Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

May 3, 2018 | 讬状讞 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Zevachim 20

Questions are asked regarding the laws of lina聽and whether those laws apply to washing of hands and feet.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 注讘讜讚讛 讚诪注讻讘讗 讻驻专讛 讗讘诇 注讘讜讚讛 讚诇讗 诪注讻讘讗 讻驻专讛 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘注讬 讗讬诇驻讗 诇讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讬谞讛 诪讜注诇转 讘拽讬讚讜砖 讬讚讬诐 讜专讙诇讬诐 诪讬 讻讬讜专 诪讛讜 砖讬驻住诇讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛谞讬 诇诪讗讬 诇拽讬讚讜砖 讬讚讬诐 讜专讙诇讬诐 拽讬讚讜砖 讬讚讬诐 讜专讙诇讬诐 讙讜驻讬讬讛讜 诇讗 驻住讜诇 讘讛讜 诇讬谞讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讚讜砖 诇讛讜 讘讻诇讬 砖专转 诪讬驻住诇讬

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讚专 驻砖讬讟 讗讬诇驻讗 讻诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讝讜 讻讱 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讝讜

When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: Rabbi Yirmeya says that Rabbi Ami says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 诇驻谞讬讜 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讘讬住谞讗 专讘讬 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讻谉 讗诇讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 [诪砖诪讬讛 讚讗讬诇驻讗] 讻讬讜专 砖诇讗 砖拽注讜 诪讘注专讘 诪拽讚砖 诪诪谞讜 诇注讘讜讚转 诇讬诇讛 讜诇诪讞专 讗讬谞讜 诪拽讚砖

Ravin continued: Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Bisna said before Rabbi Yirmeya: My teacher, do you say so? But this is what Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诇诪讞专 讗讬谞讜 诪拽讚砖 讚诇讗 爪专讬讱 诇拽讚讜砖 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗讬驻住诇讜 讘诇讬谞讛 讜诇讗 驻砖讬讟 诇谉 讜诪专 拽讗 驻砖讬讟 诇讬讛 诪讬驻砖讬讟

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鈥檚 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.

转讗 砖诪注 讘谉 拽讟讬谉 注砖讛 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讚讚 诇讻讬讜专 讗祝 讛讜讗 注砖讛 诪讜讻谞讬 诇讻讬讜专 砖诇讗 讬讛讬讜 诪讬诪讬讜 谞驻住诇讬谉 讘诇讬谞讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 诇讗 专讘讬 讛讬讗

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.

讜讛讗 诪讚专讬砖讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

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.

讚拽转谞讬 专讬砖讗 讘讗 诇讜 讗爪诇 驻专讜 讜驻专 讛讬讛 注讜诪讚 讘讬谉 讛讗讜诇诐 讜诇诪讝讘讞 专讗砖讜 诇讚专讜诐 讜驻谞讬讜 诇诪注专讘 讜讛讻讛谉 注讜诪讚 讘诪讝专讞 讜驻谞讬讜 诇诪注专讘 诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讘讬谉 讛讗讜诇诐 讜诇诪讝讘讞 爪驻讜谉 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

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.

讚转谞讬讗 讗讬讝讛讜 爪驻讜谉 诪拽讬专 诪讝讘讞 爪驻讜谞讬 讜注讚 讻讜转诇 注讝专讛 爪驻讜谞讬 讜讻谞讙讚 讻诇 讛诪讝讘讞 讻讜诇讜 爪驻讜谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讜住讬祝 讗祝 讘讬谉 讛讗讜诇诐 讜诇诪讝讘讞 专讘讬 诪讜住讬祝 讗祝 诪拽讜诐 讚专讬住转 专讙诇讬 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讜诪拽讜诐 讚专讬住转 专讙诇讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗讘诇 诪谉 讛讞诇讬驻讜转 讜诇驻谞讬诐 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 砖驻住讜诇

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 that 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 [ha岣lifot] 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.

讜转住讘专讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 专讘讬 [讛砖转讗 专讘讬] 讗讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讜住讬祝 讗讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讗 诪讜住讬祝

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.

