Zevachim 19b — the Talmud in English

Rather, the tefillin of the head are different, for they do not interpose at all, since

the tanna —

his hair

of the High Priest

was visible

between the tzitz and the mitre ,

for there

he

placed the tefillin!

[And as for the fact that the tanna of the baraita needed to say that they do not interpose, although he places them upon the hair of his head and not upon the mitre: according to Rashi, the novelty is that the tefillin are not considered extra garments. According to Tosafot, he must place them upon that same place of hair, so that they do not interpose; for if he placed them upon the mitre, they would interpose.]

We learned in the Mishna:

One lacking atonement

invalidates the service.

From where

do we know that one lacking atonement invalidates the service?

Rav Huna said: The verse states

with regard to a woman who gave birth and brought her offerings:

“And the priest shall atone for her” —

“and she shall be purified.”

And since it is stated concerning her

“purified”

through the bringing of the offerings,

by implication

you learn that until she brings them

she is impure, even though she immersed. From here we learn concerning all those lacking atonement that they have the status of “impure.” And concerning the service of an impure person it is stated, “They shall separate themselves—and they shall not profane”; if he performed the service, he profaned his service.

We learned in the Mishna:

And one who has not washed his hands and feet

invalidates the service.

invalidates the service.

From where do we know this?

It is derived

by a

common-word analogy —

“statute”

“statute” —

from one lacking garments, who invalidates his service.

The Sages taught: A High Priest who did not immerse and did not sanctify

his hands and feet

between one garment and another and between one service and another

on Yom Kippur, when he changes from golden garments to white garments and changes his service from the inner service to the outer service,

his service is valid!

And whether a High Priest or an ordinary priest who did not sanctify his hands and feet in the morning

when he came to serve

and served —

his service is invalid!

For they learned by a common-word analogy, “statute”—“statute,” from one lacking garments, that if he did not immerse before the beginning of his service in the morning, he invalidates his service.

Rav Asi said to Rabbi Yohanan: Since,

behold,

the five immersions and ten sanctifications

of the hands and feet [before each immersion and after it the High Priest sanctified his hands and feet] on Yom Kippur

are from the Torah

,

and

“statute”

is written concerning them,

then let us learn by a common-word analogy from one lacking garments that they too

should be indispensable, just as the sanctification of the hands and feet in the morning is indispensable?

He said to him Rabbi Yohanan: The verse states: “They are holy garments, and he shall bathe his flesh in water” —

“and he shall put them on.”

The verse repeated and again wrote the law of putting on the garments [for at the beginning of that verse it is stated, “He shall put on the holy linen tunic”], to teach you that only the

putting on

of the garments mentioned in this verse

is indispensable

to the service,

and no other matter

mentioned in this verse—that is, the five immersions and the sanctification of hands and feet—

is indispensable. [And it follows that although at the end of the passage it is stated, “a statute,” from which one might learn that everything stated in the passage is indispensable, nevertheless there is a special teaching that the five immersions and ten sanctifications are not indispensable.]

The face of

Rav Asi became bright

with joy when he heard from Rabbi Yohanan the reason that the five immersions and ten sanctifications are not indispensable.

He said to him

Rabbi Yohanan: There is no place for you to rejoice, for the reason I stated is not correct; rather,

“And I wrote you a vav on a broken board” [an expression concerning something nonexistent, as though I had written the letter vav upon a piece of wood marked with cuts; the cuts interrupt the writing of the letter, and it is not recognizable at all]. For this reason must be rejected: if it is indeed as I said, that the verse repeated the language of putting on garments in order to reveal that only the putting on mentioned in that verse is indispensable, and not the washing,

if so,

even the sanctification of hands and feet

of the morning

of Yom Kippur

also

should not be indispensable . For if the verse revealed that only the putting on mentioned in the verse is indispensable, and not the other matters mentioned there, the morning sanctification should likewise be excluded. How, then, did we learn that the morning sanctification of hands and feet is indispensable both on Yom Kippur and throughout the rest of the year!?

