Chullin 24a — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

The verse says

with regard to the red heifer:

“And he shall slaughter.” And

it likewise says concerning it:

“A statute,”

as it is stated: “This is the statute of the Torah.” And everywhere that “a statute” is stated, it is only to make [the matter] indispensable, to tell you:

With slaughter, yes. With decapitation, no!

And we challenge this:

And

if

wherever “a statute” is written concerning it, we do not expound a kal va-chomer

to include additional laws beyond those written in the matter, and we do not say that “a statute” was stated with regard to other matters, to say that they are indispensable, and not to contradict the kal va-chomer?!

But concerning Yom Kippur, where “a statute” is written concerning it,

nevertheless we find that there was room to expound a kal va-chomer, had the Torah not explicitly excluded [it], so that that kal va-chomer should not be expounded.

For

it was taught in a beraita:

It is written [Leviticus 16]: “And Aaron shall give lots over the two goats, one lot for the Lord,” and afterward it is written: “And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the lot for the Lord fell,

and he shall make it a sin-offering,”

and we expound from “and he shall make it a sin-offering” that specifically

the lot is

that

makes [it] a sin-offering, and not

the calling of

the name makes [it] a sin-offering!

For if he did not cast lots over them, but rather called the goats by name, saying concerning one that it would be for the Lord and concerning the other that it would be for Azazel, the goats are not designated by this; rather, he casts a lot over them, and if the lot differs from the calling of the name, one follows the lot.

One might have thought

that if “and he shall make it a sin-offering” had not been written, I could say by a kal va-chomer that the calling of the name also designates, for

is this not an inference: If, in a place where the lot does not sanctify,

such as with the offerings of a woman with a flux and of a woman after childbirth, who bring two birds, one as a sin-offering and one as a burnt-offering, and if one took two lots, on one of which “sin-offering” was written and on the other “burnt-offering,” and placed them on the birds, the birds are not designated by this, but rather he can exchange them, nevertheless

the name sanctifies,

once he called them by name and said, “This shall be a sin-offering and this a burnt-offering,” he cannot change their designation;

in a place where the lot sanctifies,

with the goats of Yom Kippur,

is it not an inference that the name should sanctify?! The verse therefore says: “And he shall make it a sin-offering,”

to teach you that only

the lot makes [it] a sin-offering, and the name does not make [it] a sin-offering!

And we conclude the challenge:

The reason is that the Merciful One wrote: “And he shall make it a sin-offering,”

from which we learn that the Torah explicitly excluded [the possibility] that the name makes [it] a sin-offering.

Had it not been so,

we would

expound a kal va-chomer

to include [the possibility] that the name makes [it] a sin-offering. It follows that even in a place where “a statute” is written, we expound a kal va-chomer. If so, why should we not expound by a kal va-chomer to include decapitation with the red heifer?

And we answer: Rather, from here we learn that decapitation is not valid with the red heifer, because

the Merciful One excluded with regard to the decapitated heifer

that it is written concerning it: “the heifer

that is decapitated,”

and from the extra letter heh of “that is decapitated” we expound: Only a heifer

this

is valid

for decapitation, and no other

is valid

for decapitation!

And the Gemara discusses:

And let the decapitated heifer

be

valid for slaughter, by a kal va-chomer: If the red heifer,

the

red one, which was not made valid for decapitation, is valid for slaughter; the decapitated heifer,

which is

valid for decapitation, is it not an inference that it should be made valid for slaughter?

And we answer:

The verse says: “And they shall decapitate the heifer.”

And from the fact that the verse repeated and restated [this], for it was already written “the heifer that is decapitated,” we learn that the decapitation is indispensable. That is,

With decapitation, yes. With slaughter, no!

Mishna:

Priests are fit to perform service in the Temple throughout all the days of their lives, and they are not disqualified on account of their age.

Priests with a blemish are disqualified from service.

The Levites have the opposite law: a blemish does not disqualify them from service; on the other hand, they are not fit for service throughout all their days [in the Tabernacle], but only from the age of thirty until the age of fifty.

It follows that what is

fit for priests is

disqualified for Levites.

And what is

fit for Levites is

disqualified for priests.

Gemara:

The Sages taught: Priests are

disqualified through blemishes.

That is, if they have a blemish, they are disqualified from service, but

through age they are

fit.

For they are fit for service throughout all their days.

Levites are

fit through blemishes.

For a blemish does not disqualify them;

through age they are

disqualified!

For if they are younger than thirty or older than fifty years, they are disqualified from service.

