Zevachim 20b — the Talmud in English

And if so,

granted, according to Abaye, who establishes it

as referring to Rabbi Yohanan’s words

according to Rabbi

and the disqualification of overnight stay is only a rabbinic decree,

and Rabbi concedes that from the crowing of the rooster until dawn overnight stay does not disqualify; whose opinion is this? —

It is Rabbi’s opinion,

and therefore the kiddush that they perform at the crowing of the rooster is effective even for an avoda that continues after the rising of the morning star.

But according to Rava, who establishes it

as referring to

Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon.

But according to Rabbi,

who holds that the disqualification of overnight stay in the kiddush of hands and feet is from the Torah,

from the crowing of the rooster until dawn overnight stay does disqualify,

for at the time of the crowing of the rooster it is still night; if so,

this

Mishna in tractate Tamid,

whose opinion is it?

If it is Rabbi, he said: it does disqualify overnight stay,

and the kiddush of the hands and feet at the crowing of the rooster will not be effective for their service after the rising of the morning star.

If it is Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon,

why did they need to perform kiddush at all? They had already performed kiddush of their hands for burning the fats during the night, and if so,

he said

Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon

that even from now until ten days he does not need to perform kiddush?!

And we answer:

Actually,

the Mishna in tractate Tamid

is according to Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon, and here,

where they needed to perform kiddush of their hands and feet for the service of removing the ashes, it is not speaking of priests who had already served during the night, but

of new priests,

of priests who had not served during the night and were now coming to begin their service; therefore they needed to perform kiddush of their hands and feet.

They raised a dilemma: Leaving,

when the priest leaves outside the azarah

what is it that it should be effective

to disqualify

in the kiddush of hands and feet

by the law of “that which leaves,” even though he did not divert his attention?

And in Avi Ezri [there] he wrote that Rashi explains that diversion of attention is not the cause of the disqualification, but a reason to regard him as one who comes with a new coming; but once it is a new coming, the disqualification is because of “that which leaves,” and it is considered that the water is disqualified through leaving, since it was sanctified in a sacred vessel. The uncertainty applies according to everyone: whether in leaving there is diversion of attention to the extent that it is considered a new coming, or not; and this is apparently also the intention of Rabbi Yitzhak Ze’ev in his writings. And in his book [Hilkhot Parah Aduma, page 64b] [however, from Rashi’s wording nearby, s.v. “if you should say,” it appears that the disqualification takes effect through diversion of attention; see Keren Orah]. According to this, the wording of the Rambam concerning the kiddush of hands and feet is understandable: “He shall not leave the Sanctuary, sleep, take water, or divert his attention,” which makes clear that there is no disqualification of leaving because of diversion of attention; rather, they decreed concerning leaving because diversion of attention is possible in it, to the extent of a new coming. [And see note 1 to the Tosafot on the preceding page.] The words of the Rambam validating the case of his hands leaving initially are also understandable, both according to Rabbi and according to Rabbi Elazar. And see the words of Rash i above [19b], s.v. “he does not,” where he states that Rabbi Elazar validates overnight stay in the kiddush of hands and feet likewise when he did not leave and did not divert his attention. And the B ah referred to our discussion, that the dilemma whether leaving disqualifies or not remains unresolved. And Rabbi Eliyahu of Vilna cited from the book Veshav ha-Kohen which wrote that Rashi’s view is that Rabbi Eliezer also requires a new kiddush for the service after overnight stay, except that the service is not disqualified because of the absence of this kiddush. But in our discussion the issue is the disqualification of the person through leaving, and the uncertainty is whether the service is disqualified by the disqualification of leaving. [And see further in the notes on the Tosafot.] For even

if you should say

that

overnight stay does not disqualify

in the kiddush of hands and feet, it is possible that the reason for this is

that he did not separate

from the service and therefore the rising of dawn does not disqualify his kiddush from the previous day.

