Soncino English Talmud
Zevachim
Daf 21a
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,1 who maintained: It[s service] was performed [only] by [priests] who had experienced sunset!2 This proves that uncleanness does not invalidate it.3 — 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?4 [Do we argue,] the Divine Law states, [And Aaron and his sons shall wash . . .] thereat,5 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 pit6 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,7 how much the more his hands and feet.8 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.9 While R. Johanan maintained: Once the laver is sunk,10 it may not be drawn up again.11 Does this mean that it is not even fit for a night service?12 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]? The Rabbis however held that immediately after immersion (when he is called a tebul yom v. Glos) a priest was fit for the burning of the red heifer. V. Parah III, 7. sanctification is invalid. the meal-offerings; they are so called because they enable the sacrifices to be eaten or make them fit for the altar, and they must be done before sunset of the day on which the sacrifices are brought. Now the laver was sunk every day in a pit (v. supra 20a); if this laver was not sunk into it before sunset, its water is unfit on the morrow for ‘sanctification’ where the priest wishes to perform a mattir, just as the blood and the fistful of meal themselves become unfit for their purpose at sunset. Again, the limbs of the sacrifice must be burned before dawn of the day following its offering; if the laver is not sunk into the pit before dawn, its water is unfit for ‘sanctification’ on the following day for the service of burning the limbs. That is R. Hiyya b. Joseph's view. R. Hisda maintains that for the sprinkling of the blood too the water is unfit only if the laver was not sunk in the pit by dawn. cannot be drawn up, as this would render its water unfit.