讗谞谉 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 专讘讬 讛讬讗 诇讜拽诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讚专讬住转 专讙诇讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讜讘诪拽讜诐 讚专讬住转 专讙诇讬 讬砖专讗诇

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?

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 诇讜拽诪讛 诪拽讬专 诪讝讘讞 爪驻讜谞讬 注讚 讻讜转诇 注讝专讛 爪驻讜谞讬 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专 诪砖讜诐 讞讜诇砖讗 讚讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪砖讜诐 讞讜诇砖讗 讚讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 拽讬讚砖 讬讚讬讜 讜专讙诇讬讜 诇转专讜诪转 讛讚砖谉 诇诪讞专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇拽讚砖 砖讻讘专 拽讬讚砖 诪转讞讬诇转 注讘讜讚讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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鈥檚 service.

诇诪讗谉 讗讬 诇专讘讬 讛讗诪专 驻住诇讛 诇讬谞讛 讗讬 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗诪专 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇拽讚砖 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讬讻谉 讜注讚 注砖专讛 讬诪讬诐

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this statement? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, doesn鈥檛 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鈥檛 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 Yo岣nan state only that one who sanctified his hands and feet before the removal of the ashes is not required to do so after dawn?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇注讜诇诐 诇专讘讬 讜诇讬谞讛 讚专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讜诪讜讚讬 讚诪拽专讜转 讛讙讘专 讜注讚 爪驻专讗 诇讗 驻住诇讛 诇讬谞讛

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鈥檚 crow before dawn until morning, being left overnight does not disqualify his sanctification. Therefore, one who sanctifies his hands and feet at the rooster鈥檚 crow may continue to perform rites after dawn.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 [讛讬讗 讜专讗讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讘专讬讜] 讘转讞讬诇转 注讘讜讚讛 讜诇讗 讘住讜祝 注讘讜讚讛

Rava says: Actually, the statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. And Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan holds that if a priest sanctified his hands and feet before participating in the day鈥檚 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.

诪讬转讬讘讬 专讗讜讛讜 讗讞讬讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 砖讬专讚 讜讛诐 专爪讜 讜讘讗讜 诪讬讛专讜 讜拽讬讚砖讜 讬讚讬讛诐 讜专讙诇讬讛诐 诪谉 讛讻讬讜专

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.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讚诪讜拽讬诐 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讜诪讜讚讬 专讘讬 讚诪拽专讜转 讛讙讘专 注讚 爪驻专讗 诇讗 驻住诇讛 诇讬谞讛 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讛讬讗

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 Yo岣nan in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi concedes that during the period from the rooster鈥檚 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鈥檚 sanctification was disqualified and they must sanctify their hands and feet again in the morning, but they may do so before dawn.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讗 讚诪讜拽讬诐 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讘诇 诇专讘讬 诪拽专讜转 讛讙讘专 注讚 爪驻专讗 驻住诇讛 诇讬谞讛 讛讗 诪谞讬 讗讬 专讘讬 驻住诇讛 诇讬谞讛 讗讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讬讻谉 讜注讚 注砖专讛 讬诪讬诐 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇拽讚砖

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鈥檚 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鈥 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鈥檛 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.

诇注讜诇诐 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讻讛谞讬 讞讚转讬

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.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讬爪讬讗讛 诪讛讜 砖转讜注讬诇 讘拽讬讚讜砖 讬讚讬诐 讜专讙诇讬诐 讗诐 转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 诇讬谞讛 诇讗 驻住诇讛 讚诇讗 驻专讬砖 讗讘诇 讬爪讬讗讛 讚驻专讬砖 讗住讜讞讬 诪住讞 讚注转讬讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讘讬讚讜 诇讞讝讜专 诇讗 诪住讞

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.

转讗 砖诪注 拽讬讚砖 讬讚讬讜 讜专讙诇讬讜 讜谞讟诪讗讜 诪讟讘讬诇谉 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇拽讚砖 讬爪讗讜 讛专讬 讛谉 讘拽讚讜砖转谉

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.

讬爪讗讜 讬讚讬讜 诇讗 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 讻讬 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 讬爪讗 讻诇 讙讜驻讜 诪讗讬

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?

