Parallel
זבחים 19
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
[in the place] corresponding to their elbows. R. Ashi said: Hanna b. Nathana told me, I was once standing before King Izgedar; my girdle lay high up, whereupon he pulled it down, observing to me, It is written of you. [And ye shall be unto Me] a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. When I came before Amemar he said to me: The text, ‘And kings shall be thy fosterfathers’ has been fulfilled in you. We learnt elsewhere: If a priest has a wound on his finger, he may wind a reed about it in the Temple, but not in the Country. But if his purpose is to squeeze out blood, it is forbidden in both places. R. Judah the son of R. Hiyya said: They learnt this only of a reed, but a small belt constitutes an excess garment. But R. Johanan said: They ruled [that] excess garments [disqualify] only [when they are worn] where garments are worn; but if not where garments are worn, they are not an excess. Yet deduce [that it disqualifies] on account of an interposition? — It is on his left hand, or even on the right, but not in the place of service. Now this disagrees with Raba, for Raba said in R. Hisda's name: In the place of garments even a single thread interposes; but [what is] not in the place of garments, if three [fingerbreadths] square, it interposes; if less than this, it does not interpose. Now he certainly disagrees with R. Johanan; but are we to say that he disagrees with R. Judah the son of R. Hiyya? — [No:] a small belt is different, because it is of [some] account. Another version states it thus: R. Judah the son of R. Hiyya said: They learnt this only of a reed, but a small belt interposes. While R. Johanan maintained: They said [that] interposition [disqualifies even] when less than three square only in the place of garments; but if not where garments are worn, then if it is three square it interposes; if less, it does not interpose: and that is identical with Raba[‘s ruling] in R. Hisda's name. Shall we say that he [Raba] disagrees with R. Judah the son of R. Hiyya? — [No, for] a small belt is different, since it is of [some] account. Now according to R. Johanan, why particularly [specify] a reed? let him mention a small belt? — He informs us en passant that a reed heals. Raba asked: What if a wind entered through his garment? Do we require [the garment to be] on his flesh, which [condition] is now absent ; or perhaps, this is the normal mode of wearing? Further, is vermin an interposition? There is no question where it is dead, for it certainly interposes. But what if it is alive? Do we say. Since it moves to and fro, it is natural, and does not interpose; or perhaps it does interpose, since he objects to it? Does earth interpose? — Earth certainly interposes! — Rather [the question is] what about dust of earth? Does [the space between the sleeves and] the armpit interpose? do we require [it to be] on his flesh, which [condition] is absent; or perhaps this is the normal mode of wearing? What if he thrust his hand into his bosom? does his body interpose or not? Does a thread interpose? — A thread certainly interposes — Rather [the question is] what about a hanging thread. Mar the son of R. Ashi asked: What if one's hair entered beneath his garment? is his hair as [part of] his body, or is it not as his body? R. Zera asked: Do the tefillin interpose? There is no question on the view that night is not the time for tefillin, for since they interpose at night, they interpose by day too. The question is raised only on the view that night is the time for tefillin. What then? Does a precept which is incumbent upon the body interpose or not? Now this question travelled about until it reached R. Ammi. Said he to him [the questioner]: We have an explicit teaching that tefillin interpose. An objection is raised: Priests engaged in their [sacrificial] service, Levites on their dais and Israelites during their ma'amad are exempt from prayer and tefillin. Surely that means that if they do put them on, they do not interpose? — No: [it means that] if they do put them on, they do interpose. If so, [can you say,] they are exempt? Surely he should state, they are forbidden [to don them]? — Since there are the Levites and the Israelites, of whom he cannot teach, ‘they are forbidden,’ he therefore teaches, They are exempt. But it was taught: If he put them on, they do not interpose? — There is no difficulty; one refers to [the tefillin of] the hand, the other to that of the head. Wherein does that of the hand differ? because it is written, [And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen breeches] shall he put upon his flesh, which implies that nothing may interpose between it and his flesh; then with respect to that of the head too it is written, And thou shalt set the mitre upon his head? — It was taught: His hair was visible between the headplate and the mitre.
