זבחים 21 — parallel

21:1

Now in the case of the [red] heifer we defile him, for we learnt: They used to defile the priest who was to burn the heifer and then make him immerse, in order to combat the opinion of the Sadducees, who maintained: It[s service] was performed [only] by [priests] who had experienced sunset! This proves that uncleanness does not invalidate it. — The [red] heifer is different, since a tebul yom is not unfit for it. If so, why must he sanctify himself [at all]? — Because we want it similar to the [usual sacrificial] service. It was asked: Can [the priest] sanctify his hands and feet in the laver? [Do we argue,] the Divine Law states, [And Aaron and his sons shall wash . . .] thereat, but not in it; or perhaps it means even in it? — Said R. Nahman son of Isaac, Come and hear: Or if he immersed in the water of a pit and officiates, his service is invalid. Hence [if he used] the water of the laver in a similar way to the water of a pit and officiated, his service is valid? — No: it is particularly necessary for him [the Tanna] to teach about the water of a pit. lest you say: If he can bathe his whole body therein, how much the more his hands and feet. R. Hiyya son of Joseph said: The water of the laver becomes unfit for the mattirin, as the mattirin [themselves], and for the [burning of the] limbs, as the limbs [themselves]. R. Hisda maintained: Even for the mattirin they become unfit only at dawn, as the limbs. While R. Johanan maintained: Once the laver is sunk, it may not be drawn up again. Does this mean that it is not even fit for a night service? Surely R. Assi said, reporting R. Johanan in Ilfa's name: If the laver was not sunk [into the pit] before evening, [the priest] may sanctify [himself] thereat for a night service, but he may not sanctify [himself] thereat on the morrow? — What is meant by ‘it may not be drawn up’? for a day service; but it is indeed fit for a night service. If so, this is identical with R. Hiyya b. Joseph [‘s view]?

—

21:2

— They disagree as to a preventive measure in respect of sinking [the laver]. But surely R.Johanan said: If [the priest] sanctified his hands for the removal of the ashes, he need not sanctify [them again] on the morrow, because he has already sanctified [them] at the beginning of the service. According to Raba who explains that this agrees with R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon, it is well: this [the present ruling] agrees with Rabbi. But according to Abaye who explains that it agrees with Rabbi, Rabbi is self-contradictory, [for] why must he lower it there, whereas here he must not lower it? — It means that he raises it and then lowers it again. If so, ‘on the morrow he does not sanctify’ — why so? [The meaning is] that he need not sanctify, which is to say that [the previous sanctification] is indeed fit for the mattirin. Then it is the same as R. Hisda[‘s ruling]? — They disagree in respect of the regulation of lowering. An objection is raised: They neither saw him nor heard him until they heard the sound of the wood of the machine which Ben Kattin made for the laver, and then they exclaimed. ‘It is time to sanctify hands and feet at the laver’ . Surely it means that he raised it, and which proves that it was sunk [earlier]? — No: it means that he lowered it [now]. If he lowered it, would the sound be heard? — He lowered it by the wheel. Another version: He lowered it by means of its stone, in order that the sound of it should be heard, so that they [the priests] might hear it and come. But there was Gebini the crier? — They made two alarms; some heard the one and came, whilst others heard the other and came. The [above] text [stated]: ‘R. Jose son of R. Hanina said: You may not wash in a laver which does not contain sufficient [water] for the sanctification of four priests. for it says. That Moses and Aaron and his sons wash their hands and their feet thereat’. An objection is raised: All vessels sanctify. whether they contain a rebi'ith20

—