Rather, Hezekiah said: The verse states in the passage of the laver: “They shall wash their hands and their feet, and they shall not die. And it shall be for them an eternal statute — for him and for his descendants throughout their generations.” The verse compared Aaron to his descendants, to teach you: A matter that is indispensable for his descendants of Aaron—that is, the sanctification of hands and feet upon entering the service, which applies to all priests—is indispensable also for him, for the High Priest, since it is stated concerning him, “an eternal statute” [and “statute” is like “a statute,” which is written to make something indispensable]. But

in the morning

of Yom Kippur

Rather,

Chizkiya said: The verse states in the passage concerning the laver: “They shall wash their hands and their feet, and they shall not die. And it shall be an eternal statute for him and for his descendants throughout their generations.” The verse equated Aaron with his descendants, teaching you: A matter that is indispensable for his descendants of Aaron—that is, the sanctification of the hands and feet upon entering the service, which applies to all priests— is indispensable also for him, the High Priest, since it is stated concerning him, “an eternal statute” [and “statute” has the same force as “statute,” which is written to make something indispensable]. But a matter that is not indispensable for his descendants, such as the sanctification of the hands and feet between one service and another on Yom Kippur, which applies only to the High Priest, is not indispensable for him! Rabbi Yonatan said: From here we learn that the sanctification of the hands and feet upon entering the service is indispensable for the High Priest on Yom Kippur ,

a matter that is not indispensable for his descendants, such as the sanctification of hands and feet between one service and another on Yom Kippur, which applies only to the High Priest,

is not indispensable for him!

Rabbi Jonathan said: From here

we learn that the sanctification of hands and feet upon entering the service is indispensable for the High Priest on Yom Kippur , as it is stated:

“And Moses, Aaron, and his sons shall wash from it.”

The verse compared Aaron to his sons, to teach you:

A matter that is indispensable for his sons—that is, the sanctification of hands and feet upon entering the service, concerning which “a statute” is stated to make it indispensable—

is indispensable

even

for him. But

a matter that is not indispensable for his sons, such as the sanctification of the hands and feet of the High Priest between one service and another on Yom Kippur,

is not indispensable for him!

a matter that is not indispensable for his descendants, such as the sanctification of the hands and feet between one service and another on Yom Kippur, which applies only to the High Priest,

is not indispensable for him!

Rabbi Yonatan said: From here

we learn that the sanctification of the hands and feet upon entering the service is indispensable for the High Priest on Yom Kippur , as it is stated:

And we inquire about this:

Rabbi Yonatan,

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

Rabbi Jonathan, who learned from “And Moses, Aaron, and his sons shall wash from it,”

for what reason did he not say

that the source for making the sanctification of hands and feet upon entering the service indispensable is

from

the comparison

of Hezekiah — “for him and for his descendants throughout their generations”?

And we explain:

He can say to you,

Rabbi Jonathan: That verse was not written to compare Aaron to his descendants and to teach that the other sanctifications are not indispensable for him; rather, it was written to teach that sanctification of hands and feet is written for the generations, so that this statute should apply also to the descendants of Aaron! And we raise another difficulty concerning it: But the other one, Hezekiah, for what reason did he not say that the source is from this

exposition of Rabbi Jonathan?

And we answer: because

he needs it

to expound this verse

in accordance with Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Hanina:

For Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Hanina said: Any laver in which there is not—which cannot contain

water in the amount sufficient

to sanctify

the hands and feet of

four priests from it—

they do not sanctify with it!

As it is stated:

“And Moses, Aaron, and his sons shall wash from it,”

for they are four.

is written for future generations, so that this statute should also apply to Aaron’s descendants!

And we inquire further:

But the other one,

Hezekiah,

what is the reason he did not say

that the source is

from this

derivation of Rabbi Yonatan?

