Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

January 25, 2020 | 讻状讞 讘讟讘转 转砖状驻

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Berakhot 22

There is a debate regarding whether one who experienced a seminal emission can learn some types of Torah, none at all, or all kinds? Was the takana of Ezra entirely cancelled? Does he need to go in a mikveh with 40 se’ah or can one pour nine kav of water. What does one do if one is in the middle of tefilla or reading from the Torah and one remembers that one has impurity from a seminal emission?

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

诪砖诪砖转 讜专讗转讛 谞讚讛 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讟讘讬诇讛 讗讘诇 讘注诇 拽专讬 讙专讬讚讗 诪讞讬讬讘 诇讗 转讬诪讗 诪讘专讱 讗诇讗 诪讛专讛专

that a woman who engaged in intercourse and saw menstrual blood is not required to immerse herself, but one who experienced a seminal emission alone, with no concurrent impurity, is required to do so? If so, we must interpret Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 statement in the mishna that one recites a blessing both beforehand and thereafter as follows: Do not say that one recites a blessing orally, but rather he means that one contemplates those blessings in his heart.

讜诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛专讛讜专 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘注诇 拽专讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 诪讬诐 诇讟讘讜诇 拽讜专讗 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讘专讱 诇讗 诇驻谞讬讛 讜诇讗 诇讗讞专讬讛 讜讗讜讻诇 驻转讜 讜诪讘专讱 诇讗讞专讬讛 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讘专讱 诇驻谞讬讛 讗讘诇 诪讛专讛专 讘诇讘讜 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讜爪讬讗 讘砖驻转讬讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 诪讜爪讬讗 讘砖驻转讬讜

The Gemara challenges this explanation: And does Rabbi Yehuda maintain that there is validity to contemplating in his heart? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: One who experienced a seminal emission and who has no water to immerse and purify himself recites Shema and neither recites the blessings of Shema beforehand nor thereafter? And when he eats his bread, he recites the blessing thereafter, Grace after Meals, but does not recite the blessing: Who brings forth bread from the earth, beforehand. However, in the instances where he may not recite the blessing, he contemplates it in his heart rather than utter it with his lips, this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. However Rabbi Yehuda says: In either case, he utters all of the blessings with his lips. Rabbi Yehuda does not consider contemplating the blessings in his heart a solution and permits them to be recited.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 注砖讗谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻讛诇讻讜转 讚专讱 讗专抓

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 statement in the mishna should be interpreted in another way. Rabbi Yehuda rendered the blessings like Hilkhot Derekh Eretz, which according to some Sages were not considered to be in the same category as all other matters of Torah and therefore, one is permitted to engage in their study even after having experienced a seminal emission.

讚转谞讬讗 讜讛讜讚注转诐 诇讘谞讬讱 讜诇讘谞讬 讘谞讬讱 讜讻转讬讘 讘转专讬讛 讬讜诐 讗砖专 注诪讚转 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 讘讞讜专讘 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘讗讬诪讛 讜讘讬专讗讛 讜讘专转转 讜讘讝讬注 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘讗讬诪讛 讜讘讬专讗讛 讜讘专转转 讜讘讝讬注

As it was taught in a baraita: It is written: 鈥淎nd you shall impart them to your children and your children鈥檚 children鈥 (Deuteronomy 4:9), and it is written thereafter: 鈥淭he day that you stood before the Lord your God at Horeb鈥 (Deuteronomy 4:10). Just as below, the Revelation at Sinai was in reverence, fear, quaking, and trembling, so too here, in every generation, Torah must be studied with a sense of reverence, fear, quaking, and trembling.

诪讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 讛讝讘讬诐 讜讛诪爪专注讬诐 讜讘讗讬谉 注诇 谞讚讜转 诪讜转专讬诐 诇拽专讜转 讘转讜专讛 讜讘谞讘讬讗讬诐 讜讘讻转讜讘讬诐 诇砖谞讜转 讘诪砖谞讛 讜讙诪专讗 讜讘讛诇讻讜转 讜讘讗讙讚讜转 讗讘诇 讘注诇讬 拽专讬讬谉 讗住讜专讬诐

From here the Sages stated: Zavim, lepers, and those who engaged in intercourse with menstruating women, despite their severe impurity, are permitted to read the Torah, Prophets, and Writings, and to study Mishna and Gemara and halakhot and aggada. However, those who experienced a seminal emission are prohibited from doing so. The reason for this distinction is that the cases of severe impurity are caused by ailment or other circumstances beyond his control and, as a result, they do not necessarily preclude a sense of reverence and awe as he studies Torah. This, however, is not the case with regard to impurity resulting from a seminal emission, which usually comes about due to frivolity and a lack of reverence and awe. Therefore, it is inappropriate for one who experiences a seminal emission to engage in matters of in Torah.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 砖讜谞讛 讛讜讗 讘专讙讬诇讬讜转 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬爪讬注 讗转 讛诪砖谞讛 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讘谉 讬讜住祝 讗讜诪专 诪爪讬注 讛讜讗 讗转 讛诪砖谞讛 讜讗讬谞讜 诪爪讬注 讗转 讛讙诪专讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讘谉 讗讘讬砖诇讜诐 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诪爪讬注 讗转 讛讙诪专讗 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讗诪专 讗讝讻专讜转 砖讘讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛住谞讚诇专 转诇诪讬讚讜 砖诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬讻谞住 诇诪讚专砖 讻诇 注讬拽专 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 诇讗 讬讻谞住 诇讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 讻诇 注讬拽专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖讜谞讛 讛讜讗 讘讛诇讻讜转 讚专讱 讗专抓