But leaving

to outside the azarah,

for he separated

through his leaving from his service, the matter is considered as though he

diverted his attention

from the service, and he must return and perform kiddush.

Or perhaps, since he can return

and serve,

he does not divert

his attention from the service, and he need not perform kiddush?

Come and hear: If he performed kiddush of his hands and feet, and they became impure

the hands, with a rabbinic impurity that renders the hands alone impure, such as one who touches pigul or notar, concerning which the Sages decreed that they render the hands impure ,

he immerses them

the hands alone,

and need not perform kiddush

of his hands and feet. And if

his hands left,

for he extended them outward while his body remained inside,

they retain their sanctity!

And it is proven that leaving does not disqualify.

And we reject this: his hands left alone, we did not raise the dilemma at all, and certainly he need not return and perform kiddush.

When we raised the dilemma, it was when his entire body left: what is the law?

Come and hear: a priest who was not performing washing of hands and feet he performs kiddush

это вообще не является предметом нашего вопроса,

и конечно, ему не нужно снова освящать их.

Когда же возникает вопрос? Если вышло все его тело — каков закон?

of them from the water of the basin or from water placed

in a sacred vessel

of another kind, since every sacred vessel is fit to perform kiddush from it for his hands and feet .

And this kiddush, which the priest performs from the basin or from a sacred vessel, must be performed inside the azarah, for Scripture established a place for the basin in the azarah, and therefore he must perform kiddush for them in this place .

омытым в отношении рук и ног,

он

освящает

их водой из умывальника или водой, находящейся

в другом священном сосуде,

поскольку любой священный сосуд пригоден для освящения из него рук и ног .

Это освящение, совершаемое коэном из умывальника или священного сосуда, должно совершаться

внутри

храмового двора, поскольку Писание установило место умывальника внутри храмового двора; поэтому освящение должно совершаться именно в этом месте .

He sanctified with a service vessel outside

the forecourt,

or

he sanctified

with an ordinary vessel inside

the forecourt,

or

he did not sanctify his hands and feet, but

immersed in the waters of a cave

that are valid for immersion,

and performed the service—

his service is invalid!

For although immersion is more significant than the sanctification of hands and feet, since he immerses his entire body, nevertheless it is not effective in place of sanctification with a service vessel!

And we infer:

The reason is that he sanctified with a service vessel outside,

therefore his sanctification is not effective;

but if he sanctified inside, and went out

and returned and performed the service, his service is

valid.

For if the sanctification were invalidated because he went out, why was it necessary to say that sanctification outside is invalid because he did not sanctify inside, in its proper place? Surely it is invalidated because he went out, since when he sanctifies outside, you have no greater going out than this. Rather, it is proven that it is not invalidated because of going out!

And we reject this:

Perhaps the invalidation of

“

he sanctified with a service vessel outside

”

is speaking of a case in which his body did not go out, but only his hands, and he sanctified them outside. What are the circumstances?—

For example, he brought his hands outside,

to the outside,

and sanctified

them outside with water from a service vessel; therefore they were invalidated only because the sanctification was not inside, and not by the law of something that went out.

But if his entire body went out,

still

you have a question,

whether he must return and sanctify again?!

Rav Zevid said to Rav Pappa: Come and hear: If he went out

the kohen

beyond the wall of the forecourt, if

in order

to remain

outside he went out, he is

required to immerse.

If he went out for a short time, he is

required to sanctify his hands and feet!

He said to him

Rav Pappa to Rav Zevid: Its invalidation is not because of distraction of mind. Rather,

what are we dealing with here? For example, he went out to relieve himself,

and this is that he went out “to remain outside,” and therefore he must immerse,

and

so too, when he went out

to urinate,

which is that he went out “for a short time,” and therefore he must sanctify his hands and feet.

And we object: Is it possible to establish this law in a case in which he went out to relieve himself or to urinate?

Is it not explicitly

already

taught

at the end:

Everyone who relieves himself is required to immerse.

