זבחים 22 — Soncino English Talmud

¹or they do not contain a rebi'ith, provided they are service vessels? — Said R. Adda b. Aha: This means where one bales out from it. But the Divine Law saith, ‘Thereat’? — They should wash is to include any service vessel. If so, then a profane vessel too [should be fit]? — Said Abaye: You cannot say [that] a profane vessel [is fit], this being deduced from its base, a fortiori: If its base, which was anointed together with it [the laver], does not sanctify [the water poured into it]. is it not logical that a profane vessel, which was not anointed with it, does not sanctify? And how do we know [that] its base [does not sanctify]? Because it was taught: R. Judah said: You might think that the base sanctifies, just as the laver sanctifies; therefore it says. Thou shalt also make a laver of brass, and the base thereof of brass. I have made it alike in respect of brass , but not in respect of anything else. Mar Zutra the son of R. Mari said to Rabina: As for its base, [it does not sanctify] because it is not made for its inside [to be used]; will you say [the same of] a profane vessel, which is made for its inside? Rather, ‘thereat’ excludes a profane vessel. If so, [it excludes] a service vessel too? — Surely the Divine Law included [it by writing] ‘they should wash’. And what [reason] do you see [for this choice]? — The one [a service vessel] needs anointing like itself [the laver], while the other does not need anointing like itself. Resh Lakish said: Whatever can make up [the prescribed quantity of] the water of a mikweh, makes up the water of the laver; but it does not make up to a rebi'ith. What does this exclude? Shall we say, it excludes miry [liquid] clay? then how is it meant? If a cow would bend and drink thereof, it is [fit] even for a rebi'ith too; while if a cow would not bend and drink thereof, it cannot make up even [the quantity of] a mikweh too! Again, if it is to exclude red insects, [these are permitted] even in the mass, for surely it was taught: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: You may perform immersion in whatever originates in the water; while R. Isaac b. Abdimi said: You may perform immersion in the eye of a fish! — Said R. Papa : It excludes the case where one added a se'ah and took out a se'ah. For we learnt: If a mikweh had exactly forty se'ah and one added a se'ah and took out a se'ah, it is fit. And Rab Judah b. Shila said in R. Assi's name in R. Johanan's name: Up to the greater part thereof. R. Papa said: If one cut out a rebi'ith therein, one may bathe needles and hooks, since it is derived from a valid mikweh. R. Jeremiah said in the name of Resh Lakish: The water of a mikweh is fit for the water of the laver. Are we to say that it [the water of the laver] need not be ‘living’ water? Surely it was taught: [But its inwards and its legs shall he wash] with water, but not with wine; ‘with water,’ but not with a mixture; ‘with water’ includes any water, and all the more [does it include] the water of the laver. Now what does ‘and all the more the water of the laver’ imply? Surely that it is ‘living’ water? — No: it means, which is holy. Is then its holiness an advantage? Surely the school of Samuel taught: [Only] water which has no special name [is fit],29^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ

^ᵃnote:In that case it is certainly insufficient for four priests.
^ᵇnote:Sh. M. emends: Ahabah.
^ᶜnote:Tosaf. : the priest takes up water from the laver with a small vessel. This need not contain a rebi'ith, but the laver must contain the larger quantity. Rashi translates and explains differently.
^ᵈnote:Rashi: which implies that one must wash from the laver only. Tosaf. : which implies that any other vessel used must be of the same size as the laver.
^ᵉnote:Ex. XL, 32.
^ᶠnote:‘They should wash’ is superfluous, and is therefore regarded as an extension.
^ᵍnote:To be used for this purpose. — This implies that the base itself could hold water.
^ʰnote:Ibid. XXX, 18.
^ⁱnote:Surely not.
^ʲnote:For excluding the one and including the other; why not reverse it?
^ᵏnote:V. Glos. A mikweh must contain not less than forty se'ahs water. Yet if it is short of this quantity, it can be made up with other liquids, as enumerated in Mik. VII, 1 q.v.
^ˡnote:If it contains insufficient for the lustrations of four priests.
^ᵐnote:Which is required for the ordinary washing of the hands before eating food.
^ⁿnote:Reading narok, as in Suk. 19b et passim. Edd. have here nadok, which Rashi translates, thin clay, such that can be poured from one vessel into another.
