In the Temple, one who urinates, needs to wash his hands and feet. Why? One cannot read Shema if one has excrement on one’s body in its place. The gemara tries to understand this halakha as the Torah was not given to the angels! If one leaves a meal to go to the bathroom or to talk to a friend outside for a long period of time, does one need to wash again upon returning to the meal? If so, does one need to do it in front of everyone so that they don’t suspect him of not washing? On what does this depend? One needs to go to the mikveh before entering the azara of the Temple. On Yom Kippur, the Kohen Gadol would dip in the mikveh five times and would wash his hands and feet ten times. Four of the five dippings were done in the azara in the Beit HaParva, but the first was done outside, above the water gate. Why does one need to go to the mikveh before going into the azara? Ben Zoma and Rabbi Yehuda debate this issue and whether it is by Torah law or rabbinic. What is the practical difference between their opinions? Rabbi Yehuda says in another braita that the leper doesn’t need to go to the mikveh on the 8th day of his purification process as he has gone the evening before. How does his opinion here fit with his opinion in his debate with Ben Zoma? From those who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda in the latter braita, it becomes clear that there is a third approach that only a leper needs to go to the mikveh before entering the azara. Why?
Yoma 30
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Yoma 30
מִצְוָה לְשַׁפְשֵׁף. מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אַמֵּי, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: אָסוּר לְאָדָם שֶׁיֵּצֵא בְּנִיצוֹצוֹת שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי רַגְלָיו, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּרְאֶה כִּכְרוּת שׇׁפְכָה, וּמוֹצִיא לַעַז עַל בָּנָיו שֶׁהֵן מַמְזֵרִים.
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.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: צוֹאָה בִּמְקוֹמָהּ, אָסוּר לִקְרוֹת קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּנִרְאֵית — פְּשִׁיטָא. אִי דְּלֹא נִרְאֵית — לֹא נִיתְּנָה תּוֹרָה לְמַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת! לָא צְרִיכָא: דְּיוֹשֵׁב וְנִרְאֵית, עוֹמֵד וְאֵינָהּ נִרְאֵית.
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.
וּמַאי שְׁנָא מִצּוֹאָה עַל בְּשָׂרוֹ? דְּאִיתְּמַר: צוֹאָה עַל בְּשָׂרוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ יָדָיו בְּבֵית הַכִּסֵּא, רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: מוּתָּר לִקְרוֹת קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע, וְרַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר: אָסוּר לִקְרוֹת קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע. בִּמְקוֹמָהּ נְפִישׁ זוּהֲמָא, שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹמָהּ לָא נְפִישׁ זוּהֲמָא.
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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן הֲלָכָה בִּסְעוּדָה: אָדָם יוֹצֵא לְהַשְׁתִּין מַיִם — נוֹטֵל יָדוֹ אַחַת וְנִכְנָס. דִּיבֵּר עִם חֲבֵירוֹ וְהִפְלִיג — נוֹטֵל שְׁתֵּי יָדָיו וְנִכְנָס. וּכְשֶׁהוּא נוֹטֵל, לֹא יִטּוֹל מִבַּחוּץ וְיִכָּנֵס, מִפְּנֵי חֲשָׁד. אֶלָּא נִכְנָס וְיוֹשֵׁב בִּמְקוֹמוֹ וְנוֹטֵל שְׁתֵּי יָדָיו, וּמַחֲזִיר הַטָּפִיחַ עַל הָאוֹרְחִין.
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.
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא לִשְׁתּוֹת, אֲבָל לֶאֱכוֹל — נוֹטֵל מִבַּחוּץ וְנִכְנָס, דְּמִידָּע יְדִיעַ דַּאֲנִינָא דַּעְתֵּיהּ. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: וַאֲנָא אֲפִילּוּ לִשְׁתּוֹת נָמֵי, מִידָּע יָדְעִי דַּאֲנִינָא דַּעְתַּאי.
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.
