is not legally disqualified, hut, as the Baraitha states: ‘His brother priests would not permit him to take part in the service’.
^ᵃᵠnote:Accordingly, the view of the Sages, supra, is to be qualified in the light of this Baraitha. ‘From the time that he produces two hairs he is qualified’, i.e., if he did serve the service would he valid, but he would not be allowed to serve in the first instance, as the Baraitha continues, ‘His brother priests would not permit him to take part in the service.’
^ᵃʳnote:Lev. XI, 33. Heb. ufu,, ‘in it’, i.e., in its air-space.
^ᵃˢnote:I.e., even though the reptile does not come into contact with the vessel, but is merely suspended in the air-space, the vessel becomes unclean.
^ᵃᵗnote:Ibid. Whatsoever is in it (toko) shall be unclean, i.e., foodstuffs in the air-space of the earthen vessel become unclean from the vessel.
^ᵃᵘnote:Ibid. And every earthen vessel into which (toko) any of them falleth.
^ᵃᵛnote:So that an earthenware vessel will receive uncleanness from a reptile which is suspended in its air-space, even though there has been no contact; and will also convey uncleanness, if itself unclean, to foodstuffs that are in its air-space.