יומא 30 — Soncino English Talmud

¹the right thing to wipe off [squirtings]. This supports the view of R. Ammi who says: A man must not go out with squirtings on his feet, because he may appear as one that has his privy member cut off and he may thus cause evil talk against his children that they are bastards. R. Papa said: If there be excrement in its place, he must not read the Shema’. How shall we imagine this case? If to say that it is invisible, that is self-evident; if to say that it is not seen surely ‘The Torah was not given to the ministering angels!’ This has but reference to a situation in which it is obvious when he sits and invisible when he stands. But what is the difference between this and one who has filth on his body, for it has been stated: Where one who has filth on his body, or whose hands are in a privy, R. Huna permits the reading of the Shema’ and R. Hisda forbids it? — In its place filth is most execrable, away from it, it is less so. Our Rabbis taught: This is the halachah with regard to meal-time: If a man goes forth to make water, he washes his one hand and re-enters. If he conversed with his neighbour and waited [diverting himself], he washes both his hands [again] and re-enters. When he washes his hands, he should not wash them outside and enter, because of the suspicion, but he should enter, sit at his accustomed place and wash his two hands there, then pass the pitcher around the guests. — R. Hisda said: What we said refers to drinking, but as to eating he may wash his hands outside and re-enter, people know that he is fastidious of taste. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: I would do the same before drinking as people know me to be fastidious. MISHNAH. NO MAN EVEN IF HE WERE CLEAN COULD ENTER THE TEMPLE COURT WITHOUT HAVING IMMERSED HIMSELF. FIVE IMMERSIONS AND TEN SANCTIFICATIONS DID THE HIGH PRIEST UNDERGO ON THAT DAY. AND ALL ON HOLY GROUND IN THE PARWAH CELL WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THIS ONE ALONE. — A LINEN SHEET WAS SPREAD BETWEEN HIM AND THE PEOPLE. GEMARA. Ben Zoma was asked: What is the purpose of this immersion? He answered: If one who moves from one holy place to another and from one place [the entering of] which [in uncleanness] involves kareth to another place [the entering of] which [in uncleanness] involves kareth, requires immersion, how much more shall he require immersion who moves from profane ground into holy ground, and from a place [the entering of] which [in uncleanness] does not involve kareth, to a place [the entering of] which [in uncleanness] involves kareth! R. Judah said: It is only an immersion required for the sake of uniformity, so that he may remember if there is any uncleanness on him and abstain. In what principle do they differ?^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ

^ᵃnote:Men afflicted with such blemish are incapable of reproduction, hence people, mistaking him for a man thus afflicted and hearing that he has children, will spread the rumour that they are begotten in adultery.
^ᵇnote:In the anus.
^ᶜnote:V. Glos.
^ᵈnote:Ber. 25b.
^ᵉnote:He happens to have his hands still in the space of the privy, between its door and the wall which separates it from the next room.
^ᶠnote:Because the whole body ought to be attuned to prayer, as the psalmist has it: All my bones shall say: Lord, who is like unto Thee, Ps. XXXV, 10.
^ᵍnote:Hands have to be washed before taking a meal.
^ʰnote:The one which may have been touched by the squirtings of urine.
^ⁱnote:That he failed to wash his hands outside.
^ʲnote:Which he had used for washing his hands.
^ᵏnote:V. Tosef. Ber. IV.
^ˡnote:[That he does not intend eating any more, but drinking, in which case the washing of the hands a second time is but a matter of precaution in case he does partake of some bread (Rashi).]
^ᵐnote:The average man is assumed to be fastidious enough not to eat without his fingers having been washed before, esp. since eating with the fingers (rather than with fork and knife) was the general custom. V.T.A. III, p. 43.
^ⁿnote:And wash my hands outside.
^ᵒnote:In the southern part of the Temple Court, v. Mid. V, 3.
^ᵖnote:The first one (mentioned in preceding Mishnah 28a) which he performed on profane ground at the Water-Gate.
^ᵠnote:For every man who wishes to enter the Temple Court.
^ʳnote:The high priest, in the course of his five services on the Day of Atonement, moved from the inner to the outer court, both being sacred and having the special restriction attached, viz., that one who entered them in uncleanness incurred divine penalty of death.
^ˢnote:V. Glos.
^ᵗnote:Lit., ‘an attached immersion’. There is no Biblical obligation, but a Rabbinic ‘fence’ to assure a consciousness of any uncleanness attaching to him who entered the Temple Court.
^ᵘnote:From entering the Temple Court.

