Talmud - Zevahim 20a זבחים כ׳ א׳

The Gemara responds: Lest you say that this matter, sanctification of the hands and feet, applies only to a rite that is indispensable for effecting atonement, e.g., sprinkling the blood on the altar; but a rite that is not indispensable for effecting atonement, e.g., placing the fats and sacrificial portions of the offering on the altar, does not require prior sanctification of the hands and feet, therefore this verse teaches us that even such rites require sanctification of the hands and feet.

§ When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Ilfa raises a dilemma: According to the statement of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who says that the disqualification of being left overnight is not determinative with regard to sanctification of the hands and feet, what is the halakha with regard to the water in the Basin? Is it disqualified by being left overnight? Do we say: For what purpose is this water? It is for the sanctification of the hands and feet, and since sanctification of the hands and feet itself is not disqualified by being left overnight, the halakha should be the same concerning the water. Or perhaps, since the water is sanctified in a service vessel, i.e., the Basin, it is disqualified by being left overnight, like all other items sanctified in service vessels.

When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: Rabbi Yirmeya says that Rabbi Ami says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Ilfa then resolved the dilemma: Just as there is a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, with regard to that issue, i.e., whether sanctification of the hands and feet is disqualified overnight, so too there is a dispute between the two with regard to this issue, i.e., the water in the Basin. Accordingly, Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds that the water is not disqualified by being left overnight.

Ravin continued: Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Bisna said before Rabbi Yirmeya: My teacher, do you say so? But this is what Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Ilfa: With regard to a Basin that they did not sink into its pit at night, which would have prevented the water from being disqualified by being left overnight, a priest sanctifies his hands and feet from it for the service of that night, and the next day he does not sanctify his hands and feet from it.

And we discussed it: When Ilfa said that the next day he does not sanctify his hands and feet from it, did he mean that he does not require sanctification the next day, since sanctification is not disqualified overnight? Or perhaps Ilfa meant that it is prohibited to sanctify one’s hands and feet from the Basin since the water was disqualified by being left overnight? And Rabbi Asi did not resolve the issue for us. But you, Master, are resolving the issue by claiming that Ilfa ruled explicitly with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon.

The Gemara attempts to resolve the issue: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (Yoma 37a): The High Priest ben Katin made twelve spigots for the Basin so that several priests could sanctify their hands and feet at once. He also made a mechanism [mukhani] for sinking the Basin into water during the night so that its water would not be disqualified by being left overnight. What, is it not that this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon? If so, he holds that water of the Basin is disqualified by being left overnight. The Gemara responds: No, it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

The Gemara challenges: But from the fact that the first clause of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, one should infer that the latter clause is also in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon.

The Gemara elaborates: As the first clause teaches (Yoma 35b): At one point during the Yom Kippur service, the High Priest would come and stand next to his bull, and his bull was standing between the Entrance Hall and the altar with its head to the south and its face to the west. And the priest stands to the east of the bull, and his face points to the west. This is where he would slaughter the bull. Whom have you heard who says that between the Entrance Hall and the altar is considered part of the north of the courtyard, where it is permitted to slaughter offerings of the most sacred order? It is Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon.

This is as it is taught in a baraita: What is the north? It is the area from the northern wall of the altar until the northern wall of the Temple courtyard. And opposite the entire altar is considered the north; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, adds even the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar to the area that is considered north. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi adds even the areas to the north in the place where the priests walk, and the areas to the north in the place where the Israelites walk. But all concede that the area from the Chamber of the Knives [haḥalifot] and inward, which is an area to the side, is unfit for slaughtering offerings of the most sacred order, as it is not visible from the altar.

The Gemara rejects the proof: And must you understand that the first clause of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, and not the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? Now, does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi add only to the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, but not add to the statement of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon? The area deemed north according to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, is included in the area deemed north by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Accordingly, since the first clause of the mishna can also be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, perhaps the mishna offers no proof at all with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon.

The Gemara reformulates its suggestion: This is what we are saying: If it enters your mind to say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, then let him stand the bull in the place where the priests walk and in the place where the Israelites walk, since Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that those areas are also considered north. Why is the bull placed specifically between the Entrance Hall and the altar?

The Gemara rejects this: Rather, what shall you say? Will you say that the mishna is only in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon? But if so, let him stand the bull anywhere from the north wall of the altar to the north wall of the Temple courtyard, as everyone agrees that this area is considered north. Rather, what have you to say to explain why the bull is positioned specifically between the Entrance Hall and the altar? It is due to the weakness of the High Priest, so that he need not exert himself and walk long distances on Yom Kippur. Here too, the mishna may be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and due to the weakness of the High Priest the bull is positioned there.

§ Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If a priest sanctified his hands and feet in preparation for the removal of the ashes, the first service performed every day in the Temple, which was performed before dawn, then the next day, i.e., after dawn, he does not need to sanctify them again, as he already sanctified them at the beginning of the day’s service.

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this statement? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, doesn’t he say that being left overnight disqualifies sanctification of the hands and feet? If so, one should be required to sanctify them again after dawn. And if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, doesn’t he say that if the priest sanctified his hands and feet at the beginning of the service, he does not need to sanctify them again even if he continues to perform rites for the next ten days? Why, then, does Rabbi Yoḥanan state only that one who sanctified his hands and feet before the removal of the ashes is not required to do so after dawn?

Abaye says: Actually, the statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and the disqualification of sanctification of the hands and feet by being left overnight is by rabbinic law. And although the Sages mandate that a priest must sanctify his hands and feet every morning, they concede that during the period from the rooster’s crow before dawn until morning, being left overnight does not disqualify his sanctification. Therefore, one who sanctifies his hands and feet at the rooster’s crow may continue to perform rites after dawn.

Rava says: Actually, the statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. And Rabbi Yoḥanan saw the statement of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, as correct with regard to the beginning of the service, i.e., that a priest may serve during the day on the strength of sanctification performed before dawn. But he did not agree with regard to the end of the service. Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that if a priest sanctified his hands and feet before participating in the day’s final rites, he must sanctify them again the next morning. According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, one who sanctified his hands and feet before sunrise must do so again afterward.

The Gemara raises an objection from a mishna (Tamid 28b) that describes the daily service: His priestly brethren, members of the patrilineal family, saw that the priest who removed the ashes descended from the altar with the coal pan in his hands, and they ran and arrived at the Basin. They hurried and sanctified their hands and their feet with water from the Basin.

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Zevachim 20a explores whether sanctifying hands and feet applies to non-essential offering rites and if leftover Basin water becomes disqualified overnight.