and there he laid the tefillin. (1) ONE LACKING IN SACRIFICIAL ATONEMENT. Whence do we know it? — Said R. Huna, Scripture saith, And the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean: (2) ‘She shall be clean’ proves that she is unclean [before atonement is made for her]. (3) AND ONE WHO HAD NOT WASHED HIS HANDS OR HIS FEET. [The implication of] ‘statute’ is derived from ‘statute’ written in connection with one who lacked his priestly vestments. (4) Our Rabbis taught: If a High Priest did not perform immersion or did not sanctify [himself] (5) between the changing of robes and between the services, (6) and he officiated, his service is valid. But the service of both a High Priest or an ordinary priest who officiated without the matutinal sanctification of their hands and feet is invalid. Said R. Assi to R. Johanan: Consider: The five immersions and the ten sanctifications (7) are scriptural, and ‘statute’ is written in connection with them; then let them be indispensable? (8) — Said he to him: Scripture saith, And put them on: (9) the putting on [of the priestly vestments] is indispensable, but nothing else is indispensable.10 [At that] his face lit up. (11) Said he to him: I have written you a waw on a tree-trunk: (12) [for] if that is so, [the sanctifications] of the morning (13) too [should not be indispensable]! — Said Hezekiah, Scripture saith, And it shall be a statute for ever to them, even to him and to his seed throughout their generations: (14) that which is indispensable for ‘his seed’ is indispensable for himself, and that which is not indispensable for ‘his seed’ is not indispensable for himself. (15) R. Jonathan said, He deduced it from this: That Moses and Aaron and his sons might wash their hands and their feet thereat: (16) that which is indispensable in the case of his sons is indispensable in his own case; while that which is not indispensable in the case of his sons is not indispensable in his own case. Why does R. Jonathan not deduce it from the text quoted by Hezekiah? — He can answer you: That is written [to show that the law holds good] for all generations. (17) And the other? why did he not deduce it from this text? — He requires it for R. Jose son of R. Hanina's [ruling]. For R. Jose son of R. Hanina said: You may not wash in a laver which does not contain sufficient [water] for the sanctifications of four priests, for it says. That Moses and Aaron and his sons might wash their hands and their feet thereat. (18) Our Rabbis taught: How is the precept of ‘sanctification’ [fulfilled]? [The priest] places his right hand on his right foot and his left hand on his left foot, and sanctifies them. (19) R. Jose son of Judah said: He places his both hands on each other and on his two feet lying on each other, and sanctifies them. Said they to him: You have made it too hard, for it is impossible to do it thus. Surely they speak rightly to him? — Said R. Joseph: His colleague assists him. (20) Wherein do they differ? — Said Abaye: They disagree in respect of standing by being supported. (21) Said R. Sima the son of R. Ashi to Rabina: And let him indeed sit and perform his sanctifications? — Scripture saith, [And thou shalt anoint Aaron and his sons, and sanctify them,] that they my minister, (22) and the ministration must be done standing. (23) Our Rabbis taught: if [the priest] sanctified his hands and feet by day, he need not sanctify [them] at night; [if he sanctified them] at night, he must sanctify [them] by day. This is Rabbi's view, for Rabbi maintained: The passing of the night is effective in respect of the sanctification of hands and feet. (24) R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon said: The passing of the night is not effective in respect of the sanctification of hands and feet. Another [Baraitha] taught: If [a priest] was standing and offering [the fats] on the altar throughout the night, at dawn he needs sanctification of hands and feet: this is Rabbi's view. R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon said: Since he sanctified his hands and feet at the beginning of the service, he need not sanctify [them again] even for ten days. (25) Now, both are necessary. For if we were informed of the first [Baraitha], [I would argue that] Rabbi ruled thus only there, [the circumstances being] that there had been an interval between one service and another; (26) but here that there was no interval, I would say that Rabbi agrees with R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon. While if we were informed of the latter [Baraitha]. I would argue that here only does R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon rule thus, but in the former he agrees with Rabbi. Hence they are both necessary. What is Rabbi's reason? — Because it is written, When they approach [the altar to minister]. (27) What is R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon's reason? — Because it is written, When they enter [into the tent of meeting, they shall wash with water]. (28) And the other too? surely it is written, When they enter! — If ‘when they approach’ were written and not ‘when they enter’ I would say that for every single approach [sanctification is necessary]; (29) therefore the Divine Law wrote, ‘when they enter.’ And the other too? surely it is written, ‘when they approach’! — If ‘when they enter’ were written and not ‘when they approach’. I would say that [they must wash] even for a mere entrance. (30) ‘For a mere entrance’! surely it is written, ‘to minister’? — Rather, ‘when they approach’ is required for R. Aha son of Jacob's [ruling]. For R. Aha son of Jacob said: All agree with respect to the second ‘sanctification,’ that [the priest] performs this sanctification when he is clothed, (31) for Scripture saith, ‘or when they approach’: he who lacks nothing but the approach [washes his hands and feet]; hence he who has yet to clothe himself and then approach is excluded. What is the purpose of, to cause an offering made by fire to smoke?32—

---

(1). ↑ Thus the tefillin did not actually interpose.
