Yoma 30a — the Talmud in English

It is a mitzva

for one who urinates

to rub

with his hand the droplets of urine that splash onto his feet, so that he not appear like one whose organ has been cut off [whose organ has been severed], whose urine does not stream far but drips and descends. And one whose organ has been cut off cannot father children, and they will say about his sons that they are not his; rather, they are mamzerim.

This supports

from the words of Rabbi Abba there is support [proof

for Rabbi Ami.]]

For Rabbi Ami said: It is forbidden for a person to go out with droplets on his feet, because he appears like one whose organ has been cut off, and he thereby

brings

disgrace upon his sons, that they are mamzerim.]]

Rav Pappa said:

if there was

feces in its place

in the opening of the anus—

it is forbidden

for a person

to recite the Shema.

And we raised an objection concerning it:

What are the circumstances,

in what manner is this speaking?

If it is visible,

if the feces is situated in a place that could be seen if the person were naked—

it is obvious

that it is forbidden for him to recite the Shema! And what is Rav Pappa teaching us?

And

if

it is speaking of a situation

where it is not visible

when the person is naked, it is difficult: how can it be possible in such a situation to forbid reciting the Shema? For it is impossible to be careful about it, and after all,

the Torah was not given to ministering angels

but to human beings, and they cannot be careful about it! And we answer:

It is necessary

Rav Pappa needed to teach us only in this situation:

when he sits, it is visible

[when he sits, it is visible].

When he stands—

it is not visible.]

One might have said that since when he stands it is not visible, the matter is considered something about which it is impossible to be careful, and it is permitted. Rav Pappa therefore came and taught us that it is possible to be careful about this, and therefore it is forbidden to recite the Shema until he wipes it.

And we challenge:

What is different,

in what is the law of feces in its place different, that it is forbidden even if he stands and it is not visible,

from feces on his flesh,

on the rest of the body [not in its place]?

For it was stated:

if there was

feces on his flesh, or if his

hands

alone were

in the privy,

for example, he stood and inserted his hands into the privy through that opening, what is his law?

Rav Huna said: It is permitted to recite the Shema, as it is stated: “Let every soul praise the Lord” [Berakhot 25a].

That is, only the mouth and the nose, in which there is breathing, are included in the praise, but not the other limbs [Rashi there].

That is, only the mouth and nose, with which one breathes, are included in the praise, but not the other limbs [Rashi there].

And Rav Hisda said: It is forbidden to recite the Shema:

as it is stated: “All my bones shall say: Lord, who is like You?” [Berakhot 25a].

And from Rav Huna’s words, who said that it is permitted to recite the Shema with feces on his flesh, there is a difficulty against Rav Pappa, who said that feces in its place is forbidden with regard to reciting the Shema [Rif, Berakhot 16a in the pages of the Rif; and Ritva here].

And we answer: Feces

in its place—

its odor is abundant.

Its odor is strong, because it is warm, since it has not gone out into the air. Therefore it is forbidden even when it is on his flesh and not at the opening of the anus.

But

not in its place—

its odor is not abundant,

its odor is not strong, and therefore it is permitted to recite the Shema.

The Sages taught: The halakha

that they said

in

the laws of

a meal:

A person

who

goes out

from the place of the meal

to urinate,

it is sufficient that he

wash one hand,

with which he rubbed the droplets,

and enters

the place of the meal.

But if he

spoke

outside

with his fellow, and prolonged his absence,

for one or two hours, since he prolonged his absence, he diverted his attention from his meal, and was not careful to keep his hands clean, and hands are active. And there is concern lest he touched filthy places.

Therefore,

he washes both his hands and enters.

And when he washes

his hands,

he should not wash outside and enter, because of suspicion,

that they will suspect him of not having washed his hands.

Rather, he enters and sits in his place, and washes both his hands

inside.

And so that everyone would know that he had washed his hands, the attendant would take the pitcher from which water was poured onto the hands, and its name was “tapiach,”

and would return

[and circulate]

the tapiach among

[among]

the guests

and ask them: Is there among you someone who needs to wash his hands?

Rav Hisda said:

What we said in the beraita, that when he washes he should not wash his hands outside but inside,

we said this

we stated this law

only

when he finished eating and enters only

to drink.

For this was the custom in the time of the Gemara: after they finished eating, they prolonged their drinking.