However, there are many opinions concerning the precise parameters of the Torah matters prohibited by this decree. Rabbi Yosei says: One who experiences a seminal emission studies mishnayot that he is accustomed to study, as long as he does not expound upon a new mishna to study it in depth. Rabbi Yonatan ben Yosef says: He expounds upon the mishna but he does not expound upon the Gemara, which is the in-depth analysis of the Torah. Rabbi Natan ben Avishalom says: He may even expound upon the Gemara, as long as he does not utter the mentions of God鈥檚 name therein. Rabbi Yo岣nan the Cobbler, Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 student, says in the name of Rabbi Akiva: One who experiences a seminal emission may not enter into homiletic interpretation [midrash] of verses at all. Some say that he says: He may not enter the study hall [beit hamidrash] at all. Rabbi Yehuda says: He may study only Hilkhot Derekh Eretz. In terms of the problem raised above, apparently Rabbi Yehuda considers the legal status of the blessings to be parallel to the legal status of Hilkhot Derekh Eretz, and therefore one may utter them orally.

诪注砖讛 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 砖专讗讛 拽专讬 讜讛讬讛 诪讛诇讱 注诇 讙讘 讛谞讛专 讗诪专讜 诇讜 转诇诪讬讚讬讜 专讘讬谞讜 砖谞讛 诇谞讜 驻专拽 讗讞讚 讘讛诇讻讜转 讚专讱 讗专抓 讬专讚 讜讟讘诇 讜砖谞讛 诇讛诐 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讗 讻讱 诇诪讚转谞讜 专讘讬谞讜 砖讜谞讛 讛讜讗 讘讛诇讻讜转 讚专讱 讗专抓 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪讬拽诇 讗谞讬 注诇 讗讞专讬诐 诪讞诪讬专 讗谞讬 注诇 注爪诪讬:

The Gemara relates an incident involving Rabbi Yehuda himself, who experienced a seminal emission and was walking along the riverbank with his disciples. His disciples said to him: Rabbi, teach us a chapter from Hilkhot Derekh Eretz, as he maintained that even in a state of impurity, it is permitted. He descended and immersed himself in the river and taught them Hilkhot Derekh Eretz. They said to him: Did you not teach us, our teacher, that he may study Hilkhot Derekh Eretz? He said to them: Although I am lenient with others, and allow them to study it without immersion, I am stringent with myself.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讛讬讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 诪注砖讛 讘转诇诪讬讚 讗讞讚 砖讛讬讛 诪讙诪讙诐 诇诪注诇讛 诪专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘谞讬 驻转讞 驻讬讱 讜讬讗讬专讜 讚讘专讬讱 砖讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 砖谞讗诪专 讛诇讗 讻讛 讚讘专讬 讻讗砖 谞讗诐 讛壮 诪讛 讗砖 讗讬谞讜 诪拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讗祝 讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讗讬谞谉 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛

Further elaborating on the issue of Torah study while in a state of impurity, it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira would say: Matters of Torah do not become ritually impure and therefore one who is impure is permitted to engage in Torah study. He implemented this halakha in practice. The Gemara relates an incident involving a student who was reciting mishnayot and baraitot hesitantly before the study hall of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira. The student experienced a seminal emission, and when he was asked to recite he did so in a rushed, uneven manner, as he did not want to utter the words of Torah explicitly. Rabbi Yehuda said to him: My son, open your mouth and let your words illuminate, as matters of Torah do not become ritually impure, as it is stated: 鈥淚s not my word like fire, says the Lord鈥 (Jeremiah 23:29). Just as fire does not become ritually impure, so too matters of Torah do not become ritually impure.

讗诪专 诪专 诪爪讬注 讗转 讛诪砖谞讛 讜讗讬谞讜 诪爪讬注 讗转 讛讙诪专讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬谞讜 讛诇讻讛 诪爪讬注 讗转 讛诪砖谞讛 讜讗讬谞讜 诪爪讬注 讗转 讛讙诪专讗 讻转谞讗讬 诪爪讬注 讗转 讛诪砖谞讛 讜讗讬谞讜 诪爪讬注 讗转 讛讙诪专讗 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讝讛 讜讝讛 讗住讜专 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讝讛 讜讝讛 诪讜转专

In this baraita the Master said that one who is impure because of a seminal emission expounds upon the mishna but does not expound upon the Gemara. The Gemara notes: This statement supports the opinion of Rabbi El鈥檃i, as Rabbi El鈥檃i said that Rabbi A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said in the name of Rabbeinu, Rav: The halakha is that one who experienced a seminal emission may expound upon the mishna but may not expound upon the Gemara. This dispute is parallel a tannaitic dispute, as it was taught: One who experienced a seminal emission expounds upon the mishna but does not expound upon the Gemara; that is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi 岣nina ben Gamliel: Both this and that are prohibited. And some say that he said: Both this and that are permitted.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讝讛 讜讝讛 讗住讜专 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛住谞讚诇专 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讝讛 讜讝讛 诪讜转专 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗

Comparing these opinions: The one who said that both this and that are prohibited holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan the Cobbler; the one who said that both this and that are permitted holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 谞讛讜讙 注诇诪讗 讻讛谞讬 转诇转 住讘讬 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 讘专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 讻专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讘讻诇讗讬诐 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讘讚讘专讬 转讜专讛

Summarizing the halakha, Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: The universally accepted practice is in accordance with the opinions of these three elders: In accordance with the opinion of Rabbi El鈥檃i with regard to the halakhot of the first shearing, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoshiya with regard to the laws of prohibited diverse kinds, and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira with regard to matters of Torah.