And we answer: Because

he needs it

to expound this verse

in accordance with Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Hanina:

For Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Hanina said: Any laver that does not contain

that is, is not capable of containing a sufficient quantity of water

to sanctify

the hands and feet of

four priests from it—

they may not sanctify in it!

As it is stated:

“And Moses, Aaron, and his sons shall wash from it,”

who are four .

The Sages taught: How is the mitzva of sanctifying

hands and feet

? He washes his right hand over his right foot, and his left hand over his left foot,

for he must wash his hands and his feet in one washing, as it is stated: “And they shall wash their hands and their feet,” and its meaning is: in one washing.

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says:

He must wash his two hands and his two feet at once. Therefore, he places his two hands one upon the other and places them together

upon his two feet,

with one foot

this

placed upon one foot

this, and he sanctifies

them from the water of the basin.

They said to him

the Sages to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda

: You have gone too far

in your words, for

it is impossible to do so

without falling! And we raised the question:

Do the Sages not speak well to him

to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, that he went too far in his words, for it is impossible to do so without falling?

And we answer:

Rab Yosef said: His fellow assists him,

holding him so that he does not fall!

And we explain:

What is the difference between them,

that is, in what do the Sages and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, disagree?

Abaye said: Side-supported standing,

in the issue of whether standing that requires assistance is considered “standing,”

is the difference between them,

as is explained below, that the sanctification of hands and feet must be performed while standing.

Rav Sama, son of Rav Ashi, said to Ravina: Let him sit,

why should he not sit beneath the basin

and sanctify

his hands and feet at once, without needing assistance?

Ravina said to him:

The verse says: “When they enter the Tent of Meeting or when they approach the altar

to minister

,” and adjacent to it is “And they shall wash their hands and their feet,” to juxtapose the sanctification of hands and feet to service;

and service—

is while standing!

The Sages said to him,

The Sages taught:

A priest who

sanctified his hands and feet during the day

need not sanctify them at night,

provided that he did not leave the Temple and did not divert his attention. But if he sanctified

at night, he must

return

and sanctify during the day, the words of Rabbi.

to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda:

For Rabbi says: Overnight stay is effective

[is effective to invalidate]

with regard to the sanctification of hands and feet,

for once dawn has risen, it is considered that an “overnight stay” has passed over him, and an overnight stay invalidates the sanctification of his hands and feet from yesterday.

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: Overnight stay is not effective with regard to the sanctification of hands and feet,

and as long as he did not leave and did not divert his attention, he may continue to perform the service by virtue of the sanctification of his hands and feet from yesterday.

It was taught in another [baraita]: If he was standing and offering upon the altar throughout the entire night,

when he reached

the light of

dawn, he is

required to sanctify his hands and feet

in order to reenter the service

; the words of Rabbi.

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says:

Since he sanctified his hands and feet

from the beginning of the service

,

then

even from now until ten days,

if he continued in his service and did not interrupt, and did not divert his attention from it,

he need not sanctify!

And it is necessary

to teach these two beraitot:

For if you were to be told

only the

first

beraita, I would say that only

in that

beraita

does Rabbi say

that overnight stay is effective,

because he interrupted it from the service

of today

to the service of

tomorrow [for this is the meaning of the beraita, since it did not teach in it, “he was standing and offering throughout the entire night until the light of dawn arrived,” as in the second beraita].

But in this

case with which the second beraita deals—for example,

that he did not interrupt it

from his service until the following day arrived—

I would say that Rabbi concedes to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,

that he need not return and sanctify. Therefore, it informs us in the second beraita that overnight stay is effective according to Rabbi even when he did not interrupt his service.

And if you were to be told

only

in this

second beraita, I would say

in this

case alone

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says

that he need not return and sanctify, since he did not interrupt his service,

but in this

first beraita, in which he interrupted his service but only did not divert his attention,

I would say that he concedes to Rabbi

that overnight stay is effective and he must return and sanctify. Therefore it informs us that as long as he did not leave the Temple and did not divert his attention, even if he interrupted his service, overnight stay is not effective with regard to him, and therefore

it is necessary

to teach both beraitot!

