(a)It is obvious that, after going to the bathroom, a Kohen needed to make Kidush Raglayim, because of the drops. But why did he need to make Kidush Yadayim?
(b)What problem does the Gemara have with Rav Papa, who declared that a person who has 'excrement in its place' is forbidden to recite the Shema? Why would this appear, either obvious, or incorrect?
(c)How do we solve this problem?
(a)It is obvious that, after going to the bathroom, a Kohen needed to make Kidush Raglayim - because of the Mitzvah to wipe off any drops that may have fallen on to his legs. This is necessary, so that people should not suspect him of being a 'Kerus Shafchah', who cannot urinate properly. A Kerus Shafchah is unable to have children, and they will stigmatize all his children as Mamzeirim.
(b)How can Rav Papa declare that a person who has 'excrement in its place' is forbidden to recite the Shema? - the Gemara asks. If the excrement is visible, then it is obvious! And if it is not, then why should one not recite the Shema - the Torah was not given to angels, but to humans!?
(c)We therefore establish Rav Papa when the excrement was not visible when the person was standing, but was visible, when he sat.
(a)If a person places just his hands inside a bathroom or if he has excrement on his body, Rav Chisda forbids him to recite the Shema. Why?
(b)What does Rav Huna say?
(c)Is it possible to reconcile Rav Papa's statement (regarding 'excrement in its place') with Rav Huna (and with Rav Chisda - see Rashi DH 've'Rav Chisda'?
(a)If a person places just his hands inside a bathroom or if he has excrement on his body, Rav Chisda forbids him to recite the Shema - because of the Pasuk in Tehilim "Kol Atzmosai Tomarnah Hash-m" (all the bones of a person must praise Hash-m, not just some of them).
(b)Rav Huna permits it.
(c)Rav Huna and Rav Chisda will agree that excrement in its place is particularly disgusting, and reciting the Shema therefore, is forbidden even when it would not be forbidden were it to be found on another part of the body.
(a)What is the difference (regarding the obligation to wash his hands again) between someone who goes out in the middle of a meal to urinate, (but not in a fixed bathroom) or if he goes out to speak to a friend for an extended period of time?
(b)What does he do to ensure that the other participants do not suspect him of not having washed his hands?
(c)How does the Gemara differentiate in this matter between a person who intends to continue eating and one who only intends drinking? Why would a person who only intends to drink need to wash his hands at all?
(d)What personal comment did Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak make in this regard?
(a)someone who goes out in the middle of a meal to urinate - is obligated to re-wash the hand with which he wiped away the drops; but if he goes out to speak to a friend for an extended period of time - he is obligated to wash both hands (because he took his mind off the meal, and did not therefore guard his hands from touching things that will render them Tamei).
(b)To ensure that the other participants do not suspect him of not having washed his hands - he must wash them in their presence, and pass the cup round to them too.
(c)It is only the person who merely intends to drink who needs to wash his hands in front of the other participants, because they will suspect him of placing food into his mouth during the drinking session (which was common in those days). Someone who rejoins the meal to eat is permitted to wash outside. No-one will suspect him of eating with unclean hands.
(d)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak claimed that he was well-known to be particularly finicky in these matters. Consequently, even if he re-joined the gathering for the drinking session only, he would be able to wash outside, since nobody would suspect him of sitting down to drink with unclean hands.
(a)What must anyone do before he enters the Azarah? Does it make any difference whether he entered for the purpose of performing the Avodah or not?
(b)How many Tevilos and how many Kidushei Yadayim v'Raglayim did the Kohen Gadol have to make on Yom Kipur?
(c)How many of these Tevilos took place in the Mikvah that was in the Beis ha'Parvah? Why should this Tevilah be any different than the other Tevilos of the day?
(a)Whoever entered the Azarah had to Tovel first - whether it was for the Avodah or not (see also Tosfos and Tosfos Yeshanim).
(b)The Kohen Gadol required five Tevilos and ten Kidushei Yadayim v'Raglayim on Yom Kipur.
(c)Four of these Tevilos took place in the Mikvah that was in the Beis ha'Parvah. The first Tevilah (currently being dealt with) - which was not connected to Yom Kipur (since whoever entered the Azarah on any day of the year for the first time, was obligated to Tovel). Consequently, it took place in the Mikvah on top of the Sha'ar ha'Mayim that was next to the Gadol's room.
(a)The Mikvah was open. What did they do to prevent the people from seeing him Tovel?
(b)They asked Ben Zoma why a Tahor person needs to Tovel before entering the Azarah. What did he answer?
(c)According to Ben Zoma, the Tevilah is d'Oraisa. Rebbi Yehudah disagrees. In his opinion, it is only mid'Rabanan. What reason does Rebbi Yehudah give for this Takanah?
(a)To prevent the people from seeing the Kohen Gadol Tovel - they would hold up a sheet between him and the people.
(b)Ben Zoma learns that a Tahor person needs to Tovel before entering the Azarah - from a Kal va'Chomer: if a Kohen Gadol needed to Tovel between one Avodah and another (even though he was going from Kodesh to Kodesh), then how much more so someone who enters the Kodesh from the Chol.
(c)Rebbi Yehudah gives the reason for the Takanah of Toveling before entering the Azarah - so that, should he be Tamei, he will remember and desist from doing the Avodah.
