[YH1]THE 24 PLACES IN THE TORAH IN WHICH KOHANIM ARE CALLED "LEVI'IM"
QUESTION: The Gemara quotes Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi who says that in 24 places the Torah refers to Kohanim as "Levi'im." (RASHI in Chulin 24b suggests that they were called "Levi'im" because they perform the service in
the Beis ha'Mikdash, and the word "Levi" also means "those who help serve" ("Shamashim"), as in Bamidbar 18:2.) The Gemara cites one example of such a verse (Yechezkel 44:15).

Where are the other 23 places in which the Torah refers to Kohanim as "Levi'im?" Those Acharonim who discuss this question have great difficulty locating all 24 places.

The BEN YEHOYADA (Bechoros 4b) says that he searched and found only *eleven* places where the word "Levi'im" refers to Kohanim and not to Levi'im. RAV DAVID COHEN (Ohel David, end of Chelek I) shlit'a, on the other hand, counted the places where the word "Levi'im" refers to either Kohanim by themselves or Kohanim and Levi'im, and he found *76* places where the Torah refers to Kohanim as "Levi'im!"

Moreover, Rav David Cohen asks, how can there be a set number of places (if we count the places where the word "Levi'im" means both Kohanim and Levi'im)? Our Gemara cites a Machlokes whether the verses in the Torah that discuss giving Ma'aser to a Levi include Kohanim as well. Accordingly, the number of verses in which "Levi'im" refers to Kohanim is subject to this Machlokes and cannot be the same according to all Tana'im! Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, though, seems to assume that everyone agrees that there are 24 places!
Rav David Cohen also points out that Rashi in Yehoshua (3:3) presents a different count in the name of the Midrash (Bereishis Rabah). According to the Midrash there are 48 places (there, however, it is not quoted in the name of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi)!
How are we to reconcile the count?

ANSWERS:
(a) The MEGADIM CHADASHIM (Berachos 51) says that the Gemara is not giving an exact number, but rather it is expressing that there are *many* places in which the Torah refers to Kohanim as "Levi'im." The number 24 is an
exaggeration. According to this approach, the Midrash in Bereishis Rabah, which asserts that there are 48 places, is imply choosing a different number for the exaggeration.

(b) RAV DAVID COHEN suggests that the Gemara is indeed counting the places where "Levi'im" refers to either Kohanim or to both. The reason it counts only 24 instead of many more is because it is not counting *Pesukim*, verses, but "*Mekomos*," places, meaning *topics*. There are 24 basic sections in the Torah which refer to Kohanim as "Levi'im," while in each section there might be many instances of the word "Levi'im" referring to Kohanim. Rav Cohen attempts at length to define what is considered a "place" or topic section, but does not reach a definitive conclusion.

(c) The Ben Yehoyada reached the number eleven by counting only the places where the words "ha'Kohanim ha'Levi'im" are used to refer to the Kohanim. Actually, he missed three instances where that phrase refers only to Kohanim (besides the places that he intentionally omitted, where the verse means Kohanim *and* Levi'im). Moreover, he added one place that should not have been in the count, because it actually means Kohanim *and* Levi'im (as the RADAK explains there in Divrei ha'Yamim I 9:2). This brings the total count to thirteen.

Rashi in Devarim (18:6) explains, in the name of the Sifri, that in two verses there the word "Levi" refers to Kohanim and not to Levi'im. Also, in Yechezkel (48:11) and in Divrei ha'Yamim II (5:4), the RADAK proves that the word "Levi'im" refers only to the Kohanim. The METZUDAS TZIYON explains that the word "ha'Levi'im" in Yechezkel (44:10) is referring to Kohanim -- as is clear from the context -- and the same is true about the verse in Yirmeyah (33:22; as is evident from verses 18 and 21 there). This brings us to *nineteen* instances.

The RAMBAM (Mitzvos Aseh #34; see RAMBAN in Shoresh #3) writes that it is a Mitzvas Aseh for Kohanim to carry the Aron, even though the verse specifically says that the Levi'im (Bnei Kehas) shall carry it. The Rambam
says that the command to the Levi'im to carry it applies only in the Midbar when there were only three Kohanim (who could not carry the Aron by themselves). For all ensuing generations, though, the Kohanim are enjoined to
carry the Aron.

However, in five places in Nevi'im and Kesuvim the verse tells us that Levi'im carried the Aron, as the RAMBAN asks (Shoresh #3). The Acharonim answer that according to the Rambam, the word "Levi'im" in those five places
refers to Kohanim and not to Levi'im! Accordingly, there are exactly 24 places in Tanach in which the word "Levi'im" actually means Kohanim!
(According to the Ramban, we will have to accept the first answer, above, that the number is an exaggeration.)

