Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
Rebbi and Rabbi Elazar b’Rabbi Shimon disagree about whether the sanctification of a kohen’s hands and feet, performed before Temple service, is nullified each night, requiring repetition the next morning. According to Rabbi Elazar b’Rabbi Shimon, the sanctification remains valid overnight, and there is no need to repeat it.
Ilfa raises a question based on this view: If the sanctification remains valid overnight, is the water in the Temple’s basin also unaffected and not disqualified by nightfall? Rabbi Ami quotes Rabbi Yochanan, who reports that Ilfa later answered that the water is indeed not disqualified overnight. However, Rabbi Yitzchak bar Bisna challenges this conclusion.
A Mishna in Yoma describes a device used in the Temple—the muchni—which lowered the water into a well each night to prevent it from becoming disqualified by remaining overnight. The Gemara attempts to use this source to support the possibility that Rabbi Elazar b’Rabbi Shimon holds the water is disqualified overnight. This is based on an earlier Mishna in the same chapter that discusses the location of the bull’s slaughter on Yom Kippur, which aligns with Rabbi Elazar b’Rabbi Shimon’s opinion: the area between the altar and the ulam (entrance hall), designated for slaughtering kodashei kodashim (most holy offerings). If the earlier Mishna accords with his opinion, it stands to reason that the later Mishna accords with his opinion as well. However, since the passage can also be interpreted in accordance with Rebbi’s view, no definitive conclusion is reached.
A Mishna in Yoma describes a device used in the Temple, the muchni, to lower the water into a well each night to prevent it from becoming disqualified overnight. The Gemara attempts to prove that this source aligns with Rabbi Elazar b’Rabbi Shimon’s view, proving that he holds the water is disqualified overnight, as an earlier Mishna in the chapter that describes the location of the slaughtering of the bull on Yom Kippur accords with his opinion. This location, between the altar and the ulam, matches Rabbi Elazar b’Rabbi Shimon’s opinion regarding the designated area for slaughtering kodashei kodashim (most holy offerings). However, the passage can also be interpreted according to Rebbi’s view, so no definitive conclusion is reached.
Rabbi Yochanan rules that a kohen who removes ashes from the altar during the final part of the night sanctifies his hands and feet for the day, despite it still being nighttime. Abaye explains this ruling according to Rebbi, while Rava explains it according to Rabbi Elazar b’Rabbi Shimon. A challenge is raised against Rava’s interpretation, but it is ultimately resolved.
Two additional questions are discussed:
- Does leaving the Temple cancel the sanctification of one’s hands and feet? Four sources are brought to address this, but each is rejected, and the question remains unresolved.
- Does becoming impure cancel the sanctification? Two of the sources cited in the previous discussion are brought in an attempt to answer this question as well.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
Zevachim 20
מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי – עֲבוֹדָה דִּמְעַכְּבָא כַּפָּרָה, אֲבָל עֲבוֹדָה דְּלָא מְעַכְּבָא כַּפָּרָה – לָא; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
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.
כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בָּעֵי אִילְפָא, לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר אֵין לִינָה מוֹעֶלֶת בְּקִידּוּשׁ יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם – מֵי כִיּוֹר מַהוּ שֶׁיִּפָּסְלוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן: הָנֵי לְמַאי – לְקִידּוּשׁ יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם, קִידּוּשׁ יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם גּוּפַיְיהוּ לָא פָּסֵיל בְּהוּ לִינָה; אוֹ דִלְמָא, כֵּיוָן דִּקְדוּשׁ לְהוּ בִּכְלֵי שָׁרֵת – מִיפַּסְלִי?
§ 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.
כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, הֲדַר פָּשֵׁיט אִילְפָא: כְּמַחְלוֹקֶת בָּזוֹ כָּךְ מַחְלוֹקֶת בָּזוֹ.
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.
אָמַר לְפָנָיו רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר בִּיסְנָא: רַבִּי, אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֵּן?! אֶלָּא הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן [מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּאִילְפָא]: כִּיּוֹר שֶׁלֹּא שִׁקְּעוֹ מִבָּעֶרֶב – מְקַדֵּשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ לַעֲבוֹדַת לַיְלָה, וּלְמָחָר אֵינוֹ מְקַדֵּשׁ.
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.
וְהָוֵינַן בַּהּ: לְמָחָר אֵינוֹ מְקַדֵּשׁ – דְּלָא צְרִיךְ לְקַדּוֹשֵׁי; אוֹ דִלְמָא, אִיפְּסַלוּ בְּלִינָה? וְלָא פְּשִׁיט לַן, וּמָר קָא פָשֵׁיט לֵיהּ מִיפְשָׁיט.
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.
תָּא שְׁמַע: בֶּן קָטִין עָשָׂה שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר דַּד לַכִּיּוֹר, אַף הוּא עָשָׂה מוּכְנִי לַכִּיּוֹר שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ מֵימָיו נִפְסָלִין בְּלִינָה. מַאי, לָאו רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא? לָא, רַבִּי הִיא.
