Tamid 27a — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

They say: No,

here too, it is indeed so, for they are not the same thing.

There,

with the guards of the House of Avtinas and the House of the Spark,

for

they had not yet

reached the point of performing the Temple service

in the Temple—for only minors under thirteen years of age guarded there—

they called them “

young boys.”

For “lad,” they translate “rabya.”

But

here,

with the priests who were sleeping in the Chamber of the Hearth,

for

they were already adults, and

they had reached the point of performing the Temple service

[for they slept there for this purpose, so that they would be ready for the service on the following day],

they called them “

young men

of the priesthood” .

We learned there: In three places the priests guard in the Temple—

in the House of Avtinas, in the House of the Spark, and in the Chamber of the Hearth.

And the Levites

guard

in twenty-one places.

In

five

places—

at the five gates of the Temple Mount.

In

four

places—

at its four corners

of the Temple Mount.

And these nine guard posts were

inside

the Temple Mount.

And in

five, at the five gates of

the

courtyard.

And in

four, at its four corners.

And these nine guard posts were

outside

the courtyard.

And the remaining three places were:

One in the Chamber of the Offering

[which is the Chamber of the Lambs, or it was a special chamber in which to inspect the offerings for blemishes. Rosh].

And one in the Chamber of the Curtain

[where they wove the curtain].

And one

in the chamber

behind the Holy of Holies

[the Holy of Holies].

And we inquire concerning this:

From where are these words

that there were twenty-one places?

Rav Yehuda of Sura said, and some say: a beraita was taught:

It is derived from the number of Levites who guarded in the Tabernacle in the days of David.

As it is written

there: “

To the east, six Levites.

To the north, by day

four.

To the south, by day, four.

And for the collections, two by two.

For the outer area to the west—

four at the road, two for the outer area.”

[The wording of the verse will be explained below.] And since there were twenty-one Levites, infer from this that they guarded in twenty-one places. For if it were in one place, all this would not be necessary. And if it was so that the guarding would be in company, two guards would suffice.

And we challenge this:

They say:

But

these

Levites who are listed in the verse—

there were twenty-four!?

[Six in the east, four in the north, four in the south, four in the place called the House of the Collections [as it is written, “two by two”], and six in the west, as it is written, “for the outer area to the west—four at the road, two for the outer area.” That is, six guarded toward the outer area outside, to the west: four at the road [at the western end of the building], and two at the outer area [on the western side, outside]. Rosh.]

Abaye said: The verse says

the following: “

For the collections, two.”

And not four, as you said. And that which is written, “two by two,” is only a repetition of the wording. For this is the manner: to repeat the wording at the end of the verse.

And we challenge again: And

there were still twenty-two,

so why did we learn, “twenty-one places”?

And we answer:

How

was the guarding

of the outer area—

one

place only

was it.

And that which is written concerning it, “two for the outer area,” is because another Levite

additional

was added there, and in order to be

in company, he sat beside him

the guard who was there,

because

the outer area

stood

at

the outside,

for it was not adjacent to the other places where they guarded; therefore one Levite did not sit there guarding alone.

But in all the remaining places, one Levite alone guarded, and they did not require company, because there were several guard posts on each side, and they were adjacent to one another.

And we explain:

What is “

for the outer area”?

Rabba bar Rav Sheila said: It is according to the one who says

that it is a notarikon, “

toward the outside.”

That is, outside.

And if you wish, say: There were in fact twenty-four

places

there,

as it is written

in this verse. And “two by two,” which is written concerning the collections, was indeed four. And likewise, there were two places in the “outer area,” and not as we answered above. Rather, in

states. The phrase "two by two" written concerning the storehouses indeed means four. Likewise, there were two places at "the outer area," and not as we answered above. Rather, in

three

places

of them,

there was guarding

by priests .

And only in

only in

twenty-one

places was there guarding

by Levites .

[But it is impossible to establish more than three with regard to the priests, for we do not find more than three guard posts for them, as we expounded above: “guards,” “guard duty,” “for guard duty.”]

And we challenge again: How did you say that the guarding by priests was included among the twenty-four guard posts?

But here

in the verse, it is

Levites

that is written!?

And we answer: Priests too are included among Levites,

in accordance with Rabbi Joshua ben Levi.

For Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: In twenty-four places the

the

priests

were called “Levites.” And this is one of them—“

and

And this is one of them: "

the priests, the Levites, the sons of Zadok”!

And the verse cited above is also one of those places.

We learned above: “And the Levites in twenty-one places.”

Five, at the five gates of the Temple Mount.

And four, at its four corners—

from within.

Five, at the five gates of the courtyard.

And four, at its four corners—

from outside.

And we inquire concerning this:

What is different about the Temple Mount, that we perform

its guarding

from within

and inward, both at its gates and at its corners,

and what is different about the courtyard, that we perform

its guarding

from outside

it, both at its gates and at its corners?

