זבחים כב

זבחים כב

בֵּין שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן רְבִיעִית; וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּהוּ כְּלֵי שָׁרֵת!

or they cannot hold a quarter-log of water, provided that they are service vessels. Apparently, the Basin need not hold so much water.

אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַחָא: בְּקוֹדֵחַ בְּתוֹכוֹ.

Rav Adda bar Aḥa says: The baraita is referring to a case where one drills a hole in the Basin and places a much smaller vessel at the hole as a conduit for the water. Even if that vessel is very small, the priest may sanctify his hands and feet from it, provided that there is enough water in the Basin for four priests.

וְהָא ״מִמֶּנּוּ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא! ״יִרְחָצוּ״ – לְרַבּוֹת כְּלִי שָׁרֵת.

The Gemara asks: But doesn’t the Merciful One state that the priests must wash their hands and feet “from it,” i.e., from the Basin and not from another vessel? The Gemara responds: The following verse repeats the phrase “they should wash,” to include any service vessel.

אִי הָכִי, כְּלִי חוֹל נָמֵי! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: כְּלִי חוֹל לָא מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ, מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר מִכַּנּוֹ; וּמָה כַּנּוֹ, שֶׁנִּמְשַׁח עִמּוֹ – אֵינוֹ מְקַדֵּשׁ; כְּלִי חוֹל, שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִמְשָׁח עִמּוֹ – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְקַדֵּשׁ?!

The Gemara challenges: If so, then it should be permitted for a priest to use a non-sacred vessel as well. Abaye says: You cannot say that a priest may sanctify his hands and feet from a non-sacred vessel, since the matter may be derived by a fortiori inference from the halakha concerning the base of the Basin: And just as its base, which was anointed along with it (see Exodus 40:11), is still not fit for a priest to sanctify his hands and feet with water from it, then with regard to a non-sacred vessel, which was not anointed along with the Basin, is it not right that it is not fit for a priest to sanctify his hands and feet with water from it?

וְכַנּוֹ מְנָלַן? דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: יָכוֹל יְהֵא כַּנּוֹ מְקַדֵּשׁ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהַכִּיּוֹר מְקַדֵּשׁ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְעָשִׂיתָ כִּיּוֹר נְחֹשֶׁת וְכַנּוֹ נְחֹשֶׁת״ – לִנְחֹשֶׁת הִקַּשְׁתִּיו וְלֹא לְדָבָר אַחֵר.

The Gemara clarifies: And from where do we derive that water from the base of the Basin is unfit? As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: One might have thought that water from its base should be fit for priests to sanctify their hands and feet just as water from the Basin itself is fit to sanctify their hands and feet. Therefore, the verse states: “You shall also make a Basin of copper, and the base thereof of copper” (Exodus 30:18). The verse indicates that I have equated the base and the Basin only with regard to the requirement that they both be made of copper, but not for another matter. Rather, the base, unlike the Basin, is unfit for sanctification.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָר זוּטְרָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב מָרִי לְרָבִינָא: מָה לְכַנּוֹ – שֶׁאֵין עָשׂוּי לְתוֹכוֹ; תֹּאמַר בִּכְלִי חוֹל – שֶׁעָשׂוּי לְתוֹכוֹ?! אֶלָּא ״מִמֶּנּוּ״ – לְמַעוֹטֵי כְּלִי חוֹל.

Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, said to Ravina: The a fortiori inference can be refuted: What is notable about its base? It is notable in that its inside is not made for use, as it is to be used only as a stand. Will you say that the halakha is the same for a non-sacred vessel, concerning which its inside is made for use? Rather, one must say that the term “from it” serves to exclude a non-sacred vessel.

אִי הָכִי, כְּלִי שָׁרֵת נָמֵי! הָא רַבִּי רַחֲמָנָא ״יִרְחָצוּ״.

The Gemara challenges: If so, “from it” should exclude a service vessel as well. The Gemara responds: But the Merciful One amplifies the halakha with the term “they should wash,” to include a service vessel.

וּמָה רָאִיתָ? זֶה טָעוּן מְשִׁיחָה כָּמוֹהוּ, וְזֶה אֵין טָעוּן מְשִׁיחָה כָּמוֹהוּ.

The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to include a service vessel and exclude a non-sacred vessel, rather than the reverse? The Gemara responds: This, a service vessel, requires anointing like the Basin when the Tabernacle is raised (see Exodus, chapter 40), and that, a non-sacred vessel, does not require anointing like the Basin.

אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: כׇּל הַמַּשְׁלִים לְמֵי מִקְוֶה – מַשְׁלִים לְמֵי כִיּוֹר. לִרְבִיעִית – אֵינוֹ מַשְׁלִים.

§ Reish Lakish says: Any liquid that may be used to complete the requisite measure of water for a ritual bath may complete the requisite measure of water for the Basin. But it may not complete the quarter-log required for ritual washing of the hands.

לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? אִילֵּימָא לְמַעוֹטֵי טִיט הַנִדּוֹק – הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּפָרָה שׁוֹחָה וְשׁוֹתָה מִמֶּנּוּ, אֲפִילּוּ לִרְבִיעִית נָמֵי! וְאִי אֵין פָּרָה שׁוֹחָה וְשׁוֹתָה מִמֶּנּוּ, אֲפִילּוּ לְמִקְוֶה נָמֵי אֵין מַשְׁלִים!

The Gemara asks: This statement means to exclude what as unfit for completing the requisite measure for ritual washing of the hands? If we say that it means to exclude liquefied clay, there is a difficulty, as what is this clay like? If it is such that a cow can kneel and drink from it, it is considered water and should be fit even to complete the measure of a quarter-log for ritual washing of the hands. And if a cow cannot kneel and drink from it, it should not even be fit to complete the requisite measure for a ritual bath.

אֶלָּא לְמַעוֹטֵי יַבְחוּשִׁין אֲדוּמִּין – אֲפִילּוּ בְּעֵינַיְיהוּ נָמֵי! דְּהָא תַּנְיָא, רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁתְּחִילַּת בְּרִיָּיתוֹ מִן הַמַּיִם – מַטְבִּילִין בּוֹ; וְאָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר אַבְדִּימִי: מַטְבִּילִין בְּעֵינוֹ שֶׁל דָּג!

Rather, say that it means to exclude red gnats that originate and grow in water. This, too, is difficult, as even by themselves they may constitute the entire measure of the ritual bath, not only to complete a deficient measure of water; as it is taught in a baraita: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: With regard to anything that originates in the water, one may immerse in it, since it is considered as though it were water. And Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi says: One may immerse even in liquefied fish eye of sufficient volume.

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לְמַעוֹטֵי נָתַן סְאָה וְנָטַל סְאָה. דִּתְנַן: מִקְוֶה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ אַרְבָּעִים סְאָה מְכוָּּונוֹת; נָתַן סְאָה וְנָטַל סְאָה – הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר. וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה בַּר שֵׁילָא אָמַר רַב אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: עַד רוּבּוֹ.

Rav Pappa says: The statement of Reish Lakish means to exclude a case where one added a se’a and removed a se’a, as we learned in a mishna (Mikvaot 7:2): In the case of a ritual bath that contains the minimum measure of exactly forty se’a of water, and one added a se’a of liquid other than water, and then removed a se’a of the mixture, the ritual bath remains fit. The added liquid is considered nullified in the forty se’a of water, so that when one se’a of the mixture is removed, there still remain the requisite forty se’a of fit water. And Rav Yehuda bar Sheila says that Rav Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says that this halakha applies up to the greater part of the measure of the ritual bath. Adding and removing such a liquid to the requisite measure for washing of the hands renders the water unfit.

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: אִם קָדַח בּוֹ רְבִיעִית – מַטְבִּילִין בּוֹ מְחָטִין וְצִינּוֹרִיּוֹת, הוֹאִיל וּמֵהֶכְשֵׁירָא דְּמִקְוֶה אָתֵי.

Rav Pappa says: If one drilled in the wall of a ritual bath, and the sides of the hole can hold a quarter-log of liquid, one may immerse small vessels such as needles and hooks in the hole, even though it constitutes a space separate from the ritual bath, since the fitness of the water in the hole derives from the fitness of the water in the ritual bath. This halakha is parallel to the one discussed with regard to the Basin.

אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: מֵי מִקְוֶה כְּשֵׁירִים לְמֵי כִיּוֹר.

§ Rabbi Yirmeya says that Reish Lakish says: Water of a ritual bath is fit to be used as water of the Basin.

