Yoma 30b — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

They disagree with regard to invalidating the service.

Ben Zoma and Rabbi Yehuda disagree with regard to a priest who performed the service without immersing: whether, after the fact, his service is valid, or whether his service is invalidated and the offering is disqualified.

According to Ben Zoma,

who derived by means of a kal va-chomer that one who enters the Temple courtyard is obligated to immerse, this obligation to immerse is therefore מן התורה. And consequently,

it invalidates the service;

his service is invalidated.

But

according to Rabbi Yehuda,

who holds that this obligation to immerse is only rabbinic,

it does not invalidate [

invalidate ]

the service.

And we ask:

But according to Ben Zoma, does it invalidate?

Is it really the case that his service is invalidated?!

But wasn’t it taught:

And it was taught in a beraita:

A High Priest who did not immerse and did not sanctify himself between

the changing of

the garment

of gold

for the garment

of white,

and between

the changing of

the service [

performed inside ]

for the service [

performed outside ],

his service is valid.

Whether a High Priest or an ordinary priest, if he did not sanctify his hands and feet in the morning and performed the service—

his service is invalid.

And it is evident that only the washing of the hands and feet in the morning, before he begins to serve, is an indispensable requirement: if he did not wash, his service is invalid [and this was derived from the exposition of the verse in Zevahim 19b].

And it is explained in the beraita that when a High Priest did not immerse and did not sanctify himself on Yom Kippur when changing from one service to another, his service is valid.

But Ben Zoma derived a kal va-chomer from a High Priest who changes from the inner service to the outer service. And in the case of the High Priest himself, if he did not immerse and did not sanctify himself on Yom Kippur, his service is valid!

If so, how can it be said that the morning immersion, which is derived from the immersion of the High Priest, would disqualify the service after the fact?

Rather,

it is certainly the case according to everyone that if one did not immerse in the morning and performed the service, his service is valid. And with regard to what do Ben Zoma and Rabbi Yehuda disagree?

They disagree with regard to fulfilling a positive commandment.

They disagree as to whether the morning immersion is a positive commandment מן התורה:

According to Ben Zoma,

who derived it by a kal va-chomer from the High Priest,

he stands—

he is subject

to

the command of a

positive commandment.

As it is stated [Leviticus 16] concerning the service of the High Priest: “And he shall bathe his flesh in water in a sacred place, and he shall put on his garments, and he shall go out and perform his burnt offering” [Rabbenu Hananel; see Rashi and the gloss of the Bach].

But

according to Rabbi Yehuda,

who holds that this immersion is a safeguard and precaution,

he does not stand subject to a positive commandment [

he is not commanded and obligated by a “positive commandment” ].

And we ask:

Does Rabbi Yehuda really hold this

principle?

Does Rabbi Yehuda really hold that they decreed that everyone who enters the Temple courtyard must immerse?!

But wasn’t it taught

in a beraita concerning the laws of a leper, that according to Rabbi Yehuda a leper who enters the Temple courtyard to offer his offerings is not obligated to immerse, as follows:

A leper who has recovered from his leprosy brings two birds, cedar wood, scarlet wool, and hyssop, as explained in the portion concerning the leper [Leviticus 14], and immerses.

After he has immersed, he is still impure with the impurity of an “ первичная source of impurity,” and he counts seven days. On the seventh day he shaves his hair, launders his garments, and immerses a second time during the day.

On the eighth day he brings the offerings that the Torah obligates him to bring [as explained there in Leviticus].

On the seventh day, as long as the leper has not brought his offerings, he is called one whose atonement is incomplete and is forbidden to enter the Israelite Courtyard [which possesses the sanctity of the “camp of the Divine Presence”].

And it was taught in a beraita:

A leper

who has already counted seven days and immersed on the seventh day

immerses

again on the eighth day before bringing his offerings, as is required of anyone entering the Israelite Courtyard, who must immerse.

And he stands at the Nicanor Gate,

since the open space of the Nicanor Gate was not sanctified with the sanctity of the Israelite Courtyard, and one whose atonement is incomplete is permitted to stand there.

The leper stood there so that he could insert the thumbs of his hands and feet into the interior, and the priest placed on them some of the blood of the guilt offering and some of the log of oil.

Rabbi Yehuda

disagrees and

says:

A leper on the eighth day

does not need to immerse,

because

he already immersed the previous evening,

on the preceding seventh day.

We learn from this beraita that although the leper inserts the thumbs of his hands and feet into the Israelite Courtyard, he is not obligated to immerse on that day. Yet in the earlier beraita we learned that Rabbi Yehuda obligates everyone who enters the courtyard to immerse, so that he will remember an earlier impurity that he has and withdraw.

