יומא דף ל

מצוה לשפשף. מסייע ליה לרבי אמי, דאמר רבי אמי: אסור לאדם שיצא בניצוצות שעל גבי רגליו, מפני שנראה ככרות שפכה, ומוציא לעז על בניו שהן ממזרים.

it is a mitzva to brush the drops of urine from one’s legs so that they cannot be seen. Since one rubs it with his hands, his hands require sanctification as well. The Gemara comments: This supports the opinion of Rabbi Ami, as Rabbi Ami said: It is prohibited for a man to go out with the drops of urine that are on his legs, because he appears as one whose penis has been severed. A man with that condition is incapable of fathering children. People who see urine on his legs might suspect that he is suffering from that condition and spread rumors about his children that they are mamzerim. Therefore, one must be certain to brush the drops of urine from his legs.

אמר רב פפא: צואה במקומה, אסור לקרות קריאת שמע. היכי דמי? אי דנראית — פשיטא. אי דלא נראית — לא ניתנה תורה למלאכי השרת! לא צריכא: דיושב ונראית,

Apropos the above discussion the Gemara cites that Rav Pappa said: For one with excrement in its place, in the anus, it is prohibited to recite Shema until he removes it. What are the circumstances? If it is excrement that is visible, it is obvious that he cannot recite Shema, as there is excrement on his skin. If it is excrement that is not visible, and it is inside his body, how can Rav Pappa rule that he may not recite Shema? The Torah was not given to the ministering angels, and one’s body cannot be totally free of excrement. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to prohibit the recitation of Shema only in a situation where when he is sitting it is visible, and when he is standing it is not visible.

עומד ואינה נראית.

ומאי שנא מצואה על בשרו? דאיתמר: צואה על בשרו, או שהיו ידיו בבית הכסא, רב הונא אמר: מותר לקרות קריאת שמע, ורב חסדא אמר: אסור לקרות קריאת שמע.

The Gemara asks: If so, in what way is that different from excrement on his flesh? As it was stated in a case where one has excrement on his flesh or that his hands were placed into a bathroom that Rav Huna said: It is nevertheless permitted to recite Shema. And Rav Ḥisda said: It is prohibited to recite Shema in those cases. The Gemara rejects this: The situations are not comparable. There is no dispute that excrement in its place is more severe, as in the anus the filth is great because it is new and malodorous. And if it is not in its place, its filth is not great, as it is dried and less malodorous. It is with regard to that situation that there is an amoraic dispute.

במקומה נפיש זוהמא, שלא במקומה לא נפיש זוהמא.

תנו רבנן הלכה בסעודה: אדם יוצא להשתין מים — נוטל ידו אחת ונכנס. דיבר עם חבירו והפליג — נוטל שתי ידיו ונכנס. וכשהוא נוטל,

The Gemara proceeds to discuss a related topic. The Sages taught a halakha with regard to a meal in a baraita: A person who exits a meal to urinate washes one of his hands, the one that he used to brush off drops of urine, and enters to resume the meal. If one left, spoke with another, and lingered outside, he washes both of his hands and enters to resume the meal. Presumably, during the lengthy conversation he was distracted from maintaining the cleanliness of his hands, requiring him to wash his hands again. And when one washes his hands for the meal he should not wash them outside and then enter, due to the concern that doing so will arouse suspicion that he did not wash his hands. Rather, he enters and sits in his place and washes both his hands, and returns the jug of water to pass among the guests and ask if anyone requires water, to make certain that everyone is aware that he washed his hands.

לא יטול מבחוץ ויכנס, מפני חשד. אלא נכנס ויושב במקומו ונוטל שתי ידיו, ומחזיר הטפיח על האורחין.

אמר רב חסדא: לא אמרן אלא לשתות, אבל לאכול — נוטל מבחוץ ונכנס, דמידע ידיע דאנינא דעתיה. אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק: ואנא אפילו לשתות נמי,

Rav Ḥisda said: We said this principle with regard to making certain that one washes his hands in public only when he enters to drink; however, if he enters and intends to eat he may even wash his hands outside and enter. Why is this so? It is because it is well known that he is fastidious and would not handle food without cleaning urine and the like off his hands. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: And I can even wash my hands outside when I intend only to drink, because they know that I am fastidious and that I certainly washed my hands before I entered to eat.

מידע ידעי דאנינא דעתאי.

מתני׳ אין אדם נכנס לעזרה לעבודה אפילו טהור עד שיטבול. חמש טבילות ועשרה קדושין טובל כהן גדול ומקדש בו ביום, וכולן בקדש על בית הפרוה, חוץ מזו בלבד.

MISHNA: A person does not enter the Temple courtyard for the Temple service, even if he is pure, until he immerses. Five immersions and ten sanctifications the High Priest immerses and sanctifies his hands and feet, respectively, on the day of Yom Kippur. And all of these immersions and sanctifications take place in the sacred area, the Temple courtyard, on the roof of the Hall of Parva, except for this first immersion alone. As that immersion is not unique to Yom Kippur, it may be performed outside the courtyard. They spread a sheet of fine linen between him and the people in the interest of modesty, and then the High Priest immersed and sanctified his hands and feet.

