Zevachim 20a (כ.) — the Talmud in English

And we explain:

Lest you say, this applies

that he must sanctify his hands and feet only when he approaches to perform an

important service

that

is indispensable for atonement,

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

a service that is not indispensable for atonement,

such as burning the sacrificial portions, perhaps he

will not

be required to sanctify his 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 is indispensable for atonement, requires the sanctification of the hands and feet beforehand.

When Rav Dimi came

from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia,

he said

in the name of

Rabbi Yohanan: Ilfa raised the following dilemma:

According to

Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon,

who says that lodging does not render the sanctification of the hands and feet ineffective,

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

what is the status of the water of the basin

that remained in the basin throughout the entire night?

What is the halakha: are they disqualified

at daybreak of the following day

through 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,

Do we say that

these

particular

waters in the basin

for what

are they fit?

For the sanctification of the hands and feet.

But

the sanctification of the hands and feet itself is not disqualified by lodging,

and if so, why should the water used for sanctification be disqualified through lodging?

Or perhaps,

since

it sanctified them—

the water—

in a service vessel,

the basin,

it is disqualified

through lodging, like all consecrated items that were sanctified in a service vessel: if they remained overnight after being sanctified in it, they are disqualified through lodging .

When Ravin came, Rabbi Yirmeya said that Rabbi Ami said that Rabbi Yohanan said: He reconsidered,

after examining and deliberating the matter,

and Ilfa resolved

his dilemma and said:

Just as there is a dispute in this case,

whether lodging is effective with regard to the sanctification of the hands and feet or not,

so there is a dispute in this case,

concerning water of the basin that remained overnight, whether it is disqualified through lodging.

Rabbi Yitzhak bar Bisna

said before him [before Rabbi Yirmeya],

his teacher,

Rabbi,

Rabbi,

but

do you say this

in the name of Rabbi Ami, that he resolved Ilfa’s dilemma and said, “Just as there is a dispute concerning lodging with regard to sanctification, so there is a dispute concerning lodging with regard to 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 submerge

it in the water pit that was in the Temple courtyard

from the evening, the priest sanctifies from it

his

hands

and feet

for the night service

[which is the burning of the fats],

but on the following day he does not sanctify himself!

And we raised the matter

before Rabbi Ami: what is meant by what he said in the name of Ilfa, that

on the following day he

does not sanctify himself?

Does it mean

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 does not need to return and sanctify them in the morning, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon, who says that lodging does not affect the sanctification of the hands and feet? But as for the fitness of the water in the basin—whether it is disqualified in the morning through lodging or not—Ilfa did not address this in his statement.

Or perhaps,

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

the water of the basin was disqualified

through

lodging.

Therefore, he cannot sanctify himself from it on the following day. Even Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon concedes that once the water has been disqualified through lodging, he cannot sanctify himself with it.

And Rabbi Ami did not resolve for us

whether, according to Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon, the water of the basin is disqualified through lodging or not; yet

the Master

[Rabbi Yirmeya]

resolves it definitively,

holding that just as there is a dispute in this case, so there is a dispute in that case, and that Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon holds that just as lodging does not affect the sanctification of the hands and feet, so the water of the basin is not disqualified through lodging—!?

Come and hear from what we learned in tractate Yoma:

from what we learned in the Mishna in tractate Yoma:

Ben Katin made twelve faucets for the basin

so that the water would emerge from twelve places and twelve priests could sanctify themselves simultaneously.

He also made a mechanism

—wheels—

for the basin,

which submerged the basin at night in a water pit in the Temple courtyard, so that the water of the basin would remain connected throughout the night to the water of a ritual bath,

so that its water would not be

the water of the basin

disqualified through lodging . In the morning they raised the basin by means of those wheels made by Ben Katin and set it in its place—!

Is it not

the need to submerge it in the pit so that it would not be disqualified through lodging, even according to

Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon!?

And we reject this:

No.

It is only according to

Rabbi,

who holds that the sanctification of the hands and feet is disqualified through lodging, and therefore he likewise disqualifies the water of the basin that remained overnight .