转讗 砖诪注 砖诇讗 专讞讜抓 讬讚讬诐 讜专讙诇讬诐 诪拽讚砖 讘讻诇讬 砖专转 讘驻谞讬诐 拽讬讚砖 讘讻诇讬 砖专转 讘讞讜抓 讗讜 讘讻诇讬 讞讜诇 讘驻谞讬诐 讗讜 砖讟讘诇 讘诪讬 诪注专讛 讜注讘讚 注讘讜讚转讜 驻住讜诇讛 讟注诪讗 讚拽讬讚砖 讘讻诇讬 砖专转 讘讞讜抓 讛讗 拽讬讚砖 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讬爪讗 注讘讜讚转讜 讻砖讬专讛

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.

讚诇诪讗 拽讬讚砖 讘讻诇讬 砖专转 讘讞讜抓 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讻讙讜谉 讚讗驻讬拽 讬讚讬讜 诇讘专 讜拽讬讚砖 讛讗 拽讬讚砖 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讬爪讗 讚讗驻讬拽 讬讚讬讛 诇讘专 讻砖讬专讛 讗讘诇 讬爪讗 讻诇 讙讜驻讜 转讬讘注讬 诇讱

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讝讘讬讚 诇专讘 驻驻讗 转讗 砖诪注 讬爪讗 讞讜抓 诇诪讞讬爪转 讞讜诪转 讛注讝专讛 讗诐 诇砖讛讜转 讟注讜谉 讟讘讬诇讛 讗诐 诇驻讬 砖注讛 讟注讜谉 拽讬讚讜砖 讬讚讬诐 讜专讙诇讬诐

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讬爪讗 诇讛住讱 专讙诇讬讜 讜诇讛讟讬诇 诪讬诐

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.

讛讗 讘讛讚讬讗 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讻诇 讛诪讬住讱 专讙诇讬讜 讟注讜谉 讟讘讬诇讛 讜讻诇 讛诪讟讬诇 诪讬诐 讟注讜谉 拽讬讚讜砖 讬讚讬诐 讜专讙诇讬诐 转谞讬 讜讛讚专 诪驻专砖

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.

转讗 砖诪注 驻专讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诪拽讚砖 讘讻诇讬 砖专转 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讬讜爪讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞讜抓 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘讻诇讬 讞讜诇 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪拽讬讚讛 砖诇 讞专住

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 岣yya 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 Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 砖讗谞讬 驻专讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻诇 诪注砖讬讛 讘讞讜抓 诇讗 驻住诇讛 讘讛 讬爪讬讗讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 讚诪拽讚砖 讻注讬谉 注讘讜讚讛 驻谞讬诐

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.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讟讜诪讗讛 诪讛讜 砖转讜注讬诇 诇拽讬讚讜砖 讬讚讬诐 讜专讙诇讬诐 讗诐 转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讬爪讬讗讛 诇讗 驻住诇讛 讚讙讘专讗 讞讝讬 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讙讘专讗 诇讗 讞讝讬 讗住讜讞讬 诪住讞 讚注转讬讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讛讚专 讞讝讬 [讚拽 诇讬讛] 讜诇讗 诪住讞 讚注转讬讛

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.

转讗 砖诪注 拽讬讚砖 讬讚讬讜 讜专讙诇讬讜 讜谞讟诪讗讜 诪讟讘讬诇谉 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇拽讚砖

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.

谞讟诪讗讜 讬讚讬讜 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 [讻讬 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇谉] 谞讟诪讗 讻诇 讙讜驻讜 讻诇 讙讜驻讜 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讘注讬 诇诪注讘讚 讛注专讘 砖诪砖 讗住讜讞讬 诪住讞 讚注转讬讛 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬讟诪讬 住诪讜讱 诇砖拽讬注转 讛讞诪讛

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.

