Zevachim 20a — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

What might you say: these words

that he needs to sanctify his hands and feet apply specifically when he approaches to perform

an

important

service that effects atonement,

such as the service of the blood and the taking of the meal-offering handful, but when the priest approaches to perform

a service that does not effect atonement,

such as burning the sacrificial portions, perhaps

he does not

become obligated in the sanctification of hands and feet; therefore

it teaches us

that every approach to the altar, even to burn a fire-offering, which is not a service that effects atonement, requires sanctification of hands and feet beforehand.

When Rav Dimi came

from the Land of Israel to Babylonia,

he said

in the name of

Rabbi Yohanan: Ilfa asked —

according to the words of

Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon,

who says that lodging does not apply to the sanctification of hands and feet,

so that he does not need to return and sanctify his hands and feet the next day [if he did not leave and did not divert his attention],

the water of the basin

that remained in the basin throughout the entire night,

what is the law: will they be disqualified

at the rising of the dawn-star on the following day

by lodging?

Do we say, behold, these water that is in the basin, for what is it suitable? — For the sanctification of hands and feet. But the sanctification of hands and feet itself is not disqualified by lodging,

and if so, why should the sanctifying water be disqualified by lodging?

Or perhaps,

since

they sanctified it

the water

in a service vessel,

in the basin,

it is disqualified

by lodging, like all sacred objects that were sanctified in a service vessel: if they lodged after being sanctified in it, they are disqualified by lodging .

so why should the water used for that sanctification become invalid by staying overnight?

Or perhaps

since

the water was sanctified

the water

When Ravin came, Rabbi Jeremiah said that Rabbi Ami said that Rabbi Yohanan said: He returned,

after he had been uncertain and deliberated over the matter,

Ilfa resolved

his question and said:

As the dispute in this matter, whether lodging applies to the sanctification of hands and feet or not, so is the dispute in this matter, concerning the water of the basin that lodged, whether it was disqualified by lodging! He said before him [before Rabbi Jeremiah], Rabbi Isaac bar Bisna, his student: Rabbi,

and do

you say so

in the name of Rabbi Ami, that Ilfa resolved his question and said, “As the dispute concerning lodging in sanctification, so is the dispute concerning lodging in the water of the basin”?

But

this is what Rabbi Ami said that Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Ilfa: A basin that they did not immerse

it in the water-pit that was in the Temple courtyard

from the evening, he sanctifies from it

the priest

his

hands and feet

for the night service [which is the burning of the fats],

but on the following day he does not sanctify!

And we were engaged in it

before Rabbi Ami: What is the meaning of what he said in the name of Ilfa, that

on the following day “

he does not sanctify”?

Is the intention

that

he does not need sanctification

on the following day, because the priest can sanctify his hands and feet from the basin at night, and he does not need to return and sanctify them in the morning, in accordance with the view of Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon, that lodging does not apply to the sanctification of hands and feet? But concerning the fitness of the water in the basin—whether it was disqualified in the morning by lodging or not—Ilfa did not address the matter in his statement.

Or perhaps,

Ilfa’s intention in saying, “On the following day he does not sanctify,” is to say that

they were disqualified

the water of the basin

by lodging.

Therefore he cannot sanctify from them on the following day. Even Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon agrees that since the water was disqualified by lodging, he cannot sanctify with it.

And Rabbi Ami did not resolve for us

whether according to Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon the water of the basin was disqualified by lodging or not; whereas

the Master [Rabbi Jeremiah]

resolves it explicitly,

for he says that as the dispute in this matter, so is the dispute in that matter, and Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon maintains that just as lodging does not apply to the sanctification of hands and feet, so the water of the basin is not disqualified by lodging!?

on the following day, since the priest can sanctify his hands and feet from the basin at night and does not need to sanctify them again the next morning, in accordance with Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon, who says that staying overnight does not affect the sanctification of the hands and feet? But with regard to whether the water in the basin is fit or becomes invalid by staying overnight, Ilfa did not address the matter in his statement.

