בִּשְׁלָמָא לְאַבַּיֵי דְּמוֹקֵים לָהּ כְּרַבִּי, וּמוֹדֵי רַבִּי דְּמִקְּרוֹת הַגֶּבֶר עַד צַפְרָא לָא פָּסְלָה לִינָה, הָא מַנִּי? רַבִּי הִיא.

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.

אֶלָּא לְרָבָא, דְּמוֹקֵים לָהּ כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, אֲבָל לְרַבִּי – מִקְּרוֹת הַגֶּבֶר עַד צַפְרָא פָּסְלָה לִינָה, הָא מַנִּי? אִי רַבִּי – פָּסְלָה לִינָה, אִי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן – הָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ מִיכָּן וְעַד עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְקַדֵּשׁ!

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.

לְעוֹלָם כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – בְּכָהֲנֵי חֲדַתֵי.

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.

אִיבַּעֲיָא לְהוּ: יְצִיאָה מַהוּ שֶׁתּוֹעִיל בְּקִידּוּשׁ יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם? אִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר לִינָה לָא פָּסְלָה – דְּלָא פָּרֵישׁ, אֲבָל יְצִיאָה דְּפָרֵישׁ – אַסּוּחֵי מַסַּח דַּעְתֵּיהּ, אוֹ דִּלְמָא כֵּיוָן דִּבְיָדוֹ לַחֲזוֹר – לָא מַסַּח?

§ 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.

תָּא שְׁמַע: קִידֵּשׁ יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו וְנִטְמְאוּ – מַטְבִּילָן, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לְקַדֵּשׁ. יָצְאוּ – הֲרֵי הֵן בִּקְדוּשָּׁתָן.

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.

יָצְאוּ יָדָיו לָא קָמִיבָּעֲיָא לָן, כִּי קָמִיבָּעֲיָא לָן יָצָא כָּל גּוּפוֹ, מַאי?

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?

תָּא שְׁמַע: שֶׁלֹּא רְחוּץ יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם מְקַדֵּשׁ בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת בִּפְנִים. קִידֵּשׁ בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת בַּחוּץ, אוֹ בִּכְלִי חוֹל בִּפְנִים, אוֹ שֶׁטָּבַל בְּמֵי מְעָרָה וְעָבַד – עֲבוֹדָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה. טַעְמָא, דְּקִידֵּשׁ בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת בַּחוּץ, הָא קִידֵּשׁ בִּפְנִים וְיָצָא – עֲבוֹדָתוֹ כְּשֵׁירָה.

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.

דִּלְמָא קִידֵּשׁ בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת בַּחוּץ הֵיכִי דָּמֵי – כְּגוֹן דְּאַפֵּיק יָדָיו לְבָר וְקִידֵּשׁ; הָא קִידֵּשׁ בִּפְנִים וְיָצָא, דְּאַפֵּיק יְדֵיהּ לְבָר – כְּשֵׁירָה. אֲבָל יָצָא כָּל גּוּפוֹ תִּיבָּעֵי לָךְ!

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.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב זְבִיד לְרַב פַּפָּא: תָּא שְׁמַע, יָצָא חוּץ לִמְחִיצַּת חוֹמַת הָעֲזָרָה, אִם לִשְׁהוֹת – טָעוּן טְבִילָה, אִם לְפִי שָׁעָה – טָעוּן קִידּוּשׁ יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם!

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.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁיָּצָא לְהָסֵךְ רַגְלָיו וּלְהַטִּיל מַיִם.

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.

הָא בְּהֶדְיָא קָתָנֵי לָהּ: כָּל הַמֵּיסֵךְ רַגְלָיו – טָעוּן טְבִילָה, וְכָל הַמַּטִּיל מַיִם – טָעוּן קִידּוּשׁ יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם! תָּנֵי וַהֲדַר מְפָרֵשׁ.

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

תָּא שְׁמַע: פָּרָה, רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר יוֹסֵף אָמַר: מְקַדֵּשׁ בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת בִּפְנִים וְיוֹצֵא, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ בַּחוּץ, וַאֲפִילּוּ בִּכְלִי חוֹל, וַאֲפִילּוּ בִּמְקֵידָה שֶׁל חֶרֶס.

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.

אֲמַר רַב פַּפָּא: שָׁאנֵי פָּרָה, הוֹאִיל וְכָל מַעֲשֶׂיהָ בַּחוּץ לָא פָּסְלָה בָּהּ יְצִיאָה. אִי הָכִי, לָמָּה לִי דִּמְקַדֵּשׁ? כְּעֵין עֲבוֹדָה פְּנִים.

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.

אִיבַּעֲיָא לְהוּ: טוּמְאָה מַהוּ שֶׁתּוֹעִיל לְקִידּוּשׁ יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם? אִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר יְצִיאָה לָא פָּסְלָה – דְּגַבְרָא חֲזִי, אֲבָל הָכָא דְּגַבְרָא לָא חֲזִי אַסּוּחֵי מַסַּח דַּעְתֵּיהּ. אוֹ דִּלְמָא כֵּיוָן דַּהֲדַר חֲזִי – [דַּק לֵיהּ] וְלָא מַסַּח דַּעְתֵּיהּ?

§ 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.

תָּא שְׁמַע: קִידֵּשׁ יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו וְנִטְמְאוּ – מַטְבִּילָן, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לְקַדֵּשׁ.

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.

נִטְמְאוּ יָדָיו – לָא מִיבָּעֲיָא לָן, [כִּי מִיבָּעֲיָא לָן] נִטְמָא כָּל גּוּפוֹ. כָּל גּוּפוֹ, תֵּיפּוֹק לִי כֵּיוָן דְּבָעֵי לְמֶעֱבַד הַעֲרֵב שֶׁמֶשׁ – אַסּוּחֵי מַסַּח דַּעְתֵּיהּ! כְּגוֹן דְּאִיטְמֵי סָמוּךְ לִשְׁקִיעַת הַחַמָּה.

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.

תָּא שְׁמַע: פָּרָה, רַבִּי חִיָּיא בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵף אָמַר: מְקַדֵּשׁ בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת בִּפְנִים וְיוֹצֵא, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ בַּחוּץ, וַאֲפִילּוּ בִּכְלִי חוֹל, וַאֲפִילּוּ בִּמְקֵידָה שֶׁל חֶרֶס.

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.