לְמֵימְרָא דְּלָא מַיִם חַיִּים נִינְהוּ?! וְהָתַנְיָא: ״בְּמַיִם״ – וְלֹא בְּיַיִן, ״בְּמַיִם״ – וְלֹא בְּמָזוּג, ״בְּמַיִם״ – לְרַבּוֹת שְׁאָר מַיִם; וְקַל וָחוֹמֶר לְמֵי כִיּוֹר. מַאי קַל וָחוֹמֶר לְמֵי כִיּוֹר? לָאו דְּמַיִם חַיִּים נִינְהוּ?

The Gemara asks: Is this to say that the water in the Basin does not need to be flowing water, i.e., spring water? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The verse indicates that the innards of an offering must be washed: “With water” (Leviticus 1:9), and not with wine; “with water,” and not with wine mixed with water; “with water,” to include other types of water, even those that are not spring water. And it can be inferred a fortiori that the water used for the Basin may be used to wash the innards. What is the basis of the a fortiori inference that the water used for the Basin may also be used? Is it not that it is from a source of flowing water and therefore obviously fit for washing the innards?

לָא, (לִקְדּוֹשׁ) דְּקַדִּישׁ וְקַדִּישֵׁי מְעַלְּיוּתָא הִיא. וְהָא תָּנָא דְּבֵי שְׁמוּאֵל: ״מַיִם״ – שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם שֵׁם לְוַוי,

The Gemara responds: No, the a fortiori inference is based on the fact that the water used for the Basin is sanctified for the service. The Gemara asks: But is sanctified water preferable, given that the Torah stipulates simply “water”? But didn’t Rabbi Shmuel teach: The word “water” used in the verse denotes specifically water whose name has no modifier;

יָצְאוּ מֵי כִיּוֹר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם שֵׁם לְוַוי. אֶלָּא לָאו דִּרְאוּיִין לְמֵי כִיּוֹר? אַלְמָא מַיִם חַיִּים נִינְהוּ!

excluded is water of the Basin, which has a modifier in its name? Rather, since the baraita cannot be referring to the water of the Basin itself, as it is unfit for washing the innards, is it not referring to water that is fit to be water of the Basin? Apparently, the only reason such water could be preferable is because it is flowing water.

תַּנָּאֵי הִיא. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מֵי כִיּוֹר – רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: מֵי מַעְיָן הֵן, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: שְׁאָר מֵימוֹת הֵן.

The Gemara responds: The issue is a dispute between tanna’im, as Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to the water of the Basin, Rabbi Yishmael says: It must be spring water, i.e., flowing water, and the Rabbis say: It may be another type of water.

עָרֵל מְנָלַן? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: דָּבָר זֶה מִתּוֹרַת מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ לֹא לָמַדְנוּ, מִדִּבְרֵי יְחֶזְקֵאל בֶּן בּוּזִי לָמַדְנוּ: ״כׇּל בֶּן נֵכָר עֶרֶל לֵב וְעֶרֶל בָּשָׂר לֹא יָבֹא אֶל מִקְדָּשִׁי לְשָׁרְתֵנִי״.

§ The mishna teaches that a priest who is uncircumcised disqualifies sacrificial rites he performs. The Gemara elaborates: From where do we derive this? Rav Ḥisda says: We did not learn this matter from the Torah of Moses, our teacher; rather, we learned it from the words of the prophet Ezekiel, son of Buzi: “No stranger, uncircumcised in heart or uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into My Sanctuary to serve Me” (Ezekiel 44:9).

וּמְנָלַן דְּמַחֲלִי עֲבוֹדָה? דִּכְתִיב: ״בַּהֲבִיאֲכֶם אֶת בְּנֵי נֵכָר עַרְלֵי לֵב וְעַרְלֵי בָשָׂר לִהְיוֹת בְּמִקְדָּשִׁי לְחַלֵּל אֶת בֵּיתִי״.

And from where do we derive that he desecrates the service after the fact? As it is written: “In that you have brought in strangers, uncircumcised in heart or uncircumcised in flesh, to be in My Sanctuary, to profane My house” (Ezekiel 44:7).

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״בֶּן נֵכָר״ – יָכוֹל בֶּן נֵכָר מַמָּשׁ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עֶרֶל לֵב״. אִם כֵּן, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בֶּן נֵכָר״? שֶׁנִּתְנַכְּרוּ מַעֲשָׂיו לְאָבִיו שֶׁבְּשָׁמַיִם. וְאֵין לִי אֶלָּא עֶרֶל לֵב; עֶרֶל בָּשָׂר מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְעֶרֶל בָּשָׂר״.

