1 — You might say: This [sanctification] is required only for a service which is indispensable to atonement, but not for a service which is not indispensable to atonement; hence [this clause] informs us otherwise. When R. Dimi came, he said in R. Johanan's name: Ilfa asked: On the view that the passing of the night is of no effect in respect of the sanctification of hands and feet, does the water of the laver become unfit? Do we say: For what purpose is this [water]? for the sanctification of hands and feet; but the sanctification of hands and feet itself is not nullified by the passing of the night. Or perhaps, since [the water] is sanctified in a service vessel, it becomes unfit? When Rabin came, he said in R. Jeremiah's name, who reported R. Ammi's statement in R. Johanan's name: Ilfa subsequently resolved [this problem]: there is the same controversy about the one as about the other. Said R. Isaac b. Bisna to him: Rabbi, do you say thus? Thus did R. Ammi say, reporting R. Johanan in Ilfa's name: If the laver was not lowered [into the well] in the evening. [the priest] performs his sanctifications in it for the service of the night. but on the morrow he does not perform his ablutions. Now we questioned this: ‘on the morrow he does not perform his ablutions’ because he does not need [further] sanctification; or perhaps [the water] has become unfit through the passing of the night? Now, we could not resolve this, and yet to the Master it is clear? — Come and hear: Ben Kattin made twelve spouts for the laver; he also made wheels [pulleys] for the laver, so that its water should not become unfit through the passing of the night. Surely this is [even] according to R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon? — No: it represents Rabbi's view. Yet surely, since the first clause is according to R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon, the second clause too is according to R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon. For the first clauses teaches: [The High Priest then] came to his bullock, which bullock stood between the ulam [porch] and the altar, its head toward the south and its face toward the west, while the priest stood in the east and faced west. Now, whom do you know to maintain that between the ulam and the altar was north? R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon. For it was taught: What is the north? From the northern wall of the altar to the northern wall of the Temple court and the whole of the space opposite the altar is north: that is R. Jose son of R. Judah's view. R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon added the space between the ulam and the altar. Rabbi adds the place where the priests and lay-Israelites tread. But all agree that the place on the inside of the knives chamber is unfit! — Now, is it reasonable that [the first Baraitha] represents R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon's view and not Rabbi's? Seeing that Rabbi goes further than R. Jose son of R. Judah, does he not go further than R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon's [definition]? — This is what we mean: If you think that it agrees with Rabbi, let him station it in the place where the feet of the priests and the lay-Israelites tread! — What then? it is according to R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon? Then let him station it [in the space] from the northern wall of the altar to the northern wall of the Temple court? What then must you answer? [that it was placed in the position indicated] on account of the High Priest's fatigue; so on this view too, it was on account of the High Priest's weakness. R. Johanan said: If [the priest] sanctified his hands and feet for the removal of the ashes, he need not sanctify [them again] on the morrow, because he has already done so at the beginning of the service. According to whom? if according to Rabbi, surely he said that the passing of the night renders it null! if according to R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon, surely he said, He need not sanctify himself [again] even for ten days! — Said Abaye: In truth it is according to Rabbi, and [the nullifying effect of] the passing of the night is [merely] Rabbinical, and he admits that the passing of the night does not nullify from cock-crow until morning. Raba said: in truth it agrees with R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon, but R. Johanan accepted his view [only] in respect of the beginning of the service, but not in respect of the end of the service. An objection is raised: When his brother priests saw him descend, they quickly ran and sanctified their hands and feet at the laver.25ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸ
2 Now it is well according to Abaye who interprets it [R. Johanan's ruling] as agreeing with Rabbi, for Rabbi admits that the passing of the night does not nullify [in the interval between] cockcrow and morning; for this will then be according to Rabbi. But according to Raba, who interprets it as agreeing with R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon [only], but in Rabbi's opinion the passing of the night nullifies [even] from cockcrow until morning, with whom does this agree? If with Rabbi, then the passing of the night nullifies it; if with R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon, surely he said that he does not need sanctification even for ten days? — In truth, it agrees with R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon, the reference being to fresh priests. It was asked: Is going out [of the Temple court] effective [to invalidate] sanctification of hands and feet? If you say that the passing of the night does not invalidate [it], that is because [the priest] did not cease [officiating], but since he ceases when he goes out, he turns his mind away from it; or perhaps since it rests with him to go back, he does not turn his mind away from it? — Come and hear: If he sanctified his hands and feet and they were defiled, he immerses them, but he need not sanctify [them], If they [his hands and feet] went out [from the Temple court], they retain their sanctity! — If [only] his hands went out we are not in doubt; our doubt is where his whole body went out; what [is the law then]? — Come and hear: He whose hands or feet are unwashed must sanctify them at a service vessel within. If he sanctified [them] in a service vessel without, or in an unconsecrated vessel within; or if he immersed in the water of a pit, and officiated, his service is invalid. Thus it is only because he sanctified [his hands] from a service vessel without; but if he sanctified [them] within and then went out, his [subsequent] service is valid! — [No:] Perhaps what is meant by ‘he sanctified [them] in a service vessel without’? That e.g. he stretched his hands without and sanctified them; but if his whole body went out, you may [certainly] be in doubt. Said R. Zebid to R. Papa. Come and hear: If [the priest] went without the barrier of the wall of the Temple court, if [it was his intention] to tarry there, he needs immersion; if for a short while, he needs sanctification of hands and feet! — Said he to him: That means where he went out to ease himself at nature's call. But that is explicitly taught: He who eases himself needs immersion, and he who answers nature's call requires sanctification of hands and feet? — He [first] teaches [the general law] and then defines it. Come and hear: [For the services in connection with the red] heifer, R. Hiyya b. Joseph said: [The priest] must sanctify [himself] from a service vessel within and then go out; whereas R. Johanan maintained: [He can sanctify himself] even without [the Temple], even in a profane vessel, even in a fire pot! — Said R. Papa. The [red] heifer is different; since all its services are without, going out does not disqualify it. If so, why must he sanctify [himself at all]? — We want it to be done like the services within. It was asked: Is uncleanness effective in respect of sanctification of hands and feet? If you say that going out does not invalidate [sanctification], that may be because the person remains fit; but here that the person is no longer fit [for service] he turns his mind from it. Or perhaps, since he will be fit again, he is careful and does not turn his mind away from it? — Come and hear: If [the priest] sanctified his hands and his feet and they became unclean, he must immerse them, but need not [re-]sanctify them! — Where his hands [only] became unclean, we do not ask; our question is where his whole body was defiled. ‘His whole body’! surely I may deduce that he will turn his mind away from it, since he must wait for the setting of the sun? — [The question arises where] e.g. he became unclean just before sunset! Come and hear: [For the service in connection with the red] heifer, R. Hiyya b. Joseph said: [The Priest] must sanctify [himself] from a service vessel within and then go out; whereas R. Johanan maintained: [He can sanctify himself] even without the Temple, even in a profane vessel, even in a firepot.ᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠᵃᵍᵃʰᵃⁱᵃʲᵃᵏᵃˡᵃᵐᵃⁿᵃᵒᵃᵖ