讻专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 讘专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 讗讜诪专 专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讗诇讗 讘讗专抓

The Gemara elaborates: In accordance with the opinion of Rabbi El鈥檃i with regard to the first shearing, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi El鈥檃i says: The obligation to set aside the first shearing from the sheep for the priest is only practiced in Eretz Yisrael and not in the Diaspora, and that is the accepted practice.

讻专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讘讻诇讗讬诐 讻讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 转讝专注 [讻专诪讱] 讻诇讗讬诐 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讗讜诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬讝专注 讞讟讛 讜砖注讜专讛 讜讞专爪谉 讘诪驻讜诇转 讬讚

In accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoshiya with regard to diverse kinds, as it is written: 鈥淵ou shall not sow your vineyard with diverse kinds鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:9). Rabbi Yoshiya says: This means that one who sows diverse kinds is not liable by Torah law until he sows wheat and barley and a grape pit with a single hand motion, meaning that while sowing in the vineyard he violates the prohibition of diverse kinds that applies to seeds and to the vineyard simultaneously.

讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讘讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛

In accordance with Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira with regard to one who experiences a seminal emission is permitted to engage in matters of Torah, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: Matters of Torah do not become ritually impure.

讻讬 讗转讗 讝注讬专讬 讗诪专 讘讟诇讜讛 诇讟讘讬诇讜转讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讘讟诇讜讛 诇谞讟讬诇讜转讗 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘讟诇讜讛 诇讟讘讬诇讜转讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘讟诇讜讛 诇谞讟讬诇讜转讗 讻讬 讛讗 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讬讬讟 讗诪讗谉 讚诪讛讚专 讗诪讬讗 讘注讬讚谉 爪诇讜转讗:

And the Gemara relates: When Ze鈥檌ri came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he succinctly capsulated this halakha and said: They abolished ritual immersion, and some say that he said: They abolished ritual washing of the hands. The Gemara explains: The one who says that they abolished immersion holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira that one who experienced a seminal emission is not required to immerse. And the one who says that they abolished washing of the hands holds in accordance with that which Rav 岣sda cursed one who goes out of his way to seek water at the time of prayer.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘注诇 拽专讬 砖谞转谞讜 注诇讬讜 转砖注讛 拽讘讬谉 诪讬诐 讟讛讜专 谞讞讜诐 讗讬砖 讙诐 讝讜 诇讞砖讛 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇讞砖讛 诇讘谉 注讝讗讬 讜讘谉 注讝讗讬 讬爪讗 讜砖谞讗讛 诇转诇诪讬讚讬讜 讘砖讜拽 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 转专讬 讗诪讜专讗讬 讘诪注专讘讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讝讘讬讚讗 讞讚 转谞讬 砖谞讗讛 讜讞讚 转谞讬 诇讞砖讛

The Sages taught in a baraita: One who experienced a seminal emission who had nine kav of drawn water poured over him, that is sufficient to render him ritually pure and he need not immerse himself in a ritual bath. The Gemara relates: Na岣m of Gam Zo whispered this halakha to Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Akiva whispered it to his student ben Azzai, and ben Azzai went out and taught it to his students publicly in the marketplace. Two amora鈥檌m in Eretz Yisrael, Rabbi Yosei bar Avin and Rabbi Yosei bar Zevida, disagreed as to the correct version of the conclusion of the incident. One taught: Ben Azzai taught it to his students in the market. And the other taught: Ben Azzai also whispered it to his students.

诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 砖谞讗讛 诪砖讜诐 讘讟讜诇 转讜专讛 讜诪砖讜诐 讘讟讜诇 驻专讬讛 讜专讘讬讛 讜诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 诇讞砖讛 砖诇讗 讬讛讜 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 诪爪讜讬讬诐 讗爪诇 谞砖讜转讬讛诐 讻转专谞讙讜诇讬诐

The Gemara explains the rationale behind the two versions of this incident. The Sage who taught that ben Azzai taught the law openly in the market held that the leniency was due to concern that the halakhot requiring ritual immersion would promote dereliction in the study of Torah. The ruling of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira eases the way for an individual who experienced a seminal emission to study Torah. This was also due to concern that the halakhot requiring ritual immersion would promote the suspension of procreation, as one might abstain from marital relations to avoid the immersion required thereafter. And the Sage, who taught that ben Azzai only whispered this halakha to his students, held that he did so in order that Torah scholars would not be with their wives like roosters. If the purification process was that simple, Torah scholars would engage in sexual activity constantly, which would distract them from their studies.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 砖诪注转讬 砖诪拽讬诇讬谉 讘讛 讜砖诪注转讬 砖诪讞诪讬专讬谉 讘讛 讜讻诇 讛诪讞诪讬专 讘讛 注诇 注爪诪讜 诪讗专讬讻讬谉 诇讜 讬诪讬讜 讜砖谞讜转讬讜

With regard to this ritual immersion, Rabbi Yannai said: I heard that there are those who are lenient with regard to it and I have heard that there are those who are stringent with regard to it. The halakha in this matter was never conclusively established and anyone who accepts upon himself to be stringent with regard to it, they prolong for him his days and years.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪讛 讟讬讘谉 砖诇 讟讜讘诇讬 砖讞专讬谉 诪讛 讟讬讘谉 讛讗 讗讬讛讜 讚讗诪专 讘注诇 拽专讬 讗住讜专 讘讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪讛 讟讬讘谉 讘讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 讗驻砖专 讘转砖注讛 拽讘讬谉 诪讛 讟讬讘谉 讘讟讘讬诇讛 讗驻砖专 讘谞转讬谞讛

