Chullin 47

אמר קרא

The verse, therefore, says: And he shall slaughter it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the Red Cow; Num. XIX, 3.');">¹</span>

ושחט וחוקה בשחיטה אין בעריפה לא

and in addition [the law is stated to be] a statute,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 2: This is the statute of the law.');">²</span>

וכל היכא דכתיב ביה חוקה לא דרשינן ק"ו

in order to indicate that it is rendered valid only by slaughtering and not by breaking its neck.

והא גבי יום הכפורים דכתיב ביה חוקה ותניא

But is it established that whenever 'statute' is written [in connection with a law] one may not apply to it a fortiori argument?

(ויקרא טז, ט) ועשהו חטאת הגורל עושה חטאת ואין השם עושה חטאת

But what of the Day of Atonement ln connection wherewith statute' is written,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. XVI, 29: And it shall be a statute for ever unto you.');">³</span>

שיכול והלא דין הוא

nevertheless, it was taught: [Upon which the lot fell for the Lord,] and it shall determine it for the sin-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 9. The usual translation is. And he (sc. the priest) shall offer it for a sin-offering. The Rabbis, however, take 'the lot' as the subject of this sentence, and so derive from this verse the rule that it is the lot which decides the animal for the sacrifice.');">⁴</span>

ומה במקום שלא קדש הגורל קדש השם מקום שקדש הגורל אינו דין שקדש השם

implies that only the lot can determine it for the sin-offering, but designation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., merely naming or specifying by word of mouth which goat shall be for the sacrifice and which shall be sent away.');">⁵</span>

ת"ל

cannot determine it for the sin-offering.

ועשהו חטאת הגורל עושה חטאת ואין השם עושה חטאת

For [without this Biblical direction] I would have argued by an a fortiori argument thus: If offerings which are not consecrated by lot are nevertheless consecrated by designation,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., when a Pair of doves is offered, one of them for a sin-offering and the other for a burnt-offering (cf. Lev. XII, 8; XIV, 22) , it is not the lot that determines them for their respective offerings, for even after the casting of lots they can be changed over; but it is the express designation of the owner that determines them.');">⁶</span>

טעמא דכתב רחמנא

an offering which is consecrated by lot should surely be consecrated by designation! It is therefore written: 'And it shall determine it for the sin-offering', to indicate that the lot only can determine it for a sin-offer but designation will not determine it for a sin-offering.

ועשהו חטאת הא לאו הכי דרשינן ק"ו

Now this is so, only because it is written in the Divine Law, 'And it shall determine it for the sin-offering', but without this verse one would have applied the a fortiori argument!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although the law in connection with the Day of Atonement is stated to be a statute. This being so, the a fortiori argument should be applied in our Mishnah, with the result that the Red Cow be also rendered valid by breaking its neck.');">⁷</span>

מיעט רחמנא גבי עגלה

- The Divine Law excluded all others when it stated in connection with the Heifer, 'Whose neck was broken',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXI, 6.');">⁸</span>

הערופה זאת בעריפה ואין אחרת בעריפה

indicating that only this shall have its neck broken, but no other.

ותהא עגלה כשרה בשחיטה מק"ו

And should not the Heifer be rendered valid by slaughtering by the following a fortiori argument?

ומה פרה שלא הוכשרה בעריפה כשרה בשחיטה עגלה שכשרה בעריפה אינו דין שהוכשרה בשחיטה

Thus, if the Red Cow which is not rendered valid by breaking its neck is nevertheless rendered valid by slaughtering, the Heifer which is rendered valid by breaking its neck should surely be rendered valid by slaughtering! The verse states: And they shall break the neck,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 4.');">⁹</span>

אמר קרא

and also, 'Whose neck was broken', thus emphasizing that the Heifer is rendered valid only by breaking its neck and not by slaughtering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is the reading of MS.M.; v. Rashi. In cur. edd. only one verse is quoted in this final answer; v. Rashal. The injunction 'to break the neck' is repeated to indicate that this is the only method of killing the Heifer and no other is admissible. This answer is therefore in accordance with the accepted Rabbinic dictum: Wherever Scripture repeats an injunction it is meant to be indispensable.');">¹⁰</span>

(דברים כא, ד) וערפו העגלה בעריפה אין בשחיטה לא:

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>[THE DISABILITY] WHICH DOES NOT DISQUALIFY<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From taking part in the Temple service.');">¹¹</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> כשר בכהנים פסול בלוים כשר בלוים פסול בכהנים:

PRIESTS DISQUALIFIES LEVITES, AND [THE DISABILITY] WHICH DOES NOT DISQUALIFY LEVITES DISQUALIFIES PRIESTS.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ת"ר

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Our Rabbis taught: priests are disqualified by reason of a bodily blemish,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. XXI, 17.');">¹²</span>

כהנים במומין פסולים בשנים כשרים

and not by reason of age; Levites are disqualified by age<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For they are qualified for service only from the age of thirty to fifty.');">¹³</span>

לוים במומין כשרים בשנים פסולים

and not by bodily blemish.

נמצא כשר בכהנים פסול בלוים כשר בלוים פסול בכהנים

It follows, therefore, that [the disability which does not disqualify priests disqualifies Levites, and [the disability] which does not disqualify Levites disqualifies priests.

מנה"מ

Whence do we know this? - From the following Baraitha.

דת"ר

Our Rabbis taught: It is written: This is that which pertaineth unto the Levites.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. VIII, 24.');">¹⁴</span>

(במדבר ח, כד) זאת אשר ללוים מה ת"ל

Now what does this teach us?