פרסו סדין של בוץ בינו לבין העם (קידש ידיו ורגליו).

גמ׳ שאלו את בן זומא: טבילה זו, למה? אמר להם: ומה המשנה מקודש לקודש, וממקום שענוש כרת למקום שענוש כרת — טעון טבילה. המשנה מחול לקודש,

GEMARA: They asked ben Zoma with regard to this immersion: Why is it a requirement for anyone who enters to perform the Temple service? He said to them: Just as one who moves from service in one sacred area to service in another sacred area, i.e., the High Priest on Yom Kippur, who moves from one service to another in the Temple courtyard and the Sanctuary; and likewise one who moves from service in an area that one who enters while impure is punished by karet, the courtyard, to service in another area that one who enters impure is punished by karet, the Sanctuary or the Holy of Holies, requires immersion; so too, with regard to one who moves from a non-sacred area to a sacred area, and from a place that one who enters while impure is not punished by karet to a place that one who enters while impure is punished by karet, is it not right that he require immersion? This first immersion was instituted for purposes of sanctity rather than purity.

וממקום שאין ענוש כרת למקום שענוש כרת — אינו דין שטעון טבילה?

רבי יהודה אומר: סרך טבילה היא זו, כדי שיזכור טומאה ישנה שבידו ויפרוש.

Rabbi Yehuda says: It is an ancillary immersion, which is not a mitzva, instituted so that one will remember any old impurity that he contracted and withdraw. In the course of immersion, he will remember if he was exposed to a source of seven-day impurity and will refrain from serving in the Temple.

במאי קא מיפלגי?

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do ben Zoma and Rabbi Yehuda, who provided two different rationales for the immersion, disagree?

באחולי עבודה קא מיפלגי. לבן זומא, מחיל עבודה. לרבי יהודה לא מחיל עבודה.

It is with regard to whether the Temple service is desecrated and disqualified if the priest failed to immerse before its performance that they disagree. According to the opinion of ben Zoma, this immersion is for the purpose of sanctification and is an integral part of the service; consequently, if the priest failed to immerse he desecrates the service. According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda he does not desecrate the service, because the immersion is merely a precautionary measure.

ולבן זומא מי מחיל? והתניא: כהן גדול שלא טבל ולא קידש בין בגד לבגד ובין עבודה לעבודה — עבודתו כשרה. אחד כהן גדול ואחד כהן הדיוט שלא

The Gemara wonders: And according to ben Zoma, is the service desecrated? But wasn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to a High Priest who did not immerse and did not sanctify his hands and feet between donning the golden garments and the white linen garments, and similarly, with regard to a High Priest who did not immerse between performance of one service and another service, his service is valid. However, both a High Priest and a common priest who did not sanctify his hands and feet at all in the morning and performed the service, his service is disqualified. If the High Priest’s failure to immerse between services does not desecrate the service, all the more so that failure to perform the first immersion would not desecrate the service, as ben Zoma derives the first immersion from the immersion of the High Priest. Apparently, that is not the basis of their dispute.

קידש ידיו ורגליו שחרית ועבד עבודה — עבודתו פסולה.

אלא: למיקם בעשה קא מיפלגי. לבן זומא קאי בעשה, לרבי יהודה לא קאי בעשה.

Rather, it is with regard to whether one who fails to immerse before service stands in violation of a positive mitzva that they disagree. According to ben Zoma, he stands in violation of a positive mitzva because there is a special requirement to perform this immersion for the purpose of sanctification. According to Rabbi Yehuda, he does not stand in violation of a positive mitzva.

ומי אית ליה לרבי יהודה האי סברא? והתניא: מצורע — טובל ועומד בשער ניקנור. רבי יהודה אומר: אינו צריך טבילה, שכבר טבל מבערב.

The Gemara wonders: And does Rabbi Yehuda hold in accordance with this line of reasoning? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: A leper on the eighth day of his purification, after he has already immersed at the end of the seventh day, immerses again and stands at the Gate of Nicanor in the Temple to bring his purification offerings and to have the priest sprinkle the blood of the guilt-offering and the oil that accompanies his purification offerings on his thumbs and big toes to complete the purification process. Rabbi Yehuda says: He does not require an additional immersion, as he already immersed the previous evening. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda does not require a special immersion in the morning to remind the leper of old impurity.

ההוא, כדתני טעמא: שכבר טבל מבערב.

The Gemara answers: In that case of the leper, the reason that no immersion is required in the morning is as the reason was taught in the baraita: As he already immersed the previous evening. That immersion purified him and reminded him of any old impurity that he might have. This is in no way connected to the matter of ancillary immersion.

ודקארי לה מאי קארי לה? משום דקא בעי למרמא אחריתי עליה: לשכת המצורעין ששם מצורעין טובלין. רבי יהודה אומר: לא מצורעין בלבד אמרו, אלא כל אדם.