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.
וְהָא מִדְּרֵישָׁא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן – סֵיפָא נָמֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן!
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.
דְּקָתָנֵי רֵישָׁא: בָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל פָּרוֹ; וּפַר הָיָה עוֹמֵד בֵּין הָאוּלָם וּלְמִזְבֵּחַ, רֹאשׁוֹ לַדָּרוֹם וּפָנָיו לַמַּעֲרָב; וְהַכֹּהֵן עוֹמֵד בַּמִּזְרָח וּפָנָיו לַמַּעֲרָב. מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר בֵּין הָאוּלָם וְלַמִּזְבֵּחַ – צָפוֹן? רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן!
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.
דְּתַנְיָא: אֵיזֶהוּ צָפוֹן? מִקִּיר מִזְבֵּחַ צְפוֹנִי וְעַד כּוֹתֶל עֲזָרָה צְפוֹנִי, וּכְנֶגֶד כׇּל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ כּוּלּוֹ צָפוֹן. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מוֹסִיף: אַף בֵּין הָאוּלָם וְלַמִּזְבֵּחַ. רַבִּי מוֹסִיף: אַף מְקוֹם דְּרִיסַת רַגְלֵי הַכֹּהֲנִים וּמְקוֹם דְּרִיסַת רַגְלֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. אֲבָל מִן הַחֲלִיפוֹת וְלִפְנִים – הַכֹּל מוֹדִים שֶׁפָּסוּל.
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.
וְתִסְבְּרָא?! רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא – וְלָא רַבִּי?! [הַשְׁתָּא רַבִּי] אַדְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מוֹסֵיף, אַדְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לָא מוֹסֵיף?!
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.
אֲנַן הָכִי קָאָמְרִינַן: אִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ רַבִּי הִיא, לוֹקְמַהּ בִּמְקוֹם דְּרִיסַת רַגְלֵי כֹהֲנִים וּבִמְקוֹם דְּרִיסַת רַגְלֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.
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?
אֶלָּא מַאי, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא?! לוֹקְמַהּ מִקִּיר מִזְבֵּחַ צְפוֹנִי עַד כּוֹתֶל עֲזָרָה צְפוֹנִי! אֶלָּא מַאי אִית לָךְ לְמֵימַר – מִשּׁוּם חוּלְשָׁא דְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל; הָכָא נָמֵי, מִשּׁוּם חוּלְשָׁא דְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל.
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: קִידֵּשׁ יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו לִתְרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן – לְמָחָר אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְקַדֵּשׁ, שֶׁכְּבָר קִידֵּשׁ מִתְּחִילַּת עֲבוֹדָה.
§ 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.
לְמַאן? אִי לְרַבִּי, הָאָמַר: פָּסְלָה לִינָה! אִי לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, הָאָמַר: אֵין צָרִיךְ לְקַדֵּשׁ אֲפִילּוּ מִיכָּן וְעַד עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים!
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?
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לְעוֹלָם לְרַבִּי; וְלִינָה – דְּרַבָּנַן הִיא, וּמוֹדֵי דְּמִקְּרוֹת הַגֶּבֶר וְעַד צַפְרָא לָא פָּסְלָה לִינָה.
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.
רָבָא אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן [הִיא, וְרָאָה רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּבָרָיו] בִּתְחִילַּת עֲבוֹדָה, וְלֹא בְּסוֹף עֲבוֹדָה.
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.
מֵיתִיבִי: רָאוּהוּ אֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים שֶׁיָּרַד – וְהֵם רָצוּ וּבָאוּ, מִיהֲרוּ וְקִידְּשׁוּ יְדֵיהֶם וְרַגְלֵיהֶם מִן הַכִּיּוֹר.
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.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְאַבָּיֵי דְּמוֹקֵים לַהּ כְּרַבִּי, וּמוֹדֵי רַבִּי דְּמִקְּרוֹת הַגֶּבֶר עַד צַפְרָא לָא פָּסְלָה לִינָה – הָא מַנִּי, רַבִּי הִיא.
Assuming that these priests had all been serving in the Temple through the night, one can ask: Granted, according to Abaye, who interprets the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi concedes that during the period from the rooster’s crow before dawn until morning, being left overnight does not disqualify sanctification, in accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who holds that although they served through the night, the previous day’s sanctification was disqualified and they must sanctify their hands and feet again in the morning, but they may do so before dawn.
אֶלָּא לְרָבָא דְּמוֹקֵים לַהּ כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, אֲבָל לְרַבִּי מִקְּרוֹת הַגֶּבֶר עַד צַפְרָא פָּסְלָה לִינָה; הָא מַנִּי? אִי רַבִּי – פָּסְלָה לִינָה! אִי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן – הָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ מִיכָּן וְעַד עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְקַדֵּשׁ!
