## Chullin Daf 24a

###### Chullin 24a:1
[Chullin 24a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/24a:1)

אָמַר קְרָא ״וְשָׁחַט״ וְחוּקָּה: בִּשְׁחִיטָה אִין, בַּעֲרִיפָה לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that **the verse states** with regard to the red heifer: **“And he shall slaughter** it” (Numbers 19:3), **and** it mentions the term **statute:** “This is the statute of the Torah” (Numbers 19:2), indicating that **with slaughter, yes,** the red heifer is rendered fit; **with breaking the neck,** the red heifer is **not** rendered fit.


###### Chullin 24a:2
[Chullin 24a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/24a:2)

וְכֹל הֵיכָא דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ חוּקָּה, לָא דָּרְשִׁינַן קַל וָחוֹמֶר? וְהָא גַּבֵּי יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ חוּקָּה, וְתַנְיָא: ״וְעָשָׂהוּ חַטָּאת״ – הַגּוֹרָל עוֹשֶׂה חַטָּאת, וְאֵין הַשֵּׁם עוֹשֶׂה חַטָּאת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** is it so that **anywhere that statute is written with regard to** a certain matter, **we do not learn an *a fortiori*** inference? **But** what **about Yom Kippur, with regard to which statute is written:** “And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you” (Leviticus 16:34), **and** nevertheless **it is taught** in a *baraita*: “And Aaron shall bring forward the goat upon which the lot came up for the Lord, **and he shall offer it for a sin offering”** (Leviticus 16:9). The verse indicates that **the lottery renders** the goat **a sin offering, but a verbal designation** of the goat with the status of a sin offering **does not render** it **a sin offering.**


###### Chullin 24a:3
[Chullin 24a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/24a:3)

שֶׁיָּכוֹל, וַהֲלֹא דִּין הוּא: וּמָה בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא קִדֵּשׁ הַגּוֹרָל, קִדֵּשׁ הַשֵּׁם, מְקוֹם שֶׁקִּדֵּשׁ הַגּוֹרָל, אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁקִּדֵּשׁ הַשֵּׁם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְעָשָׂהוּ חַטָּאת״, הַגּוֹרָל עוֹשֶׂה חַטָּאת, וְאֵין הַשֵּׁם עוֹשֶׂה חַטָּאת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: A verse is necessary to teach this *halakha*, **as** one **might** have thought that the opposite conclusion is correct: **Could this not** be derived through an *a fortiori* **inference: If in a case where the lottery does not sanctify** the animal with a specific designation, such as in the case of two birds brought by a woman after childbirth, and nevertheless **a verbal designation** of that offering **sanctifies** it, in **a case where the lottery sanctifies** the animal on Yom Kippur, **isn’t it logical that a verbal designation** as a sin offering **sanctifies it?** Therefore, **the verse states: “And render it a sin offering;” the lottery renders** the goat **a sin offering, but a verbal designation** of a sin offering **does not render** the goat **a sin offering.**


###### Chullin 24a:4
[Chullin 24a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/24a:4)

טַעְמָא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״וְעָשָׂהוּ חַטָּאת״, הָא לָאו הָכִי דָּרְשִׁינַן קַל וָחוֹמֶר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara infers: **The reason** that the *a fortiori* inference is not learned is **that the Merciful One writes: “And he shall offer it for a sin offering.” But otherwise we** would **learn an *a fortiori*** inference, despite the fact that statute is written with regard to the Yom Kippur service.


###### Chullin 24a:5
[Chullin 24a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/24a:5)

מַיעֵט רַחֲמָנָא גַּבֵּי עֶגְלָה הָעֲרוּפָה, ״זֹאת״ בַּעֲרִיפָה, וְאֵין אַחֶרֶת בַּעֲרִיפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: Actually, one may learn an *a fortiori* inference even in a case where statute is written. Nevertheless, **with regard to** the **heifer** whose neck is broken, **the Merciful One restricts** the use of breaking the neck: “And all the Elders of that city…shall wash their hands over the heifer **whose neck is broken”** (Deuteronomy 21:6). From the relative pronoun “whose” it is derived: **This** heifer **is** killed **by breaking the neck, but no other,** i.e., the red heifer, is killed **by breaking the neck.**


###### Chullin 24a:6
[Chullin 24a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/24a:6)

וּתְהֵא עֶגְלָה כְּשֵׁרָה בִּשְׁחִיטָה מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה פָּרָה שֶׁלֹּא הוּכְשְׁרָה בַּעֲרִיפָה – כְּשֵׁרָה בִּשְׁחִיטָה, עֶגְלָה שֶׁכְּשֵׁרָה בַּעֲרִיפָה – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁהוּכְשְׁרָה בִּשְׁחִיטָה? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְעָרְפוּ הָעֶגְלָה״ – בַּעֲרִיפָה אִין, בִּשְׁחִיטָה לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **And let it be** derived that the heifer whose neck is broken is rendered **fit with slaughter by means of an *a fortiori*** inference: **If** a red **heifer, which is not rendered fit with breaking the neck,** is rendered **fit with slaughter,** then with regard to **a heifer** whose neck is broken, **which** is rendered **fit with breaking the neck, isn’t it logical that it is rendered fit with slaughter?** The Gemara responds that **the verse states: “And shall break the neck of the heifer** there in the valley” (Deuteronomy 21:4). The doubled reference to breaking the neck in the two verses indicates that **by breaking the neck, yes,** the heifer may be killed; **by slaughter,** the heifer may **not** be killed.


