Taanit 27a (כז.) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Zeira’s father continued and asked:

If so,

since the priest who blesses was likened to the priest who performs the Temple service, let us add and derive the law concerning the priest who blesses from the priest who performs the service as follows:

Just as

a priest

who performs the service—

a blemished one may not,

as a blemished priest is disqualified from the Temple service,

so too, a priest who blesses—

a blemished one

may not,

and a blemished priest should be disqualified from reciting the Priestly Blessing!

Rabbi Yitzchak said to him:

But he was likened to a nazirite

[the priest who blesses was likened to a nazirite]. And just as there is no disqualification of a blemish 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 likened the priest who blesses both to a nazirite and to the priest who performs the service, but it did not state with regard to which matter he was likened to this one, and with regard to which matter—to that one.

And you determine and say that the priest who blesses was likened to the priest who performs the service with regard to the matter that he is not prohibited from eating ḥarẓan, and to the nazirite with regard to the matter that a blemish does not disqualify him. Yet in fact, it would also be possible to make the comparisons in the reverse direction and to derive from the priest who performs the service that a blemish disqualifies him, and from the nazirite that he is prohibited from eating ḥarẓan.

And

this is perplexing:

What did you see that led you to make the comparison in the lenient direction

[what did you see, from where do you prove that the priest who blesses should be compared to the priest who performs the service and to the nazirite in a manner that is lenient for the priest who blesses], so that he is not prohibited from eating ḥarẓan and a blemish does not disqualify him?

On the contrary,

let us make the comparison in the stringent direction

[let us make the comparison stringently] and say: Just as a nazirite is prohibited from eating ḥarẓan, so too, a priest who blesses is prohibited. And just as a blemish disqualifies a priest who performs the service, so too, a blemish disqualifies a priest who blesses!

Rabbi Yitzchak said to him: In truth, the fact that a priest may not raise his hands to bless when he is drunk is not a Torah law; rather, it is a rabbinic enactment.

And the fact that we derived this matter by means of a comparison to the priest who performs the service—

it is a rabbinic asmachta

[the Sages supported their law with a biblical verse] .

And

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

in the lenient direction,

so that the law corresponds to the derivation from the verse. That is, a blemish does not disqualify a priest who blesses, and he is not prohibited from eating ḥarẓan.

We learned in our Mishna:

These are the ma’amadot, in accordance with

that which is stated: ‘Command the children of Israel, etc.’

The Gemara asks:

What is he saying

[what is the intention of the tanna of our Mishna], who began by saying, “These are the ma’amadot,” but did not continue on the same subject to explain what the ma’amadot are; rather, he stated the reason for the matter: “In accordance with that which is stated: ‘Command the children of Israel, etc.’” What is the explanation of his words?

The Gemara explains:

This is what he is saying

[this is what the tanna said]:

These are the ma’amadot—

as will be presented below in the Mishna.

And what

is the

reason

that they

instituted ma’amadot—

“In accordance with that which is stated: ‘Command the children of Israel and say to them: My offering, My food for My fire-offerings.’”

And how can a person’s offering be sacrificed when he is not standing over it?

The early prophets instituted twenty-four divisions.

For each and every division there was a ma’amad in Jerusalem, consisting of priests, Levites, and Israelites.

When the time came for a division to ascend, the priests and Levites would ascend to Jerusalem.

The Sages taught in a beraita: There were twenty-four divisions

in

the Land of Israel, and twelve

divisions were

in

the city of

Jericho.

The Gemara wonders:

Twelve

divisions were

in Jericho,

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

they are far too numerous

[the divisions greatly exceed twenty-four], for the total number of divisions, those of the Land of Israel and those of Jericho, is thirty-six!

Rather,

the only possible meaning is this: There were twenty-four divisions in the Land of Israel.

Twelve of them,

from among those twenty-four, were in Jericho.

And what was the procedure by which those divisions would ascend to Jerusalem?

When

the time of the division arrived

[one of the twenty-four divisions]

to ascend

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

Half of the division would ascend from

the other parts of

the Land of Israel to Jerusalem

for the service.

And half of the division would ascend from Jericho, in order to provide water and food for their brothers who

were working

in Jerusalem.

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

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The priests, Levites, and Israelites

of that ma’amad—

prevent the offering from being sacrificed.

That is, if all the members of the ma’amad did not ascend 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, all of them must be represented at the time it is sacrificed .

In a beraita it was taught

[we learned in a beraita]:

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Priests and Levites

, and

also

musical instruments

, prevent the offering from being sacrificed.

For if there were Levites who sang their song but did not play musical instruments, the offering is invalid.

But according to Rav Yehuda, who said that Shmuel said this, musical instruments do not prevent the offering from being sacrificed.