And we challenge this:

But according to the beginning

of this Mishna,

it is Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,

who expresses this opinion. Therefore,

the latter clause must also be according to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon.

This is evident from the fact that

it teaches in the first clause: “He came”

the High Priest on Yom Kippur

to his bull

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

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

with

its head to the south,

and 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,

facing the Sanctuary.

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

Whom do you hear saying that

“between the Entrance Hall and the Altar” is

“north”?

It is

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon.

This is as follows:

As it was taught in a beraita: Which is the

“north”

fit for slaughtering a sin-offering?

From the wall

of

the Altar

to

the northern wall

of

the courtyard

and

opposite the entire Altar,

that area has the status of

“north”—this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda!

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

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, adds even

the entire northwestern side of the courtyard

between the Entrance Hall and the Altar,

which has the status of north. [But on the other side of the Altar, toward the Nicanor Gate, through which people entered, which was the northeastern side of the courtyard, it did not have the status of north, because the sanctity of this side was lesser. For during the first eleven cubits from the Nicanor Gate was the area where Israelites walked, and from there until the Altar were eleven cubits where priests walked.]

Rabbi adds even

the northeastern side of the courtyard, where there was

an area where priests walked and an area where Israelites walked.

However,

in the northwestern corner of the courtyard, which is located

from the

“Chalifot”

and inward, everyone agrees that it is invalid

for slaughtering there! The “Chalifot” were two structures attached to the Entrance Hall on either side, where the priests stored the slaughtering knives [called ḥalif]. These structures, each fifteen cubits long, concealed the western corners of the courtyard from the view of one standing near the Altar.

And therefore the northwestern corner behind the northern Chamber of Knives was invalid, because it could not be considered “on the northern side of the Altar,” since it was concealed by the northern Chamber of Knives!

And since it is demonstrated from the first clause, “He came to his bull, and his bull was standing between the Entrance Hall and the Altar,” that this Mishna follows the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, it follows that the statement in the latter clause, “He also made a device for the Basin, so that its water would not become disqualified through overnight stay,” must likewise be according to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. It is thereby demonstrated that even Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who does not disqualify the sanctification of the hands and feet through overnight stay, disqualifies the water of the Basin through overnight stay!

And we reject this:

But can you understand it so?

Does this Mishna, which states that the bull of the High Priest was slaughtered between the Entrance Hall and the Altar, follow only the opinion of

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,

and not that of

Rabbi?

But it is impossible to say that according to Rabbi only the northeastern section of the courtyard is valid for slaughtering and not the northwestern section between the Entrance Hall and the Altar, because

now, Rabbi adds to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda.

For Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, validated only the section between the Altar and the northern wall of the courtyard, whereas Rabbi added and validated the entire northeastern section, despite its lesser sanctity, because eleven cubits of it were an area where Israelites walked and eleven cubits were an area where priests walked. If so, can it be said that

he does not add to Rabbi Shimon, son of Elazar,

and that Rabbi validated only the northeastern side, whose sanctity is lesser, but not the northwestern side between the Entrance Hall and the Altar, whose sanctity is greater?

And since it is demonstrated from this Mishna that even according to Rabbi it is possible to slaughter between the Entrance Hall and the Altar, by means of a kal va-chomer, there is no longer proof that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds that overnight stay disqualifies the water of the Basin even though it does not disqualify the sanctification of the hands and feet. It is possible that the Mishna follows Rabbi, who holds that overnight stay disqualifies the sanctification of the hands and feet—and certainly 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, since

if it enters your mind that it is Rabbi,

why do they position the bull of the High Priest between the Entrance Hall and the Altar?

Let them position

the bull

in the area where priests walked and in the area where Israelites walked,

which was in the northeastern section adjacent to the entrance gate. [Rashi explained that it would not be respectful to slaughter the bull near the Sanctuary when it could be slaughtered near the entrance to the courtyard.] And from the fact that we teach that the bull was positioned between the Entrance Hall and the Altar, it is evident that this Mishna follows Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that it is impossible to slaughter near the entrance, because that area is invalid for slaughtering.

And we ask:

But if so, what

did you say—that this Mishna is

according to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,

is there no difficulty according to his view?