###### Chullin 24a:7
[Chullin 24a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/24a:7)

**מַתְנִי׳** כָּשֵׁר בַּכֹּהֲנִים פָּסוּל בַּלְוִיִּם, כָּשֵׁר בַּלְוִיִּם פָּסוּל בַּכֹּהֲנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** There is an element with which **priests** remain **fit** and **Levites are unfit,** and there is also an element with which **Levites** remain **fit** and **priests are unfit.**


###### Chullin 24a:8
[Chullin 24a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/24a:8)

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כֹּהֲנִים, בְּמוּמִין – פְּסוּלִים, בְּשָׁנִים – כְּשֵׁרִים. לְוִיִּם, בְּמוּמִין – כְּשֵׁרִים, בְּשָׁנִים – פְּסוּלִים. נִמְצָא כָּשֵׁר בַּכֹּהֲנִים – פָּסוּל בַּלְוִיִּם, כָּשֵׁר בַּלְוִיִּם – פָּסוּל בַּכֹּהֲנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **The Sages taught** in a *baraita* in explanation of the mishna: **Priests are** rendered **unfit** for Temple service **with** the **blemishes** enumerated in the Torah (see Leviticus 21:16–23), but remain **fit with** the passage of **years,** as from the moment that they reach majority they are fit for service for the rest of their lives. **Levites** remain **fit** for Temple service **with** the **blemishes** enumerated in the Torah but **are unfit with** the passage of **years,** as they are fit for service only between the ages of thirty and fifty (see Numbers 4:47). **It is found** that there is an element with which **priests** remain **fit** and **Levites are unfit,** and there is an element with which **Levites** remain **fit** and **priests are unfit.**


###### Chullin 24a:9
[Chullin 24a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/24a:9)

מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״זֹאת אֲשֶׁר לַלְוִיִּם״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּמִבֶּן חֲמִשִּׁים שָׁנָה יָשׁוּב״, לָמַדְנוּ לַלְוִיִּם שֶׁהַשָּׁנִים פּוֹסְלִין בָּהֶם. יָכוֹל מוּמִין פּוֹסְלִין בָּהֶם? וְדִין הוּא: וּמָה כֹּהֲנִים שֶׁאֵין הַשָּׁנִים פּוֹסְלִין בָּהֶן, מוּמִין פּוֹסְלִין בָּהֶן – לְוִיִּם שֶׁהַשָּׁנִים פּוֹסְלִין בָּהֶם, אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיְּהוּ מוּמִין פּוֹסְלִין בָּהֶם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״זֹאת אֲשֶׁר לַלְוִיִּם״ – זֹאת לַלְוִיִּם, וְאֵין אַחֶרֶת לַלְוִיִּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **From where are these matters** derived? The Gemara answers: It is **as the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **“This is that which pertains to the Levites”** (Numbers 8:24); **why** must **the verse state** this? **Since it is stated: “And from the age of fifty years he shall return** from the service” (Numbers 8:25), **we learned with regard to the Levites that** the passage of **years disqualifies them.** One **might** have thought that **blemishes disqualify them** too. **And** ostensibly, it could be learned through **logical inference: If priests,** with regard to **whom** the passage of **years does not disqualify them, blemishes disqualify them,** then in the case of **Levites,** with regard to **whom** the passage of **years disqualifies them, isn’t it logical that blemishes disqualify them?** Therefore, **the verse states: “This is that which pertains to the Levites,”** from which it is derived: **“This,”** the passage of years, is a disqualification that pertains **to the Levites, and there is no other** disqualification that pertains **to the Levites.**


###### Chullin 24a:10
[Chullin 24a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/24a:10)

יָכוֹל יְהוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים פְּסוּלִין בְּשָׁנִים? וַהֲלֹא דִּין הוּא: וּמָה לְוִיִּם שֶׁאֵין מוּמִין פּוֹסְלִין בָּהֶם – שָׁנִים פּוֹסְלִין בָּהֶם, כֹּהֲנִים שֶׁהַמּוּמִין פּוֹסְלִין בָּהֶם – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיְּהוּ שָׁנִים פּוֹסְלִין בָּהֶם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר לַלְוִיִּם״ – וְלֹא אֲשֶׁר לַכֹּהֲנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One **might** have thought that **priests would be disqualified with** the passage of **years. And** ostensibly, **could this not** be derived through the following *a fortiori* **inference: If Levites,** with regard to **whom blemishes do not disqualify them,** the passage of **years disqualifies them,** then in the case of **priests,** with regard to **whom blemishes disqualify them, isn’t it logical** that the passage of **years disqualifies them?** Therefore, **the verse states: “Which pertains to the Levites,” and not which pertains to the priests.**


