Zevachim 22a — the Talmud in English

Whether

they contain

which those vessels are capable of holding

a revi'it

of water,

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

and

provided that they are

those vessels

vessels of the Temple service!

But Rabbi Yosei bar Hanina required that there be in the laver water in a measure sufficient for four people to sanctify from it, and with less than a revi'it it is impossible to sanctify the hands and feet of four priests?

And we answer: Rav Adda bar Ahava said:

In this beraita they are not speaking of the measure of the laver itself, and in truth the laver itself must contain the measure suitable for four priests. Rather, the discussion is

with regard to drilling

the wall of the laver, and inserting

within it

a small vessel into the wall, so that the water leaves the laver into the small vessel in the wall of the laver, and from it they sanctify the hands and feet of the priests. And this vessel does not need to contain even a measure of a revi'it .

And we raise an objection to what we learned in the beraita, that all vessels of the Temple service are fit to sanctify from them, but “ from it” [from the laver] did the Merciful One say?!

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]

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

they shall wash,” after it had already been stated, “And they shall wash from it,” we expound that it comes to include every vessel of the Temple service! And we ask:

If so, since this verse teaches that “from it” is not specifically meant,

non-sacred vessels too

should be made fit to sanctify from them?

to include

every

sacred vessel!

And we challenge:

if so,

And we answer:

Abaye said: You cannot say that non-sacred vessels

are valid for sanctification, for there is a source to disqualify them

by a kal va-chomer from its base of the laver— And just as its base, of the laver, which was anointed with it and was sanctified through its anointing like the laver,

does not sanctify

hands and feet,

a non-sacred vessel, which was not anointed with it, is it not obvious that it does not sanctify?!

The Gemara explains:

And its base

itself,

from where do we know

that it does not sanctify?

For it was taught: Rabbi Judah says: I might have thought that its base would sanctify in the manner in which the laver sanctifies. The verse says

“You shall make a copper laver and its copper base.”

Only

for

making the base of

copper I compared it

the base to the laver,

but not for anything else!

For if the verse had compared the laver to its base in all its laws, it would not have needed to say “copper” concerning the base, since this law would have been learned from the comparison. Necessarily, from the fact that Scripture repeated and wrote “copper” also concerning the base of the laver, it comes to teach us that the laver and its base were equated only with regard to the law of copper, and they were not compared to one another in the laws of a “comparison”! [And what they said, “for copper I compared it,” means, “I likened it to copper.”]

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

It is impossible to learn a kal va-chomer from the base of the laver to a non-sacred vessel, because one can refute it:

What is there about the base

that it is disqualified for sanctifying from it? Because

it is not

to the basin,

made

to contain water

within it, but only to serve as a base for the laver.

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

to contain water

within it? If so, perhaps it is possible to sanctify with them?!

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

And we answer:

Rather, the source for disqualifying sanctification with a non-sacred vessel is learned from the verse “And they shall wash

from it”— to exclude a non-sacred vessel! And we ask: If so, since “from it” is an exclusion, let us also exclude a vessel of the Temple service, and the washing of hands and feet will be valid only from the laver? And we answer: The Merciful One included the other vessels through what was written, “ they shall wash,” and they expounded that it is a superfluous verse teaching that “from it” is not specifically meant. And we still ask: And what did you see to include a vessel of the Temple service from the superfluous verse “they shall wash,” and to exclude a non-sacred vessel from “from it”? And we answer:

This,

a vessel of the Temple service,

requires anointing like it,

the laver.

And this,

a non-sacred vessel,

does not require anointing like it!

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

И отвечают:

Reish Lakish said: Every

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:

thing

that completes

by joining with it

the water of a ritual bath

to complete it to the measure of forty se'a, which is the measure of a ritual bath fit for immersion, is

also completing the water of the laver

so that they contain the measure required for them, sufficient for the washing of the hands and feet of four priests.

But for a revi'it of water required for the washing of hands, it does not complete every substance fit to complete the water of a ritual bath. And we inquire concerning it: This rule established by Reish Lakish, that there is something that completes the water of the laver but does not complete the washing of hands— to exclude what? If you say that his intention is to exclude soft clay, which is very soft, so that it can be poured from one vessel to another, and it completes forty se'a for a ritual bath but does not complete a revi'it of water for the washing of hands, the matter is difficult in either case: What are the circumstances?