מַתְנִי׳ אֵין אָדָם נִכְנָס לָעֲזָרָה לַעֲבוֹדָה אֲפִילּוּ טָהוֹר עַד שֶׁיִּטְבּוֹל. חָמֵשׁ טְבִילוֹת וַעֲשָׂרָה קִדּוּשִׁין טוֹבֵל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל וּמְקַדֵּשׁ בּוֹ בַּיּוֹם, וְכוּלָּן בַּקֹּדֶשׁ עַל בֵּית הַפַּרְוָה, חוּץ מִזּוֹ בִּלְבַד. פֵּרְסוּ סָדִין שֶׁל בּוּץ בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין הָעָם (קִידֵּשׁ יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו).
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.
גְּמָ׳ שָׁאֲלוּ אֶת בֶּן זוֹמָא: טְבִילָה זוֹ, לָמָּה? אָמַר לָהֶם: וּמָה הַמְשַׁנֶּה מִקּוֹדֶשׁ לְקוֹדֶשׁ, וּמִמָּקוֹם שֶׁעָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת לְמָקוֹם שֶׁעָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת — טָעוּן טְבִילָה. הַמְשַׁנֶּה מֵחוֹל לְקוֹדֶשׁ, וּמִמָּקוֹם שֶׁאֵין עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת לְמָקוֹם שֶׁעָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁטָּעוּן טְבִילָה?
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.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: סֶרֶךְ טְבִילָה הִיא זוֹ, כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּזְכּוֹר טוּמְאָה יְשָׁנָה שֶׁבְּיָדוֹ וְיִפְרוֹשׁ.
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.
בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי?
The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do ben Zoma and Rabbi Yehuda, who provided two different rationales for the immersion, disagree?
בְּאַחוֹלֵי עֲבוֹדָה קָא מִיפַּלְגִי. לְבֶן זוֹמָא, מַחֵיל עֲבוֹדָה. לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לָא מַחֵיל עֲבוֹדָה.
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.
וּלְבֶן זוֹמָא מִי מַחֵיל? וְהָתַנְיָא: כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁלֹּא טָבַל וְלֹא קִידֵּשׁ בֵּין בֶּגֶד לְבֶגֶד וּבֵין עֲבוֹדָה לַעֲבוֹדָה — עֲבוֹדָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. אֶחָד כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל וְאֶחָד כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט שֶׁלֹּא קִידֵּשׁ יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו שַׁחֲרִית וְעָבַד עֲבוֹדָה — עֲבוֹדָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה.
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.
אֶלָּא: לְמֵיקַם בַּעֲשֵׂה קָא מִיפַּלְגִי. לְבֶן זוֹמָא קָאֵי בַּעֲשֵׂה, לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לָא קָאֵי בַּעֲשֵׂה.
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.
וּמִי אִית לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַאי סְבָרָא? וְהָתַנְיָא: מְצוֹרָע — טוֹבֵל וְעוֹמֵד בְּשַׁעַר נִיקָנוֹר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ טְבִילָה, שֶׁכְּבָר טָבַל מִבָּעֶרֶב.
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.
הָהוּא, כִּדְתָנֵי טַעְמָא: שֶׁכְּבָר טָבַל מִבָּעֶרֶב.
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.
וּדְקָאָרֵי לַהּ מַאי קָאָרֵי לַהּ? מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא בָּעֵי לְמִרְמֵא אַחֲרִיתִי עֲלַיהּ: לִשְׁכַּת הַמְצוֹרָעִין שֶׁשָּׁם מְצוֹרָעִין טוֹבְלִין. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לֹא מְצוֹרָעִין בִּלְבַד אָמְרוּ, אֶלָּא כָּל אָדָם.
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.
לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דִּטְבֵיל, הָא דְּלָא טְבֵיל. אִי דְּלָא טְבֵיל — הֶעֱרֵב שֶׁמֶשׁ בָּעֵי! אֶלָּא: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי דִּטְבֵיל. הָא דְּאַסַּח דַּעְתֵּיהּ, הָא דְּלָא אַסַּח דַּעְתֵּיהּ.
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.
אִי אַסַּח דַּעְתֵּיהּ, הַזָּאַת שְׁלִישִׁי וּשְׁבִיעִי בָּעֵי. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי דּוֹסְתַּאי בַּר מָתוּן אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֶסַּח הַדַּעַת צָרִיךְ הַזָּאָה שְׁלִישִׁי וּשְׁבִיעִי!