###### Chullin 24a:11
[Chullin 24a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/24a:11)

יָכוֹל אַף בְּשִׁילֹה וּבְבֵית עוֹלָמִים כֵּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לַעֲבֹד עֲבֹדַת עֲבוֹדָה וַעֲבֹדַת מַשָּׂא״, לֹא אָמַרְתִּי אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁהָעֲבוֹדָה בַּכָּתֵף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One **might** have thought that the Levites were disqualified with the passage of years **even in Shiloh,** the permanent place of the Tabernacle, **and in the eternal Temple.** Therefore, **the verse states: “To perform the work of service, and the work of bearing burdens”** (Numbers 4:47), juxtaposing the two forms of Levite service to teach: **I stated** the disqualification of the passage of years **only at a time when** there is Levite **service** involving carrying the Tabernacle **on** their **shoulders.**


###### Chullin 24a:12
[Chullin 24a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/24a:12)

כָּתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״מִבֶּן חָמֵשׁ וְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה״, וְכָתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״מִבֶּן שְׁלֹשִׁים״, אִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹמַר שְׁלֹשִׁים, שֶׁכְּבָר נֶאֱמַר חָמֵשׁ וְעֶשְׂרִים, וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹמַר חָמֵשׁ וְעֶשְׂרִים, שֶׁכְּבָר נֶאֱמַר שְׁלֹשִׁים. הָא כֵּיצַד? חָמֵשׁ וְעֶשְׂרִים לְתַלְמוּד, וּשְׁלֹשִׁים לַעֲבוֹדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* notes that **one verse states: “From twenty-five years old and upward”** (Numbers 8:24), **and one verse states: “From thirty years old** and upward” (Numbers 4:47). It is **impossible to say thirty, as twenty-five is already stated, and** it is **impossible to say twenty-five, as thirty is already stated. How** can these verses be reconciled? **Twenty-five** years old is the time **for apprenticeship and thirty for service.**


###### Chullin 24a:13
[Chullin 24a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/24a:13)

מִכָּאן לְתַלְמִיד שֶׁלֹּא רָאָה סִימָן יָפֶה בְּמִשְׁנָתוֹ חָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים – שׁוּב אֵינוֹ רוֹאֶה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּלְגַדְּלָם שָׁנִים שָׁלֹשׁ״, ״וּלְלַמְּדָם סֵפֶר וּלְשׁוֹן כַּשְׂדִּים״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**From here** it is derived that **a student who did not see a positive indication in his studies** after **five years will no longer see** a productive result from those studies. **Rabbi Yosei says** that the period is **three years, as it is stated** with regard to Daniel and his cohort who instructed the king of Babylonia: **“And they should be raised three years”** (Daniel 1:5), **“and he should teach them the books and the language of the Chaldeans”** (Daniel 1:4).


###### Chullin 24a:14
[Chullin 24a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/24a:14)

וְאִידַּךְ – שָׁאנֵי לְשׁוֹן כַּשְׂדִּים, דְּקַלִּיל. וְאִידַּךְ – שָׁאנֵי הִלְכוֹת עֲבוֹדָה, דְּתַקִּיפִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** how does **the other** *tanna* explain the verses in Daniel? The Gemara answers: He holds that the verses in Daniel cannot be cited as a source for this principle because **the language of the Chaldeans is different, as** it is **easy** and can be learned in a shorter period. The Gemara asks: **And** how does **the other** *tanna*, Rabbi Yosei, explain the verses with regard to the Levites? The Gemara answers: He holds that **the *halakhot* of** Temple **service are different, as they are difficult** and require a longer period of study.


###### Chullin 24a:15
[Chullin 24a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/24a:15)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כֹּהֵן מִשֶּׁיָּבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת עַד שֶׁיַּזְקִין – כָּשֵׁר לַעֲבוֹדָה, וּמוּמִין פּוֹסְלִין בּוֹ. בֶּן לֵוִי מִבֶּן שְׁלֹשִׁים וְעַד בֶּן חֲמִשִּׁים כָּשֵׁר לַעֲבוֹדָה, וְשָׁנִים פּוֹסְלִין בּוֹ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד שֶׁבַּמִּדְבָּר, אֲבָל בְּשִׁילֹה וּבְבֵית עוֹלָמִים אֵין נִפְסָלִין אֶלָּא בְּקוֹל. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: מַאי קְרָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **A priest, from** the time he reaches puberty and **grows two** pubic **hairs until he ages, is fit for** Temple **service, and blemishes disqualify him. A Levite from the age of thirty until the age of fifty is fit for** Temple **service, and** the passage of **years disqualifies him. In what** case **is this statement said?** It is said **with regard to the Tent of Meeting** of the Tabernacle **in the wilderness. But with regard to Shiloh and in the eternal Temple,** Levites **are disqualified only** due to a change **in voice** that renders them unable to recite the songs in the Temple with their brethren. **Rabbi Yosei said: What is the verse** from which this is derived?