And everyone who urinates is required to sanctify his hands and feet!?

And we answer:

Teach

initially: If he went out in order to remain outside, he is required to immerse, and if he went out for a short time, he is required to sanctify his hands and feet!

And afterward explain

that “to remain outside” means relieving himself, for which he is required to immerse, and “for a short time” means urinating, for which he is required to sanctify his hands and feet.

Come and hear:

A kohen engaged in the act of

the red heifer

on the Mount of Olives, outside Jerusalem—how does he sanctify his hands and feet before his service with the heifer?

Rabbi Hiyya bar Yosef said: He sanctifies

his hands and feet

with a service vessel inside

the forecourt,

and goes out

to the Mount of Olives, for going out does not invalidate the sanctification of his hands and feet.

And Rabbi Yohanan said:

He need not sanctify inside or with a service vessel, but he sanctifies them

even outside, and even with an ordinary vessel, and even with an earthenware shard!

И мы отвергаем это: Рав Папа сказал: рыжая корова отличается,

And we reject this:

Rav Pappa said: The red heifer is different,

the red heifer, since

all its acts,

its slaughter and its burning, are performed

outside,

therefore

going out does not invalidate it

the sanctification of hands and feet that is performed inside and with a service vessel [according to Rabbi Hiyya bar Yosef].

And we ask:

If so, since the law of the red heifer differs because all its acts are performed outside,

why do I need

at all

that he sanctify

inside and with a service vessel? And why should we not validate, for this reason, sanctifying his hands and feet initially with an ordinary vessel outside?

And we answer: Rabbi Hiyya bar Yosef holds that sanctification must be performed inside and with a service vessel because the laws of the service of the red heifer must be carried out

resembling a service

that is performed

inside, except that a scriptural decree requires that its slaughter and burning be outside; but the sanctification, which can be performed inside, must be performed resembling sanctification before a service that is performed inside.

They raised a dilemma: Impurity

that befell the kohen after the sanctification of his hands and feet [and now the Gemara understood that the issue concerns only impurity of the hands, and not impurity of the body],

what is it that it should be effective

to invalidate

the sanctification of hands and feet? [That is, is immersion of his hands sufficient to remove the impurity, or must he return and sanctify his hands and feet?]

Ведь даже

For even

if you should say that going out did not invalidate,

perhaps that is because

the man

is

fit

to return and perform the service whenever he wishes, and therefore he does not become distracted, and the sanctification is not invalidated through distraction of mind.

But here, when he became impure,

he became impure,

the man is not fit,

perhaps

he completely diverts his mind

from the sanctification,

or perhaps, since he becomes fit again,

for he will become fit after immersing his hands,

he is meticulous,

he is careful to preserve the sanctification of his hands and feet

and does not divert his mind

from it!?

Come and hear: He sanctified his hands and feet, and they became impure

his hands—

he immerses them, and need not sanctify!

And we reject this:

His hands became impure

alone—

we do not need to ask this,

and it is obvious that he need not sanctify.

What we do need to ask

is when

his entire body became impure,

and he immersed: Is he also required in such a case to return and sanctify?

And the Gemara asks: if

his entire body became impure, what need is there to say

that he is obligated to sanctify,

since he needs to wait for sunset

, for even after his immersion he does not become pure until sunset, and if so certainly

he diverts his attention

for such a long time?!

And we answer: the manner of the question is

for example, he became impure close to sunset

, and immersed, and only a short period of time remained for him until sunset; and the issue is whether he diverted his attention during this short time because he is not fit for the service during it, or not .

Ta shma: a red

heifer—

Rabbi Hiyya bar Rabbi Yosef said: he sanctifies

the hands and feet of the koen who performs the service with it before the service

in a service vessel, inside, and goes out

, and performs the service on the Mount of Olives.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: he sanctifies even outside, and even in an ordinary vessel, and even with an earthenware shard!