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

And we answer:

They say: Yes,

this is also so: these are not the same.

There,

with regard to the guards in the House of Avtinas and the House of the Spark,

for

they had not yet

reached the age to perform the Temple service

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

they are called “

young men.”

For “naar,” they translate “young man.”

But

here,

with regard to the priests who slept in the Chamber of the Hearth,

for

they were already adults, and

they had reached the age to perform the Temple service

—for this was why they slept in the Chamber of the Hearth: so that they would be ready for the service the next day—

they are called “

young men

of the priesthood.”

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

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

And the Levites

would 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.

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.

These nine guard posts were

outside

the Courtyard.

And the remaining three places were:

One in the Chamber of the Offering

—this was 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:

From where are these matters derived,

that there were twenty-one places?

Rav Yehuda of Sura said, and some say that it was taught in a baraita:

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

As it is written

there: “

To the east, six Levites.

To the north, for the day,

four.

To the south, for the day, four.

And for the storehouses, two by two.

For the colonnade to the west—

four at the causeway, two at the colonnade.”

The wording of the verse will be explained below. Since there were twenty-four Levites, derive from here that they guarded in twenty-four places. If they guarded in one place, all this would not be necessary. And if they were stationed together so that there would be company, two guards would have sufficed.

And we challenge this:

They say:

But

these

Levites who are enumerated in the verse—

there were twenty-four!

There were six in the east, four in the north, four in the south, four at the place called the House of the Storehouses—as it is written, “two by two”—and six in the west, as it is written: “For the colonnade to the west—four at the causeway, two at the colonnade.” That is, six guarded facing the outer colonnade to the west: four at the causeway—in the western end of the House—and two at the colonnade—on the western side, outside. Rosh.

Abaye said: The verse states

that: “

For the storehouses, two.”

It does not say four, as you said. And the fact that it is written “two by two” is merely a repetition of the wording. This is the usual manner of repeating the wording at the end of a verse.

We challenge again: And

there are still twenty-two,

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

And we answer:

How

was the guard duty

of the colonnade—

one

place בלבד

it was.

And the fact that it is written there, “two at the colonnade,” is because another

one

Levite was added there, and he sat there

together with the one who was stationed there

as a guard,

because

the colonnade

stood

at

the outside,

not adjacent to the other places where they guarded; therefore, one Levite did not sit there alone as a guard.

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

And we explain:

What is meant by “

for the colonnade”?

Rabba bar Rav Sheila said: It is in accordance with the one who says

that it is an acronym: “

toward the outside.”

That is, outside.

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

places

there,

as

it is written

in this verse. And the “two by two” written regarding the storehouses indeed means four. Likewise, there were two places at the colonnade, contrary to what we answered above. Rather, in

three

places

of them,

the guard duty was that of

the priests.

And

only in

twenty-one

places was the guard duty that of

the Levites.

But it cannot be established that more than three places were guarded by priests, since we do not find more than three priestly guard posts, as we expounded above: “guarders,” “watch,” “for the watch.”

We challenge again: How could you say that the priests’ guard duty was included among the twenty-four guard posts?

But here

in the verse,

“Levites”

is what is written!

And we answer: Priests are also included within the designation Levites,

in accordance with Rabbi Joshua ben Levi.

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

the

priests are called “

Levites.”

And this is one of them—“

And 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:

What is different about the Temple Mount, that we arranged

its guarding

from within

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

and what is different about the Courtyard, that we arranged

its guarding

from outside

it, both at its gates and at its corners?

They say: In the case of the Temple Mount, if the guard became tired

—

and needed to sit, he could sit,

since sitting was permitted there—

we arranged

the guarding

from within.

But

in the case of the Courtyard, if

the guard became tired

and needed to sit, he could not sit, for

it was

taught by the master: Sitting in the Courtyard is permitted only to the kings of the House of David.

Therefore

we arranged

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!

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!

These are the Gate of the Spark and the Chamber of the Hearth, since the priests guarded there above, and the Levites’ guarding was not needed.

Rava said:

It is a dispute between

tannaitic

authorities regarding the number of gates of the Courtyard.

As it was taught:

There may not be fewer

in the Temple

than thirteen treasurers

—gatekeepers—

and seven supervisors,

who were appointed over everything, including the treasurers.

Rabbi Natan says:

Why

may there not be fewer than thirteen treasurers?

Because they corresponded

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.

This disagrees with 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 בלבד

there were

in the Courtyard.

And this is the tanna of our Mishna, who says: “The Levites guarded in twenty-one places.” Thus, there are three tannaitic opinions on this matter.

We learned in the Mishna:

They did not sleep in the 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 the priestly garments, lest he pass wind while wearing them, which would disgrace the sacred garments.

But

in

walking they were permitted. And

the priests

would walk

in them

in them,

even when it was not the time of the service.

Learn from here: The priestly garments were given for benefit!

The priests do not transgress the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property by benefiting from wearing them when it is not the time of the service, because the intention of the court stipulated at the time they were consecrated that they be consecrated on the condition that the priests benefit from wearing them.

And we reject this:

They say,

this is not a proof from here. In fact,

even walking

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

was likewise not

permitted.

And the reason that it teaches “

They did not sleep

in them” is not specifically that wearing them while sleeping was prohibited; it was prohibited even when they were 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 teach us that we are not concerned that they might pass wind on them once they had removed them [Rashi, Yoma 69],

it also teaches in the first clause: “

They did not sleep” in them.

We demonstrate again: The law of the latter clause itself proves that the garments were given for the priests’ benefit. For

it nevertheless teaches: “

And they would place them beneath their heads.”

This too is a benefit, since they used them as a pillow.

Learn from here: The priestly garments were given for benefit!

Rav Pappa said:

This too is no proof, because they did not place them truly beneath their heads. Rather,

say that it means: “

opposite

—beside—

their heads.”

Rav Mesharsheya said: Learn from here

from Rav Pappa’s answer that

tefillin may be placed at the side!

When one goes to sleep and removes his tefillin, he may place them beneath his headrest, between the pillow and the mattress, not directly beneath his head but beside it.

And we are not concerned lest he turn over

in his sleep

and fall upon them,

so that they will be beneath his head and thereby come to disgrace.

And this follows by means of a kal va-chomer: If, with regard to the priestly garments, sleeping upon them is prohibited by Torah law because of misuse of consecrated property, and nevertheless it is permitted to place them beside one’s head, and we are not concerned lest he turn over and fall upon them, thereby coming to a Torah prohibition—then with regard to tefillin, even if he turns over and falls upon them, the prohibition is only rabbinic, due to the disgrace of tefillin; certainly we do not decree that it is forbidden to place them at one’s side.

And we establish Rav Pappa’s statement:

Here too, it is reasonable that “

beneath their heads,” as it is taught, means

opposite their heads,

and not directly beneath them.

For if you say that “beneath their heads”

means literally beneath them, and as you said, “the priestly garments were given for benefit,” there is still a difficulty.

Granted that they were given for benefit

and there is no misuse of consecrated property involved; nevertheless,

let it go out

that it is forbidden to lie upon them

because of the prohibition of diverse kinds,

which applies to the priestly garments.

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