Thus, we have a contradiction in Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion!

And we answer: In fact, everyone who enters the courtyard is obligated to immerse.

And

that case,

what Rabbi Yehuda said—that a leper is not obligated to immerse on the eighth day—

is as its reason was taught,

because of the reason that was taught concerning it:

“He already immersed the previous evening.”

Since the immersion was close to the day on which he entered the Temple, as he had immersed the day before, there is no concern about an “earlier impurity,” but only about a new impurity. And they did not fear that he might forget it if he became impure. Therefore, they did not require him to immerse [Ritva].

And we ask:

But as for the one who raised it,

the one who cited the beraita dealing with a leper on the eighth day [according to which Rabbi Yehuda holds that he does not need to immerse]—

what purpose did he have in citing it?!

For what purpose did he cite the beraita? The reason for Rabbi Yehuda’s exempting the leper from immersion is explicitly stated in it: he had already immersed the previous evening. Clearly, then, there is no difficulty from here against Rabbi Yehuda’s statement that everyone entering the courtyard is obligated to immerse!

And we answer: The one who cited this beraita cited it for this reason:

because he wanted to raise another one against it,

as he wished to challenge it with a contradiction from another beraita:

For it was taught in a beraita: The Sages said:

The Leper’s Chamber

was on the Temple Mount,

where lepers immersed

before offering their offerings.

Rabbi Yehuda says: No

—

they said this not only for lepers,

the Sages instituted this chamber for immersion there,

but

for the immersion of

everyone

who enters the courtyard to offer his offerings.

From Rabbi Yehuda’s wording—“not only” lepers—it follows that he agrees with the Sages that lepers are obligated to immerse on the eighth day before bringing their offerings; he merely adds that everyone else is also obligated to immerse.

But this is difficult, for in the earlier beraita Rabbi Yehuda said that a leper does not need to immerse because he had already immersed the previous evening! Thus, the two beraitot contradict one another!

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

This

earlier beraita, in which Rabbi Yehuda says that a leper does not need to immerse, is speaking

when he immersed,

meaning that the leper immersed on the seventh day.

Whereas

this

beraita, from which it is evident that Rabbi Yehuda holds that a leper must immerse, is speaking

when he did not immerse.

The leper did not immerse on the seventh day, and therefore he is obligated to immerse on the eighth day.

And we ask:

If

the beraita is speaking in a case

where he did not immerse [

where the leper did not immerse the previous day ], this is difficult: He cannot bring his offerings on that day, since

he requires sunset—

he must wait until the sun sets [and the stars emerge] on the day on which he immersed, and only on the following day can he bring his offerings.

And since he cannot bring his offerings on that day, why does he need to immerse on the Temple Mount? He could immerse near his home, or wherever he wished [Tosafot, in their first resolution].

Rather,

it is necessarily the case that

both this and that,

in both cases [that is, in both of the aforementioned beraitot], the subject is one

who immersed [

who immersed ], and another resolution must be stated:

This

last beraita, in which Rabbi Yehuda obligates the leper to immerse despite his having immersed the previous day, is speaking

when he diverted his attention,

meaning that after immersing he ceased to take care not to touch something that conveys impurity. Therefore, we are concerned that he may have become impure, and he is obligated to immerse.

Whereas

this

first beraita, in which Rabbi Yehuda exempts the leper from immersing, is speaking

when he did not divert his attention,

meaning that he continued to take care not to become impure. Therefore, he does not need to immerse that day, since he had already immersed the previous day.

And we ask: How can the last beraita, in which Rabbi Yehuda obligates immersion, be explained as referring to one who diverted his attention?

But

if he diverted his attention,

if he ceased to take care, and there is concern that he entered a tent containing a corpse without noticing—

he requires sprinkling on the third and seventh days!

He must have the water of the parah aduma sprinkled upon him on the third and seventh days, and only afterward may he immerse and enter the courtyard!

As Rabbi Dostai bar Matun said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: One who diverts his attention

from impurity

requires sprinkling on the third and seventh days

before entering the courtyard!

Rather,

it is necessarily the case that

both this and that,

in both cases [that is, in both beraitot], the subject is one

who did not divert his attention [

who did not divert his attention ], and therefore he does not require sprinkling on the third and seventh days.

If so, the earlier difficulty returns: In the first beraita Rabbi Yehuda said that a leper does not immerse on the eighth day, whereas in the last beraita he said that the leper does immerse!