(2). ↑ Lev. XII, 8.
(3). ↑ Although she had already performed her ritual ablutions. Thus Scripture designates even such as unclean, and he is disqualified in the same way as an unclean priest is disqualified.
(4). ↑ V. supra 17b, 18a.
(5). ↑ This is the technical designation for washing the hands and feet at the laver.
(6). ↑ On the Day of Atonement the High Priest performed five services, in the course of which he changed his robes several times. Each change was to be preceded by tebillah (immersion) and sanctification; v. Yoma 32a.
(7). ↑ Five for the hand and five for the feet.
(8). ↑ So that the service should be invalid.
(9). ↑ Lev. XVI, 4.
(10). ↑ The verse reads: He shall pull on the holy linen tunic, and he shall have the linen breeches... and shall be girded with the linen girdle, and with the linen miter shall he be attired... and he shall bathe his flesh in water, and put them on. Thus ‘put them on’ is emphasized by being repeated in the verse, to teach that that only is indispensable, but the other thing mentioned, viz bathing. is not indispensable.
(11). ↑ R. Assi was very pleased with the answer.
(12). ↑ On which, owing to its rough lined surface the letter is not visible. This is an idiom for idle talk.
(13). ↑ On the Day of Atonement.
(14). ↑ Ex. XXX, 21.
(15). ↑ ‘His seed’ denotes an ordinary priest, while ‘statute’ implies indispensability, as stated above. Hence the sanctification of the morning which is normally indispensable for an ordinary priest is indispensable for a High Priest on the Day of Atonement.
(16). ↑ Ex. XL, 31.
(17). ↑ But not to provide an analogy.
(18). ↑ ‘His sons’ implies at least two; hence it must be big enough for four.
(19). ↑ So that he washes his hands and feet simultaneously, by pouring water on each pair with his fore hand.
(20). ↑ So that he does not fall.
(21). ↑ Lit., ‘a standing from the side’. The priest must stand when performing these ablutions, and if R. Jose b. R. Judah's method is adopted, he can stand only by being supported. He holds that that is sufficient, while the first Tanna holds that that is not called standing.
(22). ↑ Ex. XXX, 30.
(23). ↑ ‘Sanctify them’ is interpreted as in the present discussion. Thus the ablutions are made analogous to ministrations, and as the latter must be done standing, the former too must be done standing.
(24). ↑ As soon as one night passes, the previous sanctification ceases to count.
(25). ↑ As long as he is continuously engaged thus.
(26). ↑ For in the first Baraitha it is not stated that the priest was actually engaged in officiating all night.
(27). ↑ Ex. XXX, 20. Each time the priest ‘approaches’ the altar he must wash his hands. At daybreak there is a new approach since the altar has to be freshly arranged with new wood; therefore he must wash his hands again.
(28). ↑ Ibid. As long as he is engaged on the sacrifices there is no new entry.
(29). ↑ Even in the same day.
(30). ↑ Without officiating.
(31). ↑ The changing of the garments by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement was preceded by immersion, and the immersion was preceded and followed by ‘sanctification’. All agree that the second ‘sanctification’ is done after the priest has donned the robes into which he was to change. v. Yoma 32b.
(32). ↑ Ibid. That too is enumerated as one of the purposes for which the priest must wash. But it is surely obvious, as it is included in the clause, ‘when they approach the altar to minister’.