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.
אֶלָּא אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי דְּלָא אַסַּח דַּעְתֵּיהּ, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דִּטְבֵיל עַל דַּעַת בִּיאַת מִקְדָּשׁ, הָא דְּלָא טְבֵיל עַל דַּעַת בִּיאַת מִקְדָּשׁ. וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא תָּנֵי: לֹא מְצוֹרָעִין אָמְרוּ, אֶלָּא כָּל אָדָם.
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.
רָבִינָא אָמַר: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְדִבְרֵיהֶם דְּרַבָּנַן קָאָמַר לְהוּ: לְדִידִי — מְצוֹרָע אֵין צָרִיךְ טְבִילָה, לְדִידְכוּ — אוֹדוֹ לִי אִיזִי מִיהַת דְּלֹא מְצוֹרָעִין בִּלְבַד אָמְרוּ, אֶלָּא כָּל אָדָם. וְרַבָּנַן: מְצוֹרָע דָּיֵישׁ בְּטוּמְאָה, כׇּל אָדָם לָא דָּיְישִׁי בְּטוּמְאָה.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף: נֵימָא רַבָּנַן דִּפְלִיגִי עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה — כְּבֶן זוֹמָא סְבִירָא לְהוּ, וְהַאי דְּקָתָנֵי מְצוֹרָע, לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחוֹ דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. אוֹ דִילְמָא, שָׁאנֵי מְצוֹרָע דְּדָיֵישׁ בְּטוּמְאָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ: שָׁאנֵי מְצוֹרָע דְּדָיֵישׁ בְּטוּמְאָה.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף (לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּאָמַר: סֶרֶךְ) טְבִילָה (הִיא) זוֹ,
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,
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Ontario, Canada
Los Angeles, United States
I started learning at the beginning of this cycle more than 2 years ago, and I have not missed a day or a daf. It’s been challenging and enlightening and even mind-numbing at times, but the learning and the shared experience have all been worth it. If you are open to it, there’s no telling what might come into your life.
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Cambridge, United Kingdom
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Minneapolis, United States
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Atlanta, United States
Jerusalem, Israel
I began learning with Rabbanit Michelle’s wonderful Talmud Skills class on Pesachim, which really enriched my Pesach seder, and I have been learning Daf Yomi off and on over the past year. Because I’m relatively new at this, there is a “chiddush” for me every time I learn, and the knowledge and insights of the group members add so much to my experience. I feel very lucky to be a part of this.
Karmiel, Israel
Hearing and reading about the siyumim at the completion of the 13 th cycle Daf Yomi asked our shul rabbi about starting the Daf – he directed me to another shiur in town he thought would allow a woman to join, and so I did! Love seeing the sources for the Divrei Torah I’ve been hearing for the past decades of living an observant life and raising 5 children .
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
Richmond, CA, United States
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
אפרת, Israel
Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!
Jerusalem, Israel
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
New Jersey, United States
When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.
Ra’anana, Israel
Minneapolis, MN, United States
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
Bronx, United States
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Pennsylvania, United States
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Ashdod, Israel
I had tried to start after being inspired by the hadran siyum, but did not manage to stick to it. However, just before masechet taanit, our rav wrote a message to the shul WhatsApp encouraging people to start with masechet taanit, so I did! And this time, I’m hooked! I listen to the shiur every day , and am also trying to improve my skills.
Yad Binyamin, Israel
Yoma 30
מִצְוָה לְשַׁפְשֵׁף. מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אַמֵּי, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: אָסוּר לְאָדָם שֶׁיֵּצֵא בְּנִיצוֹצוֹת שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי רַגְלָיו, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּרְאֶה כִּכְרוּת שׇׁפְכָה, וּמוֹצִיא לַעַז עַל בָּנָיו שֶׁהֵן מַמְזֵרִים.