The Sages taught: The verse states “stranger”; one might have thought that this is referring to an actual stranger, i.e., a gentile. Therefore, the verse states: “Uncircumcised in heart,” to indicate that it is referring to a priest rather than a gentile. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: “Stranger”? It is referring to one whose actions are considered estranged from his Father in Heaven, i.e., an apostate, who sins regularly. And I have derived only that one uncircumcised in heart is unfit to serve; from where is it derived that one uncircumcised in flesh is unfit as well? The verse states: “Or uncircumcised in flesh.”

וּצְרִיכִי; דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא: ״עֶרֶל בָּשָׂר״ – מִשּׁוּם דִּמְאִיס; אֲבָל עֶרֶל לֵב, דְּלָא מְאִיס – אֵימָא לָא. וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן עֶרֶל לֵב – מִשּׁוּם דְּאֵין לִבּוֹ לַשָּׁמַיִם; אֲבָל עֶרֶל בָּשָׂר, דְּלִבּוֹ לַשָּׁמַיִם – אֵימָא לָא; צְרִיכִי.

The Gemara notes: And both phrases in the verse are necessary. As, had the Merciful One written only: “Uncircumcised in flesh,” one might think that only he is unfit because he is disgusting in that he possesses a foreskin, but concerning one uncircumcised in heart, who is not disgusting, I will say that he is not unfit. And had the verse taught us only that one uncircumcised in heart is unfit, one might think that only he is unfit, because his heart is not directed toward Heaven, but one uncircumcised in flesh, whose heart is directed toward Heaven, I will say that he is not unfit. Therefore, both phrases are necessary.

טָמֵא פָּסוּל. אָמְרוּ זִקְנֵי דָרוֹם: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא טְמֵא שֶׁרֶץ; אֲבָל טְמֵא מֵת – מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁמְּרַצֶּה בְּצִיבּוּר, מְרַצֶּה נָמֵי בְּיָחִיד.

§ The mishna teaches that a ritually impure priest is unfit for Temple service and disqualifies rites he performs. The Elders of the South said: They taught this only with regard to one who became impure due to contact with the carcass of a creeping animal. But with regard to a priest who became impure due to contact with a corpse, since he can effect acceptance of his rites for communal offerings ab initio if the majority of the community has contracted impurity from a corpse, he can effect acceptance of his rites for individual offerings as well after the fact.

אִי הָכִי, טְמֵא שֶׁרֶץ נָמֵי – לֵיתֵי בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר מִטְּמֵא מֵת: מָה טְמֵא מֵת, שֶׁטָּעוּן הַזָּאָה שְׁלִישִׁי וּשְׁבִיעִי – מְרַצֶּה; טְמֵא שֶׁרֶץ, שֶׁאֵינוֹ טָעוּן הַזָּאָה שְׁלִישִׁי וּשְׁבִיעִי – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁמְּרַצֶּה?!

The Gemara asks: If so, let it be derived that one impure due to the carcass of a creeping animal can also effect acceptance for communal offerings in cases of communal impurity ab initio, and for individual offerings after the fact, by a fortiori inference from one impure due to a corpse: Just as a priest who is impure due to a corpse, who requires sprinkling of the water containing the ashes of the red heifer on the third and seventh day to be purified, still effects acceptance, then with regard to one who is impure due to the carcass of a creeping animal, who does not require sprinkling on the third and seventh day, is it not right that he should also effect acceptance?

קָסָבְרִי זִקְנֵי דָרוֹם: מְכַפְּרִין – כְּמִתְכַּפְּרִין; מָה מִתְכַּפְּרִין – טְמֵא מֵת אִין, טְמֵא שֶׁרֶץ לָא; אַף מְכַפְּרִין – טְמֵא מֵת אִין, טְמֵא שֶׁרֶץ לָא.

The Gemara responds: The Elders of the South hold that the halakha with regard to those who effect atonement is like those who achieve atonement: Just as with regard to those who achieve atonement through communal offerings, i.e., the community, only if a majority is impure due to a corpse may the offering be sacrificed in a state of impurity, but if they are impure due to the carcass of a creeping animal it may not, so too with regard to those who effect atonement, i.e., the priests, if they serve when they are impure due to a corpse, yes, their service achieves atonement, but if they serve when they are impure due to the carcass of a creeping animal, it does not.