—
and there he laid the tefillin. ONE LACKING IN SACRIFICIAL ATONEMENT. Whence do we know it? — Said R. Huna, Scripture saith, And the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean: ‘She shall be clean’ proves that she is unclean [before atonement is made for her]. AND ONE WHO HAD NOT WASHED HIS HANDS OR HIS FEET. [The implication of] ‘statute’ is derived from ‘statute’ written in connection with one who lacked his priestly vestments. Our Rabbis taught: If a High Priest did not perform immersion or did not sanctify [himself] between the changing of robes and between the services, and he officiated, his service is valid. But the service of both a High Priest or an ordinary priest who officiated without the matutinal sanctification of their hands and feet is invalid. Said R. Assi to R. Johanan: Consider: The five immersions and the ten sanctifications are scriptural, and ‘statute’ is written in connection with them; then let them be indispensable? — Said he to him: Scripture saith, And put them on: the putting on [of the priestly vestments] is indispensable, but nothing else is indispensable. [At that] his face lit up. Said he to him: I have written you a waw on a tree-trunk: [for] if that is so, [the sanctifications] of the morning too [should not be indispensable]! — Said Hezekiah, Scripture saith, And it shall be a statute for ever to them, even to him and to his seed throughout their generations: that which is indispensable for ‘his seed’ is indispensable for himself, and that which is not indispensable for ‘his seed’ is not indispensable for himself. R. Jonathan said, He deduced it from this: That Moses and Aaron and his sons might wash their hands and their feet thereat: that which is indispensable in the case of his sons is indispensable in his own case; while that which is not indispensable in the case of his sons is not indispensable in his own case. Why does R. Jonathan not deduce it from the text quoted by Hezekiah? — He can answer you: That is written [to shew that the law holds good] for all generations. And the other? why did he not deduce it from this text? — He requires it for R. Jose son of R. Hanina's [ruling]. For R. Jose son of R. Hanina said: You may not wash in a laver which does not contain sufficient [water] for the sanctifications of four priests, for it says. That Moses and Aaron and his sons might wash their hands and their feet thereat. Our Rabbis taught: How is the precept of ‘sanctification’ [fulfilled]? [The priest] places his right hand on his right foot and his left hand on his left foot, and sanctifies them. R. Jose son of Judah said: He places his both hands on each other and on his two feet lying on each other, and sanctifies them. Said they to him: You have made it too hard, for it is impossible to do it thus. Surely they speak rightly to him? — Said R. Joseph: His colleague assists him. Wherein do they differ? — Said Abaye: They disagree in respect of standing by being supported. Said R. Sima the son of R. Ashi to Rabina: And let him indeed sit and perform his sanctifications? — Scripture saith, [And thou shalt anoint Aaron and his sons, and sanctify them,] that they my minister, and the ministration must be done standing. Our Rabbis taught: if [the priest] sanctified his hands and feet by day, he need not sanctify [them] at night; [if he sanctified them] at night, he must sanctify [them] by day. This is Rabbi's view, for Rabbi maintained: The passing of the night is effective in respect of the sanctification of hands and feet. R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon said: The passing of the night is not effective in respect of the sanctification of hands and feet. Another [Baraitha] taught: If [a priest] was standing and offering [the fats] on the altar throughout the night, at dawn he needs sanctification of hands and feet: this is Rabbi's view. R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon said: Since he sanctified his hands and feet at the beginning of the service, he need not sanctify [them again] even for ten days. Now, both are necessary. For if we were informed of the first [Baraitha], [I would argue that] Rabbi ruled thus only there, [the circumstances being] that there had been an interval between one service and another; but here that there was no interval, I would say that Rabbi agrees with R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon. While if we were informed of the latter [Baraitha]. I would argue that here only does R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon rule thus, but in the former he agrees with Rabbi. Hence they are both necessary. What is Rabbi's reason? — Because it is written, When they approach [the altar to minister]. What is R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon's reason? — Because it is written, When they enter [into the tent of meeting, they shall wash with water]. And the other too? surely it is written, When they enter! — If ‘when they approach’ were written and not ‘when they enter’ I would say that for every single approach [sanctification is necessary]; therefore the Divine Law wrote, ‘when they enter.’ And the other too? surely it is written, ‘when they approach’! — If ‘when they enter’ were written and not ‘when they approach’. I would say that [they must wash] even for a mere entrance. ‘For a mere entrance’! surely it is written, ‘to minister’? — Rather, ‘when they approach’ is required for R. Aha son of Jacob's [ruling]. For R. Aha son of Jacob said: All agree with respect to the second ‘sanctification,’ that [the priest] performs this sanctification when he is clothed, for Scripture saith, ‘or when they approach’: he who lacks nothing but the approach [washes his hands and feet]; hence he who has yet to clothe himself and then approach is excluded. What is the purpose of, to cause an offering made by fire to smoke?32
—