Or perhaps

Ilfa’s intention in saying “on the following day he does not sanctify” was to say that

Come and hear

from what we learned in tractate Yoma:

Ben Katin made twelve spouts for the basin

so that the water would emerge from twelve places, and twelve priests could sanctify at once.

He also made a mechanism

wheels

for the basin,

which would immerse the basin at night in a water-pit in the Temple courtyard, so that the water of the basin would be connected during the night to the water of a ritual bath,

so that its water would not be

the water of the basin

disqualified by lodging ; and in the morning they would raise the basin by means of those wheels that Ben Katin had made and set it in its place! What, is it not the need to immerse it in the pit so that it would not be disqualified by lodging, even according to Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon?! And we reject this: No. It is only according to Rabbi, who maintains that the sanctification of hands and feet is disqualified by lodging, and therefore he also disqualifies the water of the basin that lodged .

from what we learned in the Mishna in tractate Yoma:

Ben Katin made twelve faucets for the basin,

so that water would flow from twelve places and twelve priests could sanctify themselves at the same time.

He also made a mechanism

of wheels

for the basin,

which allowed the basin to be immersed at night in a water pit in the Temple courtyard, so that the water of the basin would remain connected during the night to the water of an immersion pool,

so that its water

the water of the basin

would not become invalid by staying overnight . In the morning they would raise the basin with the wheels made by Ben Katin and set it in its place. This proves that the water becomes invalid by staying overnight!

Is it not

the requirement to immerse it in the pit so that it will not become invalid by staying overnight, even according to

Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon!?

And they reject this:

No.

It is only according to

Rabbi,

who holds that the sanctification of the hands and feet becomes invalid by staying overnight, and therefore he also holds that water from the basin that remained overnight becomes invalid.

And we raise a difficulty:

but from the beginning

of this Mishna

it is Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon

:

the latter clause is also Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon

:

as it teaches in the first clause: “He came to”

the High Priest on Yom Kippur

“his bull”

in order to confess over it and immediately afterward slaughter it.

“And his bull was standing between the Hall and the Altar”,

when

“its head was to the south”,

its rear to the north,

“and its face”

was turned

“to the west”

by turning its head.

“And the Priest”

was

“standing”

with his back turned toward the Altar,

“to the east, and his face to the west”

toward the Sanctuary.

And we infer precisely: After all, the bull of the High Priest is a sin-offering, and a sin-offering must be slaughtered in the north of the Temple courtyard. And since the High Priest was standing with his back toward the Altar, toward the east, and his face toward the west, toward the Sanctuary, and immediately after the confession he slaughtered the sin-offering bull, it follows that that place between the Altar and the Sanctuary, on the northern side of the courtyard, has the status of “north.”

Who do you hear saying “

between the Hall and the Altar—

north

is”

It is Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon

:

as it was taught: Which is the “

north”

fit for slaughtering the sin-offering?

From the wall of

the

Altar

the

northernmost up to the wall of

the

courtyard

the

northernmost, and opposite the entire Altar,

that is

“north,” the words of Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda!

For it is stated: “And he shall slaughter it on the north side of the Altar,” and only the section north of the northern side of the Altar is called “the north side of the Altar.”

Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon adds also

the entire northwestern side of the courtyard that is

“between the Hall and the Altar”,

which has the status of north. [But on the other side of the Altar, toward the Nicanor Gate through which they entered, which was the northeastern side of the courtyard, there was no status of north, because the sanctity of this side was lesser: for in the first eleven cubits from the Nicanor Gate was the place where Israelites walked, and from there until the Altar were eleven cubits where Priests walked.]

Rabbi adds also

the northeastern side of the courtyard, where there was

a place where Priests walked and a place where Israelites walked.

But

in the northwestern corner of the courtyard, which is situated

from the

“houses of knives”

inward, everyone agrees that it is invalid

for slaughtering in it! The “houses of knives” were two structures attached to the Hall on its two sides, in which the Priests concealed the slaughtering knives [called halif]. These structures, each of which was fifteen cubits long, concealed the western corners of the courtyard from the sight of one standing close to the Altar.

