Zevachim 19b (יט:) — the Talmud in English

Rather, this is different from the phylacteries of the head, which do not constitute an interposition at all, for

the tanna

states that his hair

of the High Priest

was visible

between the tzitz and the mitznefet ,

where

he

places his phylacteries! [The reason the tanna of the beraita had to state that they do not constitute an interposition, even though he places them on the hair of his head and not on the mitznefet, is as follows: according to Rashi, the novelty is that the phylacteries are not considered yitur begadim. According to Tosafot, he must place them on that same area of hair so that they will not constitute an interposition; if he placed them on the mitznefet, they would constitute an interposition.]

And in Keren Ora he explained that the Gemara’s question is based on the wording of the beraita, “they do not constitute an interposition,” whose implication is that he could place them directly on his head. In fact, even if he placed them on the turban, it would be valid. [As for why the tanna of the beraita needed to say that they do not constitute an interposition, despite the fact that he places them on the hair of his head and not on the turban: according to Rashi, the novelty is that the tefillin are not considered an additional garment. According to Tosafot, he must place them on the place where the hair is, so that they will not be separated from the head; for if he placed them on the turban, they would constitute an interposition.] We learned in the Mishna:

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 after childbirth who brought her offerings,

“And the priest shall atone for her”—

“and she shall be purified.”

Since it is stated concerning her

“purified”

through the bringing of the offerings,

by inference

you learn that until she brings them,

she is impure, despite having immersed herself. From here we learn that all those lacking atonement have the status of “impure.” And with regard to the service of an impure person, it is stated: “They shall separate themselves from the sacred things of the children of Israel, which they profane”; if he performed the service, he profaned his service.

We learned in the Mishna:

We learned in the Mishna:

And one who has not washed his hands and feet

invalidates the service.

From where do we know this?

It is derived

by a gezeira shava,

“statute”—

“statute,”

from one lacking the priestly 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 changed from the golden garments to the white garments and changed his service from an inward service to an outward 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 perform the service,

and performed the service—

his service is invalid!

For they derived by a gezeira shava, “statute”—“statute,” from one lacking the priestly garments, that if he did not immerse before beginning his service in the morning, he invalidates his service.

Rav Asi said to Rabbi Yohanan: Since

there are

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,

by Torah law

they are ,

and

“statute”

is written with regard to them, then let us derive by a gezeira shava from one lacking the priestly garments that these, too,

then let us derive by the method of identical wording from one lacking the priestly garments that they too

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

Rabbi Yochanan said to him Rabbi Yochanan: The verse states: “They are sacred garments, and he shall wash his flesh in water— and he shall put them on.”

He said to him

Rabbi Yohanan:

The verse states:

“The sacred garments are; and he shall bathe his flesh in water”—

“and he shall dress them.”

The verse repeated and wrote twice the law of wearing the garments [for at the beginning of that verse it already states, “He shall wear a sacred linen tunic”], to teach you that only the

wearing

of the garments mentioned in this verse

is indispensable

for the service,

but no other matter

mentioned in this verse, namely, the five immersions and the sanctification of the hands and feet,

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

if so, even the sanctification of the hands and feet

Rav Asi’s face brightened

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: You have no reason to rejoice, because the reason I stated is not correct. Rather,

“And I have written a

vav on a split log for you” [an expression for something nonexistent, as though I had written the letter vav on a piece of wood marked with cuts, the cuts interrupting the writing of the letter so that it is not recognizable at all]. For this reason, that explanation must be rejected: if it is indeed as I said, that the verse repeated the language of wearing garments to reveal that only the wearing mentioned in that verse is indispensable, but not the washing,

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!?

if so, even the sanctification of the hands and feet

in the morning

of Yom Kippur

also

should not be indispensable , since if the verse revealed that only the wearing mentioned in that 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 the 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 concerning the laver: “And they shall wash their hands and their feet, and they shall not die.

And it shall be an eternal statute for them—

for him and for his descendants throughout their generations.”

The verse compares Aaron to his descendants, to tell 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 force of “a statute,” which is written to make something indispensable]. But

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

The verse compares Aaron to his sons, to tell you:

A matter that is indispensable for his sons

—namely, the sanctification of the hands and feet upon entering the service, concerning which “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,

Rabbi Yonatan could say to you:

is not indispensable for him!

verse was not written to equate Aaron with his descendants and teach that the other sanctifications are not indispensable for him. Rather, it teaches that the sanctification of the hands and feet is stated for future generations, meaning that this statute is to apply also to Aaron’s descendants! And we inquire further: But the other one, Chizkiya, for what reason did he not say that the source is from this exposition of Rabbi Yonatan?

We inquire concerning this:

Rabbi Yonatan

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

what is the reason he did not say

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

from

the comparison

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

the hands and feet of

And we explain:

He can say to you

Rabbi Yonatan:

That

verse was not written to compare Aaron to his descendants and teach that the other sanctifications are not indispensable for him. Rather, it teaches that the sanctification of the hands and feet

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: What is the mitzva of sanctifying the 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 feet in a single washing, as it is stated: “And they shall wash their hands and their feet,” whose meaning is: in a single washing.