But according to Rava, who interprets the statement in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, but who holds that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, during the period from the rooster’s crow until morning being left overnight disqualifies sanctification, in accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, then the priests’ sanctification described therein is useless, since being left overnight disqualifies it at dawn. And if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, doesn’t he say that even if the priest continues to perform rites for the next ten days, he does not need to sanctify his hands and feet again? If so, since the priests were serving throughout the night, they should not require sanctification.
לְעוֹלָם כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – בְּכָהֲנֵי חַדְתֵי.
The Gemara responds: Actually, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, and here we are dealing with new priests, who did not serve in the Temple that night. Since they are beginning their service now, they must sanctify their hands and feet.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: יְצִיאָה מַהוּ שֶׁתּוֹעִיל בְּקִידּוּשׁ יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם? אִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר לִינָה לָא פָּסְלָה – דְּלָא פָּרֵישׁ, אֲבָל יְצִיאָה דְּפָרֵישׁ – אַסּוֹחֵי מַסַּח דַּעְתֵּיהּ; אוֹ דִלְמָא, כֵּיוָן דִּבְיָדוֹ לַחֲזוֹר – לָא מַסַּח?
§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha with regard to leaving the Temple? Is it effective to disqualify sanctification of the hands and feet such that the priest must sanctify them again when he reenters the Temple? The Gemara elaborates: If you say that being left overnight does not disqualify it, perhaps that is only because he does not separate from the Temple; but when leaving the Temple, where the priest separates from the Temple, it is possible that the priest becomes distracted from the service. If so, he must sanctify his hands and feet again. Or perhaps, since it is in his power to return to the Temple at any point, he does not become distracted, in which case he does not need to sanctify them again.
תָּא שְׁמַע: קִידֵּשׁ יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו וְנִטְמְאוּ – מַטְבִּילָן וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לְקַדֵּשׁ. יָצְאוּ – הֲרֵי הֵן בִּקְדוּשָּׁתָן!
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: If a priest sanctified his hands and feet and his hands then became impure, he may immerse them to purify them, and he does not need to sanctify them again. If he sanctified his hands and they then left the Temple, they retain their sanctity. Apparently, leaving the Temple does not disqualify sanctification.
יָצְאוּ יָדָיו לָא קָמִיבַּעְיָא לַן, כִּי קָמִיבַּעְיָא לַן – יָצָא כׇּל גּוּפוֹ. מַאי?
The Gemara responds: We do not raise the dilemma with regard to a case where only his hands left the Temple. In such a case, he certainly does not need to sanctify them again. When we raise the dilemma, it is with regard to a case where his entire body left the Temple; what is the halakha in such a case?
תָּא שְׁמַע: שֶׁלֹּא רָחוּץ יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם – מְקַדֵּשׁ בִּכְלֵי שָׁרֵת בִּפְנִים. קִידֵּשׁ בִּכְלֵי שָׁרֵת בַּחוּץ אוֹ בִּכְלֵי חוֹל בִּפְנִים אוֹ שֶׁטָּבַל בְּמֵי מְעָרָה, וְעָבַד – עֲבוֹדָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה. טַעְמָא דְּקִידֵּשׁ בִּכְלֵי שָׁרֵת בַּחוּץ, הָא קִידֵּשׁ בִּפְנִים וְיָצָא – עֲבוֹדָתוֹ כְּשֵׁירָה!
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof from a baraita: One whose hands and feet are not washed must sanctify them with a service vessel inside the Temple. If he sanctified them with a service vessel outside the Temple, or with a non-sacred vessel inside, or if he immersed in cave water and performed the service, his service is disqualified. The Gemara infers: The reason his service is disqualified is that he sanctified his hands and feet with a service vessel outside, but if he sanctified them inside and then left, his service is valid.
דִּלְמָא ״קִידֵּשׁ בִּכְלֵי שָׁרֵת בַּחוּץ״ הֵיכִי דָּמֵי – כְּגוֹן דְּאַפֵּיק יָדָיו לְבַר וְקִידֵּשׁ; הָא קִידֵּשׁ בִּפְנִים וְיָצָא, דְּאַפֵּיק יְדֵיהּ לְבַר – כְּשֵׁירָה. אֲבָל יָצָא כׇּל גּוּפוֹ תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ.
The Gemara responds: Perhaps one can say: What are the circumstances of the case where one sanctified them with a service vessel outside? It is a case where he removed only his hands and placed them outside the Temple and sanctified them there. Consequently, one can infer only that if he sanctified them inside and then left, i.e., specifically where he removed only his hand and placed it outside, his service is valid. But with regard to a case where his entire body left the Temple, you should raise the dilemma.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב זְבִיד לְרַב פָּפָּא, תָּא שְׁמַע: יָצָא חוּץ לִמְחִיצַת חוֹמַת הָעֲזָרָה – אִם לִשְׁהוֹת, טָעוּן טְבִילָה; אִם לְפִי שָׁעָה, טָעוּן קִידּוּשׁ יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם!