转讗 砖诪注 驻专讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专讘讬 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诪拽讚砖 讘讻诇讬 砖专转 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讬讜爪讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞讜抓 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘讻诇讬 讞讜诇 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪拽讬讚讛 砖诇 讞专住

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 岣yya, 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 Yo岣nan says: He may sanctify his hands even outside of the Temple, and even with a non-sacred vessel, and even with an earthenware bowl.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Zevachim 20

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 20

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 注讘讜讚讛 讚诪注讻讘讗 讻驻专讛 讗讘诇 注讘讜讚讛 讚诇讗 诪注讻讘讗 讻驻专讛 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘注讬 讗讬诇驻讗 诇讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讬谞讛 诪讜注诇转 讘拽讬讚讜砖 讬讚讬诐 讜专讙诇讬诐 诪讬 讻讬讜专 诪讛讜 砖讬驻住诇讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛谞讬 诇诪讗讬 诇拽讬讚讜砖 讬讚讬诐 讜专讙诇讬诐 拽讬讚讜砖 讬讚讬诐 讜专讙诇讬诐 讙讜驻讬讬讛讜 诇讗 驻住讜诇 讘讛讜 诇讬谞讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讚讜砖 诇讛讜 讘讻诇讬 砖专转 诪讬驻住诇讬

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讚专 驻砖讬讟 讗讬诇驻讗 讻诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讝讜 讻讱 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讝讜

When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: Rabbi Yirmeya says that Rabbi Ami says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 诇驻谞讬讜 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讘讬住谞讗 专讘讬 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讻谉 讗诇讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 [诪砖诪讬讛 讚讗讬诇驻讗] 讻讬讜专 砖诇讗 砖拽注讜 诪讘注专讘 诪拽讚砖 诪诪谞讜 诇注讘讜讚转 诇讬诇讛 讜诇诪讞专 讗讬谞讜 诪拽讚砖

Ravin continued: Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Bisna said before Rabbi Yirmeya: My teacher, do you say so? But this is what Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诇诪讞专 讗讬谞讜 诪拽讚砖 讚诇讗 爪专讬讱 诇拽讚讜砖 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗讬驻住诇讜 讘诇讬谞讛 讜诇讗 驻砖讬讟 诇谉 讜诪专 拽讗 驻砖讬讟 诇讬讛 诪讬驻砖讬讟

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鈥檚 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.

转讗 砖诪注 讘谉 拽讟讬谉 注砖讛 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讚讚 诇讻讬讜专 讗祝 讛讜讗 注砖讛 诪讜讻谞讬 诇讻讬讜专 砖诇讗 讬讛讬讜 诪讬诪讬讜 谞驻住诇讬谉 讘诇讬谞讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 诇讗 专讘讬 讛讬讗

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.

讜讛讗 诪讚专讬砖讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

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.

讚拽转谞讬 专讬砖讗 讘讗 诇讜 讗爪诇 驻专讜 讜驻专 讛讬讛 注讜诪讚 讘讬谉 讛讗讜诇诐 讜诇诪讝讘讞 专讗砖讜 诇讚专讜诐 讜驻谞讬讜 诇诪注专讘 讜讛讻讛谉 注讜诪讚 讘诪讝专讞 讜驻谞讬讜 诇诪注专讘 诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讘讬谉 讛讗讜诇诐 讜诇诪讝讘讞 爪驻讜谉 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

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.

讚转谞讬讗 讗讬讝讛讜 爪驻讜谉 诪拽讬专 诪讝讘讞 爪驻讜谞讬 讜注讚 讻讜转诇 注讝专讛 爪驻讜谞讬 讜讻谞讙讚 讻诇 讛诪讝讘讞 讻讜诇讜 爪驻讜谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讜住讬祝 讗祝 讘讬谉 讛讗讜诇诐 讜诇诪讝讘讞 专讘讬 诪讜住讬祝 讗祝 诪拽讜诐 讚专讬住转 专讙诇讬 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讜诪拽讜诐 讚专讬住转 专讙诇讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗讘诇 诪谉 讛讞诇讬驻讜转 讜诇驻谞讬诐 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 砖驻住讜诇

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 that 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 [ha岣lifot] 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.

讜转住讘专讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 专讘讬 [讛砖转讗 专讘讬] 讗讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讜住讬祝 讗讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讗 诪讜住讬祝

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.

讗谞谉 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 专讘讬 讛讬讗 诇讜拽诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讚专讬住转 专讙诇讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讜讘诪拽讜诐 讚专讬住转 专讙诇讬 讬砖专讗诇

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?

