Yoma — Daf 30b

באחולי עבודה קא מיפלגי לבן זומא מחיל עבודה לר"י לא מחיל עבודה

ולבן זומא מי מחיל והתניא כהן גדול שלא טבל ולא קידש בין בגד לבגד ובין עבודה לעבודה עבודתו כשרה אחד כהן גדול ואחד כהן הדיוט שלא קידש ידיו ורגליו שחרית ועבד עבודה עבודתו פסולה

אלא למיקם בעשה קא מיפלגי לבן זומא קאי בעשה לר' יהודה לא קאי בעשה

ומי אית ליה לר' יהודה האי סברא והתניא מצורע טובל ועומד בשער ניקנור רבי יהודה אומר אינו צריך טבילה שכבר טבל מבערב

ההוא כדתני טעמא שכבר טבל מבערב

ודקארי לה מאי קארי לה משום דקא בעי למרמא אחריתי עליה לשכת המצורעין ששם מצורעין טובלין ר"י אומר לא מצורעין בלבד אמרו אלא כל אדם

לא קשיא הא דטביל הא דלא טביל אי דלא טביל הערב שמש בעי אלא אידי ואידי דטביל הא דאסח דעתיה הא דלא אסח דעתיה

אי אסח דעתיה הזאת שלישי ושביעי בעי דאמר ר' דוסתאי בר מתון אמר רבי יוחנן הסח הדעת צריך הזאה שלישי ושביעי

אלא אידי ואידי דלא אסח דעתיה ולא קשיא הא דטביל על דעת ביאת מקדש הא דלא טביל על דעת ביאת מקדש ואב"א תני לא מצורעין אמרו אלא כל אדם

רבינא אמר רבי יהודה לדבריהם דרבנן קאמר להו לדידי מצורע אין צריך טבילה לדידכו אודו לי איזי מיהת דלא מצורעין בלבד אמרו אלא כל אדם ורבנן מצורע דייש בטומאה כל אדם לא דיישי בטומאה

א"ל אביי לרב יוסף נימא רבנן דפליגי עליה דר"י כבן זומא סבירא להו והאי דקתני מצורע להודיעך כחו דר"י או דילמא שאני מצורע דדייש בטומאה א"ל שאני מצורע דדייש בטומאה

א"ל אביי לרב יוסף (לר"י דאמר סרך) טבילה (היא) זו

As to whether the service is profaned.1 According to Ben Zoma2 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.3 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,1 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 leper4 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’.5 What does he ask who asks this?6 — Because he wants to raise another objection, viz., [why was it called] the cell of the lepers, because lepers immerse themselves therein.7 R. Judah says: Not only of the lepers did they say [this] but of every man [who enters the Temple Court]?8 — 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],9 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 attention10 [from the need to prevent uncleanness] is diverted, sprinkling on the third and the seventh day is required?11 — 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.12 Or, if you like, say: Read not of lepers did they say [this]13 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?14 — The leper is accustomed to [his] impurity, all others are unaccustomed to it.15 Shall we say that the Rabbis who dispute with R. Judah16 are of the opinion of Ben Zoma,17 notwithstanding which they make reference to the leper,18 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?19 — He answered: It is different with the leper, because he is accustomed to his uncleanness. Said Abaye to R. Joseph:20 Would an intervening object be no profanation of the service in the absence of the first immersion, since on the view of Ben Zoma the latter is inferred from the former.] the seventh...he shall bathe his flesh in water, and he shall be clean. Yet, when he offers up the prescribed sacrifices on the eighth day, he shall immerse himself again. of their former uncleanness, whereas the leper, who by reason of last night's immersion got rid of his uncleanness, is not in need of another reminder, in form of a second immersion. Frankel MGWJ 1861 for a tradition according to which all passages in the Talmud introduced by this phrase belong to the additions made by the Saboraim. thrust their thumb and toe into the Temple Court, there to receive an application of the blood of the guilt-offering and of oil; v. Lev. XIV, 14ff and supra 16a and infra p. 143, n. 10.] contradicts his earlier statement. and not reconciled to it, will be anxious to avoid such risk. immerse himself. he may have done so; but other men require no morning immersion Biblically before entering the Sanctuary.