Rav Zevid said to Rav Pappa: Come and hear a proof from another baraita: In a case where a priest left the boundary of the wall of the Temple courtyard, if he left long enough to remain there for a time, he requires immersion. If he left only for a moment, he requires sanctification of the hands and feet. Apparently, one who leaves even for a brief time requires sanctification.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁיָּצָא לְהָסֵךְ רַגְלָיו וּלְהַטִּיל מַיִם.
Rav Pappa said to him: Here we are dealing with a case where the priest left the Temple to cover his legs, a euphemism for defecating, or to urinate. It is only for this reason that he must sanctify his hands and feet when reentering the Temple.
הָא בְּהֶדְיָא קָתָנֵי לַהּ: כָּל הַמֵּיסֵךְ רַגְלָיו טָעוּן טְבִילָה, וְכׇל הַמֵּטִיל מַיִם טָעוּן קִידּוּשׁ יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם! תָּנֵי וַהֲדַר מְפָרֵשׁ.
The Gemara challenges: But the mishna (Yoma 28a) already teaches it explicitly: Anyone who covers his legs requires immersion afterward; and anyone who urinates requires sanctification of the hands and feet with water from the Basin afterward. The Gemara responds: The redundancy is not difficult. The tanna teaches the principle and then explains it again.
תָּא שְׁמַע: פָּרָה – רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר יוֹסֵף אָמַר: מְקַדֵּשׁ בִּכְלֵי שָׁרֵת בִּפְנִים, וְיוֹצֵא. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ בַּחוּץ, וַאֲפִילּוּ בִּכְלִי חוֹל, וַאֲפִילּוּ בִּמְקִידָּה שֶׁל חֶרֶס!
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the following dispute: With regard to the priest who performs the service of the red heifer, which takes place outside the Temple, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef says: In preparation, he must sanctify his hands and feet with a service vessel inside the Temple, as he must before any other service, and afterward he leaves the Temple to perform the service. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: He may sanctify his hands even outside of the Temple, and even with a non-sacred vessel, and even with an earthenware bowl [bimkeida]. Apparently, leaving the Temple does not disqualify sanctification of the hands and feet.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: שָׁאנֵי פָּרָה – הוֹאִיל וְכׇל מַעֲשֶׂיהָ בַּחוּץ, לָא פָּסְלָה בָּהּ יְצִיאָה. אִי הָכִי, לְמָה לִי דִּמְקַדֵּשׁ? כְּעֵין עֲבוֹדָה פְּנִים.
Rav Pappa said: The rite of the red heifer is different, since all of its acts are performed outside the Temple, unlike other rites. Therefore, leaving the Temple does not disqualify sanctification of the hands and feet with regard to it. The Gemara asks: If so, why do I require that the priest sanctify his hands and feet at all for the service of the red heifer? The Gemara responds: The service of the red heifer must be similar to the service of offerings performed inside the Temple.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: טוּמְאָה, מַהוּ שֶׁתּוֹעִיל לְקִידּוּשׁ יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם? אִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר יְצִיאָה לָא פָּסְלָה – דְּגַבְרָא חֲזֵי, אֲבָל הָכָא דְּגַבְרָא לָא חֲזֵי – אַסּוֹחֵי מַסַּח דַּעְתֵּיהּ; אוֹ דִלְמָא, כֵּיוָן דַּהֲדַר חֲזֵי – [דָּק לֵיהּ] וְלָא מַסַּח דַּעְתֵּיהּ?
§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha with regard to a priest who contracts ritual impurity during the service? Is this effective to disqualify the sanctification of his hands and feet such that he must sanctify them again when he becomes pure? If you say that leaving the Temple does not disqualify sanctification, perhaps this is because the person remains fit to serve; but here, where the person is unfit for service, perhaps he becomes distracted. Or perhaps, since he will become fit again when he becomes pure, he takes care not to become distracted.
תָּא שְׁמַע: קִידֵּשׁ יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו וְנִטְמְאוּ – מַטְבִּילָן, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לְקַדֵּשׁ!
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: If a priest sanctified his hands and feet and they became impure, he may immerse them, and he does not need to sanctify them again.
נִטְמְאוּ יָדָיו לָא מִיבַּעְיָא לַן, [כִּי מִיבַּעְיָא לַן] נִטְמָא כׇּל גּוּפוֹ. כׇּל גּוּפוֹ?! תִּיפּוֹק לִי: כֵּיוָן דְּבָעֵי לְמֶעְבַּד הֶעֱרֵב שֶׁמֶשׁ, אַסּוֹחֵי מַסַּח דַּעְתֵּיהּ! כְּגוֹן דְּאִיטַּמִּי סָמוּךְ לִשְׁקִיעַת הַחַמָּה.
The Gemara responds: We do not raise the dilemma with regard to a case where only his hands became impure. When we raise the dilemma it is with regard to a case where his entire body became impure. The Gemara challenges: But if his entire body contracted impurity, let me derive that the sanctification is disqualified since he needs to allow the sun to set in order to become pure after immersing, and he certainly becomes distracted in the interim. The Gemara responds: The dilemma concerns a case where he became impure adjacent to sunset, so that he does not need to wait long after immersing and will not become distracted.
