Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

Halakhah for Zevachim 40:17

ת"ש פרה רבי חייא ברבי יוסף אמר מקדש בכלי שרת בפנים ויוצא ורבי יוחנן אמר אפילו בחוץ ואפילו בכלי חול ואפילו במקידה של חרס

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Tanna first states the law about going out, and then defines the cases to which this law applies.');"><sup>13</sup></span> 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;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');"><sup>14</sup></span> 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is now assumed that the question is: if the priest's hands became unclean, without the rest of his body, must he resanctify them?');"><sup>15</sup></span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which nullifies sanctification.');"><sup>16</sup></span> 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He does not become clean even after immersion until sunset.');"><sup>17</sup></span> - [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.

Sefer HaChinukh

From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Zevachim 20b) that one who goes out of the wall of the yard requires sanctification of the hands. And that if he sanctified his hands today, he needs to go back and sanctify [them] tomorrow - even if he did not sleep the whole night - as the hands are disqualified by [passing the night]. And that the commandment is ideally to wash the face, the hands and the feet in the morning; that it is a commandment to sanctify with the water of the basin (Zevachim 22b), and that if he sanctified [his hands] from one of the serving vessels, it is fit, ex post facto - but not from a non-sacred vessel, even ex post facto. And that they do not put their hands into [the water], but we pour it over their hands - and this is also the way of honor. But we do not require this regarding the [washing] of the hands for non-sacred foods - to [wash] from a vessel and not into it. As even though we require a vessel for the [washing] for the non-sacred, and the foundation of the matter is because we found [the requirement] for a vessel by [washing] for the sanctified - nonetheless it is with the sanctified that the [Torah] excluded it, but with the non-sacred, there is no exclusion. And even though the [washing] for the non-sacred is by extension of the priestly tithe - and as they, may their memory be blessed, said (Chullin 106a), "By extension of the priestly tithe" - still we do not make them the same in all of their laws. And [so] it is enough for us to obligate [washing] and a vessel for the non-sacred - by extension of the priestly tithe - and to leave the exclusion [derived from] "from it," that is said about it in its place. And even about the priestly tithe itself, its [washing] of the hands is rabbinic; as by Torah writ, one only finds purity for the entire body at once, and that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Chullin 106a) that the [washing] is [derived] from that which is written (Leviticus 15:11), "and he did not wash his hands, etc." - that is just a memory device (asmakhta). And so is it written in the Sefer HaMitzvot of Ramban, may his memory be blessed (see Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Shoresh 1, s.v. beteshuvah hashenit).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Previous VerseFull ChapterNext Verse