^ᵒnote:If it is so loose that its presence in water would not deter a cow from drinking it.
^ᵖnote:If the rebi'ith is partly made up of such miry clay, it is sufficient and valid for the ritual washing of the hands.
^ᵠnote:Which originate in the water.
^ʳnote:Even if the whole mikweh consists of these, it is fit, whereas Resh Lakish permits them only to make up the prescribed quantity.
^ˢnote:A huge fish whose eye had dissolved in its socket.
^ᵗnote:Any liquid other than water can sometimes make up the quantity and sometimes not. Thus: if the mikweh contains thirty nine se'ahs and another is added of a different liquid, it is not valid. But if it contains forty, and then a different liquid is added and a se'ah of water is removed, it remains fit. For it was fit without the added se'ah, and this se'ah becomes null (loses its identity) in the rest, and so the mikweh remains fit. Rab Judah says that it remains fit even if in this way one removes up to (but not including)the greater part of the water. But if one has a rebi'ith of water, adds a little of another liquid, and then removes the same quantity, it is not fit, because a rebi'ith is too little for the other liquid to lose its identity in it.
^ᵘnote:If one cuts out a little hollow in the side of a full-sized mikweh and the water flows into it, you may purify these small objects in it, even though it is not freely joined to the larger mikweh.
^ᵛnote:Lit., ‘Since it comes from the fitness of a mikweh’.
^ʷnote:Though the former is not ‘living’ (i.e. running) water, it may be drawn into the laver.
^ˣnote:Lev. I, 9.
^ʸnote:Two parts water and one part wine.
^ᶻnote:Even non-running.
^ᵃᵃnote:For that is apparently its only superiority, and so the passage does not refer to the actual water of the laver, but means any living water.
^ᵃᵇnote:I.e all the more is the water of the laver (actual) fit, seeing that it is holy.
^ᵃᶜnote:For the washing of the sacrificial parts.

²which excludes the water of the laver, which has a special name. Hence it surely means such as is fit for the water of the laver, which proves that it must be ‘living’ water? — It is a controversy of Tannaim. For R. Johanan said: As for the laver, — R. Ishmael said: It is the water of a spring; While the Sages maintain: It may be ordinary water. AN UNCIRCUMCISED [PRIEST]. Whence do we know it? — Said R. Hisda: We did not learn this from the Torah of Moses our Teacher, but from the words of Ezekiel the son of Buzi: No alien, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into My sanctuary. And how do we know that they profane the service? — Because it is written , In that ye have brought in aliens, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in My sanctuary, to profane it, even My house, [when ye offer My bread, the fat and the blood]. Our Rabbis taught: [It says.] Alien: you might think that this means literally an alien; therefore Scripture teaches, uncircumcised in heart. If so, why does Scripture call him ‘alien’? Because his actions are alien to his Father in Heaven. Now, I know only [that] the ‘uncircumcised in heart’ [invalidates the sacrifice]; how do I know that the uncircumcised in flesh [does likewise]? Because the text states, ‘and uncircumcised in flesh.’ And they are both necessary. For if the Divine Law wrote [that] one uncircumcised in flesh [is disqualified]. I would say that the reason is because he is repulsive; but an uncircumcised in heart’ is not repulsive, and so he is not disqualified. And if we were informed about an ‘uncircumcised in heart’, I would say that the reason is that his heart is not toward Heaven, but [as for] an ‘uncircumcised in flesh’, whose heart is toward Heaven, he is not [disqualified]. Thus both are necessary. AN UNCLEAN [PRIEST] . . . IS DISQUALIFIED. The Elders of the South said: They learnt this only of [a priest] unclean through a reptile, but [as for] one unclean through a corpse, since [the headplate] propitiates in the case of a public sacrifice, it propitiates in the case of a private sacrifice. If so, let it be deduced from one unclean through a corpse, a fortiori. [that] one unclean through a reptile too [does not invalidate the sacrifice]: if [the headplate] propitiates [in the case of] one unclean through a corpse, who must be besprinkled on the third and on the seventh [days of his defilement], surely [it] propitiates [in the case of] one unclean through a reptile, who need not be besprinkled on the third and on the seventh [days]? — The Elders of the South hold that those