תָּא שְׁמַע: פָּרָה – רַבִּי חִיָּיא בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵף אָמַר: מְקַדֵּשׁ בִּכְלֵי שָׁרֵת בִּפְנִים, וְיוֹצֵא. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ בַּחוּץ, וַאֲפִילּוּ בִּכְלִי חוֹל, וַאֲפִילּוּ בִּמְקִידָּה שֶׁל חֶרֶס.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the following dispute: With regard to the priest who performs the rite of the red heifer, Rabbi Ḥiyya, son of Rabbi Yosef, says: He must sanctify his hands and feet with a service vessel inside the Temple, and afterward he leaves the Temple to perform the service. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: He may sanctify his hands even outside of the Temple, and even with a non-sacred vessel, and even with an earthenware bowl.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
A beautiful world of Talmudic sages now fill my daily life with discussion and debate.
bringing alive our traditions and texts that has brought new meaning to my life.
I am a מגילת אסתר reader for women . the words in the Mishna of מסכת megillah 17a
הקורא את המגילה למפרע לא יצא were powerful to me.
I hope to have the zchut to complete the cycle for my 70th birthday.
Jerusalem, Israel
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Huntington, United States
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Brookline, United States
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Berlin, Germany
Raanana, Israel
I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Far Rockaway, United States
A Gemara shiur previous to the Hadran Siyum, was the impetus to attend it.It was highly inspirational and I was smitten. The message for me was התלמוד בידינו. I had decided along with my Chahsmonaim group to to do the daf and take it one daf at time- without any expectations at all. There has been a wealth of information, insights and halachik ideas. It is truly exercise of the mind, heart & Soul
Hashmonaim, Israel
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Wynnewood, United States
Palo Alto, CA, United States
Bronx, United States
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Huntington, United States
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Minneapolis, United States
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Englewood NJ, United States
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Ra’anana, Israel
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Brooklyn, NY, United States
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Brookline, United States
I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!
Teaneck NJ, United States
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Denver, United States
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Worcester, United States
Zevachim 20
מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי – עֲבוֹדָה דִּמְעַכְּבָא כַּפָּרָה, אֲבָל עֲבוֹדָה דְּלָא מְעַכְּבָא כַּפָּרָה – לָא; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
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.
כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בָּעֵי אִילְפָא, לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר אֵין לִינָה מוֹעֶלֶת בְּקִידּוּשׁ יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם – מֵי כִיּוֹר מַהוּ שֶׁיִּפָּסְלוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן: הָנֵי לְמַאי – לְקִידּוּשׁ יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם, קִידּוּשׁ יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם גּוּפַיְיהוּ לָא פָּסֵיל בְּהוּ לִינָה; אוֹ דִלְמָא, כֵּיוָן דִּקְדוּשׁ לְהוּ בִּכְלֵי שָׁרֵת – מִיפַּסְלִי?
§ 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.
כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, הֲדַר פָּשֵׁיט אִילְפָא: כְּמַחְלוֹקֶת בָּזוֹ כָּךְ מַחְלוֹקֶת בָּזוֹ.
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.
אָמַר לְפָנָיו רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר בִּיסְנָא: רַבִּי, אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֵּן?! אֶלָּא הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן [מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּאִילְפָא]: כִּיּוֹר שֶׁלֹּא שִׁקְּעוֹ מִבָּעֶרֶב – מְקַדֵּשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ לַעֲבוֹדַת לַיְלָה, וּלְמָחָר אֵינוֹ מְקַדֵּשׁ.
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.
וְהָוֵינַן בַּהּ: לְמָחָר אֵינוֹ מְקַדֵּשׁ – דְּלָא צְרִיךְ לְקַדּוֹשֵׁי; אוֹ דִלְמָא, אִיפְּסַלוּ בְּלִינָה? וְלָא פְּשִׁיט לַן, וּמָר קָא פָשֵׁיט לֵיהּ מִיפְשָׁיט.
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.
תָּא שְׁמַע: בֶּן קָטִין עָשָׂה שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר דַּד לַכִּיּוֹר, אַף הוּא עָשָׂה מוּכְנִי לַכִּיּוֹר שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ מֵימָיו נִפְסָלִין בְּלִינָה. מַאי, לָאו רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא? לָא, רַבִּי הִיא.
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.
וְהָא מִדְּרֵישָׁא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן – סֵיפָא נָמֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן!
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.
דְּקָתָנֵי רֵישָׁא: בָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל פָּרוֹ; וּפַר הָיָה עוֹמֵד בֵּין הָאוּלָם וּלְמִזְבֵּחַ, רֹאשׁוֹ לַדָּרוֹם וּפָנָיו לַמַּעֲרָב; וְהַכֹּהֵן עוֹמֵד בַּמִּזְרָח וּפָנָיו לַמַּעֲרָב. מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר בֵּין הָאוּלָם וְלַמִּזְבֵּחַ – צָפוֹן? רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן!
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.