And therefore the northwestern corner behind the northern house of knives was disqualified, because it cannot be considered “on the north side of the Altar,” on account of its being concealed by the northern house of knives!

And since it is demonstrated from what is stated in the first clause, “He came to his bull, and his bull was standing between the Hall and the Altar,” that this Mishna follows the view of Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon, it follows reasonably that what is stated in the latter clause as well, “He also made a device for the basin, so that its water would not become disqualified through overnight lodging,” is according to Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon. And it is demonstrated from here that even Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon, who does not disqualify the sanctification of hands and feet through overnight lodging, disqualifies the water of the basin through overnight lodging!

And we reject this:

But can you understand it—that this Mishna, in which the bull of the High Priest is slaughtered between the Hall and the Altar, follows only the view of

Rabbi

Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon

and not the opinion of

Rabbi?

For it is impossible that according to Rabbi only the northeastern section of the courtyard is fit for slaughtering and not the northwestern section between the Hall and the Altar, because

now, Rabbi certainly adds beyond Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda:

for Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda rendered fit only the section between the Altar and the northern wall of the courtyard, while Rabbi added and rendered fit its entire northeastern section, despite its lesser sanctity, because it contains eleven cubits for Israelites to walk and eleven cubits for Priests to walk; if so, is it possible to say that

by contrast, Rabbi Shimon son of Elazar does not add

and Rabbi rendered fit only the northeastern side, whose sanctity is lesser, and not the northwestern side between the Hall and the Altar, whose sanctity is more stringent?

And since it is demonstrated from this Mishna that even according to Rabbi it is possible to slaughter between the Hall and the Altar [by a kal va-chomer], there is again no proof that Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon holds that overnight lodging disqualifies the water of the basin even though it does not disqualify the sanctification of hands and feet, because it is possible that the Mishna follows Rabbi’s view, according to which overnight lodging disqualifies the sanctification of hands and feet, and all the more so disqualifies the water of the basin.

And we explain:

This is what we are saying

to prove that the Mishna follows Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon, for

if it enters your mind that it is Rabbi’s

view, why do they place the bull of the High Priest between the Hall and the Altar?

Let him place

the bull

in the place where Priests walk and in the place where Israelites walk,

which is in the northeastern section adjacent to the entrance gate [and Rashi explained that it is not an honor to slaughter the bull near the Sanctuary when it can be slaughtered near the entrance to the courtyard]. And from the fact that we teach that they place the bull between the Hall and the Altar, it is demonstrated that this Mishna follows Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon, and according to his view it is impossible to slaughter near the entrance, because that place is invalid for slaughtering.

And we ask:

But what

have you said—that this Mishna

is Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon’s

view—and according to his position is there no difficulty?

But

let him place

the bull in the place that is actually north of the Altar,

from the wall of

the

northern Altar to the northern wall of the courtyard,

and this is preferable to placing it between the Hall and the Altar?

Rather, what can you say

that it is preferable to slaughter between the Hall and the Altar

because of the weakness of the High Priest,

since all the day’s services are upon him and he is thereby weakened, and therefore he slaughters his bull close to the Sanctuary so that the burden of the bowl and the blood within it should not weigh heavily upon him. If so,

here too,

according to Rabbi, it can be explained in this Mishna that although it is initially possible to slaughter the bull near the entrance, nevertheless they slaughter it near the Hall because of

the weakness of the High Priest.

And if so, there is again no proof that according to Rabbi Shimon son of Elazar the water of the basin becomes disqualified through overnight lodging, because it is possible that this Mishna follows Rabbi’s view!