who make atonement [the priests] are like those for whom atonement is made [the people]: as in the case of those for whom atonement is made, if they are unclean through a corpse [the headplate] does [propitiate], but if they are unclean through a reptile [it does] not, so are those who make atonement: one unclean through a corpse is [included in the propitiatory effect of the headplate]. whereas one unclean through a reptile is not [included]. What do they [these Elders] hold? If they hold, you may not slaughter [the Passover] and sprinkle [its blood] on behalf of one who is unclean through a reptile, why may the community not sacrifice in uncleanness: surely [it is a principle that] wherever an individual is relegated [to the second Passover], the community celebrates it in uncleanness? Rather, they hold that you do slaughter and sprinkle on behalf of him who is unclean through a reptile. ‘Ulla said: Resh Lakish criticised the southern scholars: Now, whose power is greater, the power of those who make atonement, or the power of those for whom atonement is made? Surely the power of those for whom atonement is made. Then if a priest who was unclean through a reptile cannot propitiate [officiate], though where the owners were defiled by a reptile they can send their sacrifices [to the Temple]; is it not logical that a priest who was defiled by a corpse should not be able to propitiate, seeing that if the owners were defiled by a corpse they cannot send their sacrifices? — The Elders of the south hold: One who is unclean through a corpse can also send his sacrifices. But it is written, If any man of you . . . shall be unclean [by reason of a dead body] . . . yet he shall keep the Passover [unto the Lord] in the second month [on the fourteenth day at dusk they shall keep it]? — That is a recommendation. But it is written, According to every man's^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ

^ᵃᵈnote:It is not called simply water, but the water of the laver.
^ᵃᵉnote:But not the actual water of the laver.
^ᵃᶠnote:I.e., running water.
^ᵃᵍnote:Ezek. XLIV, 9.
^ᵃʰnote:I.e., make the sacrifice unfit.
^ᵃⁱnote:Ibid. 6.
^ᵃʲnote:They estrange him from God.
^ᵃᵏnote:An apostate.
^ᵃˡnote:For this is understood to refer to one whose brothers died through circumcision, so that he fears the operation, but would otherwise have it performed.
^ᵃᵐnote:V. Ex. XXVIII, 36-38: And thou shalt make a pale of pure gold . . . and it shall be upon Aaron's forehead, and Aaron shall bear the iniquity committed in the holy things . . . and it shall always be upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before the Lord. According to the Rabbis, this means that in virtue of the headplate a public sacrifice is ‘accepted’, i.e., valid, even if the whole congregation or all the officiating priests are unclean, and indeed must be offered at the very outset in such conditions, as the public sacrifice may not be postponed. This is technically called propitiating (making acceptable). The matter is further explained in the text.
^ᵃⁿnote:V. Num. XIX, 19.
^ᵃᵒnote:I.e., only when the whole or the majority of the nation is unclean through a corpse must the public sacrifice be brought.
^ᵃᵖnote:If an individual is unclean through a reptile and has not performed tebillah (q.v. Glos.), though he can do so and be clean in the evening, nevertheless the Passover may not be slaughtered on his behalf, and he must postpone his sacrifice for the second Passover. There is an opposing view in Pes. 90b.
^ᵃᵠnote:The original is k"r and it is not clear what it stands for. Bah. suggests. Resh Galutha, the Head of the Exile.
^ᵃʳnote:As the text proceeds to shew: the owner of a sacrifice can send it to the Temple even when he is unclean through a reptile, whereas a priest cannot officiate in like circumstances.
^ᵃˢnote:Because they will be unfit to partake of it in the evening. — Though sacrifices in general are mentioned, much of the present discussion refers more particularly to the Passover.
^ᵃᵗnote:E.g.. he was registered for a particular Passover-offering (this could be sacrificed only on behalf of people specially registered for it) and became unclean through a corpse: if he sent the sacrifice and had it slaughtered, he does not celebrate the second Passover a month later, though he cannot partake of the first.
^ᵃᵘnote:Num. IX, 10f. Thus he is relegated to the second month.
^ᵃᵛnote:Scripture orders him to be relegated. Yet if he does have it slaughtered at the first, he has fulfilled his obligation.