מַאי קָסָבְרִי? אִי קָסָבְרִי: אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין וְזוֹרְקִין עַל טְמֵא שֶׁרֶץ; אַמַּאי לָא עָבְדִי צִיבּוּר בְּטוּמְאָה? הָא כֹּל שֶׁבְּיָחִיד נִדְחֶה – צִיבּוּר עָבְדִי בְּטוּמְאָה!

The response of the Gemara assumes that communal offerings may not be brought when the majority of the community is impure due to a creeping animal. The Gemara therefore asks: What do the Elders of the South hold with regard to the Paschal offering? If they hold that one may not slaughter it nor sprinkle its blood on the altar for an owner who is impure due to a creeping animal, even though he can immerse and become pure in time to eat the offering that night, then one may ask: Why can’t the community perform communal offerings in such a state of impurity? Isn’t it a principle that for any impurity for which an individual may not sacrifice the Paschal offering and is deferred to the second Pesaḥ, the community may perform its offerings in such a state of impurity?

אֶלָּא קָסָבְרִי: שׁוֹחֲטִין וְזוֹרְקִין עַל טְמֵא שֶׁרֶץ.

Rather, they must hold that one may slaughter the Paschal offering and sprinkle its blood for an owner who is impure due to a creeping animal. Accordingly, the community may not offer the Paschal offering in such a state of impurity.

אָמַר עוּלָּא, תְּקַע לְהוּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ לִדְרוֹמָאֵי: וְכִי אֵיזֶה כֹּחַ מְרוּבֶּה – כֹּחַ מְכַפְּרִין אוֹ כֹחַ מִתְכַּפְּרִין? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: כֹּחַ מִתְכַּפְּרִין;

Ulla says: Reish Lakish shouted [teka] to the Elders of the South: But which power is greater to overcome impurity with respect to offerings, the power of those who effect atonement, i.e., the priests, or the power of those who achieve atonement, the offerings’ owners? Since the Elders of the South hold that the Paschal offering may be sacrificed for an owner who is impure due to a creeping animal, while a priest who is similarly impure may not sacrifice any offering, you must say that the power of those who achieve atonement is greater.

וּמָה בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁנִּטְמְאוּ בְּעָלִים בְּשֶׁרֶץ מְשַׁלְּחִין קׇרְבְּנוֹתֵיהֶן – כֹּהֵן שֶׁנִּטְמָא בְּשֶׁרֶץ אֵינוֹ מְרַצֶּה; מְקוֹם שֶׁנִּטְמְאוּ בְּעָלִים בְּמֵת, שֶׁאֵין מְשַׁלְּחִין קׇרְבְּנוֹתֵיהֶן – כֹּהֵן שֶׁנִּטְמָא בְּמֵת אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְרַצֶּה?!

If so, your initial statement that a priest who contracted impurity from a corpse can effect acceptance for individual offerings can be refuted a fortiori: And just as in a case where the owner became impure due to a creeping animal, he may send his offerings for sacrifice, and yet a priest who became impure due to a creeping animal cannot effect acceptance, then in a case where the owner became impure due to a corpse, where he may not send his offerings for sacrifice, is it not right that a priest who became impure due to a corpse cannot effect acceptance?

קָסָבְרִי זִקְנֵי דָרוֹם: טְמֵא מֵת [נָמֵי] מְשַׁלֵּחַ קׇרְבְּנוֹתָיו.

The Gemara responds: The Elders of the South hold that an owner who is impure due to a corpse may also send his offerings, even though he will not be able to partake of his Paschal offering. Therefore, the a fortiori inference does not stand.

וְהָכְתִיב: ״אִישׁ אִישׁ כִּי יִהְיֶה טָמֵא וַעֲשֵׂה פֶּסַח בְּחֹדֶשׁ הַשֵּׁנִי וְגוֹ׳״! לְמִצְוָה.

The Gemara protests: But isn’t it written: “If any man of you or of your generations shall be impure by reason of a dead body, or be in a journey afar off, he shall perform the Paschal offering to the Lord. In the second month on the fourteenth day at dusk they shall perform it” (Numbers 9:10–11)? Apparently, one impure due to a corpse in the first month must defer his Paschal offering to the second month. The Gemara responds: The verse intends this as a mitzva ab initio. But if he sends his offering in the first month, it is accepted, and he is not required to sacrifice a Paschal offering in the second month.

וְהָא כְּתִיב: ״אִישׁ

The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written: “And if the household be too little for a lamb, then shall he and his neighbor next to his house take one according to the number of the souls; a man,