If

it is speaking of clay that is not thick, but is so thin

that a cow can

be

wade and drink from it,

then

even for a revi'it too

it joins, for any water that has not been disqualified for an animal’s drinking is fit for the washing of hands. And if a cow cannot wade and drink from it

because it is thick clay,

then

even for a ritual bath too it does not complete,

for this is not “soft clay”?!

Rather, to exclude red larvae, which are a type of gnats that are created and grow in water. They complete the water of a ritual bath to forty se'a, but they do not complete a revi'it of water for the washing of 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: If the intention is red yevashushin, why did Reish Lakish say, “everything that completes the measure of a mikveh”? For behold,

even

if all forty seah were made of those yevashushin when they were

in their own state [and not mixed with the water of the mikveh],

also

that mikveh would be valid for immersing in it!

For it was taught: Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says: Everything

whose

beginning of formation is from water [while it is in water],

may be immersed in it.

And the beginning of formation of red yevashushin is while they are in water.

And Rav Yitzhak bar Avdimi said: One may immerse in a fish’s eye!

And this means in the fat of the eye of a large fish , because the beginning of the fish’s formation is in water. If so, the difficulty arises: If Reish Lakish’s intention was the law of yevashushin, why did he validate them only when they complete the water of a mikveh, and not for immersion in them themselves?

Rather, Rav Pappa said:

to exclude

“he placed a seah”

of fruit juice, which is not suitable for immersion in, into a mikveh containing forty seah of water suitable for immersion,

“and he removed a seah”

from those forty-one seah. With regard to the law of immersion in a mikveh, that mikveh is valid for immersing in it, despite the fact that now a small portion of fruit juice is mixed into the water. For once the seah of fruit juice fell into a mikveh containing forty seah of water fit for immersion, that seah of fruit juice was nullified in it. Therefore, it can complete the measure of forty seah when the forty-first seah is removed from the mikveh.

For we learned

in tractate Mikvaot:

A mikveh containing precisely forty seah: He placed a seah

of fruit juice into the water of the mikveh,

and removed a seah

of the water mixed with the fruit juice,

it is valid

for immersing in the remaining forty seah. Although the fruit juice that had previously become mixed into them now completes the water of the mikveh to forty seah.

And Rav Yehuda bar Sheila said in the name of Rav Asi in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

One may mix fruit juice into a mikveh by placing a seah and removing a seah

until the majority of it

[that is, in a mikveh containing forty seah, until twenty seah of fruit juice]!

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

Rav Pappa said: If he bored into it,

in the wall of a mikveh containing forty seah, at a place to which the water of the mikveh had flowed, even in the small measure of

a quarter

of water alone, and the quarter of water in that place became detached from the water of the mikveh and was no longer joined to it—

one may immerse needles and tubes

to purify them from the tumah of vessels, despite the fact that now there is only a quarter of water in that place,

since it comes from the fitness of the mikveh!

Rabbi Yirmeya said in the name of Reish Lakish: The water of a mikveh

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

is valid for the water of the laver!

And we challenge:

Is this to say that they are not spring water

and nevertheless they are valid to be the water of the laver?

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

Conversely, we expound:

“In water”—

to include other water, and a kal va-chomer applies to the water of the laver!

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

And we infer:

What is the meaning of

“a kal va-chomer applies to the water of the laver”?

Is it not that they are spring water,

and therefore they made a kal va-chomer concerning them from other water, which is valid; and it implies that the water of the laver must be spring water from a spring?

And we reject this:

No.

The kal va-chomer is not because only spring water is suitable for the water of the laver. Rather, it is because

they are consecrated,

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

And we challenge:

And if the water is

consecrated,

is that an advantage

with regard to washing the innards and the legs!?

But the school of Shmuel taught

in this beraita, after all water had been included: “Could I also include strawberry water? Scripture says ‘water,’” and we expound:

water that has no accompanying designation,

that is the water with which they were authorized to wash; strawberry water is excluded, because it has an accompanying designation!