The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: What is the essence of those who immerse themselves in the morning? The Gemara retorts: How can one ask what is their essence? Isn鈥檛 he the one who said that one who experiences a seminal emission is prohibited from engaging in matters of Torah and is required to immerse himself in the morning? Rather, this is what he meant to say: What is the essence of immersion in a ritual bath of forty se鈥檃 of water when it is possible to purify oneself with nine kav? Furthermore, what is the essence of immersion when it is also possible to purify oneself by pouring water?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讙讚专 讙讚讜诇 讙讚专讜 讘讛 讚转谞讬讗 诪注砖讛 讘讗讞讚 砖转讘注 讗砖讛 诇讚讘专 注讘讬专讛 讗诪专讛 诇讜 专讬拽讗 讬砖 诇讱 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 砖讗转讛 讟讜讘诇 讘讛谉 诪讬讚 驻讬专砖

Regarding this, Rabbi 岣nina said: They established a massive fence protecting one from sinning with their decree that one must immerse himself in forty se鈥檃 of water. As it was taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving one who solicited a woman to commit a sinful act. She said to him: Good-for-nothing. Do you have forty se鈥檃 in which to immerse and purify yourself afterwards? He immediately desisted. The obligation to immerse oneself caused individuals to refrain from transgression.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇专讘谞谉 专讘讜转讬 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗转诐 诪讝诇讝诇讬谉 讘讟讘讬诇讛 讝讜 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 爪讬谞讛 讗驻砖专 讘诪专讞爪讗讜转

Rav Huna said to the Sages: Gentlemen, why do you disdain this immersion? If it is because it is difficult for you to immerse in the cold waters of the ritual bath, it is possible to purify oneself by immersing oneself in the heated bathhouses, which are unfit for immersion for other forms of ritual impurity but are fit for immersion in this case.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜讻讬 讬砖 讟讘讬诇讛 讘讞诪讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 拽讗讬 讻讜讜转讱

Rabbi 岣sda said to him: Is there ritual immersion in hot water? Rav Huna said to him: Indeed, doubts with regard to the fitness of baths have been raised, and Rav Adda bar Ahava holds in accordance with your opinion. Nevertheless, I remain convinced that it is permitted.

专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 讘讗讙谞讗 讚诪讬讗 讘讬 诪住讜转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇砖诪注讬讛 讝讬诇 讜讗讬讬转讬 诇讬 转砖注讛 拽讘讬谉 讜砖讚讬 注诇讜讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 诇诪讛 诇讬讛 诇诪专 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 讜讛讗 讬转讬讘 讘讙讜讜讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 诪讛 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 讘讟讘讬诇讛 讜诇讗 讘谞转讬谞讛 讗祝 转砖注讛 拽讘讬谉 讘谞转讬谞讛 讜诇讗 讘讟讘讬诇讛

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Zeira was sitting in a tub of water in the bathhouse. He said to his attendant: Go and get nine kav of water and pour it over me so that I may purify myself from the impurity caused by a seminal emission. Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said to him: Why does my master require all of this? Aren鈥檛 you seated in at least nine kav of water in the tub. He said to him: The law of nine kav parallels the law of forty se鈥檃, in that their halakhot are exclusive. Just as forty se鈥檃 can only purify an individual through immersion and not through pouring, so too nine kav can only purify one who experienced a seminal emission through pouring and not through immersion.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 转拽谉 讞爪讘讗 讘转 转砖注讛 拽讘讬谉 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讙诇讜住讟专讗 讗诪专讜 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讞讜诇讛 诇讗讜谞住讜 讗讘诇 诇讞讜诇讛 讛诪专讙讬诇 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛

The Gemara relates that Rav Na岣an prepared a jug with a capacity of nine kav so that his students could pour water over themselves and become pure. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yehuda Gelostera said: The halakha that one who experienced a seminal emission can be purified by pouring nine kav was only taught for a sick person who experienced the emission involuntarily. However, a sick person who experienced a normal seminal emission in the course of marital relations, is required to immerse himself in forty se鈥檃.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗转讘专 讞爪讘讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 讘讗讜砖讗 讛讜讛 注讜讘讚讗

Rav Yosef said: In that case, Rav Na岣an鈥檚 jug is broken, meaning it is no longer of any use, as few people fall into the category of sick people who experienced seminal emissions. Nevertheless, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: In Usha there was an incident

讘拽讬诇注讗 讚专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗转讜 讜砖讗诇讜 诇专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讞讜诇讛 讛诪专讙讬诇 讗讘诇 诇讞讜诇讛 诇讗讜谞住讜 驻讟讜专 诪讻诇讜诐 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗爪讟诪讬讚 讞爪讘讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉

that this problem was raised in Rav Oshaya鈥檚 chamber, and they came and asked Rav Asi. He said to them: They only stated the obligation to pour water over one who is impure because of a seminal emission with regard to a sick person who experienced a normal seminal emission, but a sick person who experienced an involuntary seminal emission is clearly exempt from anything and requires no immersion whatsoever. Rav Yosef said: In that case, Rav Na岣an鈥檚 jug is rejoined, meaning that it is effective with regard to purification.