They say: With regard to the Temple Mount, if the guard becomes exhausted

[tired] from standing,

and wishes to sit, he may sit,

for sitting is permitted there—

we perform

the guarding

from within.

But

with regard to the courtyard, if the guard becomes exhausted

the guard

and wishes to sit, he may not sit, for

indeed

the Master said: There is no sitting in the courtyard except for the kings of the House of David.

Therefore

we perform

the guarding

from outside.

The Master said: Five—

at the five gates of the courtyard.

And we raise a contradiction:

We learned:

There were seven gates in the courtyard.

Three in the north and three in the south,

and one in the west!

And why did they not guard at all seven gates, but only at five of them ?

Abaye said:

Two

gates

of them

do not require guarding!

And they are the Gate of the Spark and the Chamber of the Hearth, for the priests guarded there above, and guarding by the Levites was not required .

Rava said:

It is a dispute of

Tannaim

concerning the number of the gates of the courtyard.

For it was taught:

One may not reduce

in the Temple

from thirteen treasurers

[gatekeepers],

and from seven overseers

who were appointed over everything, including over the treasurers.

Rabbi Natan says:

Why

may one not reduce from thirteen treasurers?—

Because they are

corresponding to the thirteen gates

that were in the Temple!

Subtract the five gates of the Temple Mount, and eight

gates

of the courtyard remain.

Evidently, there is a Tanna who says that there were eight.

And he disputes the Tanna of the Mishna of Middot, who says, “There were seven gates in the courtyard.” And

here too, there is a Tanna who says

that

five

gates alone

there were

in the courtyard.

And this is the Tanna of our Mishna, who says: “The Levites guard in twenty-one places.” And there are three Tannaitic views concerning this.

We learned in the Mishna:

They did not sleep in sacred garments.

Rather, they would remove them, fold them, and place them beneath their heads!

And we infer:

It is sleep that was not

permitted in priestly garments, lest he have an emission in them, and it is disgraceful for sacred garments.

But

walking

walking

was permitted in them. And

the priests walk

in them

in them,

even when it is not the time of the service.

Infer from this: Priestly garments were given for benefit to be derived from them!

And the priests do not transgress through the benefit of wearing them when it is not the time of the service on account of sacrilege, because the heart of the court stipulated concerning them at the time they consecrated them that they should be consecrated on the condition that priests would benefit from wearing them .

And we reject this:

They say,

it is not proof from here. For in fact,

the same law applies that even walking

in priestly garments when it is not the time of the service

also is not

permitted.

And that which it teaches, “

They did not sleep

in them,” does not specifically mean that they were forbidden to wear them during sleep; rather, they were forbidden even while awake.

And because it needed to teach in the latter clause, “

Rather, they would remove them, fold them, and place them beneath their heads,”

to inform us that we are not concerned lest they have an emission in them once they removed them [Rashi, Yoma 69],

it also teaches in the first clause, “

They did not sleep.”

And we prove again: But even from the law of the latter clause it is proven that they were given for benefit to be derived from them by the priests. For it teaches at least,

“They do in fact teach, ‘

And they place them beneath their heads.’”

And this too is benefit, for they use them as a pillow.

Infer from this: Priestly garments were given for benefit to be derived from them!

Rav Pappa said:

This too is not proof, for they did not place them literally beneath their heads. Rather,

say: “

opposite

[beside]

their heads” !

Rav Mesharsheya said: Infer from this

from Rav Pappa’s resolution that

tefillin may remain at the side!

For when one goes to sleep and removes his tefillin, he is permitted to place them beneath his headrest, between the pillow and the mattress, not directly beneath his head, but beside the head.

And we are not concerned lest he roll over

[turn over] in his sleep

and fall upon them,

so that they will be beneath his head and come to be treated disgracefully .

And it is a kal va-chomer: If with regard to priestly garments, lying upon them is forbidden by Torah law on account of sacrilege, and even so it is permitted to place them beside the head, and we are not concerned lest he roll over and fall upon them and thereby come to a Torah prohibition—then with regard to tefillin, even if he rolls over and falls upon them, it is forbidden only by rabbinic law, on account of treating tefillin disgracefully, all the more so we do not decree concerning them to forbid placing them at the side.

And we prove in accordance with Rav Pappa’s words:

Here too, it is reasonable that

“beneath their heads,” which it teaches, means

opposite their heads,

and not literally beneath them.

For if you say, “beneath their heads”

literally, and as you said, “priestly garments were given for benefit to be derived from them,” there is still a difficulty. For

although they were given for benefit to be derived from them,

and there is no sacrilege in this, nevertheless,

let it go out

that it is forbidden to lie upon them

because of the prohibition of shaatnez,

which exists in priestly garments .

This prohibition was permitted only for the service . And necessarily, they placed them opposite their heads, and not beneath them.