POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
by Rabbi Ephraim Becker
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous dafYoma 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.
1) WASHING HANDS AND FEET UPON ENTERING THE MIKDASH
(a) Question: Why wash the hands as well?
2) ONE WHO STEPS AWAY FROM A MEAL
(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?
(d) Question: How is this law different from Tzoah on his body?
(i) If it is visible, the Halachah is obvious.
2. Answer: The prohibition applies when it is visible when
seated, and not when standing.
(ii) If it is not visible, we are not angels!
1. R. Huna: If there is Tzoah on his body or his hands are
in the privy it is permitted to recite Shema.
(e) Answer: Tzoah in its place is more malodorous.
2. R. Chisda: It is prohibited.
(a) One who leaves the table to urinate need only wash the
soiled hand (from wiping drops off his leg).
3) MISHNAH: TEVILAH BEFORE ENTERING THE MIKDASH
(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
(a) One may not enter the Azarah [to perform Avodah] without
prior immersion (even if he is Tahor).
4) THE RATIONALE FOR THE ENTRY IMMERSION
(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
(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.