דְּתַנְיָא: אֵיזֶהוּ צָפוֹן? מִקִּיר מִזְבֵּחַ צְפוֹנִי וְעַד כּוֹתֶל עֲזָרָה צְפוֹנִי, וּכְנֶגֶד כׇּל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ כּוּלּוֹ צָפוֹן. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מוֹסִיף: אַף בֵּין הָאוּלָם וְלַמִּזְבֵּחַ. רַבִּי מוֹסִיף: אַף מְקוֹם דְּרִיסַת רַגְלֵי הַכֹּהֲנִים וּמְקוֹם דְּרִיסַת רַגְלֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. אֲבָל מִן הַחֲלִיפוֹת וְלִפְנִים – הַכֹּל מוֹדִים שֶׁפָּסוּל.
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.
וְתִסְבְּרָא?! רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא – וְלָא רַבִּי?! [הַשְׁתָּא רַבִּי] אַדְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מוֹסֵיף, אַדְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לָא מוֹסֵיף?!
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.
אֲנַן הָכִי קָאָמְרִינַן: אִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ רַבִּי הִיא, לוֹקְמַהּ בִּמְקוֹם דְּרִיסַת רַגְלֵי כֹהֲנִים וּבִמְקוֹם דְּרִיסַת רַגְלֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.
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?
אֶלָּא מַאי, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא?! לוֹקְמַהּ מִקִּיר מִזְבֵּחַ צְפוֹנִי עַד כּוֹתֶל עֲזָרָה צְפוֹנִי! אֶלָּא מַאי אִית לָךְ לְמֵימַר – מִשּׁוּם חוּלְשָׁא דְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל; הָכָא נָמֵי, מִשּׁוּם חוּלְשָׁא דְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל.
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: קִידֵּשׁ יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו לִתְרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן – לְמָחָר אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְקַדֵּשׁ, שֶׁכְּבָר קִידֵּשׁ מִתְּחִילַּת עֲבוֹדָה.
§ 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.
לְמַאן? אִי לְרַבִּי, הָאָמַר: פָּסְלָה לִינָה! אִי לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, הָאָמַר: אֵין צָרִיךְ לְקַדֵּשׁ אֲפִילּוּ מִיכָּן וְעַד עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים!
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?
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לְעוֹלָם לְרַבִּי; וְלִינָה – דְּרַבָּנַן הִיא, וּמוֹדֵי דְּמִקְּרוֹת הַגֶּבֶר וְעַד צַפְרָא לָא פָּסְלָה לִינָה.
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.
רָבָא אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן [הִיא, וְרָאָה רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּבָרָיו] בִּתְחִילַּת עֲבוֹדָה, וְלֹא בְּסוֹף עֲבוֹדָה.
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.
מֵיתִיבִי: רָאוּהוּ אֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים שֶׁיָּרַד – וְהֵם רָצוּ וּבָאוּ, מִיהֲרוּ וְקִידְּשׁוּ יְדֵיהֶם וְרַגְלֵיהֶם מִן הַכִּיּוֹר.
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.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְאַבָּיֵי דְּמוֹקֵים לַהּ כְּרַבִּי, וּמוֹדֵי רַבִּי דְּמִקְּרוֹת הַגֶּבֶר עַד צַפְרָא לָא פָּסְלָה לִינָה – הָא מַנִּי, רַבִּי הִיא.
Assuming that these priests had all been serving in the Temple through the night, one can ask: Granted, according to Abaye, who interprets the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi concedes that during the period from the rooster’s crow before dawn until morning, being left overnight does not disqualify sanctification, in accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who holds that although they served through the night, the previous day’s sanctification was disqualified and they must sanctify their hands and feet again in the morning, but they may do so before dawn.
אֶלָּא לְרָבָא דְּמוֹקֵים לַהּ כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, אֲבָל לְרַבִּי מִקְּרוֹת הַגֶּבֶר עַד צַפְרָא פָּסְלָה לִינָה; הָא מַנִּי? אִי רַבִּי – פָּסְלָה לִינָה! אִי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן – הָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ מִיכָּן וְעַד עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְקַדֵּשׁ!
But according to Rava, who interprets the statement in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, but who holds that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, during the period from the rooster’s crow until morning being left overnight disqualifies sanctification, in accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, then the priests’ sanctification described therein is useless, since being left overnight disqualifies it at dawn. And if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, doesn’t he say that even if the priest continues to perform rites for the next ten days, he does not need to sanctify his hands and feet again? If so, since the priests were serving throughout the night, they should not require sanctification.
לְעוֹלָם כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – בְּכָהֲנֵי חַדְתֵי.
The Gemara responds: Actually, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, and here we are dealing with new priests, who did not serve in the Temple that night. Since they are beginning their service now, they must sanctify their hands and feet.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: יְצִיאָה מַהוּ שֶׁתּוֹעִיל בְּקִידּוּשׁ יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם? אִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר לִינָה לָא פָּסְלָה – דְּלָא פָּרֵישׁ, אֲבָל יְצִיאָה דְּפָרֵישׁ – אַסּוֹחֵי מַסַּח דַּעְתֵּיהּ; אוֹ דִלְמָא, כֵּיוָן דִּבְיָדוֹ לַחֲזוֹר – לָא מַסַּח?