(a)We initially explain the Halachic ramifications of the Machlokes between Ben Zoma and Rebbi Yehudah to be whether the Kohen profanes the Avodah or not, but this is refuted from a Beraisa. What distinction does the Beraisa make between a Kohen Gadol who failed to Tovel or to make Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim between changes of clothing or between one Avodah and the other on the one hand, and any Kohen who did not perform Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim before starting the Avodah in the morning?
(b)How does this disprove our original contention to explain the Machlokes?
(c)So what is their bone of contention? In which point is Ben Zoma more stringent than Rebbi Yehudah?
(a)According to the Beraisa, a Kohen Gadol who failed to Tovel or to make Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim between changes of clothing or between one Avodah and the other - does not profane the Avodah; whereas any Kohen who did not perform Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim before starting the Avodah in the morning - does.
(b)Initially, we thought that, according to Ben Zoma, a Kohen who does not Tovel before performing the Avodah profanes it. But now we see that even the Kohen Gadol (from whom Ben Zoma derived his statement with a 'Kal va'Chomer') does not profane it!
(c)In fact, their bone of contention is whether or not, the Kohen transgresses an Aseh (d'Oraisa) - according to Ben Zoma, he does indeed transgress, according to Rebbi Yehudah, he does not.
(a)If Rebbi Yehudah agrees that whoever enters the Azarah requires Tevilah (albeit mid'Rabanan), then why does he exempt a Metzora from Tevilah on the eighth day (before he stands at the Sha'ar Nikanor for the ceremony of placing the blood on his right thumb and right big toe)?
(b)Why is this answer obvious?
(c)We try to answer that we raised the Kashya in order to mention this Beraisa, in which Rebbi Yehudah seems to contradict himself from another statement of his, where he adds that it is not only the Metzora who Tovels in the Lishkas Metzora'im, but anyone who is Tamei. What is the contradiction?
(d)We try to answer that that Beraisa refers to a Metzora who has not yet Toveled. What is the problem with this answer?
(a)Rebbi Yehudah agrees that whoever enters the Azarah requires Tevilah (albeit mid'Rabanan). Nevertheless, he exempts a Metzora from Tevilah on the eighth day - because he already Toveled on the seventh.
(b)This answer is obvious however, because, in the Beraisa, Rebbi Yehudah specifically gave this as his reason.
(c)When Rebbi Yehudah said that it is not only the Metzora who Tovels in the Lishkas Metzora'im, but anyone who is Tamei, he is implying that a Metzora certainly has to Tovel (before the ceremony at the Sha'ar Nikanor), which contradicts what he said in the other Beraisa - that he does not need to Tovel a second time.
(d)We try to answer that that Beraisa refers to a Metzora who has not yet Toveled. The problem with that is that, if that is so, how can the Tevilah on the eighth day be effective, seeing as Tevilah requires Ha'arev Shemesh (waiting for night-fall) before one becomes Tahor.
(a)We then attempt to establish the latter Beraisa (which obligates a Metzora to Tovel) when he really had Toveled, but that he had been Mesi'ach Da'as (i.e. had not been careful to remain Tahor). What is the problem with that?
(b)How do we finally establish the Beraisa (even assuming that Rebbi Yehudah obligated Metzora'im too, to Tovel)?
(c)In the second answer, we change the text of the second Beraisa to read 'Lo Metzora'im Amru, Ela Kol Adam'. What is Ravina's final answer (retaining both the original text and Rebbi Yehudah's original opinion, in which he himself exempts a Metzora from Tevilah)?
(a)The problem with establishing Rebbi Yehudah by a Metzora who Toveled on the seventh day, but who had subsequently been Mesi'ach Da'as - is that in that case, he would require sprinkling on the third and seventh days (in case he had become Tamei Mes).
(b)We finally establish the Beraisa (even assuming that Rebbi Yehudah obligated Metzo'rayim too, to Tovel) - when he Toveled, but not having in mind to enter the Beis Hamikdash (which requires him to re-Tovel with that in mind) even though he is effectively Tahor.
(c)Ravina finally answers that Rebbi Yehudah really holds that a Metzora does not require a second Tevilah (as he specifically stated in the first Beraisa). When he said in the second Beraisa 'Not only Metzora'im require Tevilah ... ', he was challenging the Chachamim, and saying to them 'I personally am of the opinion that a Metzora does not need to re-Tovel (even though anybody else who enters the Azarah, does require Tevilah), but you, who refer to the Lishkas Metzora'im because the Metzora'im Toveled there, won't you agree that everyone else had to Tovel there too (before they entered the Azarah)'?!
(a)In the Beraisa that we discussed above, the Rabanan of Rebbi Yehudah say 'Metzora Tovel v'Omed b'Sha'ar Nikanor'. How will we explain the fact that they said specifically 'Metzora - if they do hold like Ben Zoma (as Abaye contended)?
(b)How will we explain it - if they don't (as Rav Yosef concluded)?
(a)If the Rabanan hold like Ben Zoma (as Abaye contended) - then, when they said 'Metzora Tovel v'Omed b'Sha'ar Nikanor', they only mentioned Metzora, in order to evoke Rebbi Yehudah's response, to demonstrate that he exempts a Metzora from re-Toveling.
(b)If however, they don't hold like Ben Zoma, then, in their opinion, it is only a Metzora who will be obligated to Tovel (albeit a second time), because, until then, he was accustomed to touch everything in his state of Tum'ah; so he is more likely to be careless and touch things b'Tum'ah now, too. But other people do not require Tevilah before entering the Azarah.