Parallel
יומא 30:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
As to whether the service is profaned. According to Ben Zoma he profanes the service, according to R. Judah he does not. But does he, in accordance with Ben Zoma's view, profane the service? Has it not been taught: If a high priest did not immerse or sanctify himself between garment and garment or between service and service, his service remains valid. But if either a high priest or a common priest has not washed his hands and feet in the morning and then had officiated at a service, that service is invalidated? — Rather does the dispute concern the question as to whether he transgresses a positive command or not, Ben Zoma holding he transgresses a positive command, R. Judah that he does not. But does R. Judah hold this view? Has it not been taught: A leper immerses himself and stands in the Nicanor Gate. R. Judah said: He does not need to immerse himself, for he has done so already on the evening before! This has its own reason, as it was taught: ‘Because he had immersed himself on the eve before’. What does he ask who asks this? — Because he wants to raise another objection, viz., [why was it called] the cell of the lepers, because lepers immerse themselves therein. R. Judah says: Not only of the lepers did they say [this] but of every man [who enters the Temple Court]? — That is no difficulty. One statement refers to the case that he immersed himself, the other to the case that he did not. But, if he did not immerse himself, he must await the setting of the sun? — Rather: In both cases he is presumed to have immersed himself, but in the one case he is presumed to have ceased to have his mind [on the necessity of preventing defilement], in the other he is presumed to have had his mind thereon all the time. But if he ceased to have his mind on it, he would need to be sprinkled on the third and the seventh day, for R. Dosthai b. Mattun said in the name of R. Johanan: Wherever attention [from the need to prevent uncleanness] is diverted, sprinkling on the third and the seventh day is required? — Rather: In both cases he is presumed not to have diverted the attention, yet there is no contradiction, for in the one case he is presumed to have immersed himself for the purpose of entering the Sanctuary, in the other he is assumed to have done so without that purpose in mind. Or, if you like, say: Read not of lepers did they say [this] but of every man. Rabina said: R. Judah makes his statement only on behalf [of the view] of the Rabbis: As far as my view is concerned, no leper needs [another] immersion. But according to your opinion, admit at least that this was said not of lepers alone but of all people. And the Rabbis? — The leper is accustomed to [his] impurity, all others are unaccustomed to it. Shall we say that the Rabbis who dispute with R. Judah are of the opinion of Ben Zoma, notwithstanding which they make reference to the leper, to inform you of the far-reaching consequences of R. Judah's opinion; or perhaps the difference in the case of the leper lies in the fact that he is accustomed to the uncleanness? — He answered: It is different with the leper, because he is accustomed to his uncleanness. Said Abaye to R. Joseph: Would an intervening object
—