Zevachim 43

בין שאין בהן רביעית ובלבד שיהו כלי שרת

or they do not contain a rebi'ith,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In that case it is certainly insufficient for four priests.');">¹</span> provided they are service vessels? - Said R'Adda B'Aha:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sh. M. emends: Ahabah.');">²</span>

אמר רב אדא בר אחא בקודח בתוכו

This means where one bales out from it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">³</span> But the Divine Law saith, 'Thereat'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">⁴</span>

והא ממנו אמר רחמנא ירחצו לרבות כלי שרת

- They should wash<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XL, 32.');">⁵</span> is to include any service vessel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'They should wash' is superfluous, and is therefore regarded as an extension.');">⁶</span>

אי הכי כלי חול נמי אמר אביי כלי חול לא מצית אמרת מקל וחומר מכנו ומה כנו שנמשח עמו אינו מקדש כלי חול שאינו נמשח עמו אינו דין שאינו מקדש

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].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To be used for this purpose. - This implies that the base itself could hold water.');">⁷</span> is it not logical that a profane vessel, which was not anointed with it, does not sanctify?

וכנו מנלן דתניא ר' יהודה אומר יכול יהא כנו מקדש כדרך שהכיור מקדש תלמוד לומר (שמות ל, יח) ועשית כיור נחשת וכנו נחשת לנחשת הקשתיו ולא לדבר אחר

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.

אמר ליה מר זוטרא בריה דרב מרי לרבינא מה לכנו שאין עשוי לתוכו תאמר בכלי חול שעשוי לתוכו אלא ממנו למעוטי כלי חול

Thou shalt also make a laver of brass, and the base thereof of brass.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXX, 18.');">⁸</span> I have made it alike in respect of brass , but not in respect of anything else.

אי הכי כלי שרת נמי הא רבי רחמנא ירחצו

Mar Zutra the son of R'Mari said to Rabina: As for its base, [it does not sanctify] because it is not mad for its inside [to be used]; will you say [the same of] a profane vessel, which is made for its inside?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not.');">⁹</span> Rather, 'thereat' excludes a profane vessel.

ומה ראית זה טעון משיחה כמוהו וזה אין טעון משיחה כמוהו:

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]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For excluding the one and including the other; why not reverse it?');">¹⁰</span>

אמר ריש לקיש כל המשלים למי מקוה משלים למי כיור לרביעית אינו משלים

- 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹¹</span>

למעוטי מאי אילימא למעוטי טיט הנדוק היכי דמי אי דפרה שוחה ושותה ממנו אפי' לרביעית נמי ואי אין פרה שוחה ושותה ממנו אפילו למקוה נמי אין משלים

makes up the water of the laver;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If it contains insufficient for the lustrations of four priests.');">¹²</span> but it does not make up to a rebi'ith.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is required for the ordinary washing of the hands before eating food.');">¹³</span>

אלא למעוטי יבחושין אדומין אפילו בעינייהו נמי דהא תניא רשב"ג אומר כל שתחילת ברייתו מן המים מטבילין בו ואמר רב יצחק בר אבדימי מטבילין בעינו של דג

What does this exclude? Shall we say, it excludes miry [liquid] clay?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Reading narok, as in Suk. ');">¹⁴</span>

אמר רב פפא למעוטי נתן סאה ונטל סאה דתנן מקוה שיש בו מ' סאה מכוונות נתן סאה ונטל סאה הרי זה כשר ואמר רב יהודה בר שילא אמר רב אסי א"ר יוחנן עד רובו

then how is it meant? If a cow would bend and drink thereof,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If it is so loose that its presence in water would not deter a cow from drinking it.');">¹⁵</span>

אמר רב פפא אם קדח בו רביעית מטבילין בו מחטין וצינוריות הואיל ומהכשירא דמקוה אתיא

it is [fit] eve for a rebi'ith too;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the rebi'ith is partly made up of such miry clay, it is sufficient and valid for the ritual washing of the hands.');">¹⁶</span> 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which originate in the water.');">¹⁷</span>

א"ר ירמיה אמר ריש לקיש מי מקוה כשירים למי כיור

[these are permitted] even in the mass,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if the whole mikweh consists of these, it is fit, whereas Resh Lakish permits them only to make up the prescribed quantity.');">¹⁸</span> 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!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A huge fish whose eye had dissolved in its socket.');">¹⁹</span>

למימרא דלא מים חיים נינהו והתניא (ויקרא א, ט) במים ולא ביין במים ולא במזוג במים לרבות שאר מים וק"ו למי כיור מאי ק"ו למי כיור לאו דמים חיים נינהו

- 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.

לא (לקדוש) דקדיש וקדישי מעליותא היא והא תנא רבי שמואל מים שאין להם שם לווי

And Rab Judah B'Shila said in R'Assi's name in R'Johanan's name: Up to the greater part thereof.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">²⁰</span> R'Papa said: If one cut out a rebi'ith therein, one may bathe needles and hooks,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">²¹</span> since it is derived from a valid mikweh.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'Since it comes from the fitness of a mikweh'.');">²²</span> R'Jeremiah said in the name of Resh Lakish: The water of a mikweh is fit for the water of the laver.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the former is not 'living' (i.e. running) water, it may be drawn into the laver.');">²³</span> Are we to say that it [the water of the laver] need not be 'living' water? Surely it was taught: [But its inwards an its legs shall he wash] with water,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. I, 9.');">²⁴</span> but not with wine; 'with water,' but not with a mixture;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Two parts water and one part wine.');">²⁵</span> 'with water' includes any water,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even non-running.');">²⁶</span> 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">²⁷</span> - No: it means, which is holy.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e all the more is the water of the laver (actual) fit, seeing that it is holy.');">²⁸</span> Is then its holiness an advantage? Surely the school of Samuel taught: [Only] water which has no special name [is fit],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not.');">⁹</span>