Zevachim 20

מהו דתימא הני מילי עבודה דמעכבא כפרה אבל עבודה דלא מעכבא כפרה לא קא משמע לן

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.

כי אתא רב דימי אמר רבי יוחנן בעי אילפא לדברי האומר אין לינה מועלת בקידוש ידים ורגלים מי כיור מהו שיפסלו מי אמרינן הני למאי לקידוש ידים ורגלים קידוש ידים ורגלים גופייהו לא פסול בהו לינה או דלמא כיון דקדוש להו בכלי שרת מיפסלי

§ 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.

כי אתא רבין אמר רבי ירמיה אמר רבי אמי אמר רבי יוחנן הדר פשיט אילפא כמחלוקת בזו כך מחלוקת בזו

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.

אמר לפניו רבי יצחק בר ביסנא רבי אתה אומר כן אלא הכי אמר רבי אסי אמר רבי יוחנן [משמיה דאילפא] כיור שלא שקעו מבערב מקדש ממנו לעבודת לילה ולמחר אינו מקדש

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.

והוינן בה למחר אינו מקדש דלא צריך לקדוש או דלמא איפסלו בלינה ולא פשיט לן ומר קא פשיט ליה מיפשיט

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.

תא שמע בן קטין עשה שנים עשר דד לכיור אף הוא עשה מוכני לכיור שלא יהיו מימיו נפסלין בלינה מאי לאו רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון היא לא רבי היא

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.

והא מדרישא רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון סיפא נמי רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון

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.

דקתני רישא בא לו אצל פרו ופר היה עומד בין האולם ולמזבח ראשו לדרום ופניו למערב והכהן עומד במזרח ופניו למערב מאן שמעת ליה דאמר בין האולם ולמזבח צפון רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון

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.

דתניא איזהו צפון מקיר מזבח צפוני ועד כותל עזרה צפוני וכנגד כל המזבח כולו צפון דברי רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון מוסיף אף בין האולם ולמזבח רבי מוסיף אף מקום דריסת רגלי הכהנים ומקום דריסת רגלי ישראל אבל מן החליפות ולפנים הכל מודים שפסול

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 [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.

ותסברא רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון היא ולא רבי [השתא רבי] אדרבי יוסי ברבי יהודה מוסיף אדרבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון לא מוסיף

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.

אנן הכי קאמרינן אי סלקא דעתך רבי היא לוקמה במקום דריסת רגלי כהנים ובמקום דריסת רגלי ישראל

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?

אלא מאי רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון היא לוקמה מקיר מזבח צפוני עד כותל עזרה צפוני אלא מאי אית לך למימר משום חולשא דכהן גדול הכא נמי משום חולשא דכהן גדול

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.

אמר רבי יוחנן קידש ידיו ורגליו לתרומת הדשן למחר אינו צריך לקדש שכבר קידש מתחילת עבודה

§ 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.

למאן אי לרבי האמר פסלה לינה אי לרבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון האמר אין צריך לקדש אפילו מיכן ועד עשרה ימים

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?

אמר אביי לעולם לרבי ולינה דרבנן היא ומודי דמקרות הגבר ועד צפרא לא פסלה לינה

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.

רבא אמר לעולם רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון [היא וראה רבי יוחנן דבריו] בתחילת עבודה ולא בסוף עבודה

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.

מיתיבי ראוהו אחיו הכהנים שירד והם רצו ובאו מיהרו וקידשו ידיהם ורגליהם מן הכיור

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.

בשלמא לאביי דמוקים לה כרבי ומודי רבי דמקרות הגבר עד צפרא לא פסלה לינה הא מני רבי היא

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.

אלא לרבא דמוקים לה כרבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון אבל לרבי מקרות הגבר עד צפרא פסלה לינה הא מני אי רבי פסלה לינה אי רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון הא אמר אפילו מיכן ועד עשרה ימים אינו צריך לקדש

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.

לעולם כרבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון והכא במאי עסקינן בכהני חדתי

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.

איבעיא להו יציאה מהו שתועיל בקידוש ידים ורגלים אם תימצי לומר לינה לא פסלה דלא פריש אבל יציאה דפריש אסוחי מסח דעתיה או דלמא כיון דבידו לחזור לא מסח

§ 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.

תא שמע קידש ידיו ורגליו ונטמאו מטבילן ואין צריך לקדש יצאו הרי הן בקדושתן

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.

יצאו ידיו לא קמיבעיא לן כי קמיבעיא לן יצא כל גופו מאי

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?

תא שמע שלא רחוץ ידים ורגלים מקדש בכלי שרת בפנים קידש בכלי שרת בחוץ או בכלי חול בפנים או שטבל במי מערה ועבד עבודתו פסולה טעמא דקידש בכלי שרת בחוץ הא קידש בפנים ויצא עבודתו כשירה

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.

דלמא קידש בכלי שרת בחוץ היכי דמי כגון דאפיק ידיו לבר וקידש הא קידש בפנים ויצא דאפיק ידיה לבר כשירה אבל יצא כל גופו תיבעי לך

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.

אמר ליה רב זביד לרב פפא תא שמע יצא חוץ למחיצת חומת העזרה אם לשהות טעון טבילה אם לפי שעה טעון קידוש ידים ורגלים

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.

אמר ליה הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שיצא להסך רגליו ולהטיל מים

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.

הא בהדיא קתני לה כל המיסך רגליו טעון טבילה וכל המטיל מים טעון קידוש ידים ורגלים תני והדר מפרש

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.

תא שמע פרה רבי חייא בר יוסף אמר מקדש בכלי שרת בפנים ויוצא ורבי יוחנן אמר אפילו בחוץ ואפילו בכלי חול ואפילו במקידה של חרס

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.

אמר רב פפא שאני פרה הואיל וכל מעשיה בחוץ לא פסלה בה יציאה אי הכי למה לי דמקדש כעין עבודה פנים

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.

איבעיא להו טומאה מהו שתועיל לקידוש ידים ורגלים אם תימצי לומר יציאה לא פסלה דגברא חזי אבל הכא דגברא לא חזי אסוחי מסח דעתיה או דלמא כיון דהדר חזי [דק ליה] ולא מסח דעתיה

§ 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.

תא שמע קידש ידיו ורגליו ונטמאו מטבילן ואין צריך לקדש

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.

נטמאו ידיו לא מיבעיא לן [כי מיבעיא לן] נטמא כל גופו כל גופו תיפוק לי כיון דבעי למעבד הערב שמש אסוחי מסח דעתיה כגון דאיטמי סמוך לשקיעת החמה

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.

תא שמע פרה רבי חייא ברבי יוסף אמר מקדש בכלי שרת בפנים ויוצא ורבי יוחנן אמר אפילו בחוץ ואפילו בכלי חול ואפילו במקידה של חרס

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.