诪讻讚讬 讻讜诇讛讜 讗诪讜专讗讬 讜转谞讗讬 讘讚注讝专讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讜谞讞讝讬 注讝专讗 讛讬讻讬 转拽谉

Up to now, discussion has focused on various problems pertaining to the laws of immersion as they concern one whose impurity is due to seminal emission. The Gemara asks: Since all of the amora鈥檌m and tanna鈥檌m disagree with regard to the decree of Ezra, let us examine how Ezra instituted this ordinance, as this is not an uncommon circumstance and we can see how they conducted themselves.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 注讝专讗 转拽谉 诇讘专讬讗 讛诪专讙讬诇 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 讜讘专讬讗 诇讗讜谞住讜 转砖注讛 拽讘讬谉 讜讗转讜 讗诪讜专讗讬 讜驻诇讬讙讬 讘讞讜诇讛 诪专 住讘专 讞讜诇讛 讛诪专讙讬诇 讻讘专讬讗 讛诪专讙讬诇 讜讞讜诇讛 诇讗讜谞住讜 讻讘专讬讗 诇讗讜谞住讜 讜诪专 住讘专 讞讜诇讛 讛诪专讙讬诇 讻讘专讬讗 诇讗讜谞住讜 讜讞讜诇讛 诇讗讜谞住讜 驻讟讜专 诪讻诇讜诐

Abaye said: Ezra did not institute a sweeping ordinance concerning every case of one who experienced a seminal emission; rather, he instituted only that a healthy person who experienced a normal seminal emission is required to immerse himself in forty se鈥檃, while for a healthy person who experienced an involuntary seminal emission, nine kav are sufficient. And the amora鈥檌m came and disagreed with regard to a sick person. One Sage held that a sick person who experienced a normal seminal emission is considered like a healthy person who experienced a normal seminal emission, while a sick person who experienced an involuntary seminal emission is considered like a healthy person who experienced an involuntary seminal emission. However, another Sage maintained that a sick person who experienced a normal seminal emission is considered like a healthy person who experienced an involuntary seminal emission, and consequently requires only that nine kav be poured over him, while a sick person who experienced an involuntary seminal emission is exempt from any form of immersion or purification.

讗诪专 专讘讗 谞讛讬 讚转拽谉 注讝专讗 讟讘讬诇讛 谞转讬谞讛 诪讬 转拽谉 讜讛讗诪专 诪专 注讝专讗 转拽谉 讟讘讬诇讛 诇讘注诇讬 拽专讬讬谉 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 注讝专讗 转拽谉 讟讘讬诇讛 诇讘专讬讗 讛诪专讙讬诇 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 讜讗转讜 专讘谞谉 讜讛转拽讬谞讜 诇讘专讬讗 诇讗讜谞住讜 转砖注讛 拽讘讬谉 讜讗转讜 讗诪讜专讗讬 讜拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讞讜诇讛 诪专 住讘专 讞讜诇讛 讛诪专讙讬诇 讻讘专讬讗 讛诪专讙讬诇 讜讞讜诇讛 诇讗讜谞住讜 讻讘专讬讗 诇讗讜谞住讜 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讘专讬讗 讛诪专讙讬诇 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 讜讞讜诇讛 讛诪专讙讬诇 讻讘专讬讗 诇讗讜谞住讜 转砖注讛 拽讘讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讞讜诇讛 诇讗讜谞住讜 驻讟讜专 诪讻诇讜诐

Rava said: Although Ezra instituted immersion for one who experienced a seminal emission, did he institute the pouring of nine kav? Didn鈥檛 the Master say that we have a tradition that Ezra only instituted immersion for those who experienced a seminal emission? Rather, Rava said: We must explain that the diverse opinions developed after Ezra鈥檚 decree. Ezra himself instituted immersion in forty se鈥檃 only for a healthy person who experienced a normal seminal emission. And the Sages came and instituted that a healthy person who experienced an involuntary seminal emission should have nine kav poured over him. And then the amora鈥檌m came and disagreed with regard to a sick person; one Sage held that a sick person who experienced a normal seminal emission is considered like a healthy person who experienced a normal seminal emission, while a sick person who experienced an involuntary seminal emission is considered like a healthy person who experienced an involuntary seminal emission, another Sage maintained that only a healthy person who experienced a normal seminal emission is required to immerse himself in forty se鈥檃 while a sick person who experienced a normal seminal emission is considered like a healthy person who experienced an involuntary seminal emission, requiring only nine kav. But a sick person who experienced an involuntary seminal emission is exempt from any form of immersion or purification.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻转讗 讘专讬讗 讛诪专讙讬诇 讜讞讜诇讛 讛诪专讙讬诇 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 讜讘专讬讗 诇讗讜谞住讜 转砖注讛 拽讘讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讞讜诇讛 诇讗讜谞住讜 驻讟讜专 诪讻诇讜诐:

Rava stated that the halakhic ruling is in accordance with the first opinion: A healthy person who experienced a normal seminal emission and a sick person who experienced a normal seminal emission require forty se鈥檃, while a healthy person who experienced an involuntary seminal emission suffices with nine kav. But a sick person who experienced an involuntary seminal emission is exempt from undergoing any rite of purification.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘注诇 拽专讬 砖谞转谞讜 注诇讬讜 转砖注讛 拽讘讬谉 诪讬诐 讟讛讜专 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 诇注爪诪讜 讗讘诇 诇讗讞专讬诐 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

The Sages taught in a Tosefta: One who experienced a seminal emission and had nine kav of drawn water poured over him is ritually pure. In what case is this statement said? In a case involving Torah study for himself, but in order to purify himself that he may teach Torah to others, he must immerse himself in forty se鈥檃. Rabbi Yehuda says: Forty se鈥檃 is required for purification in any case.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讞讚 诪讛讗讬 讝讜讙讗 讜讞讚 诪讛讗讬 讝讜讙讗 讗专讬砖讗 讞讚 讗诪专 讛讗 讚讗诪专转 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 诇注爪诪讜 讗讘诇 诇讗讞专讬诐 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讞讜诇讛 讛诪专讙讬诇 讗讘诇 诇讞讜诇讛 诇讗讜谞住讜 转砖注讛 拽讘讬谉 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讻诇 诇讗讞专讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讜诇讛 诇讗讜谞住讜 注讚 讚讗讬讻讗 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛

With regard to this issue, a dispute arose between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, and Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina. One member of this pair and one member of that pair disagreed with regard to the first clause of the Tosefta. One said: That which you said: In what case is this statement said? In a case involving Torah study for himself, but in order to purify himself that he may teach Torah to others, he must immerse himself in forty se鈥檃, was only taught regarding a sick person who experienced a normal seminal emission, but for a sick person who experienced an involuntary seminal emission, nine kav is sufficient even for teaching others. And one said that anyone who teaches others, even if he was sick and experienced an involuntary seminal emission, is not considered pure until there are forty se鈥檃.

讜讞讚 诪讛讗讬 讝讜讙讗 讜讞讚 诪讛讗讬 讝讜讙讗 讗住讬驻讗 讞讚 讗诪专 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘拽专拽注 讗讘诇 讘讻诇讬诐 诇讗 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讻诇讬诐 谞诪讬

And one member of this pair and one member of that pair disagreed with regard to the latter clause of the Tosefta. One said: That which Rabbi Yehuda said: Forty se鈥檃 in any case, was only taught when the water is in the ground, in accordance with the Torah law of ritual bath, but not if it was collected in vessels. And one said: Even forty se鈥檃 collected in vessels are sufficient for purification.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讻诇讬诐 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘拽专拽注 讗讬谉 讘讻诇讬诐 诇讗 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬

The Gemara clarifies this problem: Granted, according to the one who said that forty se鈥檃 purifies even in vessels. That is why the Tosefta taught: Rabbi Yehuda says: Forty se鈥檃 in any case. However, according to the one who said that Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion is that forty se鈥檃 in the ground, yes, it purifies, but in vessels, no, it does not purify, what does the expression in any case come to include?

诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讬诐 砖讗讜讘讬谉

The Gemara explains: In any case comes to include drawn water, as Rabbi Yehuda permits immersion in forty se鈥檃 of water collected in the ground even if the water was drawn by human hand.

专讘 驻驻讗 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讜专讘讗 (讘专讘讬) 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻专讬讻讜 专讬驻转讗 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讘讜 诇讬 诇讚讬讚讬 诇讘专讜讱 讚谞驻讜诇 注讬诇讜讗讬 转砖注讛 拽讘讬谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讗 (讘专讘讬) [讘专] 砖诪讜讗诇 转谞讬谞讗 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 诇注爪诪讜 讗讘诇 诇讗讞专讬诐 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 讗诇讗 讛讘讜 诇讬 诇讚讬讚讬 诇讘专讜讱 讚谞驻讜诇 注讬诇讜讗讬 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讘讜 诇讬 诇讚讬讚讬 诇讘专讜讱 讚诇讬讻讗 注讬诇讜讗讬 诇讗 讛讗讬 讜诇讗 讛讗讬

The Gemara relates that Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, and Rava bar Shmuel ate bread together. Rav Pappa said to them: Allow me to recite Grace after Meals for the group, as I am ritually pure because nine kav of water fell upon me; in other words, he poured it over himself. Rava bar Shmuel said to them: We learned, in what case is this statement that nine kav purify, said? In a case involving Torah study for himself. But, in order to purify himself that he may teach Torah to others, and by extension to fulfill the obligation of others, he must immerse himself in forty se鈥檃. Rather, allow me to recite Grace after Meals for the group, as forty se鈥檃 of water fell upon me; in other words, I immersed myself in a ritual bath. Rav Huna said to them: Allow me to recite Grace after Meals for the group, as I have had neither this nor that upon me because I remained ritually pure.

专讘 讞诪讗 讟讘讬诇 讘诪注诇讬 讬讜诪讗 讚驻住讞讗 诇讛讜爪讬讗 专讘讬诐 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转谉 讜诇讬转 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛:

It is also said that Rav 岣ma would immerse himself on Passover eve in order to fulfill the obligations of the masses. However the Gemara concludes: The halakha is not in accordance with his opinion that distinguishes between the purification for oneself and purification for the sake of others.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讬讛 注讜诪讚 讘转驻诇讛 讜谞讝讻专 砖讛讜讗 讘注诇 拽专讬 诇讗 讬驻住讬拽 讗诇讗 讬拽爪专

MISHNA: This mishna contains various statements with regard to individuals with different types of ritual impurity as well as the need to distance oneself from filth and impurity. One who was standing in prayer and he recalled that he experienced a seminal emission, and according to this opinion he is prohibited from praying, should not interrupt his prayer, rather he should abridge each individual blessing.

讬专讚 诇讟讘讜诇 讗诐 讬讻讜诇 诇注诇讜转 讜诇讛转讻住讜转 讜诇拽专讜转 注讚 砖诇讗 转讛讗 讛谞抓 讛讞诪讛 讬注诇讛 讜讬转讻住讛 讜讬拽专讗 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讬转讻住讛 讘诪讬诐 讜讬拽专讗 讜诇讗 讬转讻住讛 诇讗 讘诪讬诐 讛专注讬诐 讜诇讗 讘诪讬 讛诪砖专讛 注讚 砖讬讟讬诇 诇转讜讻谉 诪讬诐 讜讻诪讛 讬专讞讬拽 诪讛谉 讜诪谉 讛爪讜讗讛 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转:

They stated a general principle: One who descended to immerse himself, if he is able to ascend, cover himself with a garment, and recite the morning Shema before sunrise, he should ascend, cover himself, and recite Shema, and if not, he should cover himself in the water and recite Shema there. He may not, however, cover himself in either foul water, or water in which flax was soaked, until he pours other water into it. And in general, how far must one distance himself from urine and feces in order to recite Shema? At least four cubits.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讬讛 注讜诪讚 讘转驻诇讛 讜谞讝讻专 砖讛讜讗 讘注诇 拽专讬 诇讗 讬驻住讬拽 讗诇讗 讬拽爪专 讛讬讛 拽讜专讗 讘转讜专讛 讜谞讝讻专 砖讛讜讗 讘注诇 拽专讬 讗讬谞讜 诪驻住讬拽 讜注讜诇讛 讗诇讗 诪讙诪讙诐 讜拽讜专讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讘注诇 拽专讬 专砖讗讬 诇拽专讜转 讘转讜专讛 讬讜转专 诪砖诇砖讛 驻住讜拽讬诐

GEMARA: A baraita further elaborates on the first halakha in the mishna. The Sages taught: One who was standing in prayer and he recalled that he had experienced a seminal emission, should not interrupt his prayer. Rather, he should abridge. One who was reading the Torah and recalled that he experienced a seminal emission, does not interrupt his reading, but rather reads quickly with less than perfect diction. Rabbi Meir disagrees and says: One who experienced a seminal emission is not permitted to read more than three verses in the Torah, as one may read no fewer than three verses in the Torah. After he completes three verses, he must stop and let someone else continue.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讛讬讛 注讜诪讚 讘转驻诇讛 讜专讗讛 爪讜讗讛 讻谞讙讚讜 诪讛诇讱 诇驻谞讬讜 注讚 砖讬讝专拽谞讛 诇讗讞讜专讬讜 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜讛转谞讬讗 诇爪讚讚讬谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗驻砖专 讛讗 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专

It was taught in another baraita: One who was standing in prayer and he saw feces before him must walk forward until he has placed it four cubits behind him. The Gemara challenges this: Wasn鈥檛 it taught in another baraita that it is sufficient if he distances himself four cubits to the side? The Gemara resolves this contradiction: This is not difficult, as that baraita which taught that it must be four cubits behind him, is referring to a case where it is possible for him to advance that distance, while that baraita which taught that he may distance himself four cubits to the side, is referring to a case where it is not possible to advance four cubits, in which case he must at least step to the side.

讛讬讛 诪转驻诇诇 讜诪爪讗 爪讜讗讛 讘诪拽讜诪讜 讗诪专 专讘讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讞讟讗 转驻诇转讜 转驻诇讛 诪转拽讬祝 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讜讛讗 讝讘讞 专砖注讬诐 转讜注讘讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讞讟讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛转驻诇诇 转驻诇转讜 转讜注讘讛:

The Gemara cites another halakha: One who was praying and later found feces in the place where he prayed, Rabba said: Although he committed a transgression in his failure to examine that venue to determine if it was worthy of prayer (Tosafot), his prayer is a valid prayer and he fulfilled his obligation. Rava strongly objects to his statement: Isn鈥檛 it stated: 鈥淭he sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination, the more so as he offers it in depravity鈥 (Proverbs 21:27), from which we derive that a mitzva performed inappropriately is no mitzva at all? Consequently, the fact that he did not pay proper attention invalidates his prayer. Rather, Rava said: Because this person committed a transgression, although he prayed, his prayer is an abomination and he must pray again.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讬讛 注讜诪讚 讘转驻诇讛 讜诪讬诐 砖讜转转讬谉 注诇 讘专讻讬讜 驻讜住拽 注讚 砖讬讻诇讜 讛诪讬诐 讜讞讜讝专 讜诪转驻诇诇 诇讛讬讻谉 讞讜讝专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讞讚 讗诪专 讞讜讝专 诇专讗砖 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诇诪拽讜诐 砖驻住拽

The Sages taught in a baraita: One who was standing in prayer when, for some reason, urine is flowing on his knees, he must interrupt his prayer until the urine ceases, and then resume praying. The Gemara, asks: To where in the prayer does he return when he resumes his prayer? Rav 岣sda and Rav Hamnuna disagreed; one said: He must return to the beginning of the prayer, and the other said: He must return to the point where he stopped.

诇讬诪讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

The Gemara notes: Let us say that they disagree about this:

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

daf_icon

Extempore Effusions on the Completion of Masechet Berakhot (chapters 1-3)

PEREK ALEPH: (2a) When may we say Shma at night? From the time the priests take their first bite 鈥楾il...

Berakhot 22

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Berakhot 22

诪砖诪砖转 讜专讗转讛 谞讚讛 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讟讘讬诇讛 讗讘诇 讘注诇 拽专讬 讙专讬讚讗 诪讞讬讬讘 诇讗 转讬诪讗 诪讘专讱 讗诇讗 诪讛专讛专

that a woman who engaged in intercourse and saw menstrual blood is not required to immerse herself, but one who experienced a seminal emission alone, with no concurrent impurity, is required to do so? If so, we must interpret Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 statement in the mishna that one recites a blessing both beforehand and thereafter as follows: Do not say that one recites a blessing orally, but rather he means that one contemplates those blessings in his heart.

