Chullin 24b (כד:) — the Talmud in English

As it is stated: [II Chronicles 5

“And it was when the trumpeters and singers were as one, to make one sound,”]]

which indicates that the Levites must make their voices pleasant, so that they are all heard as one voice.

We learned in a beraita: A kohen

until he becomes old

is fit for the Temple service.

The Gemara asks:

How far,

from what point is the kohen considered “old,” so that he becomes disqualified from the service?

And we answer:

Rabbi Ela said that Rabbi Ḥanina said: Until he trembles.

That is, until his hands and feet tremble from lack of strength.

We learned there [Mikvaot 8:4]:

A person who experienced a seminal emission, who immersed but did not urinate

and did not release urine

before immersing—

when he releases

urine after his immersion, he will be

impure.

Perhaps a small amount of the semen remained at the opening of the urethra and now emerged with the urine, thereby rendering him impure.

Rabbi Yosei says:

Only

in the case of a sick person

or

an old man

is he

impure

when he did not urinate before immersing; but

in the case of a young man,

a youth who is

healthy,

he is

pure

even if he did not urinate before immersing, because all the semen initially emerged, and none remained at the opening of the urethra.

The Gemara asks: “A young man”—

how far,

until what age is he considered a young man?

And we answer:

Rabbi Ela said that Rabbi Ḥanina said: Anyone who can stand on one foot, remove his shoe, and put on his shoe

while his other foot remains suspended in the air is still considered a young man with regard to this law.

They said about Rabbi Ḥanina that he was eighty years old, yet he could stand on one foot, remove his shoe, and put on his shoe.

Rabbi Ḥanina said: The hot water and oil with which my mother anointed me in my childhood are what

that

sustained me in my old age,

so that I would have the strength of a young man.

The Sages taught: Once a man’s beard has fully grown

[of any Jew, and not specifically a kohen]—he is

fit

to

be appointed as a communal prayer leader,

and to perform on behalf of the community all their needs—for example, to blow the shofar for them, flog and excommunicate offenders, and appoint a leader over them—

and to descend before the ark

in prayer,

and

likewise, once his beard has fully grown, he is fit

to raise his hands

if he is a kohen.

From when is he fit

the kohen

for the service? From when he develops two pubic hairs.

Rabbi says: I say

that he is not fit for the service

until he is twenty years old.

Rav Ḥisda said: What is Rabbi’s reason?

As it is written: “And they stationed the Levites from the age of twenty years and upward to oversee the work of the House of the Lord.”

And the other one,

the first tanna, who does not derive the law from this verse, holds that

“to oversee” is different.

For it refers there to heavy tasks requiring supervision; therefore they appointed only those twenty years old and above to perform them.

And we challenge this:

But

this verse is written about the Levites, as

it is written?!

For it says, “And they stationed the Levites,” and Levites are fit [in the Temple] even when they are under twenty years old. Why, then, does it say that they stationed them only from the age of twenty?

And we answer: The Levites mentioned in this verse are kohanim, and this is

in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: In twenty-four places the kohanim are called “Levites,”

since the kohanim too are from the tribe of Levi.

And

this verse

is

one

of them,

as it is stated:

“And the kohanim, the Levites, the sons of Zadok,”

indicating that although Zadok was a kohen, his sons were nevertheless called “Levites.”

The Sages taught:

It is written in the passage concerning disqualifying blemishes of kohanim:

“Any man of your offspring throughout their generations.” From here Rabbi Elazar said:

Specifically, a kohen who is a “man,” meaning an adult in years, is disqualified only if he has a blemish; but a

minor

is

disqualified from the service, and even

if he is

unblemished!

From when

at what age is

the kohen

fit

for the service? From when he develops two pubic hairs,

for then he is considered a “man.”

But

still,

his fellow kohanim do not allow him to serve—

until he is twenty years old!

It follows from the latter clause of the beraita that they prohibit him from serving under the age of twenty only ab initio; but post facto the service is not invalidated, not even by rabbinic decree.

The opinions differ as to whose view this law follows:

Some say: This—

is Rabbi’s

view, for he said that kohanim are fit to serve only once they are twenty years old. The beraita comes to teach us that even Rabbi said this only with regard to serving ab initio; but he did not say that the service is invalid post facto when performed by one under twenty. Rather,

he does not hold that it is even subject to rabbinic disqualification.

And some say: Rabbi holds that there is

a

rabbinic disqualification

for service performed by kohanim under twenty years old.

And this—the beraita that states that a kohen under twenty may not serve only ab initio—

this beraita, which states that initially a koen under twenty should not serve—

is the view of the Rabbis,

who disagree with Rabbi and say that a kohen is fit for the service once he develops two pubic hairs,

and

only

ab initio is it the case that he may not

serve until he is twenty years old;

but post facto—

his service is valid.

The beraita comes to teach us that even the Rabbis agree that ab initio they do not allow him to serve when he is under twenty. Their statement that he is fit for the service once he develops two pubic hairs applies only post facto.

Mishna:

An earthenware vessel that contracted impurity from the outside does not thereby become impure, unless the impurity entered the hollow of the vessel. Even if it did not touch the vessel at all, but was suspended in the air within the vessel, the vessel likewise becomes impure. Other vessels, by contrast, do not become impure through impurity suspended within their hollow unless the impurity touches them, whether it touches them on the inside or on the outside.

It follows that what is

pure in an earthenware vessel is

impure in all vessels.

And what is

pure in all vessels is

impure in an earthenware vessel.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

Impurity that was suspended in the

air

within

an earthenware vessel,

even if it did not touch it, renders it

impure. And

if the impurity touched only

its back,

it is

pure.

The airspace of all vessels,

where impurity was suspended within their airspace but did not touch them, is

pure, and

if the impurity touched

their backs,

the vessel is

impure.

It follows

that what is

pure in an earthenware vessel is

impure in all vessels.

And what is

pure in all vessels is

impure in an earthenware vessel.

The Gemara asks:

From where are these words

that an earthenware vessel contracts impurity when impurity enters its hollow, even if it does not touch it?

As the Sages taught:

It is written [Leviticus 11]: “And any earthenware vessel into which one of them [of the creeping creatures] falls,

into it,

whatever is inside it shall be impure.” This indicates that if the impurity enters it,

even though it did not touch

the

vessel, the vessel is impure.

Do you say: Even though it did not touch, or perhaps it is

impure

only if it touched

the vessel?

Rabbi Yonatan ben Avtolmos says: “Into it” is stated with regard to rendering impure,

meaning that an impure earthenware vessel in turn renders impure the food that enters it, as it is written: “Whatever is inside it shall be impure.”

And “into it” is stated with regard to becoming impure,

meaning that the earthenware vessel itself contracts impurity from the creeping creature, as it is written: “Whatever of them falls into it.” And now we derive the meaning of one occurrence of “into it” from the other:

Just as “into it,” stated with regard to rendering impure,

indicates that

even though it did not touch

the vessel and the food that entered it, the food nevertheless becomes impure, as will be explained below,

so too “into it,” stated with regard to becoming impure, even though it did not touch

the creeping creature and the earthenware vessel, the earthenware vessel nevertheless becomes impure.

We inquire about this:

But there,

with regard to “rendering impure,”

from where do we know

that it renders impure even though it did not touch? And we answer:

Rabbi Yonatan said: The Torah testified concerning an earthenware vessel

into which a creeping creature fell, that all the food inside it becomes impure, for it is written: “Whatever is inside it shall be impure.”