Chullin 24a (כד.) — 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 wherever the term “statute” is stated, it serves only to establish a matter as indispensable. This teaches you:

With regard to slaughter, yes; with regard to decapitation, no!

And we challenge this:

And

if

wherever “a statute” is written, we do not derive by means of a kal va-chomer

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

But with regard to Yom Kippur, where “a statute” is written,

nevertheless, we find that there was room to derive a kal va-chomer, had the Torah not explicitly excluded deriving that kal va-chomer.

It was taught in a beraita:

It is written in Leviticus 9: “And Aaron shall place lots upon 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 derive from “and he shall make it a sin-offering” that specifically

the lot

is what

makes it a sin-offering, and

the designation by

name makes it a sin-offering!

For if he did not cast lots for them, but merely designated the goats by name, saying of one that it would be for the Lord and of the other that it would be for Azazel, the goats are not thereby assigned their designations. Rather, he casts lots for them; and if the lot differs from the designation by 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 means of a kal va-chomer that designation by name also determines the designation, for

is it not logical: If, in a case where the lot does not sanctify,

such as in the offerings of a woman who experienced a discharge or of a woman who gave birth, 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 thereby assigned their designations, but one may still change them, nevertheless

the name sanctifies;

once he designated them by name, saying that this would be a sin-offering and that a burnt-offering, he may not change their designation—

in a case where the lot sanctifies,

with regard to the goats of Yom Kippur,

is it not logical that the name should sanctify as well? The verse states: “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 with regard to 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 this not been so,

we would have

derived a kal va-chomer

to include the possibility that the name makes it a sin-offering. This shows that even where “a statute” is written, we do derive a kal va-chomer. If so, why should we not derive by means of a kal va-chomer that decapitation is included in the case of the red heifer?

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

the Merciful One excluded it with regard to the heifer

that is decapitated, concerning which it is written: “the heifer

that is decapitated,”

and from the redundant letter in “that is decapitated” we derive that only

this

heifer is valid

for decapitation, and no other

is valid

for decapitation!

The Gemara discusses this:

And should the heifer

that is decapitated

be valid for slaughter, by means of a kal va-chomer: Just as the red heifer,

which

is not valid for decapitation, is valid for slaughter, the heifer

that is decapitated,

which is valid for decapitation, is it not logical that it should be valid for slaughter as well?

And we answer:

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

And from the fact that the verse repeated the matter, since “the heifer that is decapitated” has already been written, we learn that decapitation is indispensable. That is:

With regard to decapitation, yes; with regard to slaughter, no!

Mishna:

Kohanim are fit to serve in the Temple throughout all the days of their lives, and they are not disqualified because of their age.

Kohanim with a blemish are disqualified from service.

The Levites have the opposite status: a blemish does not disqualify them from service, while 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

valid for kohanim is

invalid for Levites.

And what is

valid for Levites is

invalid for kohanim.

Gemara:

The Sages taught: Kohanim are

disqualified by blemishes.

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

by age they are

fit.

They are fit for service throughout all their days.

Levites are

fit despite blemishes.

A blemish does not disqualify them, but

by age they are

disqualified!

If they are younger than thirty or older than fifty, they are disqualified from service.

It follows

that what is

valid for kohanim is invalid for Levites,

and what is

valid for Levites is invalid for kohanim.

The Gemara discusses this:

From where are these matters

that age does not disqualify kohanim and blemishes do not disqualify Levites, derived?

As the Sages taught:

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

“This is for the Levites”—

What does the verse come to teach?

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

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

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

we learn

from here

that age disqualifies the Levites.

One might have thought that

also

blemishes disqualify them?

And it is logical,

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

Just as kohanim, whom age does not disqualify, are disqualified by blemishes; Levites,

who are more stringent than kohanim in this regard,

as age disqualifies them, is it not logical that blemishes should disqualify them as well?!

The verse states—

“This is for the Levites.”

And we derive from “this,” which indicates that it comes to exclude—

this applies to the Levites, and nothing else applies to the Levites.

Apart from the disqualification by age stated in the passage, nothing else disqualifies them.

One might have thought that kohanim are disqualified by age?

Is it not logical: Just as Levites, whom blemishes do not disqualify, are disqualified by age; kohanim,

who are more stringent than them,

as blemishes disqualify them, is it not logical that age should disqualify them as well?!

The verse states—

“that which is for the Levites.”

This indicates:

and not that which is for the kohanim!

The disqualification by age is stated only with regard to Levites, and not with regard to kohanim.

One might have thought that this applies even in Shiloh and in the permanent Temple,

the Temple in Jerusalem, and that it would be

so

that age would disqualify the Levites there as well?

The verse states:

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

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

I stated

that age disqualifies the Levites

only when the service involves carrying on the shoulder,

that is, in the Tabernacle, where the Levites carried the Tabernacle and strength was required to carry it. Therefore, they were fit only when they had reached their full strength, namely, from the age of thirty until the age of fifty. But in Shiloh and in the Temple, where the service of the Levites consisted only of serving as gatekeepers and singing, and did not involve carrying, age did not disqualify them.

We now turn to 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, since twenty-five has already been stated; and it is impossible to say twenty-five, since thirty has already been stated?!

How

are these two verses to be reconciled?

The answer is: From the age of

twenty-five

the Levite enters

to study

the laws of the service,

and from the age of

thirty

he enters

into the service!

From here

we learn that

a student who has not seen a favorable sign in his learning for five years

who studies and forgets,

will no longer see

a sign of blessing. For the Levites engaged in their studies for only five years.

Rabbi Yosei says: Three years

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

As it is stated: “And to raise them

—three years, and to teach them

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

the first tanna, does not derive this from that verse, because

the language of the Chaldeans is different, as it is easy,

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

And the other,

Rabbi Yosei, who does not derive this from the Levites, does so because

the laws of the service

in the Tabernacle

are difficult.

There are many things that must be learned: the order of dismantling the Tabernacle, erecting the boards and hooks, and the singing accompanying the offering with instruments and vocally. Therefore, their period of study is five years. But in Torah study, one can determine within three years alone that if he has not seen a favorable sign in that time, he will no longer see one!

The Sages taught: A kohen

from the time he produces two pubic hairs,

at which point 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.

With regard to what are these matters stated,

that age disqualifies Levites?

In the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness. But in Shiloh and in the permanent Temple,

the Levites

are disqualified only by their voice,

once their voices deteriorate and they are unable to sing properly.

Rabbi Yosei said: What is the verse

that indicates that they are disqualified by their voice?