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 诇讜拽诪讛 诪拽讬专 诪讝讘讞 爪驻讜谞讬 注讚 讻讜转诇 注讝专讛 爪驻讜谞讬 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专 诪砖讜诐 讞讜诇砖讗 讚讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪砖讜诐 讞讜诇砖讗 讚讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 拽讬讚砖 讬讚讬讜 讜专讙诇讬讜 诇转专讜诪转 讛讚砖谉 诇诪讞专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇拽讚砖 砖讻讘专 拽讬讚砖 诪转讞讬诇转 注讘讜讚讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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鈥檚 service.

诇诪讗谉 讗讬 诇专讘讬 讛讗诪专 驻住诇讛 诇讬谞讛 讗讬 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗诪专 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇拽讚砖 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讬讻谉 讜注讚 注砖专讛 讬诪讬诐

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this statement? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, doesn鈥檛 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鈥檛 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 Yo岣nan state only that one who sanctified his hands and feet before the removal of the ashes is not required to do so after dawn?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇注讜诇诐 诇专讘讬 讜诇讬谞讛 讚专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讜诪讜讚讬 讚诪拽专讜转 讛讙讘专 讜注讚 爪驻专讗 诇讗 驻住诇讛 诇讬谞讛

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鈥檚 crow before dawn until morning, being left overnight does not disqualify his sanctification. Therefore, one who sanctifies his hands and feet at the rooster鈥檚 crow may continue to perform rites after dawn.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 [讛讬讗 讜专讗讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讘专讬讜] 讘转讞讬诇转 注讘讜讚讛 讜诇讗 讘住讜祝 注讘讜讚讛

Rava says: Actually, the statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. And Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan holds that if a priest sanctified his hands and feet before participating in the day鈥檚 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.

诪讬转讬讘讬 专讗讜讛讜 讗讞讬讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 砖讬专讚 讜讛诐 专爪讜 讜讘讗讜 诪讬讛专讜 讜拽讬讚砖讜 讬讚讬讛诐 讜专讙诇讬讛诐 诪谉 讛讻讬讜专

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.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讚诪讜拽讬诐 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讜诪讜讚讬 专讘讬 讚诪拽专讜转 讛讙讘专 注讚 爪驻专讗 诇讗 驻住诇讛 诇讬谞讛 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讛讬讗

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 Yo岣nan in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi concedes that during the period from the rooster鈥檚 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鈥檚 sanctification was disqualified and they must sanctify their hands and feet again in the morning, but they may do so before dawn.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讗 讚诪讜拽讬诐 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讘诇 诇专讘讬 诪拽专讜转 讛讙讘专 注讚 爪驻专讗 驻住诇讛 诇讬谞讛 讛讗 诪谞讬 讗讬 专讘讬 驻住诇讛 诇讬谞讛 讗讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讬讻谉 讜注讚 注砖专讛 讬诪讬诐 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇拽讚砖

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鈥檚 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鈥 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鈥檛 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.

诇注讜诇诐 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讻讛谞讬 讞讚转讬

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.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讬爪讬讗讛 诪讛讜 砖转讜注讬诇 讘拽讬讚讜砖 讬讚讬诐 讜专讙诇讬诐 讗诐 转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 诇讬谞讛 诇讗 驻住诇讛 讚诇讗 驻专讬砖 讗讘诇 讬爪讬讗讛 讚驻专讬砖 讗住讜讞讬 诪住讞 讚注转讬讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讘讬讚讜 诇讞讝讜专 诇讗 诪住讞

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.

转讗 砖诪注 拽讬讚砖 讬讚讬讜 讜专讙诇讬讜 讜谞讟诪讗讜 诪讟讘讬诇谉 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇拽讚砖 讬爪讗讜 讛专讬 讛谉 讘拽讚讜砖转谉

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.

讬爪讗讜 讬讚讬讜 诇讗 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 讻讬 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 讬爪讗 讻诇 讙讜驻讜 诪讗讬

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?

