excluded is water of the Basin, which has a modifier in its name? Rather, since the baraita cannot be referring to the water of the Basin itself, as it is unfit for washing the innards, is it not referring to water that is fit to be water of the Basin? Apparently, the only reason such water could be preferable is because it is flowing water.

The Gemara responds: The issue is a dispute between tanna’im, as Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to the water of the Basin, Rabbi Yishmael says: It must be spring water, i.e., flowing water, and the Rabbis say: It may be another type of water.

§ The mishna teaches that a priest who is uncircumcised disqualifies sacrificial rites he performs. The Gemara elaborates: From where do we derive this? Rav Ḥisda says: We did not learn this matter from the Torah of Moses, our teacher; rather, we learned it from the words of the prophet Ezekiel, son of Buzi: “No stranger, uncircumcised in heart or uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into My Sanctuary to serve Me” (Ezekiel 44:9).

And from where do we derive that he desecrates the service after the fact? As it is written: “In that you have brought in strangers, uncircumcised in heart or uncircumcised in flesh, to be in My Sanctuary, to profane My house” (Ezekiel 44:7).

The Sages taught: The verse states “stranger”; one might have thought that this is referring to an actual stranger, i.e., a gentile. Therefore, the verse states: “Uncircumcised in heart,” to indicate that it is referring to a priest rather than a gentile. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: “Stranger”? It is referring to one whose actions are considered estranged from his Father in Heaven, i.e., an apostate, who sins regularly. And I have derived only that one uncircumcised in heart is unfit to serve; from where is it derived that one uncircumcised in flesh is unfit as well? The verse states: “Or uncircumcised in flesh.”

The Gemara notes: And both phrases in the verse are necessary. As, had the Merciful One written only: “Uncircumcised in flesh,” one might think that only he is unfit because he is disgusting in that he possesses a foreskin, but concerning one uncircumcised in heart, who is not disgusting, I will say that he is not unfit. And had the verse taught us only that one uncircumcised in heart is unfit, one might think that only he is unfit, because his heart is not directed toward Heaven, but one uncircumcised in flesh, whose heart is directed toward Heaven, I will say that he is not unfit. Therefore, both phrases are necessary.

§ The mishna teaches that a ritually impure priest is unfit for Temple service and disqualifies rites he performs. The Elders of the South said: They taught this only with regard to one who became impure due to contact with the carcass of a creeping animal. But with regard to a priest who became impure due to contact with a corpse, since he can effect acceptance of his rites for communal offerings ab initio if the majority of the community has contracted impurity from a corpse, he can effect acceptance of his rites for individual offerings as well after the fact.

The Gemara asks: If so, let it be derived that one impure due to the carcass of a creeping animal can also effect acceptance for communal offerings in cases of communal impurity ab initio, and for individual offerings after the fact, by a fortiori inference from one impure due to a corpse: Just as a priest who is impure due to a corpse, who requires sprinkling of the water containing the ashes of the red heifer on the third and seventh day to be purified, still effects acceptance, then with regard to one who is impure due to the carcass of a creeping animal, who does not require sprinkling on the third and seventh day, is it not right that he should also effect acceptance?

The Gemara responds: The Elders of the South hold that the halakha with regard to those who effect atonement is like those who achieve atonement: Just as with regard to those who achieve atonement through communal offerings, i.e., the community, only if a majority is impure due to a corpse may the offering be sacrificed in a state of impurity, but if they are impure due to the carcass of a creeping animal it may not, so too with regard to those who effect atonement, i.e., the priests, if they serve when they are impure due to a corpse, yes, their service achieves atonement, but if they serve when they are impure due to the carcass of a creeping animal, it does not.

The response of the Gemara assumes that communal offerings may not be brought when the majority of the community is impure due to a creeping animal. The Gemara therefore asks: What do the Elders of the South hold with regard to the Paschal offering? If they hold that one may not slaughter it nor sprinkle its blood on the altar for an owner who is impure due to a creeping animal, even though he can immerse and become pure in time to eat the offering that night, then one may ask: Why can’t the community perform communal offerings in such a state of impurity? Isn’t it a principle that for any impurity for which an individual may not sacrifice the Paschal offering and is deferred to the second Pesaḥ, the community may perform its offerings in such a state of impurity?

Rather, they must hold that one may slaughter the Paschal offering and sprinkle its blood for an owner who is impure due to a creeping animal. Accordingly, the community may not offer the Paschal offering in such a state of impurity.

Ulla says: Reish Lakish shouted [teka] to the Elders of the South: But which power is greater to overcome impurity with respect to offerings, the power of those who effect atonement, i.e., the priests, or the power of those who achieve atonement, the offerings’ owners? Since the Elders of the South hold that the Paschal offering may be sacrificed for an owner who is impure due to a creeping animal, while a priest who is similarly impure may not sacrifice any offering, you must say that the power of those who achieve atonement is greater.

If so, your initial statement that a priest who contracted impurity from a corpse can effect acceptance for individual offerings can be refuted a fortiori: And just as in a case where the owner became impure due to a creeping animal, he may send his offerings for sacrifice, and yet a priest who became impure due to a creeping animal cannot effect acceptance, then in a case where the owner became impure due to a corpse, where he may not send his offerings for sacrifice, is it not right that a priest who became impure due to a corpse cannot effect acceptance?

The Gemara responds: The Elders of the South hold that an owner who is impure due to a corpse may also send his offerings, even though he will not be able to partake of his Paschal offering. Therefore, the a fortiori inference does not stand.

The Gemara protests: But isn’t it written: “If any man of you or of your generations shall be impure by reason of a dead body, or be in a journey afar off, he shall perform the Paschal offering to the Lord. In the second month on the fourteenth day at dusk they shall perform it” (Numbers 9:10–11)? Apparently, one impure due to a corpse in the first month must defer his Paschal offering to the second month. The Gemara responds: The verse intends this as a mitzva ab initio. But if he sends his offering in the first month, it is accepted, and he is not required to sacrifice a Paschal offering in the second month.

The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written: “And if the household be too little for a lamb, then shall he and his neighbor next to his house take one according to the number of the souls; a man,