§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha with regard to leaving the Temple? Is it effective to disqualify sanctification of the hands and feet such that the priest must sanctify them again when he reenters the Temple? The Gemara elaborates: If you say that being left overnight does not disqualify it, perhaps that is only because he does not separate from the Temple; but when leaving the Temple, where the priest separates from the Temple, it is possible that the priest becomes distracted from the service. If so, he must sanctify his hands and feet again. Or perhaps, since it is in his power to return to the Temple at any point, he does not become distracted, in which case he does not need to sanctify them again.
תָּא שְׁמַע: קִידֵּשׁ יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו וְנִטְמְאוּ – מַטְבִּילָן וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לְקַדֵּשׁ. יָצְאוּ – הֲרֵי הֵן בִּקְדוּשָּׁתָן!
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: If a priest sanctified his hands and feet and his hands then became impure, he may immerse them to purify them, and he does not need to sanctify them again. If he sanctified his hands and they then left the Temple, they retain their sanctity. Apparently, leaving the Temple does not disqualify sanctification.
יָצְאוּ יָדָיו לָא קָמִיבַּעְיָא לַן, כִּי קָמִיבַּעְיָא לַן – יָצָא כׇּל גּוּפוֹ. מַאי?
The Gemara responds: We do not raise the dilemma with regard to a case where only his hands left the Temple. In such a case, he certainly does not need to sanctify them again. When we raise the dilemma, it is with regard to a case where his entire body left the Temple; what is the halakha in such a case?
תָּא שְׁמַע: שֶׁלֹּא רָחוּץ יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם – מְקַדֵּשׁ בִּכְלֵי שָׁרֵת בִּפְנִים. קִידֵּשׁ בִּכְלֵי שָׁרֵת בַּחוּץ אוֹ בִּכְלֵי חוֹל בִּפְנִים אוֹ שֶׁטָּבַל בְּמֵי מְעָרָה, וְעָבַד – עֲבוֹדָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה. טַעְמָא דְּקִידֵּשׁ בִּכְלֵי שָׁרֵת בַּחוּץ, הָא קִידֵּשׁ בִּפְנִים וְיָצָא – עֲבוֹדָתוֹ כְּשֵׁירָה!
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof from a baraita: One whose hands and feet are not washed must sanctify them with a service vessel inside the Temple. If he sanctified them with a service vessel outside the Temple, or with a non-sacred vessel inside, or if he immersed in cave water and performed the service, his service is disqualified. The Gemara infers: The reason his service is disqualified is that he sanctified his hands and feet with a service vessel outside, but if he sanctified them inside and then left, his service is valid.
דִּלְמָא ״קִידֵּשׁ בִּכְלֵי שָׁרֵת בַּחוּץ״ הֵיכִי דָּמֵי – כְּגוֹן דְּאַפֵּיק יָדָיו לְבַר וְקִידֵּשׁ; הָא קִידֵּשׁ בִּפְנִים וְיָצָא, דְּאַפֵּיק יְדֵיהּ לְבַר – כְּשֵׁירָה. אֲבָל יָצָא כׇּל גּוּפוֹ תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ.
The Gemara responds: Perhaps one can say: What are the circumstances of the case where one sanctified them with a service vessel outside? It is a case where he removed only his hands and placed them outside the Temple and sanctified them there. Consequently, one can infer only that if he sanctified them inside and then left, i.e., specifically where he removed only his hand and placed it outside, his service is valid. But with regard to a case where his entire body left the Temple, you should raise the dilemma.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב זְבִיד לְרַב פָּפָּא, תָּא שְׁמַע: יָצָא חוּץ לִמְחִיצַת חוֹמַת הָעֲזָרָה – אִם לִשְׁהוֹת, טָעוּן טְבִילָה; אִם לְפִי שָׁעָה, טָעוּן קִידּוּשׁ יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם!
Rav Zevid said to Rav Pappa: Come and hear a proof from another baraita: In a case where a priest left the boundary of the wall of the Temple courtyard, if he left long enough to remain there for a time, he requires immersion. If he left only for a moment, he requires sanctification of the hands and feet. Apparently, one who leaves even for a brief time requires sanctification.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁיָּצָא לְהָסֵךְ רַגְלָיו וּלְהַטִּיל מַיִם.
Rav Pappa said to him: Here we are dealing with a case where the priest left the Temple to cover his legs, a euphemism for defecating, or to urinate. It is only for this reason that he must sanctify his hands and feet when reentering the Temple.
הָא בְּהֶדְיָא קָתָנֵי לַהּ: כָּל הַמֵּיסֵךְ רַגְלָיו טָעוּן טְבִילָה, וְכׇל הַמֵּטִיל מַיִם טָעוּן קִידּוּשׁ יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם! תָּנֵי וַהֲדַר מְפָרֵשׁ.
