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. (1) It was asked: Is going out [of the Temple court] effective [to invalidate] sanctification of hands and feet? (2) 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; (3) 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, (4) he immerses them, (5) but he need not sanctify [them], (6) If they [his hands and feet] went out [from the Temple court], (7) 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. (8) 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, (9) and officiated, his service is invalid. (10) 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! (11) — [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; (12) 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. (13) 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; (14) 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? (15) 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. (16) 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? (17) — [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.

---

(1). ↑ Who had not been ministering earlier in the night.
(2). ↑ To make it necessary to repeat it.
(3). ↑ Therefore he must repeat his lustrations when he returns.
(4). ↑ With an uncleanness which defiles them only, but not the whole body.
(5). ↑ Immersion in a ritual bath (מקוה .(
(6). ↑ In the laver.
(7). ↑ The priest stood at the entrance and thrust his hands and feet without.
(8). ↑ Sanctification might be done either at the laver or from any service vessel v. infra; ‘within’ means within the Temple court.
(9). ↑ Though normally this cleanses.
(10). ↑ Immersion, even of the whole body, does not count as sanctification.
(11). ↑ For if that too were invalid, this law is superfluous, since he is standing without at the very moment of lustrations.
(12). ↑ Whilst standing within. Only then is it necessary to state this law.
(13). ↑ The Tanna first states the law about going out, and then defines the cases to which this law applies.
(14). ↑ The burning of the red heifer and the gathering of its ashes and mixing it with water, which are the services here referred to, were done outside Jerusalem.
(15). ↑ It is now assumed that the question is: if the priest's hands became unclean, without the rest of his body, must he re-sanctify them?
(16). ↑ Which nullifies sanctification.
(17). ↑ He does not become clean even after immersion until sunset.