לפי שנאמר

From the verse: And from the age of fifty years they shall return [from the service of the work],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid, 25.');">¹⁵</span>

(במדבר ח, כה) ומבן חמשים שנה ישוב למדנו ללוים שהשנים פוסלין בהם יכול מומין פוסלין בהם

we know that Levites are disqualified by age.

ודין הוא

Now I might have argued [by an a fortiori argument] that they are disqualified by bodily blemish too; thus, if priests who are not disqualified by age are nevertheless disqualified by bodily blemish, Levites who are disqualified by age should surely be disqualified by bodily blemish! It is therefore written: 'This is that which pertaineth unto the Levites', that is to say, this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. age.');">¹⁶</span>

ומה כהנים שאין השנים פוסלין בהן מומין פוסלין בהן לוים שהשנים פוסלין בהם אינו דין שיהו מומין פוסלין בהם

only disqualifies Levites, but nothing else disqualifies them.

ת"ל

Now I might also have argued [by an a fortiori argument] that priests are disqualified by age too; thus, if Levites who are not disqualified by bodily blemish are nevertheless disqualified by age, priests who are disqualified by bodily blemish should surely be disqualified by age! It is therefore written: 'Which pertaineth unto the Levites', and not 'unto the priests'.

זאת אשר ללוים זאת ללוים ואין אחרת ללוים

I might further have supposed that this rule<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That Levites are disqualified by age.');">¹⁷</span>

יכול יהו הכהנים פסולין בשנים

[as regards Levites] obtains even at Shiloh and at the permanent House;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the Temple at Jerusalem where the service of the Levites was to sing in the choir and to guard the doors of the Temple.');">¹⁸</span>

והלא דין הוא

It is, therefore, written: To do the work of service and the work of bearing burdens,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. IV, 47.');">¹⁹</span>

ומה לוים שאין מומין פוסלין בהם שנים פוסלין בהם כהנים שהמומין פוסלין בהם אינו דין שיהו שנים פוסלין בהם

that is to say: 'I ordained this rule only when the work was that of bearing burdens upon the shoulder'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The disqualification of Levites by age was, therefore, effective only from the service of the Tabernacle in the wilderness, where their duties consisted of dismantling the entire Tabernacle and bearing the various parts on their shoulders.');">²⁰</span>

ת"ל

One verse says: From twenty and five years old and upward;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. VIII, 24.');">¹⁴</span>

אשר ללוים ולא אשר לכהנים

and another verse says: From thirty years old and upward.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. IV, 23.');">²¹</span>

יכול אף בשילה ובבית עולמים כן

Now one cannot accept the age of thirty<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., as the proper age for commencing service.');">²²</span>

ת"ל

because of the verse which mentions twenty-five, and one cannot accept the age of twenty-five because of the verse which mentions thirty.

(במדבר ד, מז) לעבוד עבודת עבודה ועבודת משא לא אמרתי אלא בזמן שהעבודה בכתף

How are these verses to be reconciled?

כתוב אחד אומר

Thus: at the age of twenty-five [the Levite enters the service] for training, and at the age of thirty he performs service.

(במדבר ח, כד) מבן חמש ועשרים שנה ומעלה וכתוב אחד אומר

Hence the dictum: If a student does not see a sign of blessing [progress] in his studies after five years, he never will.

(במדבר ד, ג) מבן שלשים

R'Jose says, [After] three years, for it is written: they be trained three years.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dan. I, 5.');">²³</span>

אי אפשר לומר שלשים שכבר נאמר כ"ה ואי אפשר לומר כ"ה שכבר נאמר שלשים הא כיצד

And that they be taught the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 4.');">²⁴</span>

כ"ה ללמוד ושלשים לעבודה

And the other, [how does he explain these latter verses]? - He would say that the Chaldean language is an exception, for It is easy [to master].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore in three years one ought to expect good results.');">²⁵</span>

מכאן לתלמיד שלא ראה סימן יפה במשנתו ה' שנים שוב אינו

And the other, [R'Jose]? - He would say that the Temple service is an exception, for its rules are difficult.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because of the numerous details that had to be mastered; and, therefore, in such a case even R. Jose admits that five years are necessary.');">²⁶</span>

רואה ר' יוסי אומר

Our Rabbis taught: A priest, from the time that he has grown two hairs<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These refer to the pubic hairs which indicate maturity and generally appear in males at the age of thirteen years and one day, and in females at the age of twelve years and one day.');">²⁷</span>

ג' שנים שנאמר

until he grows old, is qualified for service; a bodily blemish, however, disqualifies him.

(דניאל א, ה) ולגדלם שנים שלש וללמדם ספר ולשון כשדים

A Levite, from thirty years old until fifty years old, is qualified for service; and becomes disqualified by age.

ואידך

This law [of the Levite], however, applied only at the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness; but at Shiloh or at the Permanent House they were only disqualified because of their voices.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when they lost their voices and thus could no longer sing in the Temple choir.');">²⁸</span>

שאני לשון כשדים דקליל

Said R'Jose: Where is this indicated in any verse? -

ואידך

שאני הלכות עבודה דתקיפין

ת"ר

כהן משיביא שתי שערות עד שיזקין כשר לעבודה ומומין פוסלין בו

בן לוי מבן שלשים ועד בן חמשים כשר לעבודה ושנים פוסלין בו

בד"א

באהל מועד שבמדבר אבל בשילה ובבית עולמים אין נפסלין אלא בקול

א"ר יוסי

מאי קרא