The Gemara challenges: But the mishna (Yoma 28a) already teaches it explicitly: Anyone who covers his legs requires immersion afterward; and anyone who urinates requires sanctification of the hands and feet with water from the Basin afterward. The Gemara responds: The redundancy is not difficult. The tanna teaches the principle and then explains it again.
תָּא שְׁמַע: פָּרָה – רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר יוֹסֵף אָמַר: מְקַדֵּשׁ בִּכְלֵי שָׁרֵת בִּפְנִים, וְיוֹצֵא. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ בַּחוּץ, וַאֲפִילּוּ בִּכְלִי חוֹל, וַאֲפִילּוּ בִּמְקִידָּה שֶׁל חֶרֶס!
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the following dispute: With regard to the priest who performs the service of the red heifer, which takes place outside the Temple, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef says: In preparation, he must sanctify his hands and feet with a service vessel inside the Temple, as he must before any other service, and afterward he leaves the Temple to perform the service. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: He may sanctify his hands even outside of the Temple, and even with a non-sacred vessel, and even with an earthenware bowl [bimkeida]. Apparently, leaving the Temple does not disqualify sanctification of the hands and feet.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: שָׁאנֵי פָּרָה – הוֹאִיל וְכׇל מַעֲשֶׂיהָ בַּחוּץ, לָא פָּסְלָה בָּהּ יְצִיאָה. אִי הָכִי, לְמָה לִי דִּמְקַדֵּשׁ? כְּעֵין עֲבוֹדָה פְּנִים.
Rav Pappa said: The rite of the red heifer is different, since all of its acts are performed outside the Temple, unlike other rites. Therefore, leaving the Temple does not disqualify sanctification of the hands and feet with regard to it. The Gemara asks: If so, why do I require that the priest sanctify his hands and feet at all for the service of the red heifer? The Gemara responds: The service of the red heifer must be similar to the service of offerings performed inside the Temple.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: טוּמְאָה, מַהוּ שֶׁתּוֹעִיל לְקִידּוּשׁ יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם? אִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר יְצִיאָה לָא פָּסְלָה – דְּגַבְרָא חֲזֵי, אֲבָל הָכָא דְּגַבְרָא לָא חֲזֵי – אַסּוֹחֵי מַסַּח דַּעְתֵּיהּ; אוֹ דִלְמָא, כֵּיוָן דַּהֲדַר חֲזֵי – [דָּק לֵיהּ] וְלָא מַסַּח דַּעְתֵּיהּ?
§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha with regard to a priest who contracts ritual impurity during the service? Is this effective to disqualify the sanctification of his hands and feet such that he must sanctify them again when he becomes pure? If you say that leaving the Temple does not disqualify sanctification, perhaps this is because the person remains fit to serve; but here, where the person is unfit for service, perhaps he becomes distracted. Or perhaps, since he will become fit again when he becomes pure, he takes care not to become distracted.
תָּא שְׁמַע: קִידֵּשׁ יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו וְנִטְמְאוּ – מַטְבִּילָן, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לְקַדֵּשׁ!
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: If a priest sanctified his hands and feet and they became impure, he may immerse them, and he does not need to sanctify them again.
נִטְמְאוּ יָדָיו לָא מִיבַּעְיָא לַן, [כִּי מִיבַּעְיָא לַן] נִטְמָא כׇּל גּוּפוֹ. כׇּל גּוּפוֹ?! תִּיפּוֹק לִי: כֵּיוָן דְּבָעֵי לְמֶעְבַּד הֶעֱרֵב שֶׁמֶשׁ, אַסּוֹחֵי מַסַּח דַּעְתֵּיהּ! כְּגוֹן דְּאִיטַּמִּי סָמוּךְ לִשְׁקִיעַת הַחַמָּה.
The Gemara responds: We do not raise the dilemma with regard to a case where only his hands became impure. When we raise the dilemma it is with regard to a case where his entire body became impure. The Gemara challenges: But if his entire body contracted impurity, let me derive that the sanctification is disqualified since he needs to allow the sun to set in order to become pure after immersing, and he certainly becomes distracted in the interim. The Gemara responds: The dilemma concerns a case where he became impure adjacent to sunset, so that he does not need to wait long after immersing and will not become distracted.
תָּא שְׁמַע: פָּרָה – רַבִּי חִיָּיא בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵף אָמַר: מְקַדֵּשׁ בִּכְלֵי שָׁרֵת בִּפְנִים, וְיוֹצֵא. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ בַּחוּץ, וַאֲפִילּוּ בִּכְלִי חוֹל, וַאֲפִילּוּ בִּמְקִידָּה שֶׁל חֶרֶס.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the following dispute: With regard to the priest who performs the rite of the red heifer, Rabbi Ḥiyya, son of Rabbi Yosef, says: He must sanctify his hands and feet with a service vessel inside the Temple, and afterward he leaves the Temple to perform the service. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: He may sanctify his hands even outside of the Temple, and even with a non-sacred vessel, and even with an earthenware bowl.