And we answer:

And it is not difficult.

This

first beraita, in which Rabbi Yehuda exempts the leper from immersing, is speaking of one

who immersed

the previous day

with the intention of entering the Temple,

meaning that at the time of immersion he intended to purify himself in order to enter the Temple.

Whereas

this

last beraita, in which Rabbi Yehuda obligates the leper to immerse, is speaking of one

who did not immerse with the intention of entering the Temple,

for one who immerses with the intention of purifying himself for a less stringent matter does not become purified for a more stringent matter.

For example, one who immerses with the intention of purifying himself to eat teruma is not pure to eat sacrificial food, as explained in tractate Hagiga [18b]. Therefore, he must immerse again on the eighth day.

And if you wish, say

that you can state another resolution:

In the question, we assumed that Rabbi Yehuda says [in the last beraita] that a leper must immerse, based on the implication of his wording: “They said this not only for lepers.” The word “only” implies that Rabbi Yehuda agrees with the Sages that a leper too requires immersion, and he merely added that everyone else also immerses there.

And in this resolution we answer:

Read

the words of Rabbi Yehuda as follows:

“They said this for lepers, but for everyone.”

The word “only” should not be read.

Accordingly, the beraita is to be explained as follows: The Sages hold that only lepers immerse on the eighth day before entering the courtyard, and their reason is explained below.

Whereas according to Rabbi Yehuda, only all other people immerse, but a leper does not immerse on the eighth day, because he had already immersed the previous evening [the day before].

Accordingly, there is no contradiction at all between the beraitot, and both of them explain that Rabbi Yehuda does not obligate a leper who immersed the previous evening to immerse.

Ravina said

another resolution to reconcile the two beraitot:

Indeed, the last beraita reads, “not only lepers.” But

Rabbi Yehuda, according to the statement of the Rabbis,

who said that lepers must immerse,

said to them

the following:

Indeed,

according to me,

according to my view,

a leper does not need to immerse [

as explained in the first beraita ].

But

according to you,

—

at least concede this to me,

my colleagues, concede this point to me at least—

that they did not say it only for lepers

who must immerse before entering the courtyard,

but for everyone.

And the Rabbis

did not concede this to him. They held that only a leper must immerse before entering the courtyard,

and the reason is: Since

a leper

is accustomed to impurity.

Until now he had been accustomed to being impure and was not careful to avoid touching something that conveys impurity. Therefore, they were concerned that after immersing he might still not take care and might touch impurity. [And they required him to immerse so that he would remember whether he had any impurity upon him and withdraw.]

But

everyone else—

is not accustomed [

accustomed ]

to impurity,

and there is no concern that he will forget his impurity.

It follows that according to Ravina, this is the subject of the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis: According to Rabbi Yehuda, everyone except a leper must immerse. According to the Rabbis, on the contrary, only a leper must immerse.

And this is in accordance with the preceding resolution [“And if you wish, say”].

Abaye said to Rav Yosef:

We learned in the first beraita: “A leper immerses and stands at the Nicanor Gate; Rabbi Yehuda says he does not need to immerse.” It is uncertain in what the Sages disagree with Rabbi Yehuda:

Shall we say

that

the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda,

hold in accordance with Ben Zoma —

that he obligates everyone to immerse מן התורה, and therefore even a leper who immersed the previous evening must immerse on the eighth day before entering the courtyard?

These Sages dispute the Sages in the second beraita, for in the second beraita the Sages said that specifically a metzora needs to immerse, but not every person.

And this that it teaches

that

metzora

immerses, although every person immerses, is—

to inform you of the force of Rabbi Judah,

that even a metzora who has become accustomed to ritual impurity does not need to immerse before entering the courtyard.

Or, perhaps

perhaps it should be interpreted differently:

The Sages in this beraita are those same Sages mentioned in the second beraita, who hold that specifically a metzora needs to immerse before entering the courtyard, because

shani metzora de-da'ish be-tum'a,

that a metzora differs from other people, because a metzora has become accustomed to ritual impurity. Therefore, they were concerned that perhaps he had not taken care and had become impure, and they required him to immerse by rabbinic enactment, but every other person does not need to immerse.

He said

—he answered

him—

Rav Yosef: The Sages in both beraitot hold that specifically a metzora needs to immerse, because

shani metzora de-da'ish be-tum'a.

Abaye said to Rav Yosef

there is room for doubt concerning

this immersion

of every person entering the courtyard, according to Rabbi Judah who said, “This is merely an appendage of immersion,” and it is only rabbinic.