C. [24a] Scripture said, “[And you shall give her to Eleazar the priest, and she shall be taken outside the camp] and slaughtered before him” (Num. 19:3). Its statute is to kill it through slaughtering and not through breaking its neck. [We do not rely on logical inferences where Scripture states matters explicitly as a statute, to wit, “This is the statute of the law which the Lord has commanded: Tell the people of Israel to bring you a red heifer without defect, in which there is no blemish, and upon which a yoke has never come” (Num. 19:2).]
D. And do you say that in every instance where Scripture said there is a statute that we do not rely on the logical inference of qal wahomer? But lo regarding the Day of Atonement, about it is written there is a statute [“And it shall be a statute to you for ever that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall afflict yourselves, and shall do no work, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you” (Lev. 16:29)].
E. And it was taught on Tannaite authority, “[And Aaron shall present the goat on which the lot fell for the Lord] and offer it as a sin-offering” (Lev. 16:9), [this teaches us that] the draw of the lot makes it into a sin-offering, but naming it does not make it a sin-offering.
F. For it is possible to argue [that naming it does make it a sin-offering as follows]. It is logical to reason that where the lot did not make it holy, naming it can make it holy [as in the case of two doves offered for a sin- and burnt-offering whose designation can be changed after drawing the lots (Cashdan)], accordingly where the lot did make it holy [as in the case of the Day of Atonement], is it not logical to conclude that naming it can make it holy?
G. It comes to teach us, “And offer it as a sin-offering” (Lev. 16:9), that is, the lot makes it a sin-offering but naming it does not make it a sin-offering. The basis for this conclusion is that the Torah wrote, “And make it a sin-offering.” But without this [specification in the verse] I would have made the logical inference based on a qal wahomer.
H. The Torah limited [the practice] with regard to the calf whose neck is broken. This one [i.e., the calf, is valid if killed] by breaking its neck. And no other one [is valid if killed by breaking its neck]. And should not the calf be rendered valid if killed by slaughtering based on the logical inference from a qal wahomer? What is the case regarding the cow? It is not rendered valid if killed by breaking its neck, but is valid if killed by slaughtering. With regard then to the calf that is rendered valid if killed by breaking its neck, is it not logical to deduce that it is valid if killed by slaughtering?
I. Said Scripture, “[And the elders of that city shall bring the heifer down to a valley with running water, which is neither plowed nor sown], and shall break the heifer's neck [there in the valley]” (Deut. 21:4). [Rashi: Scripture repeats, “The heifer whose neck was broken in the valley” (Deut. 21:6) and this teaches us that if it is killed] by breaking the neck, yes, [it is valid]; by slaughtering, no, [it is not valid].
1:6 C-D
C. What is valid in the case of priests is invalid in the case of Levites.
D. What is valid in the case of Levites is invalid in the case of priests.
I.1
A. Our rabbis taught on Tannaite authority: Priests are rendered invalid [for service] by blemishes; by [falling outside of a specified range for] age they remain valid. Levites remain valid [for service] even with blemishes, but they are rendered invalid [by criteria of] age. We find that, What is valid in the case of priests is invalid in the case of Levites. What is valid in the case of Levites is invalid in the case of priests.
B. What is the source of these assertions? As our rabbis taught on Tannaite authority, “This is what pertains to the Levites: [from twenty-five years old and upward they shall go in to perform the work in the service of the tent of meeting]” (Num. 8:24). What does it come to teach us? Because it says, “And from the age of fifty years they shall withdraw [from the work of the service and serve no more]” (Num. 8:25), we learn from this that for the Levites [criteria of] age render them invalid [for service].
C. You might infer that blemishes also can render them invalid [for service]. And this is logical. What is the case for priests? [Falling outside the specified range for] age does not render them invalid, yet blemishes do render them invalid [for service]. For Levites for whom [criteria of] age render them invalid, is it not logical to deduce that blemishes should render them invalid [for service]?
D. It comes to teach us [in the verse], “This is what pertains to the Levites." This [exclusion based on age] pertains to the Levites. No other [exclusion] pertains to the Levites.
E. You might infer that priests can be rendered invalid based on [criteria of] age. And this is logical. What is the case for Levites? Blemishes do not render them invalid [for service]. [Criteria of] age do render them invalid. For priests for whom blemishes do render them invalid, is it not logical to deduce that [criteria of] age render them invalid [for service]?
F. It comes to teach [in the verse], [the criterion of age pertains] “to the Levites” and not to the priests.
G. You might infer that even in Shiloh and in the eternal Temple [that Levites are invalidated on the criterion of age]. It comes to teach, “To do the work of service and the work of bearing burdens [in the tent of meeting]” (Num. 4:47). I say this [invalidation based on age] pertains to them only when their work was, “Bearing burdens.”
II.1
A. [Regarding the minimum age for service for the Levites] one verse says, “From twenty-five years old and upward [they shall go in to perform the work in the service of the tent of meeting]” (Num. 8:24), and one verse says, “From thirty years old” (Num. 4:47). It is inconsistent to say “thirty,” for it was already said [that the age is] “twenty-five.” It is inconsistent to say “twenty-five,” for it was already said [the age is] “thirty.”
B. What is the explanation? At twenty-five they start to learn and at thirty they commence the service. Based on this they said if a student did not see progress in his studies in five years, he never will [progress].
C. R. Yosé says, “[A student should be given] three years [to make progress].” As it says, “They were to be educated for three years, [and at the end of that time they were to stand before the king]” (Dan. 1:5), “And to teach them the letters and language of the Chaldeans” (Dan. 1:4).