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says:

He must wash both his hands and both his 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 the other foot,

and he sanctifies

them with the water of the basin.

The Sages said

to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda:

You have gone too far

in your statement, for

it is impossible to do this

without falling! And the Gemara asks:

Are the Rabbis correct in saying to him

that he went too far in his statement, since it is impossible to do this without falling?

And we answer:

Rabbi Yosef said: His fellow assists him,

holding him so that he will not fall.

And we explain:

What is the difference between them,

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

Abaye said: Supported standing,

that is, they disagree about whether standing that requires assistance is considered “standing.”

That is the difference between them,

as will be explained shortly, since the washing of the hands and feet must be performed while standing.

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

why should he not sit beneath the basin

and wash

his hands and feet together, without needing assistance?

Ravina said to him:

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

to serve,”

to serve,

and it is juxtaposed with the verse, “And they shall wash their hands and their feet,” to compare the washing of the hands and feet to service.

And service

The Sages said to him,

is performed while standing!

The Sages taught:

A priest who

washed his hands and feet during the day need not wash them at night,

provided that he did not leave the Temple and did not divert his attention from them. But if he washed them

at night, he must

wash them again

during the day; this is the statement of Rabbi.

to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda:

For Rabbi says: Remaining overnight is effective

[that is, effective in invalidating]

with regard to the washing of the hands and feet,

because once dawn has risen, it is considered that the washing has had “remaining overnight,” and remaining overnight invalidates the washing of his hands and feet from the previous day.

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: Remaining overnight is not effective with regard to the washing of the hands and feet,

and as long as he did not leave and did not divert his attention, he may continue to perform the service on the basis of the washing of his hands and feet from the previous day.

It was taught in another beraita: If he was standing and offering sacrifices on the altar all night,

when he reached

the light

of dawn, he is

required to wash his hands and feet

in order to begin the service anew,

according to Rabbi.

You have gone too far

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says:

Since he washed his hands and feet

at the beginning of the service,

then

even from now until ten days

if he continued his service without interruption and did not divert his attention from it,

he need not wash again!

And it is necessary

to state both of these beraitot.

For if only

the

first

beraita had been taught,

we might have said that only

in that

beraita did Rabbi say

that remaining overnight is effective,

because he interrupted the service

of that day

from the service of

the following day. This is the meaning of the beraita, since it did not state, “He was standing and offering sacrifices all night until dawn,” as the second beraita does.

But in this case,

the case discussed by the second beraita—for example,

that he did not interrupt

his service until the following day—

we might say that Rabbi agrees with Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,

that he need not wash again. Therefore, the second beraita teaches that according to Rabbi, remaining overnight is effective even when he did not interrupt his service.

And if only

the

second

beraita had been taught, we might have said that

only in this

case

does Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, say

that he need not wash again, since he did not interrupt his service,

but in this case,

the first beraita, where he interrupted his service but merely did not divert his attention,

we might say that he agrees with Rabbi

that remaining overnight is effective and he must wash again. Therefore, it teaches that as long as he did not leave the Temple and did not divert his attention—even if he interrupted his service—remaining overnight is not effective with regard to him. Consequently,

it is necessary

to state both beraitot!

And we explain:

What is Rabbi’s reason

for requiring him to wash again on the following morning? It is

because it is written,

in your statement, for

“when they approach,”

and every approach in the morning is a new approach, since each morning they arranged a new pile of wood on the altar.

What is Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon’s reason

for not requiring him to wash again on the following morning?

Because 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 required to wash again, since this is not a new entry.

And we challenge this:

But the other one,

why did Rabbi not also say

as well

as 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 one is not required to wash until he leaves the Temple. Rather, it was necessary because

if it had been written

The Rabbis have spoken well to him

“when they approach”

alone

and it had not been 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:

we might have said that for every approach

one is required to wash—even if all the approaches took place on the same day, provided that 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 teach that he is not required to wash again on the same day unless he leaves and then enters anew; he need not wash for every approach.

We challenge this further:

But the other one,

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,

also

has a difficulty:

it is written

holding him so that he will not fall!

“when they approach,”

so why should he not be required to wash for the new approach on the second day?

And we answer: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds that the verse does not intend to require washing for every new approach. Rather, it was necessary because

if it had been written

And we explain:

“when they enter”

alone

and it had not been written also

also

“when they approach,”

