(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


by Rabbi Ephraim Becker
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

Yoma 30

YOMA 27, 28, 29 (16 Shevat), 30 - have been dedicated by Gitle Bekelnitzky for the 38th Yahrzeit of Leah bas Mordechai Dovid and Chasya (Bikelnitzky), mother of her late husband, Simcha Bekelnitzky.


(a) Question: Why wash the hands as well?
(b) Answer: This implies a Mitzvah to wipe off (with the hands) the drops from one's legs (so as to prevent his being thought of as a Kerus Shafchah).
(c) Excrement in its place prohibits a person from saying Shema.
1. Question: Under what circumstances are we speaking?
(i) If it is visible, the Halachah is obvious.
(ii) If it is not visible, we are not angels!
2. Answer: The prohibition applies when it is visible when seated, and not when standing.
(d) Question: How is this law different from Tzoah on his body?
1. R. Huna: If there is Tzoah on his body or his hands are in the privy it is permitted to recite Shema.
2. R. Chisda: It is prohibited.
(e) Answer: Tzoah in its place is more malodorous.
(a) One who leaves the table to urinate need only wash the soiled hand (from wiping drops off his leg).
(b) If he tarried away from the table a long time, he must wash both hands before returning to the table.
(c) He should wash inside, lest he be suspected of not washing.
(d) The Shamash would make a point of his having washed.
(e) (R. Chisda) The requirement to wash inside is restricted to where he will only be drinking at the table.
1. If, however, he will continue eating, then he may wash outside (since all know that a person is careful not to eat with dirty hands).
2. R. Nachman b. Yitzhok added that all know that *he* is especially careful, and he could even wash outside for drinking.
(a) One may not enter the Azarah [to perform Avodah] without prior immersion (even if he is Tahor).
(b) The Kohen Gadol immersed five times and washed his hands/ feet 10 ten times.
(c) All of the immersions were in the Kodesh (above the Beis HaParvah) except the first, upon entry.
(d) When the Kohen Gadol immersed a sheet of linen was held up for modesty.
(a) Question: Why should a Tahor person immerse himself?
(b) Answer (Ben Zoma): It is a Kal VaChomer from the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur.
(c) Answer (R. Yehudah): It is a Chumrah to prompt the person to recall that he might be Tamei (and forbidden to enter).
(d) Question: What is their dispute?

(e) Answer: Whether (Ben Zoma) or not (R. Yehudah) his Avodah would be invalidated if he did not immerse.
(f) Question: But we have a Beraisa teaching that only the omission of the hand/feet makes Avodah Pesulah?!
(g) Answer: Indeed, the immersion would not invalidate, rather they are arguing whether (Ben Zoma) or not (R. Yehudah) there is an Aseh to immerse before entering in the morning.
(h) Question: But we have a Beraisa teaching that, according to R. Yehudah (dealing with the Metzora), one need *not* immerse prior to the Avodah of the thumbs.
(i) Answer: As stated clearly in the Beraisa, R. Yehudah relies on the immersion from the previous evening.
(j) Question: Why was this Beraisa even introduced?!
(k) Answer and Question: It is introduced because it contradicts another Beraisa which implies that, according to R. Yehudah, the Metzora *must* immerse before his Avodah (the Beraisa says that the Lishkah was not *only* for Metzoraim)!?
(l) Answer: One Beraisa is speaking where he *did* immerse the previous evening, and one where he did not.
(m) Question: But if he did not immerse, he requires waiting until nightfall (and he does his Avodah the next day)?!
(n) Answer: Rather, one Beraisa speaks where is was Masiach Da'as, and one where he was not.
(o) Question: But if he was Masiach Da'as, then he requires a new sprinkling on the third and seventh days!?
(p) Answer: Rather, One Beraisa speaks where he immersed the previous evening intending to come into the Mikdash, the other speaks where he did not have that intent.
(q) Alternate Answer: The Beraisa does not have the word *only*.
(r) Alternate Answer: R. Yehudah was speaking within the opinion of the Rabanan, with whom he argues, saying that *everyone* and not only the Metzora should require Tevilah.
(s) The Rabanan do not accept R. Yehudah's contention, since the Metzora, unlike others, is used to being Tamei and a special Tevilah is required lest he had not been careful.
(t) Question: Do the Chachamim here (differ from the Chachamim in the first Beraisa and) follow the opinion of Ben Zoma (and here they require all to immerse) and they spoke of the Metzora only to highlight the opinion of R. Yehudah; or is the Metzora just different?
(u) Answer: They hold the Metzora is different since he is so used to being Tamei.
Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,