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.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: צוֹאָה בִּמְקוֹמָהּ, אָסוּר לִקְרוֹת קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּנִרְאֵית — פְּשִׁיטָא. אִי דְּלֹא נִרְאֵית — לֹא נִיתְּנָה תּוֹרָה לְמַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת! לָא צְרִיכָא: דְּיוֹשֵׁב וְנִרְאֵית, עוֹמֵד וְאֵינָהּ נִרְאֵית.
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.
וּמַאי שְׁנָא מִצּוֹאָה עַל בְּשָׂרוֹ? דְּאִיתְּמַר: צוֹאָה עַל בְּשָׂרוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ יָדָיו בְּבֵית הַכִּסֵּא, רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: מוּתָּר לִקְרוֹת קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע, וְרַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר: אָסוּר לִקְרוֹת קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע. בִּמְקוֹמָהּ נְפִישׁ זוּהֲמָא, שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹמָהּ לָא נְפִישׁ זוּהֲמָא.
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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן הֲלָכָה בִּסְעוּדָה: אָדָם יוֹצֵא לְהַשְׁתִּין מַיִם — נוֹטֵל יָדוֹ אַחַת וְנִכְנָס. דִּיבֵּר עִם חֲבֵירוֹ וְהִפְלִיג — נוֹטֵל שְׁתֵּי יָדָיו וְנִכְנָס. וּכְשֶׁהוּא נוֹטֵל, לֹא יִטּוֹל מִבַּחוּץ וְיִכָּנֵס, מִפְּנֵי חֲשָׁד. אֶלָּא נִכְנָס וְיוֹשֵׁב בִּמְקוֹמוֹ וְנוֹטֵל שְׁתֵּי יָדָיו, וּמַחֲזִיר הַטָּפִיחַ עַל הָאוֹרְחִין.
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.
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא לִשְׁתּוֹת, אֲבָל לֶאֱכוֹל — נוֹטֵל מִבַּחוּץ וְנִכְנָס, דְּמִידָּע יְדִיעַ דַּאֲנִינָא דַּעְתֵּיהּ. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: וַאֲנָא אֲפִילּוּ לִשְׁתּוֹת נָמֵי, מִידָּע יָדְעִי דַּאֲנִינָא דַּעְתַּאי.
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.
מַתְנִי׳ אֵין אָדָם נִכְנָס לָעֲזָרָה לַעֲבוֹדָה אֲפִילּוּ טָהוֹר עַד שֶׁיִּטְבּוֹל. חָמֵשׁ טְבִילוֹת וַעֲשָׂרָה קִדּוּשִׁין טוֹבֵל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל וּמְקַדֵּשׁ בּוֹ בַּיּוֹם, וְכוּלָּן בַּקֹּדֶשׁ עַל בֵּית הַפַּרְוָה, חוּץ מִזּוֹ בִּלְבַד. פֵּרְסוּ סָדִין שֶׁל בּוּץ בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין הָעָם (קִידֵּשׁ יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו).
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.
גְּמָ׳ שָׁאֲלוּ אֶת בֶּן זוֹמָא: טְבִילָה זוֹ, לָמָּה? אָמַר לָהֶם: וּמָה הַמְשַׁנֶּה מִקּוֹדֶשׁ לְקוֹדֶשׁ, וּמִמָּקוֹם שֶׁעָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת לְמָקוֹם שֶׁעָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת — טָעוּן טְבִילָה. הַמְשַׁנֶּה מֵחוֹל לְקוֹדֶשׁ, וּמִמָּקוֹם שֶׁאֵין עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת לְמָקוֹם שֶׁעָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁטָּעוּן טְבִילָה?
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.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: סֶרֶךְ טְבִילָה הִיא זוֹ, כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּזְכּוֹר טוּמְאָה יְשָׁנָה שֶׁבְּיָדוֹ וְיִפְרוֹשׁ.
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.
בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי?
The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do ben Zoma and Rabbi Yehuda, who provided two different rationales for the immersion, disagree?
בְּאַחוֹלֵי עֲבוֹדָה קָא מִיפַּלְגִי. לְבֶן זוֹמָא, מַחֵיל עֲבוֹדָה. לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לָא מַחֵיל עֲבוֹדָה.
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.
