Taanit 27a — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Zeira’s father continued and asked:

If so,

since the blessing-performing priest was equated with the ministering priest, let us add and learn concerning the blessing-performing priest from the ministering priest as follows:

Just as

a priest who is

ministering—

a blemished one is not,

for a blemished priest is disqualified for service,

so too, a blessing-performing priest—

a blemished one

is not,

and a blemished priest should be disqualified from reciting the priestly blessing!

Rabbi Isaac said to him:

But he was equated with the nazirite

[for the blessing-performing priest was equated with the nazirite]. And just as there is no disqualification on account of being blemished in the case of a nazirite, so too a priest is not disqualified from blessing if he is blemished.

Rabbi Zeira’s father said to him: It emerges from your words that the Torah equated the blessing-performing priest both with the nazirite and with the ministering priest, but it was not stated with regard to which matter he was equated with this one, and with regard to which matter—with that one.

And you determine and say that the blessing-performing priest was equated with the ministering priest with regard to the matter that he is not prohibited from eating grapeskins, and with the nazirite with regard to the matter that a blemish does not disqualify him. Although in fact it is possible to equate them in the opposite direction as well, and to learn from the ministering priest that a blemished one is disqualified, and from the nazirite—that he is prohibited from eating grapeskins.

And

the matter is puzzling:

What have you seen that you equate it leniently

[what have you seen, from where do you prove this, that one should equate him with the ministering priest and the nazirite in a manner that is lenient for the blessing-performing priest], so that he is not prohibited from eating grapeskins and a blemish does not disqualify him,

on the contrary,

let us equate it stringently

[let us equate it stringently], and say that just as a nazirite is prohibited from eating grapeskins, so too a blessing-performing priest is prohibited. And just as a blemish disqualifies a ministering priest, so too a blemish disqualifies a blessing-performing priest!

Rabbi Isaac said to him: In truth, the fact that a priest who is drunk is prohibited from raising his hands is not a law of the Torah, but a rabbinic enactment.

And the fact that we learned this matter from an equation with the ministering priest—

it is a supporting basis, rabbinic

[the Sages based their law upon words of the Torah] .

And

since the source of the law is a rabbinic enactment, we must equate

leniently,

so that the law will correspond to the derivation from the verse. That is, a blemish does not disqualify a blessing-performing priest, and he is not prohibited from eating grapeskins.

We learned in our Mishna:

These are the watches, according to

as it is stated: Command the Children of Israel, etc.

The Gemara asks:

What is he saying

[what is the intention of the tanntay of our Mishna], who began and said, “These are the watches,” but did not continue in that matter to explain what the watches are; rather, he wrote the reason for the matter: “According to what is stated, Command the Children of Israel, etc.” What is the explanation of his words?

And the Gemara explains:

This is what he is saying

[the tanntay said this]:

These are the watches—

as will be brought below in the Mishna.

And what

is the

reason

for the fact that they

instituted watches—

“According to what is stated: ‘Command the Children of Israel and say to them: My offering, My bread for My fires.’”

And how can a person’s offering be sacrificed while he does not stand over it?

The early prophets instituted twenty-four divisions.

For each and every division there was a watch in Jerusalem, of priests, Levites, and Israelites.

When the time of a division arrived to go up, the priests and Levites would go up to Jerusalem.

The Sages taught: There were twenty-four divisions

in

the Land of Israel, and twelve

divisions were

in

the city

of Jericho.

And the Gemara expresses astonishment:

Twelve

divisions were

in Jericho,

in addition to those twenty-four that were in the Land of Israel? If so,

they are far too many for them

[the divisions are many more than twenty-four], for the total number of divisions, those of the Land of Israel and those of Jericho, is thirty-six!

Rather,

it is necessarily the intention of the tanna as follows: There were twenty-four divisions in the Land of Israel.

Twelve of them,

from those twenty-four, were in Jericho.

And what was the order for those divisions’ going up to Jerusalem?

When

the time of the division arrived

[one of the twenty-four divisions]

to go up

to Jerusalem, the members of the division would be divided as follows:

Half of the division would go up from

the other parts of

the Land of Israel to Jerusalem

for the service.

And half of the division would go up from Jericho, in order that they should supply water and food to their brothers who

were working

in Jerusalem.

For those priests who came from distant places could not bring with them water and food needed for their stay in Jerusalem. Therefore half a division would go up with them from Jericho, which was near Jerusalem, and they would bring with them water and food needed by all the members of the division .

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: The priests, Levites, and Israelites

who were in that watch

prevent the offering.

That is, if all the members of the watch did not go up to Jerusalem—priests, Levites, and Israelites—but only some of them did, the offering is invalid. Since all of them, priests, Levites, and Israelites, are the owners of the offering, everyone must have representation at the time it is sacrificed .

In a metanita it was taught

[in a beraita we learned],

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Priests and Levites

, and

also

musical instruments

, prevent the offering.

If there were Levites and they sang their song, but they did not play musical instruments, the offering is invalid.

But according to Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel, musical instruments do not prevent the offering.

With regard to what do they disagree

[in what did they disagree], what is the reason for the disagreement over whether musical instruments prevent it or not?

The Master,

Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel,

holds

that

the essence of song—

the song that the Levites sing—

is with the mouth.

The playing of the instruments comes only to make the singers’ voices more pleasant. Therefore, since in the end there are Levites who sing the song, the musical instruments do not prevent it.

And the Master,

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar,

holds

that

the essence of song is with an instrument.

