Arakhin 3b (ג:) — the Talmud in English

And we explain:

to include

slaves,

for if one has a circumcised Canaanite slave to sell, and the slave wishes not to be sold except in Eretz Yisrael, we compel his master to take him up and sell him there. [In Ketubot, Rashi explains that this is referring to a Hebrew slave, whom his master can compel to ascend with him to Eretz Yisrael]].

And it raises a difficulty:

but according to the one who teaches

in the Mishna there

slaves explicitly,

if so, there is no need to include them, since they are stated explicitly in the Mishna: “Everyone”—

what does it come to include?

And we explain:

to include

one who compels the members of his household to ascend, even

from a

dwelling place

that is better

than those outside Eretz Yisrael

to a poor dwelling

in Eretz Yisrael; and his wife cannot prevent him.

And concerning that which we learned

“and not everyone may take

the members of his household from Eretz Yisrael to outside Eretz Yisrael”—

what does it come to include?

To include a slave who fled from outside Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael,

for his master cannot compel him to return.

And concerning that which we learned there:

“Everyone may ascend to Jerusalem,”

“everyone”—

what does it come to include?

And we explain:

to include

even

from the better dwelling

elsewhere in Eretz Yisrael

to the poorer dwelling

in Jerusalem; he can compel his wife to ascend.

And we raise a difficulty:

“and not everyone may take

people from Jerusalem to the outlying areas”—“everyone,”

what does it come to include?

And we explain:

to include

even

from the poorer dwelling

in Jerusalem

to the better dwelling

in the outlying areas. In this case as well, his wife can prevent him.

Until now, they explained what “everyone” comes to include. From this point onward, they explain the Mishnayot in which it is written: “priests, Levites, and Israelites.”

And we raise a difficulty: The statement

“Everyone is obligated in sukka, priests, Levites, and Israelites,”

is

obvious,

for everyone is obligated. Since

if these are not obligated,

who is obligated?!

And we explain:

It was necessary for him to mention priests

to teach that they are obligated. For

it might enter your mind to say

that they are exempt,

since it is written: “You shall dwell in sukkot,” and the Master said: “

You shall dwell

in the sukka in a manner that is

like your dwelling”

in a permanent home.

Just as a dwelling

that is permanent ordinarily has

a man and his wife

with him,

so too a sukka

is one obligated only when there is

a man and his wife

with him.

And these priests, since they are people engaged in the Temple service,

cannot dwell with their wives during the Festival, for they may not engage in relations with their wives lest they become impure and be prevented from performing the Festival service incumbent upon them , and if so, one might say that they are not obligated in sukka.

It teaches us

that

although they are exempt from the sukka during the time of the service,

outside

the time of the service, they are certainly obligated.

And this is compared

to the case of travelers,

who are also exempt by virtue of the exposition “You shall dwell in sukkot” in a manner like your dwelling: just as throughout the year, when dwelling in his house, he does not refrain from setting out on a journey, so too with regard to dwelling in a sukka.

For the Master said: Travelers are exempt from sukka during the day,

when it is the time of their traveling,

but obligated at night

when they lodge in an inhabited place. We do not say that, since they are exempt for part of the time, the mitzva of sukka is entirely removed from them. The same applies to priests: whenever it is possible for them to sit in a sukka, they are obligated.

And we raise a difficulty: The statement

“Everyone is obligated in tzitzit, priests, Levites, and Israelites,”

is

obvious

that all are included in the mitzva. And we explain:

It was necessary for him to mention priests

to teach that they are obligated. For

it might enter your mind to say

that they are exempt,

since it is written: “You shall not wear shatnez,”

and adjacent to it is

“You shall make for yourself twisted threads,”

and one can infer from this that only

one for whom kilayim is not permitted is obligated in the mitzva of tzitzit; but these priests, since kilayim is permitted for them

in the priestly garments [the belt was made of kilayim],

should not be obligated

in tzitzit.

It teaches us

that despite the inference, they are obligated, for they too are included in the prohibition of kilayim.