What is the practical difference between them,

that is, in what do the Rabbis and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, disagree? Abaye said: Supported standing, concerning whether standing that requires support is considered “standing”; that is the difference between them, as explained below, that the sanctification of the 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 written, “And they shall wash their hands and their feet,” thereby juxtaposing the sanctification of the hands and feet with ministering. And ministering is performed while standing! 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 from them. But if he sanctified them at night, he must return and sanctify them during the day, the words of Rabbi. For Rabbi said: An overnight stay is effective as a disqualification for the sanctification of the hands and feet, because once the pillar of dawn has risen, it is considered that an “overnight stay” has occurred, and an overnight stay disqualifies the sanctification of his hands and feet from the previous day. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: An overnight stay is not effective for the sanctification of the hands and feet, and as long as he has neither left nor diverted his attention, he may continue to serve by virtue of the sanctification of his hands and feet from the previous day. It was taught in another beraita: If he was standing and offering sacrifices upon the altar throughout the entire night, when he reached the light of the pillar of dawn, he is required to sanctify his hands and feet in order to resume the service, the words of Rabbi. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: Since he sanctified his hands and feet at the beginning of the service, then even from now until ten days if he continued his service without interruption and did not divert his attention from it, he need not sanctify them! And it is necessary to state both of these beraitot: For if only the first beraita had been taught, we might have said that only in that beraita Rabbi says that an overnight stay is effective because he interrupted the service of that day for the service of the following day [for that is the implication of the beraita, since it does not state, “He was standing and offering sacrifices all night until the light of the pillar of dawn arrived,” as the second beraita does]. But in this case, the case addressed by the second beraita—namely, that he did not interrupt his service until the following day— you might say that Rabbi concedes to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, that he need not return and sanctify them. Therefore, the second beraita teaches us that according to Rabbi an overnight stay is effective even when he did not interrupt his service. And if only only in this second beraita had been taught, we might have said in this case alone Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says that he need not return and sanctify them, since he did not interrupt his service, but in this first beraita, where he interrupted his service but merely did not divert his attention, you might say that he concedes to Rabbi that an overnight stay is effective and he must return and sanctify them. Therefore, it teaches us that as long as he did not leave the Temple and did not divert his attention, even if he interrupted his service, an overnight stay is not effective against him. Accordingly, it is necessary to state both beraitot! And we explain: What is Rabbi’s reason for requiring him to return and sanctify them on the following morning? It is because it is written, “ when they approach,” and every morning approach is a new approach, since each morning they arranged a new pile of wood upon the altar. What is Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon’s reason for not requiring him to return and sanctify them on the following morning? It is written, “ when they enter,” and as long as he has not left the Temple, he is not required to return and sanctify them, since there has been no new entry. And we raise a difficulty: But the other one, Rabbi—why did he not also say as well as Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon? But it is written, “ when they enter,” and this is not a new entry. And we answer: Rabbi maintains that “when they enter” was not written to teach that he is not obligated in sanctification until he has left the Temple. Rather, it was necessary to write it because if it had been written “ when they approach” alone and “when they enter” had not been written, we would have said that every approach requires sanctification, even if all the approaches occurred on the same day, provided that he interrupted his service between one approach and the next. Therefore, the Torah wrote “ when they enter” to teach that he is not required to return and sanctify them on the same day unless he left and reentered; he is not required to do so for every approach. And we raise another difficulty: But the other one, Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, must also raise a difficulty against his position: It is written, “ when they approach,” so why should he not be obligated to sanctify them upon a new approach on the second day? And we answer: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, maintains that the verse does not intend to impose an obligation for every new approach. Rather, it was necessary to write it because if it had been written “ when they enter” alone and it had not also been written “ when they approach,” we would have said that even for an empty entry —one that involves no service—he is obligated in sanctification. It therefore teaches us that only an entry that includes an approach to the altar entails the obligation of sanctification. We raise a difficulty: Can it really be said that one might have thought that he is obligated in sanctification even for an empty entry? But it is written explicitly, “ to minister,” whose meaning is that he is exempt from sanctification when entering for an empty entry?!

that

even for an empty entry,

one not involving service, he would be required to wash. The verse therefore teaches that only an entry involving an approach to the altar requires washing.

We challenge this: Is it possible to say that one might have thought that he is required to wash even for

an empty entry? But it is written,

explicitly,

“to serve,”

the meaning of which is that he is exempt from washing when he enters without performing service?!

Rather,

indeed, it was not written

“when they approach”

in order to exempt an empty entry from sanctification; rather,

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

As Rav Aha bar Yaakov said: Everyone agrees,

Rabbi Meir and the Sages, who disputed the sanctification of the hands of the High Priest on Yom Kippur [on Yom Kippur, the High Priest immersed five times when he changed his garments from the white garments to the golden garments and vice versa. Likewise, he was required to perform two sanctifications of the hands and feet, one before the immersion and the other afterward. Rabbi Meir and the Sages disputed the first sanctification, which preceded the immersion: whether he had to 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 them before putting on the garments or afterward], rather everyone agrees

with regard to the second sanctification,

which follows the immersion, that only after

he is dressed

in his garments does he

sanctify,

and not while he is naked, before putting them on.

And we learn this law from what

the verse says:

“Or when they approach

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

One who lacks nothing

after the sanctification

other than approach alone; this one is excluded,

as he immersed while still naked,

for he lacks both dressing and approach.

And Rabbi held that since “when they approach” was needed to teach us this law, it is therefore unavailable to teach that remaining overnight is effective with regard to the sanctification of the hands and feet.

We further inquire: The continuation of the verse, “or when they approach the altar to serve

to burn a fire-offering

to Him,”

why do I need it?

For surely sanctification is required, since it is included in approaching the altar?!