Therefore, if there are no musical instruments, even though the Levites themselves sing their song, the offering is invalid .

Rav Ḥama bar Gurya said in the name of Rav:

The priests were not divided into twenty-four divisions in all generations.

Rather, this was the order of matters:

Initially,

Moses instituted

for Israel eight priestly divisions.

Four

divisions

from

the family of

Eleazar,

son of Aaron,

and four

divisions

from

the family of

Ithamar,

his son.

Samuel came

in his generation—

and established them

[he established the number of divisions]

at sixteen .

David came

in his generation, when he saw that the priests had increased further and that dividing them into sixteen divisions was insufficient,

and established them

[he established the number of divisions]

at twenty-four .

As it is stated: “In the fortieth year of the reign of David they were sought out, and there were found among them mighty men in Jazer of Gilead.”

And in those passages, which concern matters that occurred in the days of David , twenty-four divisions are counted.

It was objected

[the Gemara raises an objection from the words of the following beraita against the words of Rav Ḥama bar Gurya in the name of Rav]:

Moses instituted for Israel eight divisions.

Four

divisions

from Eleazar, and four—

from Ithamar.

There came

[they came],

David and Samuel—

and established them

[they established the number of divisions]

at twenty-four.

As it is stated: “They were founded by David and Samuel the seer

in their faithfulness.”

It follows for us that David and Samuel together established them at twenty-four divisions, and not as Rav Ḥama bar Gurya said in the name of Rav: that Samuel established them at sixteen, and only afterward David established them at twenty-four!

The Gemara explains:

This is what he is saying

[this is the intention of the tanna in the beraita]:

From the foundation of David and Samuel the Ramathite,

that is, through both of them, each of whom in turn increased the number of the watches—

they established them

in the end

at twenty-four

divisions.

Another beraita was taught

[we learned in another beraita]: Initially,

Moses instituted for Israel sixteen divisions,

in an equal division between the descendants of Eleazar and the descendants of Ithamar:

eight

of the divisions were

from Eleazar, and eight

divisions—

from Ithamar.

And

afterward,

when the

priests,

the descendants of Eleazar,

became more numerous than the descendants of Ithamar, they divided them

[they divided the divisions again in a different manner, so that it would correspond to the relative number of the descendants of Eleazar and the descendants of Ithamar],

and established them at twenty-four.

Sixteen—from the descendants of Eleazar, and eight—from the descendants of Ithamar.

As it is stated: “And more heads of the men were found among the descendants of Eleazar than among the descendants of Ithamar, and they divided them.

They divided

for the descendants of

Eleazar, heads of ancestral houses, sixteen, and for the descendants of Ithamar according to their ancestral houses, eight.”

That is, initially eight divisions from the descendants of Ithamar and eight from the descendants of Eleazar had been established.

Afterward, when “heads of the men” [the people fit for service] of the descendants of Eleazar were found to be more numerous than those of the descendants of Ithamar, they divided the priests into twenty-four divisions: sixteen of them—from the descendants of Eleazar, who were more numerous than the descendants of Ithamar, and eight of them—from Ithamar.

And it says

[and there is an additional proof for the matter, from another verse]:

“One ancestral house allotted to Eleazar, and an allotment, an allotment, to Ithamar.”

That is, they added to Eleazar another allotment [the same number] as had existed initially. That is, they added another eight divisions to the eight that he had initially, so that together he had sixteen ancestral houses. And this is “one ancestral house allotted to Eleazar”: they added to him one additional allotment.

But with regard to Ithamar, that allotment which had existed initially remained an allotment even now. They did not add anything to him. And this is “an allotment, an allotment, to Ithamar”: the number that they had initially remained also now.

The Gemara asks:

What is “And it says”?

Why is it necessary to bring proof from an additional verse? Why is the first verse not sufficient? After all, the new division—sixteen for Eleazar and eight for Ithamar—is written there explicitly!

And the Gemara explains:

And if you would say

[for if we were to learn only from the first verse, perhaps you would say],

just as the descendants of Eleazar became more numerous

[just as they increased the ancestral houses of the descendants of Eleazar],

so too here the descendants of Ithamar became more numerous to eight

[they likewise increased the descendants of Ithamar and now established them at eight],

and in truth

initially there were four

[initially each of them had] only four ancestral houses; rather, the descendants of Eleazar increased greatly, and therefore they established them at sixteen, whereas the descendants of Ithamar did not increase to that extent, and therefore they established them at only eight—

Ta shma: “One paternal house was assigned to Eleazar, and one paternal house was assigned to Ithamar.”

For this verse proves that the watches of the descendants of Ithamar remained as they had been initially, and only the watches of the descendants of Eleazar increased.

In any event, it is proven from here that initially Moses established eight watches from each paternal house. But Rav Hama bar Gurya said that initially Moses established four watches for each paternal house.

Tiyuvta of Rav Hama bar Gurya

[The beraita presents a difficulty against Rav Hama bar Gurya]!

Rav Hama bar Gurya can say to you: It is a dispute between tannaim.

[There is a dispute between tannaim concerning this],

and I stated my opinion according to that tanna who says eight

[And I stated my words according to the view of the tanna who holds that initially there were eight watches in total, from the descendants of Eleazar and the descendants of Ithamar together] .

The Sages taught: Four watches

of priests

came up from the exile

to the Land of Israel at the time when the Second Temple was established [and the other watches remained in the exile and did not wish to come up].

And these are

those four watches:

a.

Jedaiah,

b.

Harim,

c.

Pashhur,

d.

and Immer.