With regard to what do they disagree

[over what did they disagree]? What is the basis of the dispute as to whether musical instruments prevent the offering from being sacrificed?

One master,

Rav Yehuda, who said this in the name of Shmuel,

holds

that

the essential song—

the song that the Levites sing—

is vocal.

The instrumental music serves only to enhance the singers’ voices. Therefore, since in any event there are Levites singing the song, the musical instruments do not prevent the offering from being sacrificed.

And the other master,

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar,

holds

that

the essential song is with instruments.

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

Rav Hama bar Gurya said that Rav said: The priests were not divided into twenty-four divisions in every generation.

Rather, this was the order of events:

At first,

At first,

Moses instituted

eight priestly divisions for Israel.

Four

divisions were

from

the family of

Elazar

son of Aaron,

and four

divisions were

from

the family of

Itamar,

his son.

Samuel came

in his generation

and established them

[and established the number of the divisions]

at sixteen .

David came

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

and established them

[and established the number of the divisions]

at twenty-four .

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

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

The Gemara raises an objection

[the Gemara raises a difficulty from the words of the following beraita against Rav Hama bar Gurya’s statement in the name of Rav]:

Moses instituted eight divisions for Israel.

Four

divisions were

from Elazar, and four—

from Itamar.

There came

[they came],

David and Samuel—

and established them

[and established the number of the divisions]

at twenty-four.

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

in their faithfulness.”

It follows that David and Samuel together established them as twenty-four divisions, and not as Rav Hama 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 laid by David and Samuel the Ramathite,

that is, through the efforts of both of them, each of whom in turn increased the number of the divisions,

they established them

ultimately

at twenty-four

divisions.

Another beraita was taught:

[we learned in another beraita]: At first,

Moses instituted sixteen divisions for Israel,

with an equal division between the descendants of Elazar and the descendants of Itamar:

eight

of the divisions were

from Elazar, and eight

divisions were

from Itamar.

And

afterward,

when

the priests

descendants of Elazar

became more numerous

than the descendants of Itamar, they divided them [and divided the divisions anew in a different manner, suited to the relative numbers of the descendants of Elazar and Itamar],

and established them at twenty-four.

Sixteen were from the descendants of Elazar, and eight were from the descendants of Itamar.

As it is stated: “And it was found that the descendants of Elazar had more prominent men among the heads of the men than the descendants of Itamar;

and they divided them.

For the descendants of

Elazar, heads of ancestral houses, sixteen; and for the descendants of Itamar, according to their ancestral houses, eight.”

That is, at first eight divisions from the descendants of Itamar and eight from the descendants of Elazar had been established.

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

And it states

[and there is further proof of this from another verse]:

“One ancestral house-share was allotted to Elazar, and share after share to Itamar.”

That is, they added to Elazar another share [the same number that he had initially]. In other words, they added another eight divisions to the eight he had initially, so that altogether he had sixteen ancestral houses. This is the meaning of “one ancestral house-share was allotted to Elazar”: another share was added to him.

But for Itamar, the share that he had initially remained a share now as well. Nothing was added to him. This is the meaning of “share after share to Itamar”: the number they had initially remained the same now as well.

The Gemara asks:

What is the purpose of the phrase “and it states”?

Why is it necessary to bring proof from an additional verse? Why is the first verse not sufficient, since the new division—sixteen for Elazar and eight for Itamar—is stated there explicitly?

The Gemara explains:

If you would say

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

just as the descendants of Elazar became more numerous

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

so too here, the descendants of Itamar became more numerous, to eight

[they too increased in number and were now established at eight],

and in truth,

at first there were four

[each of them initially had] only four ancestral houses, but the descendants of Elazar increased greatly, and therefore they were established at sixteen, whereas the descendants of Itamar did not increase to that extent, and therefore they were established at only eight—

Ta shma: “One ancestral house was assigned to Elazar, and one ancestral house was assigned to Itamar.”.

This verse proves that the watches of the descendants of Itamar remained as they had been originally, and only the watches of the descendants of Elazar increased.

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

Tiyuvta of Rav Hama bar Gurya [

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

Rav Hama bar Gurya could say to you: It is a dispute between tannaim [

There is a dispute between tannaim concerning this matter],

and I stated my view in accordance with this tanna, who says eight [

And I stated my view in accordance with the tanna who maintains that initially there were eight watches in all, from the descendants of Elazar and the descendants of Itamar together] .

The Sages taught: Four watches

of priests

came up from the exile

to Eretz Yisrael when the Second Temple was built [and the other watches remained in the Diaspora and did not wish to ascend].

And these are they:

those four watches:

a.

Yedaiah,

b.

Harim,

c.

Pashhur,

d.

And Immer.