Rabbi Yohanan said: If he sanctified his hands and feet

at night

for the removal of the ashes,

which is the beginning of the service in the Temple every day, for the Priest would take with a coal-pan consumed coals from atop the Altar and place them below, at its southern side, and since he sanctified his hands and feet for the beginning of the day’s service,

on the next day ,

at dawn,

he does not need

again

to sanctify, since he already sanctified at the beginning of the service

of that day, which is the removal of the ashes.

And we consider the matter:

For whom [A0157]]that is, according to whose opinion] did Rabbi Yohanan say this?

[that is, according to whose opinion] did Rabbi Yohanan say this?

If according to Rabbi, he said that overnight lodging disqualifies

the sanctification of hands and feet, and “overnight lodging” means until dawn, for once dawn rises, the name “overnight lodging” applies to the sanctification of his hands and feet?!

If according to Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon, he said that even from here until ten days he need not return and sanctify,

whereas Rabbi Yohanan said that he does not need to sanctify because he sanctified for the removal of the ashes, which is the beginning of the day’s service; this implies that if he sanctified at night for the night service, which is the burning of the fats, overnight lodging would disqualify it when the pillar of dawn rises?!

And we answer:

Abaye said: Actually, Rabbi

is the one according to whom Rabbi Yohanan stated it.

And

that which

overnight lodging

disqualifies the sanctification of hands and feet

is rabbinic,

because by Torah law overnight lodging disqualifies only the water of the basin, but not the hands and feet that were washed with the water of the basin and dried. And since the disqualification of overnight lodging in the sanctification of hands and feet is only because of a decree, for the Sages decreed to disqualify sanctification through overnight lodging so that people would not treat lightly the disqualification of overnight lodging of the water of the basin, therefore they did not decree to disqualify the sanctification of the Priest who sanctified for the removal of the ashes, whose time is at the end of the night, when the rooster calls; and since the interval between the call of the rooster and dawn is short,

Rabbi concedes that from the call of the rooster until morning, overnight lodging does not disqualify,

for people will not thereby come to treat lightly the overnight lodging of the water of the basin, since sanctification at the time of the call of the rooster is regarded in their eyes as sanctification performed during the day!

Rava said

that actually what Rabbi Yohanan said—that if he sanctified his hands and feet for the removal of the ashes, on the next day he need not sanctify—

is Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon’s view!

And Rabbi Yohanan accepted the words

of Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon that overnight lodging does not disqualify the sanctification of hands and feet only when he sanctified

at the beginning of the service

of the day,

but did not

agree with him concerning one who sanctified his hands and feet at night for the burning of the fats, which was

the end of the service

of the previous day; therefore he must return and sanctify for the service of the following day.

And in Gevurat Ari there he explained that they disagreed in accordance with the dispute between Abaye and Rava: that which they said it is the beginning of the service follows Rava, while that which they said “he sanctified at the beginning for the service” follows Abaye. The explanation is as above: according to Abaye, even if the removal of the ashes is considered a night service, since it is performed for the sake of the day, although every sanctification for a service at the end of the day is not effective for the following day, sanctification for the removal of the ashes is effective like sanctification for an actual daytime service. It follows that specifically sanctification for the removal of the ashes is effective for the services of the following day, and although it is performed on the previous night, before the call of the rooster, and is considered a night service, the sanctification is considered for the sake of the day; but sanctification for burning the fats after the call of the rooster will not be effective for the day’s services, because it was not performed for the sake of the day. [See further in the novellae of the Gera of Alin ; and below, 21a, Tosafot s.v. “What,” note 15.] \Meitivi\

from the Mishna that we learned in tractate Tamid:

the brother priests saw him,

the priest who had been granted the right to remove the ashes,

descend

from the altar with the coal pan containing the consumed coals, and now their task was to remove the rest of the ashes from the altar or to heap them upon it into the “apple” in the middle of the altar, immediately,

they ran and came, hastened and sanctified their hands and their feet from the laver!

And now the Gemara assumed that the priests had served throughout the entire night and had already sanctified their hands and their feet, and now they needed to sanctify them again so that they could continue performing the avoda of clearing the altar even after dawn rose,