The Gemara asks: And the one who grasps this baraita as a contradiction to Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion, in what manner does he grasp it? The rationale for the halakha is explicit. The Gemara answers: Because the Gemara wants to raise a contradiction between another baraita and this baraita, and the question will be clarified through combination of the sources. As it was taught: Why was the chamber called the Chamber of the Lepers? It is because the lepers immerse there. Rabbi Yehuda says: It was not only lepers that they said immerse there; rather, all people immersed there. Rabbi Yehuda states that lepers and others immersed in this chamber in the Temple, contradicting his statement in the first baraita that a leper does not require immersion in the Temple, as he immersed the evening before.

לא קשיא: הא דטביל, הא דלא טביל. אי דלא טביל — הערב שמש בעי! אלא: אידי ואידי דטביל. הא דאסח דעתיה, הא דלא אסח דעתיה.

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult; this baraita is referring to a case where the leper immersed the evening before and need not immerse again; that baraita is referring to a case where the leper did not immerse. In that case, there was a special chamber where lepers could immerse. The Gemara asks: If it is a case where the leper did not immerse at all the previous evening, he requires the sun to set after his immersion to be sufficiently purified to enter the Temple. Rather, both this baraita and that baraita refer to a case where the leper immersed, but this baraita that requires a second immersion is in a case where he was distracted from his efforts to avoid impurity imparted by a corpse; that baraita that does not require a second immersion is in a case where he was not distracted.

אי אסח דעתיה, הזאת שלישי ושביעי בעי. דאמר רבי דוסתאי בר מתון אמר רבי יוחנן: הסח הדעת צריך הזאה שלישי ושביעי!

The Gemara asks: If he was distracted from his efforts to avoid impurity imparted by a corpse, it is sprinkling of purification waters on the third and the seventh days that he requires, not merely immersion. As Rabbi Dostai bar Matun said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Distraction from efforts to avoid impurity requires sprinkling of purification waters on the third and the seventh days.

אלא אידי ואידי דלא אסח דעתיה, ולא קשיא: הא דטביל על דעת ביאת מקדש, הא דלא טביל על דעת ביאת מקדש. ואי בעית אימא תני: לא מצורעין אמרו,

Rather, both this baraita and that baraita refer to a case where the leper was not distracted, and this is not difficult; this baraita is referring to a case where the leper immersed the evening before with the intention of entering the Temple; that baraita is referring to a case where the leper did not immerse in the evening with the intention of entering the Temple. In that case, he requires a second immersion for purification even to enter the sacred area. And if you wish, say instead: Teach the baraita with a slight emendation: It was not lepers that they said immerse there; rather, all people immersed there. Rabbi Yehuda does not qualify the statement of the Rabbis but disputes it. In his opinion, lepers do not require immersion in the morning at all.

אלא כל אדם.

רבינא אמר: רבי יהודה לדבריהם דרבנן קאמר להו: לדידי — מצורע אין צריך טבילה, לדידכו — אודו לי איזי מיהת דלא מצורעין בלבד אמרו, אלא כל אדם. ורבנן:

In an alternative resolution of the contradiction between the statements of Rabbi Yehuda, Ravina said: In the second baraita, Rabbi Yehuda is stating his opinion to them according to the statement of the Rabbis. His statement does not reflect his opinion. Rather, it is a contention that he raised in the framework of his dispute with the Rabbis. According to my opinion, a leper does not require a second immersion to enter the Temple. However, according to your opinion, concede to me then [izi] that it was not only lepers that they said immerse there; rather, all people immersed there. The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis explain their opinion? It answers that there is no comparison: A leper is accustomed to impurity; therefore, he could overlook other impurities that he may have contracted. The immersion reminds him to purify himself for those as well. However, all other people, who are not accustomed to impurity, will certainly be sensitive to and conscious of any impurity that they may have encountered and do not require a special immersion.

מצורע דייש בטומאה, כל אדם לא דיישי בטומאה.

אמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף: נימא רבנן דפליגי עליה דרבי יהודה — כבן זומא סבירא להו, והאי דקתני מצורע, להודיעך כחו דרבי יהודה. או דילמא,

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Let us say that the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda with regard to immersions, hold in accordance with the opinion of ben Zoma, who maintains that this immersion is an obligation by Torah law for anyone entering the courtyard. And the fact that the dispute in the baraita is taught with regard to a leper, contrary to the opinion of ben Zoma, comes to convey the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that even a leper does not require immersion. Or perhaps fundamentally the Rabbis agree with Rabbi Yehuda; however, the halakha of a leper is different because he is accustomed to impurity, and that is why a second immersion was instituted for him. Rav Yosef said to him: A leper is different because he is accustomed to impurity.

שאני מצורע דדייש בטומאה. אמר ליה: שאני מצורע דדייש בטומאה.

אמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף (לרבי יהודה דאמר: סרך) טבילה (היא) זו,

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: According to Rabbi Yehuda, who said the immersion is not an actual obligation but it is an ancillary immersion to remind the individual of old impurity,