And we explain:

What is Rabbi’s reason

that he requires him to return and sanctify on the following morning? It is because

it is written “

in your statement, for

when they approach,”

and every approach of the morning is a new approach, for every morning they arranged a new arrangement of wood upon the altar.

What is the reason of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,

that he need not return and sanctify on the following morning?

For it is written “

it is impossible to do so

when they enter,”

and as long as he did not leave the Temple, he is not obligated to return and sanctify, for there is no new entry here.

And we raise an objection:

But the other one,

Rabbi—why did he not say

also

like Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon?

But it is written “

without falling! And we raise a question concerning this:

when they enter,”

and this is not a new entry.

And we answer: Rabbi holds that “when they enter” was not written to teach that he is not obligated in sanctification until he leaves the Temple. Rather, it was necessary to write it because

if it were written only “

The Rabbis have spoken well to him

when they approach”

alone

and it were not written “

to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, saying that he had gone too far in his statement, for it is impossible to do so without falling!

when they enter,”

And we answer:

I would say that for every approach

he is obligated to sanctify, even if all the approaches were on the same day, but he interrupted his service between one approach and the next. Therefore

the Merciful One wrote “

Rav Yosef said: His fellow assists him,

when they enter,”

to say that he is not obligated to return and sanctify on the same day unless he left and entered anew, and not for every approach.

And we raise another objection:

But the other one,

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,

also

has a difficulty against him:

it is written “

holding him so that he will not fall!

when they approach.”

Why, then, should he not become obligated in sanctification for the new approach on the second day?

And we answer: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds that the intention of the verse is not to obligate one for every new approach. Rather, it was necessary to write it because

if it were written only “

And we explain:

when they enter”

alone

and it were not written also “

also

when they approach,”

What is the practical difference between them,

I would say

that

even for an empty entry

in which there is no service, he is obligated in sanctification. It teaches us that only an entry that includes an approach to the altar requires sanctification.

And we raise an objection: Can it be said that there was a possibility of saying that he would be obligated in sanctification even for

an empty entry? But it is written

explicitly

“to minister,”

the meaning of which is exemption from sanctification for the purpose of an empty entry?!

Rather,

indeed it was not written

“when they approach”

in order to exempt an empty approach from sanctification, but rather

it was needed for the teaching of Rav Aha bar Yaakov.

For Rav Aha bar Yaakov said: all agree,

Rabbi Meir and the Sages, who disputed regarding the sanctification of the hands of the High Priest on Yom Kippur [the High Priest immersed five times on Yom Kippur when changing his garments from the white garments to the gold garments and vice versa, and likewise he required two sanctifications of the hands and feet, one before the immersion and the second after it. Rabbi Meir and the Sages disputed regarding the first sanctification, which was before the immersion: whether he must sanctify his hands and feet before removing the garments or after removing them. But after he immersed, and came to put on his garments and sanctify his hands and feet, they did not dispute whether he should sanctify before putting them on or afterward] but all agree

regarding the second sanctification,

which is after the immersion, that only after

when he is dressed

in his garments, he

sanctifies,

and not while he is naked before putting them on.

And this law we learned from what

the verse says:

“or when they approach”

to the altar to serve—“and they shall wash their hands and their feet,” and we expound: who is this who washes his hands and his feet when he approaches the altar?

One who is not lacking

anything after sanctification,

except approach alone; this one is excluded,

who immersed while he was naked,

for he lacks dressing and approach.

And Rabbi holds: since “when they approach” was needed to teach us this law, it follows that it is not available to teach that lodging is effective for the sanctification of the hands and feet.

And furthermore we inquire into it: the continuation of the verse, “or when they approach the altar to serve

to offer up a fire-offering

to it,”

why do I need it?

And is it not obvious that sanctification is required, since it is included in approaching the altar?!