Although kilayim is permitted

when the priests are engaged

in the Temple service

in the Temple,

outside the time of the service it is not permitted. [According to the plain meaning, it is permitted only during the actual time of the service ;

however, Rabbeinu Tam’s opinion in Menahot 41a is that all garments designated for the service, when worn in a place suitable for the service, are considered to be worn during the time of the service, and kilayim is permitted].

And we raise a difficulty: The statement

“Everyone is obligated in phylacteries, priests, Levites, and Israelites,”

is obvious!? And we explain:

It was necessary for him to mention priests

to teach that they are obligated. For

it might enter your mind to say

that they are exempt,

since it is written: “And you shall bind them as a sign upon your arm, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes,”

and perhaps we learn that these obligations are dependent upon one another, and only

every

person who

is included in the mitzva

of the phylacteries

of the arm is included

also

in the mitzva

of the phylacteries

of the head. But these priests, since they are not included in the mitzva of the arm, as it is written: “And the linen breeches

he shall wear upon his flesh,” [and the same applies to the tunic], and they expound:

he shall wear upon his flesh” [and the same applies to the tunic], and it is expounded that

that

there shall be nothing intervening between him

[between the garment]

and his flesh.

And since the phylacteries must be placed directly on his flesh, as explained in tractate Menahot, the place of the phylacteries of the arm is beneath his garments, as it is written, “And it shall be for you as a sign,” and not as a sign for others; thus, the phylacteries would intervene between the priestly garment and the priest’s flesh, and therefore priests do not put on phylacteries of the arm.

I might say

that even

in the mitzva

of the phylacteries

of the head they should likewise not be obligated; it teaches us that they do not

prevent

the phylacteries of the arm and the head

from one another. As we learned: “The phylactery of the arm does not

prevent the phylactery of the head, and the phylactery of the head does not prevent the phylactery of the arm.”

And we raise a further difficulty:

What is different about the phylacteries of the arm

from which they are exempt,

since it is written, “He shall wear it upon his flesh”; the phylacteries of the head should likewise

be exempt, since

it is written, “And you shall place the turban upon his head,”

and when he places the phylacteries on his head, they intervene between the turban and his head?!

And we explain:

The tanna taught: his hair

of the High Priest

was visible between the frontplate

on his forehead

and the turban

on his head.

There,

in that space, he

put on phylacteries,

and therefore there was no intervening substance, and he could fulfill both mitzvot.

And we raise a difficulty: The statement

“Everyone is obligated in the sounding of the shofar, priests, Levites, and Israelites”—

is obvious!?

And we explain:

It was necessary for him to mention priests.

For

it might enter your mind to say

that they are exempt,

since it is written, “It shall be a day of sounding for you,”

which implies only one day, and from this we learn that only

one who is subject solely to the sounding of one day is obligated

in the sounding of the shofar on Rosh HaShana.

But these priests, since they are included in

the mitzva of

sounding

during the wine libation accompanying the communal offerings

throughout the entire year, as it is written, “And you shall sound the trumpets over your burnt-offerings,”

I might say that they should not be obligated

in the shofar of Rosh HaShana.

It teaches us

that they are obligated.

And this is rejected:

Are they comparable?

Are those soundings accompanying the wine libation comparable to the soundings here?

There,

with the offerings, the sounding is performed with

trumpets,

whereas

here,

on Rosh HaShana, the sounding is performed with a

shofar.

And we offer another resolution: Therefore, we explain,

it was necessary

to include priests and Levites as obligated, because

it might enter your mind to say

that they are exempt,

since we learned: The order of the Day of Atonement

is equivalent to that of

the Jubilee with regard to the sounding, and with regard to the blessings

of Kingships, Remembrances, and Shofarot, and since they are compared to one another, one might say that whoever

is included in the mitzva of the Jubilee is included in the mitzva of

the sounding of

Rosh HaShana,

whereas whoever

is not included in the mitzva of the Jubilee is not included in the mitzva of Rosh HaShana.

And these priests, since they are not included in the mitzva of

returning fields in

the Jubilee

as Israelites are completely,