D. And [how do you justify] the other [opinion, i.e., three years]? The language of the Chaldeans is different. It is easy. And the other [i.e., five years]? The law for the service of the Temple is different. It is complicated.
III.1
A. Our rabbis taught on Tannaite authority: A priest, from the time he produces two pubic hairs until he grows old, is valid for service. And blemishes invalidate him. A descendant of the Levites, from age thirty to fifty, is valid for service. And [criteria of] age invalidate him. Under what circumstances? In the tent of meeting that was in the desert. But in Shiloh or in the eternal Temple they are only rendered invalid because of [a deficiency in their] voices.
B. Said R. Yosé, “What verse [supports this]?” [24b] “And it was the duty of the trumpeters and singers to make themselves heard in unison [in praise and thanksgiving to the Lord, and when the song was raised, with trumpets and cymbals and other musical instruments, in praise to the Lord... ]” (II Chron. 5:13).
III.2
A. “Until he grows old [III.1 A]” — until when? Said R. Ila, said R. Hanina, “Until he shakes [in his hands and feet].”
B. It was taught there in the Mishnah on Tannaite authority, A person who has had an emission who immersed and did not first urinate, when he does urinate is unclean. R. Yosé says, “In the case of a sick or old man, he is unclean. In the case of a boy or a healthy man, he is clean.” [M. Miq. 8:4 D-F]. A boy — until when? Said R. Ila, said R. Hanina, “Anyone who can balance on one foot while he takes off or puts on his shoe.”
C. They said concerning R. Hanina, that when he was eighty years old he could balance on one foot while he took off and put on his shoe. Said R. Hanina, “Hot baths and the oils that my mother rubbed on me in my youth, they have stood me well in my old age.”
III.3
A. Our rabbis taught on Tannaite authority, Once his [pubic] beard has filled out he is able to be appointed the messenger of the community to pass before the ark and to raise his hands [in the priestly benediction]. And he does not take a share of the Holy Things of the sanctuary until he produces two pubic hairs. Rabbi says, “I say, `Until he is twenty years old,' [since it says, `They appointed the Levites, from twenty years old and upward, to have the oversight of the work of the house of the Lord' (Ezra 3:8)]” [T. Hag. 1:3 E-G].
B. Said R. Hisda, “What is the basis [in Scripture] for the view of Rabbi? As it is written, `They appointed the Levites, from twenty years old and upward, to have the oversight of the work of the house of the Lord' (Ezra 3:8).”
C. And [what is the basis for] the other view? “To have oversight” is different. [It requires more maturity.] But lo, this verse pertains to the Levites! This accords with the view of R. Joshua b. Levi. For said R. Joshua b. Levi, “In twenty-four places, the priests were called Levites. And this is one of them: `But the Levitical priests, the sons of Zadok, [who kept the charge of my sanctuary when the people of Israel went astray from me, shall come near to me to minister to me; and they shall attend on me to offer me the fat and the blood, says the Lord God]' (Ezek. 44:15).”
III.4
A. Our rabbis taught on Tannaite authority: “[Say to Aaron], None of your descendants throughout their generations [who has a blemish may approach to offer the bread of his God]” (Lev. 21:17). On the basis of this said R. Eleazar, “A minor is invalid for [Temple] service, even if he is without blemish. From when is he valid for service? When he produces two pubic hairs. But his brothers the priests do not allow him to serve until he is twenty years old.”
B. One version: this is in accord with Rabbi [III.3 A] and [if he does serve when he is less than twenty years old] he is not invalid even according to the rabbis. [But they stop him from serving anyway.] Another version: this is in accord with Rabbi [III.3 A] and [if he does serve when he is less than twenty years old] he is invalid according to the rabbis. And this case [A] is in accord with the view of sages [in T. Hag. 1:3]. And only to begin with is he not [permitted to serve]. But after the fact [if he did perform the service] his service is valid.
1:6 E-F
E. What is clean [insusceptible to uncleanness] in the case of clay utensils is unclean [susceptible] in the case of all [other] utensils.
F. What is clean in the case of all [other utensils] is unclean in the case of the clay utensils.
I.1
A. Our rabbis taught on Tannaite authority, The contained airspace of a clay utensil is susceptible to uncleanness, but its outer side is insusceptible to uncleanness. The contained airspace of all [other] utensils is insusceptible. But its outer side is susceptible. You turn out to rule: What is clean [insusceptible to uncleanness] in the case of clay utensils is unclean [susceptible] in the case of all [other] utensils. What is clean in the case of all [other utensils] is unclean in the case of the clay utensils [T. ul. 1:20].
B. What is the source of these assertions? As it was taught on Tannaite authority: “[And if any of them falls into any earthen vessel, all] that is in it [shall be unclean, and you shall break it]” (Lev. 11:33) — [if uncleanness should enter in it] and even if it did not touch [the sides of the vessel]. Do you say even if it did not touch [it renders the vessel unclean]? Or is it only where it did touch [that it renders it unclean]?
C. R. Jonathan b. Abtolmos says, “It says `In it' [regarding the ability of the vessel] to render unclean [other objects], and it says `In it' [regarding the ability of the vessel] to become unclean [from objects placed in its air space]. What is the case regarding the rule derived from `In it' [regarding the ability of the vessel] to render unclean [other objects]? [They become unclean in the air space] even if they do not touch [the side of the vessel]. Even the rule derived from `In it' [regarding the ability of the vessel] to become unclean [from objects placed in its air space, it becomes unclean] even it they do not touch [the side of the vessel].”
No comments:
Post a Comment