Zevachim 22a (כב.) — the Talmud in English

whether

they contain

that those vessels are capable of holding

a quarter-log

of water,

or whether they do not contain a quarter-log [because for the sanctification of the hands and feet, a quarter-log of water is not required, since this measure was stated only with regard to the washing of hands],

and

provided that they are

those

sacred vessels! But Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina required that the basin contain enough water for four people to sanctify themselves from it, and with less than a quarter-log it is impossible for four priests to sanctify their hands and feet?

And we answer:

Rav Adda bar Ahava said:

This beraita is not discussing the measure of the basin itself. In fact, the basin itself must contain the amount appropriate for four priests. Rather, the case is

where one drills through

the wall of the basin and inserts

inside it

a small vessel, so that the water flows from the basin into the small vessel set into the wall of the basin, and the priests sanctify their hands and feet from that vessel. This vessel need not contain even a quarter-log.

And we challenge what we learned in the beraita, that all sacred vessels are fit for sanctifying from them:

but

“from it” [

from the basin]

did the Merciful One state?!

And we answer: Since an additional verse was stated, “And when they approach the altar

they shall wash,”

after “and they shall wash from it” had already been stated, we derive that it comes

to include

every

sacred vessel!

And we challenge:

if so,

since this verse teaches that “from it” is not exclusive,

non-sacred vessels as well

should be fit for sanctifying from them?

And we answer:

Abaye said: You cannot say that non-sacred vessels

will be valid for sanctification, for there is a source for disqualifying them

by means of a kal va-homer from its base

of the basin—

And as for its base

of the basin,

which was anointed together with it

and was sanctified through its anointing like the basin,

it does not sanctify

the hands and feet;

a non-sacred vessel, which was not anointed together with it, surely should not sanctify?!

The Gemara explains:

and as for its base

itself,

from where do we know

that it does not sanctify?

As it is taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: One might have thought that its base sanctifies in the manner in which the basin sanctifies. Therefore, the verse states:

“And you shall make a copper basin and its copper base.”

Only

for

making the base from

copper did I liken it

to the basin,

but not for anything else!

For if the verse had likened the basin to its base with regard to all its laws, it would not have needed to state “copper” concerning the base, since this law would have been derived from the analogy. Necessarily, the fact that the verse repeated the word “copper” concerning the basin’s base teaches that the basin and its base were equated only with regard to copper; they were not likened to one another with regard to the laws of an analogy. [And what they said, “I likened it to copper,” means, “I compared it to copper.”]

Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, said to Ravina:

It is impossible to derive by a kal va-homer from the basin’s base that non-sacred vessels are disqualified, because one can refute it:

What is distinctive about the base,

which is invalid for sanctifying from it? It is because

it is not

itself

made

to contain water

inside it,

but only to serve as a support for the basin.

Can you say the same regarding a non-sacred vessel, which is made

to contain water

inside it,

and therefore perhaps it is possible to sanctify in it?!

And we answer:

rather, the source for disqualifying sanctification in a non-sacred vessel is derived from the verse, “and they shall wash

from it”—

to exclude a non-sacred vessel!

And we challenge:

if so, since “from it” is an exclusion, let us also exclude

a sacred vessel, and sanctification of the hands and feet should be valid only from the basin?

And we answer:

the Merciful One included

other vessels through the word

“they shall wash,”

which is understood as a superfluous verse teaching that “from it” is not exclusive.

And we still challenge:

What did you see

that led you to include sacred vessels on the basis of the superfluous verse “they shall wash,” and to exclude non-sacred vessels on the basis of “from it”? And we answer:

This,

a sacred vessel,

requires anointing like it does

the basin.

But this,

a non-sacred vessel,

does not require anointing like it does!

Reish Lakish said: Any

thing that

completes

by being added

to the water of a ritual immersion pool

to bring it to the measure of forty se’a, which is the measure of a ritual immersion pool fit for immersion,

also completes the water of the basin

to bring it to the required measure, sufficient for the sanctification of the hands and feet of four priests. But

for a quarter-log

of water required for the washing of hands,

it does not complete

the amount, even though it is an object fit to complete the water of a ritual immersion pool.

We inquire concerning this: the general principle established by Reish Lakish—that there is something that completes the water of the basin but does not complete the water for washing hands—

to exclude what? If you say

that his intent is

to exclude crushed clay,

which is very soft clay, to the extent that it can be poured from one vessel into another, and which completes the forty se’a of a ritual immersion pool but does not complete a quarter-log of water for washing hands, the difficulty is, whichever way you look at it:

what are the circumstances?

If

the clay is not thick, but is so thin

that a cow

can

wade through it and drink from it,

then

it also combines even for a quarter-log,

because any water that has not been disqualified for an animal’s drinking is fit for washing hands.