But

let them position

the bull in the area directly north of the Altar,

from

the

northern Altar wall to the northern wall of the courtyard,

which would be preferable to positioning it between the Entrance Hall and the Altar?

Rather, what can you say?

That it is preferable to slaughter between the Entrance Hall and the Altar

because of the weakness of the High Priest,

since all the day’s service was his responsibility and he was thereby weakened, and therefore he slaughtered his bull near the Sanctuary so that the burden of the bowl and the blood it contained would not weigh heavily upon him. If so,

here too,

according to Rabbi, this Mishna can be explained as follows: Although it is initially possible to slaughter the bull near the entrance, nevertheless it was slaughtered near the Entrance Hall because of

the weakness of the High Priest.

If so, there is again no proof that according to Rabbi Shimon, son of Elazar, the water of the Basin is disqualified through overnight stay, since it is possible that this Mishna follows Rabbi!

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If he sanctified his hands and feet

at night

for the removal of the ashes,

which is the beginning of the Temple service each day—the priest would take consumed coals from atop the Altar in a coal pan and place them below, beside the southern side of the Altar—then, since he sanctified his hands and feet for the beginning of that day’s service,

the next day,

at dawn,

he does not need

to sanctify them

again, since he already sanctified them at the beginning of the service

of that day, namely, the removal of the ashes.

And we inquire:

For whom

[i.e., according to whose opinion] did Rabbi Yoḥanan say this?

If it is according to Rabbi, he said that overnight stay disqualifies

the sanctification of the hands and feet, and “overnight stay” means until dawn, for once dawn arrives, the status of “overnight stay” applies to the sanctification of his hands and feet?!

If it is according to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, he said that even from now until ten days later he need not sanctify them again,

whereas Rabbi Yoḥanan said that he need not sanctify them because he sanctified them for the removal of the ashes, which is the beginning of the day’s service. This implies that if he sanctified his hands and feet at night for the service of burning the fats, which is the night service, overnight stay would disqualify it once dawn arrived?!

And we answer:

Abaye said: Actually, Rabbi Yoḥanan stated it according to Rabbi.

And

the reason that

overnight stay

disqualifies the sanctification of the hands and feet

is rabbinic.

By Torah law, overnight stay disqualifies only the water of the Basin, but not the hands and feet that were washed with that water and then dried. Since the disqualification of the sanctification of the hands and feet through overnight stay is only due to a decree—the Sages decreed that sanctification should be disqualified through overnight stay so that people would not treat the disqualification of the Basin’s water through overnight stay lightly—they did not decree that the sanctification of a priest who sanctified his hands and feet for the removal of the ashes should be disqualified. The time for the removal of the ashes is at the end of the night, when the cock crows, and since the interval between cockcrow and dawn is short,

Rabbi concedes that from cockcrow until morning, overnight stay does not disqualify

the sanctification, since people will not thereby come to treat the overnight stay of the Basin’s water lightly; in their eyes, sanctification at the time of cockcrow is considered like sanctification during the day!

Rava said:

Actually, what Rabbi Yoḥanan said—that if one sanctified his hands and feet for the removal of the ashes, he need not sanctify them the next day—

is according to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon!

And Rabbi Yoḥanan accepted Rabbi Elazar’s opinion

that overnight stay does not disqualify the sanctification of the hands and feet only when he sanctifies them

at the beginning of the service

of the day,

but did not

accept his opinion with regard to one who sanctified his hands and feet at night for the burning of the fats, which is

the end of the service

of the previous day. Therefore, he must sanctify them again for the service of the following day.

Meytivi:

from the Mishna that we learned in tractate Tamid:

When his fellow koanim saw him,

the koen who had been chosen to remove the ashes,

descend

from the altar with the shovel containing the consumed coals, and now their task was to remove the rest of the ashes from the altar or to pile them on it into the “apple” in the center of the altar, immediately,

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

The Gemara now assumed that these were koanim who had served throughout the night and had already sanctified their hands and feet, and that they now needed to sanctify them again so that they could continue performing the service of clearing the altar even after dawn.