It follows

that what is

fit for priests is disqualified for Levites,

and what is

fit for Levites is disqualified for priests.

And the Gemara discusses:

From where are these matters

that age in the case of priests and blemishes in the case of Levites do not disqualify?

For the Sages taught:

It is written in the passage in which it is stated that Levites are disqualified through age [Numbers 8]:

“This is what concerns the Levites”—

What does [the verse] teach?

That is, what does “this” come to exclude?

Since it is stated: “And from the age of fifty years he shall return

from the service of the work, and he shall serve no more” —

we have learned

from here

that for Levites age is disqualifying.

One might have thought

that also

blemishes disqualify them?

And it is an inference,

for we can learn by a kal va-chomer that blemishes should disqualify them:

If priests, for whom age does not disqualify, blemishes disqualify; Levites,

who are more stringent than priests in this respect,

is it not an inference that blemishes should disqualify them?!

The verse therefore says—

“This is what concerns the Levites.”

And we expound from “this,” which implies that it comes to exclude—

this is what concerns the Levites, and nothing else concerns the Levites.

Apart from the disqualification through age stated in the passage, no other matter disqualifies them.

One might have thought that priests are disqualified through age?

But is it not an inference: If Levites, for whom blemishes do not disqualify, age does disqualify; priests,

who are more stringent than them,

for blemishes disqualify them, is it not an inference that age should disqualify them?!

The verse therefore says—

“What concerns the Levites.”

Which implies:

and not what concerns the priests!

For the disqualification through age was stated only with regard to Levites, and not with regard to priests.

One might have thought that even in Shiloh and in the eternal House,

in the Temple in Jerusalem, it should be

so,

that age should disqualify the Levites there?

The verse therefore says:

“From the age of thirty years and upward until the age of fifty years, everyone who comes

to perform the service of the service and the service of carrying.”

I said

that age disqualifies Levites

only when the service is with carrying on the shoulder,

that is, in the Tabernacle, where the Levites carried the Tabernacle and strength was needed for its carrying; therefore they were fit only once their strength had matured, that is, from the age of thirty until the age of fifty. But in Shiloh and in the Temple, where the service of the Levites was only to be gatekeepers and to sing, and there was no service involving carrying, age did not disqualify them.

And now we concern ourselves with the verses stated in the passage concerning the age of the Levites:

One verse says

with regard to the service of the Levites:

“From the age of twenty-five years and upward.” And

on the other hand,

one verse says: “From the age of thirty

years.”

It is impossible to say thirty, for twenty-five has already been stated; and it is impossible to say twenty-five, for thirty has already been stated?!

How then

are these two verses to be reconciled?

Your answer: From the age of

twenty-five

years the Levite shall come

to learn

the laws of service,

and

from the age of

thirty

he shall enter

the service!

From here

one may learn:

For a student who has not seen a favorable sign in his Mishna after five years,

who studies and forgets,

he no longer sees

a sign of blessing. For the Levites occupied themselves with their studies for only five years.

Rabbi Yosei says: Three years

is the period of time during which, if the student did not see a favorable sign in his studies, he no longer sees one.

As it is stated: “And to raise them

—three years, and to teach them

—the book and the language of the Chaldeans.” And the other one,

the first tanna, does not learn from this verse, because

the language of the Chaldeans is different, for it is light,

and therefore its period of study is no more than three years; but from here there is no proof concerning the study of Torah, which is difficult, for even if he did not succeed in three years, it is still possible that he will see a favorable sign in his Mishna afterward, until five years have passed.

And the other one,

Rabbi Yosei, who does not learn from the Levites, because

the laws of service are different

in the Tabernacle—

for they are difficult.

There are many who must study the order of dismantling the Tabernacle, setting up the boards and the hooks, and the singing over the offering with instruments and with the mouth; therefore their period of study is five years. But in the study of Torah, one can ascertain the matter in only three years, for if he did not see a favorable sign in them, he no longer sees one!

The Sages taught: A priest—

from when he produces two hairs,

for then he becomes a “man,”

until he grows old

and no longer has strength—he is

fit for service, and blemishes disqualify him.

But

a Levite—

from the age of thirty until the age of fifty

he is

fit for service, and age disqualifies him.

In what circumstances

does age disqualify Levites?

In the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness. But in Shiloh and in the eternal House,

the Levites are

disqualified only through the voice,

once their voices have deteriorated and they no longer sing properly.

Rabbi Yosei said: What is the verse

that [teaches] that they are disqualified through the voice?