And if a cow cannot wade through it and drink from it

because it is thick clay, then

it does not even complete the measure for a ritual immersion pool,

since this is not “crushed clay”!

Rather, it is to exclude red water gnats,

which are a type of mosquito that is born and grows in water. They complete the water of a ritual immersion pool to forty se’a, but they do not complete a quarter-log of water for washing hands.

And we challenge this: If the reference is to red yebushin, why did Reish Lakish say, “everything that completes the mikve waters”? For

even

if all forty se'a were composed of those yebushin when they were

in their own substance [and not mixed with the mikve water],

also

that mikve would be fit for immersion in it!

For it was taught: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Any

thing

whose formation began in water [while it was in water],

one may immerse in it. And the formation of red yebushin began while they were in water.

And Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi said: One may immerse in the eye of a fish!

And this refers to the fat of the eye of a large fish, because the formation of a fish began in water. If so, the difficulty arises: If Reish Lakish’s intention was the law of yebushin, why did he deem them fit only when they complete the mikve waters, and not for immersion in them themselves?

Rather, Rav Pappa said:

to exclude the case of

one se'a

of fruit juice, which is not suitable for immersion, that was placed into a mikve containing forty se'a of water suitable for immersion,

and one se'a was removed

from those forty-one se'a. With regard to the law of immersion in a mikve, that mikve is fit for immersion in it, despite the fact that a small portion of fruit juice is now mixed into the water. Once the se'a of fruit juice fell into a mikve containing forty se'a of water fit for immersion, that se'a of fruit juice was nullified in the water. Therefore, it can complete the forty se'a when the forty-first se'a is removed from the mikve.

For we learned

in tractate Mikvaot:

A mikve containing exactly forty se'a: If one placed a se'a

of fruit juice into the mikve water,

and removed a se'a

of the water mixed with the fruit juice,

it is fit

for immersion in the remaining forty se'a. Although the fruit juice that had previously mixed into them now completes the mikve water to forty se'a.

And Rav Yehuda bar Sheila said that Rav Asi said that Rabbi Yohanan said:

One may mix fruit juice into a mikve by placing a se'a and removing a se'a

until the majority of it

[that is, in a mikve containing forty se'a, up to twenty se'a of fruit juice!].

In this manner, Reish Lakish came to exclude and say that the law is different with regard to a quarter-revi'it of water for washing the hands. If there was a revi'it of water, and a quarter-revi'it of fruit juice was added to it, and afterward a quarter-revi'it was removed from the mixture, leaving a revi'it of water, it follows that the fruit juice completes the water to a revi'it; and here the law is that one may not wash the hands with this revi'it of water.

Rav Pappa said: If one bored a hole in it,

in the wall of a mikve containing forty se'a, at a place to which the mikve water had flowed, even if only a small measure of

a quarter-revi'it

of water, and the quarter-revi'it of water in that place became detached from the mikve water and was no longer connected to it—

one may immerse needles and tubes in it

to purify them from the tum'a of vessels, even though that place now contains only a quarter-revi'it of water,

since it derives its fitness from the mikve!

Rabbi Yirmeya said that Reish Lakish said: Mikve water,

even water that is not spring water flowing from a spring,

is fit for the kiyor water!

And we challenge:

Does this mean that they are not spring water

and nevertheless are fit to be kiyor water?

But it was taught, “And the innards and the legs he shall wash in water,” and we expound:

“In water”—

and not in wine.

“In water”—

and not in diluted wine!

For mixing one part wine with two parts water gives the entire mixture the status of wine, and it follows that he is washing the innards and legs not in water but in wine.

Conversely, we expound:

“In water”—

to include other water, and a kal va-chomer for kiyor water!

That is, water fit to be kiyor water is fit for washing the innards and legs with it.

And we infer:

What is the meaning of

“a kal va-chomer for kiyor water”?

Is it not because they are spring water,

and therefore they derived a kal va-chomer from other water, which is fit, implying that kiyor water must be spring water!?

We reject this:

No.

The kal va-chomer is not because only spring water is fit to be kiyor water. Rather, it is because

it is consecrated,

since actual kiyor water was sanctified with the sanctity of a service vessel through the kiyor, and it is certainly fit for washing the innards and legs, by a kal va-chomer from water that is not consecrated.

And we challenge:

But if the water is

consecrated, is that an advantage

with regard to washing the innards and legs!?

But the school of Shmuel taught

in this beraita, after all water had been included: “Perhaps I should include even strawberry water? The verse says ‘water,’” and we expound:

water that has no accompanying designation,

which is the water in which they were permitted to wash; strawberry water is excluded because it has an accompanying designation!