וּלְבֶן זוֹמָא מִי מַחֵיל? וְהָתַנְיָא: כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁלֹּא טָבַל וְלֹא קִידֵּשׁ בֵּין בֶּגֶד לְבֶגֶד וּבֵין עֲבוֹדָה לַעֲבוֹדָה — עֲבוֹדָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. אֶחָד כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל וְאֶחָד כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט שֶׁלֹּא קִידֵּשׁ יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו שַׁחֲרִית וְעָבַד עֲבוֹדָה — עֲבוֹדָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה.
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.
אֶלָּא: לְמֵיקַם בַּעֲשֵׂה קָא מִיפַּלְגִי. לְבֶן זוֹמָא קָאֵי בַּעֲשֵׂה, לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לָא קָאֵי בַּעֲשֵׂה.
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.
וּמִי אִית לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַאי סְבָרָא? וְהָתַנְיָא: מְצוֹרָע — טוֹבֵל וְעוֹמֵד בְּשַׁעַר נִיקָנוֹר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ טְבִילָה, שֶׁכְּבָר טָבַל מִבָּעֶרֶב.
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.
הָהוּא, כִּדְתָנֵי טַעְמָא: שֶׁכְּבָר טָבַל מִבָּעֶרֶב.
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.
וּדְקָאָרֵי לַהּ מַאי קָאָרֵי לַהּ? מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא בָּעֵי לְמִרְמֵא אַחֲרִיתִי עֲלַיהּ: לִשְׁכַּת הַמְצוֹרָעִין שֶׁשָּׁם מְצוֹרָעִין טוֹבְלִין. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לֹא מְצוֹרָעִין בִּלְבַד אָמְרוּ, אֶלָּא כָּל אָדָם.
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.
לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דִּטְבֵיל, הָא דְּלָא טְבֵיל. אִי דְּלָא טְבֵיל — הֶעֱרֵב שֶׁמֶשׁ בָּעֵי! אֶלָּא: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי דִּטְבֵיל. הָא דְּאַסַּח דַּעְתֵּיהּ, הָא דְּלָא אַסַּח דַּעְתֵּיהּ.
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.
אִי אַסַּח דַּעְתֵּיהּ, הַזָּאַת שְׁלִישִׁי וּשְׁבִיעִי בָּעֵי. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי דּוֹסְתַּאי בַּר מָתוּן אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֶסַּח הַדַּעַת צָרִיךְ הַזָּאָה שְׁלִישִׁי וּשְׁבִיעִי!
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.
אֶלָּא אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי דְּלָא אַסַּח דַּעְתֵּיהּ, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דִּטְבֵיל עַל דַּעַת בִּיאַת מִקְדָּשׁ, הָא דְּלָא טְבֵיל עַל דַּעַת בִּיאַת מִקְדָּשׁ. וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא תָּנֵי: לֹא מְצוֹרָעִין אָמְרוּ, אֶלָּא כָּל אָדָם.
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.
רָבִינָא אָמַר: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְדִבְרֵיהֶם דְּרַבָּנַן קָאָמַר לְהוּ: לְדִידִי — מְצוֹרָע אֵין צָרִיךְ טְבִילָה, לְדִידְכוּ — אוֹדוֹ לִי אִיזִי מִיהַת דְּלֹא מְצוֹרָעִין בִּלְבַד אָמְרוּ, אֶלָּא כָּל אָדָם. וְרַבָּנַן: מְצוֹרָע דָּיֵישׁ בְּטוּמְאָה, כׇּל אָדָם לָא דָּיְישִׁי בְּטוּמְאָה.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף: נֵימָא רַבָּנַן דִּפְלִיגִי עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה — כְּבֶן זוֹמָא סְבִירָא לְהוּ, וְהַאי דְּקָתָנֵי מְצוֹרָע, לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחוֹ דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. אוֹ דִילְמָא, שָׁאנֵי מְצוֹרָע דְּדָיֵישׁ בְּטוּמְאָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ: שָׁאנֵי מְצוֹרָע דְּדָיֵישׁ בְּטוּמְאָה.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף (לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּאָמַר: סֶרֶךְ) טְבִילָה (הִיא) זוֹ,
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,