转讗 砖诪注 砖诇讗 专讞讜抓 讬讚讬诐 讜专讙诇讬诐 诪拽讚砖 讘讻诇讬 砖专转 讘驻谞讬诐 拽讬讚砖 讘讻诇讬 砖专转 讘讞讜抓 讗讜 讘讻诇讬 讞讜诇 讘驻谞讬诐 讗讜 砖讟讘诇 讘诪讬 诪注专讛 讜注讘讚 注讘讜讚转讜 驻住讜诇讛 讟注诪讗 讚拽讬讚砖 讘讻诇讬 砖专转 讘讞讜抓 讛讗 拽讬讚砖 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讬爪讗 注讘讜讚转讜 讻砖讬专讛

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.

讚诇诪讗 拽讬讚砖 讘讻诇讬 砖专转 讘讞讜抓 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讻讙讜谉 讚讗驻讬拽 讬讚讬讜 诇讘专 讜拽讬讚砖 讛讗 拽讬讚砖 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讬爪讗 讚讗驻讬拽 讬讚讬讛 诇讘专 讻砖讬专讛 讗讘诇 讬爪讗 讻诇 讙讜驻讜 转讬讘注讬 诇讱

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讝讘讬讚 诇专讘 驻驻讗 转讗 砖诪注 讬爪讗 讞讜抓 诇诪讞讬爪转 讞讜诪转 讛注讝专讛 讗诐 诇砖讛讜转 讟注讜谉 讟讘讬诇讛 讗诐 诇驻讬 砖注讛 讟注讜谉 拽讬讚讜砖 讬讚讬诐 讜专讙诇讬诐

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讬爪讗 诇讛住讱 专讙诇讬讜 讜诇讛讟讬诇 诪讬诐

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.

讛讗 讘讛讚讬讗 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讻诇 讛诪讬住讱 专讙诇讬讜 讟注讜谉 讟讘讬诇讛 讜讻诇 讛诪讟讬诇 诪讬诐 讟注讜谉 拽讬讚讜砖 讬讚讬诐 讜专讙诇讬诐 转谞讬 讜讛讚专 诪驻专砖

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.

转讗 砖诪注 驻专讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诪拽讚砖 讘讻诇讬 砖专转 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讬讜爪讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞讜抓 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘讻诇讬 讞讜诇 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪拽讬讚讛 砖诇 讞专住

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 岣yya 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 Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 砖讗谞讬 驻专讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻诇 诪注砖讬讛 讘讞讜抓 诇讗 驻住诇讛 讘讛 讬爪讬讗讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 讚诪拽讚砖 讻注讬谉 注讘讜讚讛 驻谞讬诐

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.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讟讜诪讗讛 诪讛讜 砖转讜注讬诇 诇拽讬讚讜砖 讬讚讬诐 讜专讙诇讬诐 讗诐 转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讬爪讬讗讛 诇讗 驻住诇讛 讚讙讘专讗 讞讝讬 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讙讘专讗 诇讗 讞讝讬 讗住讜讞讬 诪住讞 讚注转讬讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讛讚专 讞讝讬 [讚拽 诇讬讛] 讜诇讗 诪住讞 讚注转讬讛

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.

转讗 砖诪注 拽讬讚砖 讬讚讬讜 讜专讙诇讬讜 讜谞讟诪讗讜 诪讟讘讬诇谉 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇拽讚砖

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.

谞讟诪讗讜 讬讚讬讜 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 [讻讬 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇谉] 谞讟诪讗 讻诇 讙讜驻讜 讻诇 讙讜驻讜 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讘注讬 诇诪注讘讚 讛注专讘 砖诪砖 讗住讜讞讬 诪住讞 讚注转讬讛 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬讟诪讬 住诪讜讱 诇砖拽讬注转 讛讞诪讛

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.

转讗 砖诪注 驻专讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专讘讬 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诪拽讚砖 讘讻诇讬 砖专转 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讬讜爪讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞讜抓 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘讻诇讬 讞讜诇 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪拽讬讚讛 砖诇 讞专住

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 岣yya, 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 Yo岣nan says: He may sanctify his hands even outside of the Temple, and even with a non-sacred vessel, and even with an earthenware bowl.

Scroll To Top