Chullin

The verse, therefore, says: And he shall slaughter it,1 and in addition [the law is stated to be] a statute,2 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,3 nevertheless, it was taught: [Upon which the lot fell for the Lord,] and it shall determine it for the sin-offering,4 implies that only the lot can determine it for the sin-offering, but designation5 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,6 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!7 — The Divine Law excluded all others when it stated in connection with the Heifer, ‘Whose neck was broken’,8 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,9 and also, ‘Whose neck was broken’, thus emphasizing that the Heifer is rendered valid only by breaking its neck and not by slaughtering.10 11 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,12 and not by reason of age; Levites are disqualified by age13 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.14 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],15 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, this16 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 rule17 [as regards Levites] obtains even at Shiloh and at the permanent House;18 It is, therefore, written: To do the work of service and the work of bearing burdens,19 that is to say: ‘I ordained this rule only when the work was that of bearing burdens upon the shoulder’.20 One verse says: From twenty and five years old and upward;14 and another verse says: From thirty years old and upward.21 Now one cannot accept the age of thirty22 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.23 And that they be taught the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.24 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].25 And the other, [R. Jose]? — He would say that the Temple service is an exception, for its rules are difficult.26 Our Rabbis taught: A priest, from the time that he has grown two hairs27 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.28 Said R. Jose: Where is this indicated in any verse? — 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. away. 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. argument should be applied in our Mishnah, with the result that the Red Cow be also rendered valid by breaking its neck. 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. Temple. wilderness, where their duties consisted of dismantling the entire Tabernacle and bearing the various parts on their shoulders. years are necessary. one day, and in females at the age of twelve years and one day.