Washing Immediately Before Duchening
A few points of interest on Sotah daf 39.
First, Tosafot discuss whether Rashi really said something. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi speaks of a requirement of washing before duchening:
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: כׇּל כֹּהֵן שֶׁלֹּא נָטַל יָדָיו — לֹא יִשָּׂא אֶת כַּפָּיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שְׂאוּ יְדֵיכֶם קֹדֶשׁ וּבָרְכוּ אֶת ה׳״.
And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: Any priest who did not first wash his hands may not lift his hands to recite the Priestly Benediction; as it is stated: “Lift up [se’u] your hands in sanctity and bless the Lord” (Psalms 134:2), which teaches that before reciting the benediction one must sanctify his hands by washing them.
and Rashi writes:
שלא נטל ידיו - לפני עלותו לדוכן:
Who did not wash his hands - prior to ascending the platform.
Perhaps there are two ways of reading this Rashi. Either as a standalone peirush, that he must have washed his hands prior to ascending to the duchan. Or, without a comma, as an interpolated explanation, that he didn’t wash his hands (immediately) before ascending. It is the implicit punctuation, and it is the two possible readings in the implication of לפני.
Tosafot have a lengthier version. It begins:
כל כהן שלא נטל ידיו - פירש רש"י אמר לי רבי אם נטל ידיו שחרית ונטהר כהן אינו צריך ליטול ידיו כשעולה לדוכן וכמדומה שהועתק מהגהת תלמיד שהרי אין לשונו משמע כך דפירש שלא נטל ידיו לפני עלותו לדוכן משמע ממש סמוך ועוד דמייתי גמרא קרא שאו ידיכם קדש וברכו משמע תיכף לנטילת ידים ברכת כהנים דמשמע ליה השתא
That version says: “My teacher told me: If he washed his hands in the morning and preserved their sanctity, the kohen need not wash his hands when he ascends the platform.” And it seems like this records a gloss of a student, for his [Rashi’s] language doesn’t imply this, for he explains שלא נטל ידיו לפני עלותו לדוכן, which implies literally juxtaposed. And further…”
Indeed, the words אמר לי רבי stand out. I’m not so convinced there is a contradiction with our briefer Rashi text. Though if it just meant washed beforehand, what does Rashi actually come to add with his peirush?
Also, while we have Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi here, this might be a case of encroaching a boundary, because we have a lot of statements in the surrounding section, and while printed texts have Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, manuscripts which have an ascription have Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi. That’s Munich 95, Vatican 110, and CUL: T-S AS 93.448.
Here is Vatican 110 for an example:
Of course, there is a Yehuda son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi on the next amud, so maybe one can argue that this influenced this statement. Still, I don’t see any manuscripts with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi.
This may make a difference in terms of the organization of the sugya, which is based on a corpus of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi statements.
Another interesting statement, on Sotah 39b:
בְּמוּסְפֵי דְשַׁבְּתָא, מָה הֵן אוֹמְרִים? אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי: ״שִׁיר הַמַּעֲלוֹת הִנֵּה בָּרְכוּ אֶת ה׳ כׇּל עַבְדֵי ה׳ וְגוֹ׳ שְׂאוּ יְדֵיכֶם קֹדֶשׁ וּבָרְכוּ אֶת ה׳״, ״בָּרוּךְ ה׳ מִצִּיּוֹן שׁוֹכֵן יְרוּשָׁלִָם הַלְלוּיָהּ״.
When the priests ascend a second time to bless the congregation during the additional prayer of Shabbat, what do the people say? It is not appropriate for them to repeat the same verses of praise that they recited previously. Rabbi Asi said: They say: “A song of ascents. Behold, bless you the Lord, all you servants of the Lord, that stand in the house of the Lord in the night seasons” (Psalms 134:1), “Lift up your hands in sanctity and bless the Lord” (Psalms 134:2), and “Blessed be the Lord out of Zion, Who dwells at Jerusalem. Hallelujah” (Psalms 135:21).
Whenever you see a R’ Asi, you need to determine if it is one of three people.
Rabbi Asi, the third-generation Amora of Israel, student of Rabbi Yochanan.
Rav Asi, first-generation Amora of Bavel (Hutzal)
Rav Athi (with a tav), a sixth-generation contemporary of Rav Ashi, who was erroneously encoded throughout the printed Vilna Shas as Rav Asi.
Here Rav Steinsaltz has Rabbi Asi. This would be meaningful because Rabbi Ammi and Rabbi Assi were kohanim, and here he is saying something about duchening.
However — Vilna Shas has “Rabbi” Assi, the earlier Venice printing has it ambiguous a R’ Assi, which presumably the Vilna Shas expanded. If you look at manuscripts, they all have Rav Assi.
Thus, Vatican 110a again:
One or two other interesting points on this daf tomorrow, bli neder.