Regarding the Midrash in Bereishis Rabah that mentions 48 places, it might be including the places where the word "Levi" refers to both Kohanim and Levi'im, and it is following the opinion of Rebbi Akiva in our Gemara, who
says that Kohanim are not entitled to eat Ma'aser Rishon along with Levi'im.
There remain approximately 24 places where the word "Levi" refers also to Kohanim as well as to Levi'im.
 
In sum, according to this approach, the 24 verses mentioned by the Gemara in which Kohanim are referred to as "Levi'im" are as follows:
(1) Devarim 17:9   (2) 17:18   (3) 18:1   (4) 18:6   (5) 18:7   (6) 24:8   (7) 27:9   (8) Yehoshua 3:3   (9) 8:33   (10) Shmuel I 6:15   (11) Yirmiyahu 33:18   (12) 33:21   (13) 33:22  

(14) Yechezkel 43:19   (15) 44:10   (16) 44:15   (17) 48:11   (18) Divrei ha'Yamim I 15:12   (19) 15:15   (20) 15:26  
(21) 15:27   (22) Divrei ha'Yamim II 5:4   (23) 23:18   (24) 30:27

The eleven places which the Ben Yehoyada counts are numbers 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11, 16, 23, 24. He also includes Divrei ha'Yamim I 9:2.- The five places which discuss Levi'im carrying the Aron are numbers 10, 18, 19, 20, 21.
(M. Kornfeld. The preparation of  this Insight was made possible primarily due to Rav David Cohen's exhaustive lists of the appearances of the word "Levi" which might be referring to Kohanim, and his insightful suggestions,
at the end of Ohel David vol. 1.)

 [YH2]2) "THE KOHANIM-LEVI'IM, SONS OF TZADOK" בני צדוק 
QUESTION: The Gemara proves that Kohanim are also called "Levi'im" by citing the verse, "v'ha'Kohanim ha'Levi'im Bnei Tzadok" (Yechezkel 44:15). Although, as the Gemara says, there are twenty-three other places where Kohanim are referred to as "Levi'im," some of which appear in the Chumash, the Gemara cites this verse apparently because it is the clearest proof that the word "Levi'im" can refer to Kohanim. In other places, the proof is only from the context, while here the words speak for themselves, for we know that Tzadok was the Kohen Gadol, and not just a Levi.
The phrase "ha'Kohanim ha'Levi'im" ("the Kohanim, the Levi'im") that is written in other places is not sufficient proof, because those words can be interpreted to mean, "the Kohanim *and* the Levi'im." Indeed, the RADAK in
Divrei ha'Yamim II (5:4) points out that when the verse there (v. 5) uses the phrase "Kohanim ha'Levi'im" it must mean "the Kohanim *and* the Levi'im," because the parallel verse in Melachim (8:4) indeed reads, "ha'Kohanim
v'ha'Levi'im" ("the Kohanim *and* the Levi'im").

However, RAV DAVID COHEN (Ohel David, end of Chelek I) asks that the Gemara still could have cited an earlier verse as proof that "Levi'im" can mean Kohanim. An earlier verse in Yechezkel (43:19) says, "ha'Kohanim ha'Levi'im Asher Hem mi'Zera Tzadok." The proof from this verse is just as clear as the one that the Gemara cites! Why did the Gemara instead cite the verse from the later chapter in Yechezkel?

(In the end of Ohel David, Chelek IV, Rav David Cohen quotes a colleague who suggests that the later verse was quoted because it appears in the Haftarah of Parshas Emor and was thus well-known. However, the earlier verse, too,
appears in the Haftarah for Parshas Tetzaveh!)

ANSWER: The RAMBAN (Milchamos to 80a) explains that when a Pasuk, Mishnah, Beraisa, or Amora lists several items and then, at the end of the list, makes a statement about them, the statement might refer only to the earlier items
and not to the later ones in the list. For example, Rebbi Avahu there (80a) gives a list of "the signs of a Seris, and Aylonis, and a child born after eight months," and then makes a statement that "we cannot rely upon those signs until the person is twenty." The statement is referring back to Seris and Aylonis, and not to an eight-month baby.

Based on this premise, we can understand why the Gemara cites as proof the verse later in Yechezkel. The earlier verse, "ha'Kohanim ha'Levi'im Asher Hem mi'Zera Tzadok," might be interpreted to be expressing a list (Kohanim,
Levi'im), and a statement ("who are from the descendants of Tzadok") that is referring back only to the first item in the list, Kohanim. As such, it does not prove that "Levi'im" refers to Kohanim at all.