²As to whether the service is profaned. According to Ben Zoma he profanes the service, according to R. Judah he does not. But does he, in accordance with Ben Zoma's view, profane the service? Has it not been taught: If a high priest did not immerse or sanctify himself between garment and garment or between service and service, his service remains valid. But if either a high priest or a common priest has not washed his hands and feet in the morning and then had officiated at a service, that service is invalidated? — Rather does the dispute concern the question as to whether he transgresses a positive command or not, Ben Zoma holding he transgresses a positive command, R. Judah that he does not. But does R. Judah hold this view? Has it not been taught: A leper immerses himself and stands in the Nicanor Gate. R. Judah said: He does not need to immerse himself, for he has done so already on the evening before! This has its own reason, as it was taught: ‘Because he had immersed himself on the eve before’. What does he ask who asks this? — Because he wants to raise another objection, viz., [why was it called] the cell of the lepers, because lepers immerse themselves therein. R. Judah says: Not only of the lepers did they say [this] but of every man [who enters the Temple Court]? — That is no difficulty. One statement refers to the case that he immersed himself, the other to the case that he did not. But, if he did not immerse himself, he must await the setting of the sun? — Rather: In both cases he is presumed to have immersed himself, but in the one case he is presumed to have ceased to have his mind [on the necessity of preventing defilement], in the other he is presumed to have had his mind thereon all the time. But if he ceased to have his mind on it, he would need to be sprinkled on the third and the seventh day, for R. Dosthai b. Mattun said in the name of R. Johanan: Wherever attention [from the need to prevent uncleanness] is diverted, sprinkling on the third and the seventh day is required? — Rather: In both cases he is presumed not to have diverted the attention, yet there is no contradiction, for in the one case he is presumed to have immersed himself for the purpose of entering the Sanctuary, in the other he is assumed to have done so without that purpose in mind. Or, if you like, say: Read not of lepers did they say [this] but of every man. Rabina said: R. Judah makes his statement only on behalf [of the view] of the Rabbis: As far as my view is concerned, no leper needs [another] immersion. But according to your opinion, admit at least that this was said not of lepers alone but of all people. And the Rabbis? — The leper is accustomed to [his] impurity, all others are unaccustomed to it. Shall we say that the Rabbis who dispute with R. Judah are of the opinion of Ben Zoma, notwithstanding which they make reference to the leper, to inform you of the far-reaching consequences of R. Judah's opinion; or perhaps the difference in the case of the leper lies in the fact that he is accustomed to the uncleanness? — He answered: It is different with the leper, because he is accustomed to his uncleanness. Said Abaye to R. Joseph: Would an intervening object^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ

^ᵛnote:By officiating without immersing first.
^ʷnote:Who infers it from an argument a minori which has the force of Biblical law.
^ˣnote:Zeb. 19b. [Since a high priest does not profane the service by failing to take the intermediary immersions, there could be no profanation of the service in the absence of the first immersion, since on the view of Ben Zoma the latter is inferred from the former.]
^ʸnote:On the eighth day of his affliction, although he had immersed himself on the seventh, Lev. XIV, 9: And it shall be on the seventh...he shall bathe his flesh in water, and he shall be clean. Yet, when he offers up the prescribed sacrifices on the eighth day, he shall immerse himself again.
^ᶻnote:R. Judah holds the purpose of the immersion of those who enter the Sanctuary in the morning is just to remind them of their former uncleanness, whereas the leper, who by reason of last night's immersion got rid of his uncleanness, is not in need of another reminder, in form of a second immersion.
^ᵃᵃnote:I.e., why ask an apparently unnecessary question? The answer is obvious. Mielziner (Introduction p. 238) cites Frankel MGWJ 1861 for a tradition according to which all passages in the Talmud introduced by this phrase belong to the additions made by the Saboraim.
^ᵃᵇnote:[Before they entered the Temple Court on the eighth day in the morning; when standing at the Nicanor Gate they thrust their thumb and toe into the Temple Court, there to receive an application of the blood of the guilt-offering and of oil; v. Lev. XIV, 14ff and supra 16a and infra p. 143, n. 10.]
^ᵃᶜnote:‘Not only of the lepers’ implies the lepers at any rate, hence he would consider a re-immersion necessary, which contradicts his earlier statement.
^ᵃᵈnote:By consistent guarding of his body against touch by agents of ritual uncleanness.
^ᵃᵉnote:For he may have entered the tent in which a corpse lay.
^ᵃᶠnote:For entering the Temple.
^ᵃᵍnote:He therefore requires a second immersion in the morning.
^ᵃʰnote:Requiring immersion on entering the Sanctuary.
^ᵃⁱnote:How would they meet R. Judah's argument?
^ᵃʲnote:Hence he will no more pay attention to the dangers of defilement, whereas all others, unaccustomed to uncleanness and not reconciled to it, will be anxious to avoid such risk.
^ᵃᵏnote:And hold that a leper needs re-immersion on the eighth day.
^ᵃˡnote:Who requires no morning immersion even in the case of a leper who is accustomed to uncleanness.
^ᵃᵐnote:Although they hold with Ben Zoma that every one entering the Sanctuary is by the law of the Torah obliged to immerse himself.
^ᵃⁿnote:That of leprosy, hence is accustomed to touch things unclean, whence the assumption that even after his immersion he may have done so; but other men require no morning immersion Biblically before entering the Sanctuary.
^ᵃᵒnote:Text in accord with Maharsha.