Previous daf

1)

(a) It is obvious that, after going to the bathroom, a Kohen needed to make Kidush *Raglayim* - because of the Mitzvah to wipe off any drops that may have fallen on to his legs. This is necessary, so that people should not suspect him of being a 'Kerus Shafchah', who cannot urinate properly. A Kerus Shafchah is unable to have children, and they will stigmatize all his children as Mamzeirim.

(b) How can Rav Papa declare that a person who has 'excrement in its place' is forbidden to recite the Shema - the Gemara asks? If the excrement is visible, then it is obvious. And if it is *not*, then why should one not recite the Shema - the Torah was not given to angels, but to humans?

(c) We therefore establish Rav Papa when the excrement was *not* visible when the person was *standing*, but *was* visible, when he *sat*.

(a) If a person places just his hands inside a bathroom or if he has excrement on his body, Rav Chisda *forbids* him to recite the Shema - because of the Pasuk in Tehilim "Kol Atzmosai Tomarnah Hashem" (*all* the bones of a person must praise Hashem, not just *some* of them).

(b) Rav Huna *permits* it.

(c) Rav Huna and Rav Chisda will agree that excrement in its place is particularly disgusting, and reciting the Shema therefore, is forbidden even when it would *not* be forbidden were it to be found on another part of the body.

(a) someone who goes out in the middle of a meal to urinate - is obligated to re-wash the *hand* with which he wiped away the drops; but if he goes out to speak to a friend for an extended period of time - he is obligated to wash *both hands* (because he took his mind off the meal, and did not therefore guard his hands from touching things that will render them Tamei).

(b) To ensure that the other participants do not suspect him of not having washed his hands - he must wash them in their presence, and pass the cup round to them too.

(c) It is only the person who merely intends to *drink* who needs to wash his hands in front of the other participants, because they will suspect him of placing food into his mouth during the drinking session (which was common in those days). Someone who re-join the meal to *eat* is permitted to wash outside. No-one will suspect him of eating with unclean hands.

(d) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak claimed that he was well-known to be particularly finicky in these matters. Consequently, even if he re-joined the gathering for the drinking session only, he would be able to wash outside, since nobody would suspect him of sitting down to drink with unclean hands.

(a) Whoever entered the Azarah had to Tovel first - whether it was for the Avodah or not (see also Tosfos and Tosfos Yeshanim).

(b) The Kohen Gadol required five Tevilos and ten Kidushei Yadayim ve'Raglayim on Yom Kipur.

(c) Four of these Tevilos took place in the Mikveh that was in the Beis ha'Parvah. The first Tevilah (currently being dealt with) - which was not connected to Yom Kipur (since whoever entered the Azarah on *any day of the year* for the first time, was obligated to Tovel). Consequently, it took place in the Mikveh on top of the Sha'ar ha'Mayim that was next to the Gadol's room.

(a) To prevent the people from seeing the Kohen Gadol Tovel - they would hold up a sheet between him and the people.

(b) Ben Zoma learns that a Tahor person needs to Tovel before entering the Azarah - from a Kal va'Chomer: if a Kohen Gadol needed to Tovel between one Avodah and another (even though he was going from Kodesh to Kodesh), then how much more so someone who enters the Kodesh from the Chol.

(c) Rebbi Yehudah gives the reason for the Takanah of Toveling before entering the Azarah - so that, should he be Tamei, he will remember and desist from doing the Avodah.

6)

(a) According to the Beraisa, a Kohen Gadol who failed to Tovel or to make Kidush Yadayim ve'Raglayim between changes of clothing or between one Avodah and the other - does *not* profane the Avodah; whereas any Kohen who did not perform Kidush Yadayim ve'Raglayim before starting the Avodah in the morning - *does*.

(b) Initially, we thought that, according to Ben Zoma, a Kohen who does not Tovel before performing the Avodah profanes it. But now we see that even the Kohen Gadol (from whom Ben Zoma derived his statement with a 'Kal va'Chomer') does not profane it!

(c) In fact, their bone of contention is whether or not, the Kohen transgresses an Asei (d'Oraysa) - according to Ben Zoma, he *does* indeed transgress, according to Rebbi Yehudah, he does *not*.

(a) Rebbi Yehudah agrees that whoever enters the Azarah requires Tevilah (albeit mi'de'Rabbanan). Nevertheless, he exempts a Metzora from Tevilah on the eighth day - because he already Toveled on the seventh.

(b) This answer is obvious however, because, in the Beraisa, Rebbi Yehudah specifically gave this as his reason.

(c) When Rebbi Yehudah said that it is not only the *Metzora* who Tovels in the Lishkas Metzora'im, but *anyone who is Tamei*, he is implying that a Metzora certainly has to Tovel (before the ceremony at the Sha'ar Nikanor), which contradicts what he said in the other Beraisa - that he does not need to Tovel a second time.

(d) We try to answer that that Beraisa refers to a Metzora who has not yet Toveled. The problem with that is that, if that is so, how can the Tevilah on the eighth day be effective, seeing as Tevilah requires Ha'arev Shemesh (waiting for night-fall) before one becomes Tahor.

(a) The problem with establishing Rebbi Yehudah by a Metzora who Toveled on the seventh day, but who had subsequently been Mesi'ach Da'as - is that in that case, he would require sprinkling on the third and seventh days (in case he had become Tamei Mes).

(b) We finally establish the Beraisa (even assuming that Rebbi Yehudah obligated Metzo'ra'im too, to Tovel) - when he Toveled, but not having in mind to enter the Beis Hamikdash (which requires him to re-Tovel with that in mind) even though he is effectively Tahor.

(c) Ravina finally answers that Rebbi Yehudah really holds that a Metzora does not require a second Tevilah (as he specifically stated in the first Beraisa). When he said in the second Beraisa 'Not *only* Metzora'im require Tevilah ... ', he was challenging the Chachamim, and saying to them 'I personally am of the opinion that a Metzora does not need to re-Tovel (even though anybody else who enters the Azarah, does require Tevilah), but you, who refer to the Lishkas Metzora'im because the Metzora'im Toveled there, won't you agree that everyone else had to Tovel there too (before they entered the Azarah)'?

(a) If the Rabbanan hold like Ben Zoma (as Abaye contended) - then, when they said 'Metzora Tovel ve'Omed be'Sha'ar Nikanor', they only mentioned Metzora, in order to evoke Rebbi Yehudah's response, to demonstrate that he exempts a Metzora from re-Toveling.

(b) If however, they don't hold like Ben Zoma, then, in their opinion, it is only a Metzora who will be obligated to Tovel (albeit a second time), because, until then, he was accustomed to touch everything in his state of Tum'ah; so he is more likely to be careless and touch things be'Tumah now, too. But other people do not require Tevilah before entering the Azarah.