In contrast, the verse that the Gemara cites, "v'ha'Kohanim ha'Levi'im Bnei Tzadok" -- "the Kohanim, the Levi'im *the sons of Tzadok*," is not making any independent statement about the previously-mentioned items. It does not refer back (with a pronoun) and say, "they are...," that we may divide the sentence into two halves, the second of which refers only to those mentioned at the beginning of the list. Rather, "Bnei Tzadok" ("the sons of Tzadok") is part and parcel of the phrase, "ha'Kohanim ha'Levi'im." Since It is one, undivided phrase, the *Levi'im* are clearly the ones referred to as Bnei Tzadok. (M. Kornfeld)

 [YH3]A WOMAN WITH ONE SON WHO IS A KOHEN AND ONE SON WHO IS A YISRAEL
QUESTION: The Mishnah states that if a Bas Yisrael was married to a Kohen and they had a son, after the Kohen dies she may continue to eat Terumah by virtue of her son who is a Kohen. If she later marries a Yisrael and has a
son from the Yisrael and then the Yisrael dies, her Kohen son no longer entitles her to eat Terumah.

The Mishnah continues and says that if a *Bas Kohen* married a Yisrael and had a son from the Yisrael and then the Yisrael died, she may *not* eat Terumah due to the fact that she has a son who is a Yisrael. If she later marries a Kohen and has a son from the Kohen, even if the Kohen dies she *may still eat* Terumah.

Why may the woman not eat Terumah in the first case, where she had a son from a Yisrael and a son from a Kohen, while in the second case she may eat Terumah when she has a son from a Yisrael and a son from a Kohen?

ANSWERS: The ARUCH LA'NER here offers two possible explanations.

(a) First, he says that when there are two sons -- a Kohen and a Yisrael -- their respective powers to enable or hinder the mother's right to eat Terumah cancel each other out, so to speak, and she is left with her "default" status. Thus, if the woman herself is a Bas Yisrael (first Mishnah), she has no basis for eating Terumah. If the woman is a Bas  Kohen (second Mishnah), she may eat Terumah by virtue of the fact that she is a Bas Kohen.

(b) Alternatively, the Aruch la'Ner suggests that it depends on the order in which she was married to the Kohen and the Yisrael. In the first Mishnah, the woman first married a Kohen; when she later marries a Yisrael she loses her ability to eat Terumah. Since she has a son from him, she never regains the ability to eat Terumah. However, in the second case of the Mishnah, she first married a Yisrael. Later, she married a Kohen and acquired the ability to eat Terumah. Since she has a son from the Kohen, even if the Kohen himself dies she retains the ability to eat Terumah.

There are two cases that demonstrate the basic differences between these two explanations:

(1) A *Bas Kohen* married a Kohen first and *then a Yisrael* and she had sons from both. According to the first explanation, she may eat Terumah, because whenever she has children from both a Kohen and a Yisrael she goes
back to the status of being a member of her father's (the Kohen's) family. According to the second explanation, she may no longer eat Terumah since she could not eat Terumah during her most recent marriage.

(2) A *Bas Yisrael* first married a Yisrael and *then a Kohen* and she had sons from both. According to the first explanation she still may not eat Terumah, since the two sons cancel each other out. According to the second
reason, she will be able to eat Terumah since she was able to eat Terumah during her most recent marriage.

Is there any support for either of these two explanations of the Aruch la'Ner?

The RAMBAM (Hilchos Terumos 6:19) rules, "If a Bas Yisrael marries a Yisrael *first* and has a son from him, and then she marries a Kohen... and the Kohen died and left her with a son from him, she may eat Terumah because of the son." The Rambam clearly rules in accordance with the second reasoning; it all depends on the order of the marriages.

However, it seems that RASHI in Kerisus (7a, DH v'Einah Meshalemes) rules in accordance with the first explanation -- that the son from a Kohen (or even a live *husband* who is a Kohen) and the son from a Yisrael  "cancel each other out." Rashi there writes that "if the husband (Yisrael) of a Bas Kohen dies *and then she marries a Kohen*, she may eat Terumah." Why must the daughter of a Kohen remarry to a Kohen in order to eat Terumah? Even if she is single she should be permitted to eat!. Rashi may mean that if she remarries to a Kohen, she may eat Terumah *even if* the Yisrael left her with a son. Since Rashi says that *only* a Bas Kohen may eat Terumah when
she has a son from a Kohen, even though she also has a son from a Yisrael, this proves that eating Terumah depends on the woman's "default" status, and not necessarily on whom she was married to most recently. (See also Insights
to Kerisus 7:1)