And even though he enters not to eat but only to drink, he is obligated to wash his hands, lest he put a piece into his mouth; and he is obligated to wash inside so that they will not suspect him of not having washed at all.

But

if he enters

to eat, he may wash

[he is permitted to wash]

outside and enter,

since in this case they will not suspect him of not having washed, because

it is known that his mind is fastidious

everyone knows that a person’s mind is fastidious and he is disgusted by eating with unclean hands.

Rav Nahman bar Yitzchak said: And I,

I,

even

when I enter

to drink as well,

also in this case I am permitted to wash my hand outside, because

it is known

everyone knows

that my mind is fastidious,

that my mind is fastidious and I am disgusted by drinking with unclean hands. And they will not suspect me of not having washed my hand.

Mishna:

In the preceding Mishna it was explained that anyone who evacuates requires immersion. And our Mishna will explain that before the priest enters the forecourt for the service, he requires immersion, even if he did not evacuate.

a.

No person enters the forecourt

for the service, even

if he is

pure—

until he immerses.

Rashi’s view is that even if he enters not for the service, he requires immersion, but Rabbi Yehuda, the author of the Tosafot, holds that he requires immersion specifically if he enters for the service.

b.

Five immersions and ten sanctifications

[washing of the hands and feet from the basin]

the High Priest immerses and sanctifies on that day

[on the Day of Atonement].

When he changed his service, from the ordinary service to the service special to the Day of Atonement, and likewise in reverse, he changed garments. At every change of garments, he sanctified before removing his garments, removed them, and immersed. And he donned other garments and sanctified a second time.

And five times he changed his garments. Thus there were five immersions and ten sanctifications. [And the Gemara below will explain the order of the proceedings.]

And all of them,

all the immersions—

in the sanctified area,

in the forecourt,

on

the roof of the chamber of

the House of Parva

were performed. For it is stated concerning the services of the Day of Atonement [Leviticus 16:24]: “And he shall bathe his flesh in water in a sanctified place,” that is, in the forecourt.

Except for this one,

mentioned in the Mishna above, where he immersed before entering the forecourt, which

alone

was outside the forecourt, because this immersion was not specific to the Day of Atonement; rather, it was by virtue of the immersion that every person performs before entering the forecourt [and this is explained more fully below].

c. And now the Mishna returns to the order of the service of the Day of Atonement, which we learned at the beginning of the chapter: when the time for slaughtering the daily offering arrived, they brought the High Priest down to the immersion chamber.

At the place where the High Priest immersed,

they spread a linen sheet

white linen

between him and the people,

in order to conceal him at the time of his immersion [and the Gemara explains why they made the sheet of linen].

Gemara:

They asked Ben Zoma: This immersion,

which everyone who enters the forecourt performs—

why

does a pure person need to immerse?

He said to them:

The Sages learned this matter by means of a kal va-chomer:

And what

of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement,

who changes

his place of service

from one sanctified

place

to another sanctified

place, for example, from service inside the Temple to service outside, in the forecourt, or conversely, from outside to inside, even though both places are sanctified—

And

likewise, what he changes is

from a place where

if he entered it in a state of impurity

he would be liable to excision, to a place where he would be liable to excision.

For one who enters the forecourt in a state of impurity is likewise liable to excision.

And nevertheless he

requires immersion

when he changes his service from one place to another.

If so, every person who enters the forecourt,

who changes

from

a place

of the non-sacred

[from his home]

to

a place

of the sacred,

and from a place for which there is no liability of excision

[from his home]

to a place for which there is liability of excision

[to the forecourt],

is it not logical that he should require immersion?!

Rabbi Judah says:

According to the Torah, not everyone who enters the courtyard is liable for immersion. Rather,

this is an immersion of “mere adjunct.”

That is, this is a customary immersion [R. Hananel], which the Sages imposed upon him

so that

he would consider the matter and ask himself: “After all, there is immersion only for the impure!” And he would understand that they were concerned lest he be impure, and when he considered the matter,

he would remember an “old” impurity in his possession,

that he was impure with an old impurity, which he had forgotten.

And he would immerse,

and separate himself

from entering the courtyard for that entire day, until the sun set after the immersion [for every impure person who immerses is required to await sunset before entering the courtyard], and he would not perform the service on that day.

And we raised an objection to this:

Over what do they disagree?

What is the practical difference in the dispute between Ben Zoma and Rabbi Judah?