讜诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛专讛讜专 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘注诇 拽专讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 诪讬诐 诇讟讘讜诇 拽讜专讗 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讘专讱 诇讗 诇驻谞讬讛 讜诇讗 诇讗讞专讬讛 讜讗讜讻诇 驻转讜 讜诪讘专讱 诇讗讞专讬讛 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讘专讱 诇驻谞讬讛 讗讘诇 诪讛专讛专 讘诇讘讜 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讜爪讬讗 讘砖驻转讬讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 诪讜爪讬讗 讘砖驻转讬讜

The Gemara challenges this explanation: And does Rabbi Yehuda maintain that there is validity to contemplating in his heart? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: One who experienced a seminal emission and who has no water to immerse and purify himself recites Shema and neither recites the blessings of Shema beforehand nor thereafter? And when he eats his bread, he recites the blessing thereafter, Grace after Meals, but does not recite the blessing: Who brings forth bread from the earth, beforehand. However, in the instances where he may not recite the blessing, he contemplates it in his heart rather than utter it with his lips, this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. However Rabbi Yehuda says: In either case, he utters all of the blessings with his lips. Rabbi Yehuda does not consider contemplating the blessings in his heart a solution and permits them to be recited.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 注砖讗谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻讛诇讻讜转 讚专讱 讗专抓

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 statement in the mishna should be interpreted in another way. Rabbi Yehuda rendered the blessings like Hilkhot Derekh Eretz, which according to some Sages were not considered to be in the same category as all other matters of Torah and therefore, one is permitted to engage in their study even after having experienced a seminal emission.

讚转谞讬讗 讜讛讜讚注转诐 诇讘谞讬讱 讜诇讘谞讬 讘谞讬讱 讜讻转讬讘 讘转专讬讛 讬讜诐 讗砖专 注诪讚转 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 讘讞讜专讘 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘讗讬诪讛 讜讘讬专讗讛 讜讘专转转 讜讘讝讬注 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘讗讬诪讛 讜讘讬专讗讛 讜讘专转转 讜讘讝讬注

As it was taught in a baraita: It is written: 鈥淎nd you shall impart them to your children and your children鈥檚 children鈥 (Deuteronomy 4:9), and it is written thereafter: 鈥淭he day that you stood before the Lord your God at Horeb鈥 (Deuteronomy 4:10). Just as below, the Revelation at Sinai was in reverence, fear, quaking, and trembling, so too here, in every generation, Torah must be studied with a sense of reverence, fear, quaking, and trembling.

诪讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 讛讝讘讬诐 讜讛诪爪专注讬诐 讜讘讗讬谉 注诇 谞讚讜转 诪讜转专讬诐 诇拽专讜转 讘转讜专讛 讜讘谞讘讬讗讬诐 讜讘讻转讜讘讬诐 诇砖谞讜转 讘诪砖谞讛 讜讙诪专讗 讜讘讛诇讻讜转 讜讘讗讙讚讜转 讗讘诇 讘注诇讬 拽专讬讬谉 讗住讜专讬诐

From here the Sages stated: Zavim, lepers, and those who engaged in intercourse with menstruating women, despite their severe impurity, are permitted to read the Torah, Prophets, and Writings, and to study Mishna and Gemara and halakhot and aggada. However, those who experienced a seminal emission are prohibited from doing so. The reason for this distinction is that the cases of severe impurity are caused by ailment or other circumstances beyond his control and, as a result, they do not necessarily preclude a sense of reverence and awe as he studies Torah. This, however, is not the case with regard to impurity resulting from a seminal emission, which usually comes about due to frivolity and a lack of reverence and awe. Therefore, it is inappropriate for one who experiences a seminal emission to engage in matters of in Torah.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 砖讜谞讛 讛讜讗 讘专讙讬诇讬讜转 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬爪讬注 讗转 讛诪砖谞讛 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讘谉 讬讜住祝 讗讜诪专 诪爪讬注 讛讜讗 讗转 讛诪砖谞讛 讜讗讬谞讜 诪爪讬注 讗转 讛讙诪专讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讘谉 讗讘讬砖诇讜诐 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诪爪讬注 讗转 讛讙诪专讗 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讗诪专 讗讝讻专讜转 砖讘讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛住谞讚诇专 转诇诪讬讚讜 砖诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬讻谞住 诇诪讚专砖 讻诇 注讬拽专 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 诇讗 讬讻谞住 诇讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 讻诇 注讬拽专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖讜谞讛 讛讜讗 讘讛诇讻讜转 讚专讱 讗专抓

However, there are many opinions concerning the precise parameters of the Torah matters prohibited by this decree. Rabbi Yosei says: One who experiences a seminal emission studies mishnayot that he is accustomed to study, as long as he does not expound upon a new mishna to study it in depth. Rabbi Yonatan ben Yosef says: He expounds upon the mishna but he does not expound upon the Gemara, which is the in-depth analysis of the Torah. Rabbi Natan ben Avishalom says: He may even expound upon the Gemara, as long as he does not utter the mentions of God鈥檚 name therein. Rabbi Yo岣nan the Cobbler, Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 student, says in the name of Rabbi Akiva: One who experiences a seminal emission may not enter into homiletic interpretation [midrash] of verses at all. Some say that he says: He may not enter the study hall [beit hamidrash] at all. Rabbi Yehuda says: He may study only Hilkhot Derekh Eretz. In terms of the problem raised above, apparently Rabbi Yehuda considers the legal status of the blessings to be parallel to the legal status of Hilkhot Derekh Eretz, and therefore one may utter them orally.

诪注砖讛 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 砖专讗讛 拽专讬 讜讛讬讛 诪讛诇讱 注诇 讙讘 讛谞讛专 讗诪专讜 诇讜 转诇诪讬讚讬讜 专讘讬谞讜 砖谞讛 诇谞讜 驻专拽 讗讞讚 讘讛诇讻讜转 讚专讱 讗专抓 讬专讚 讜讟讘诇 讜砖谞讛 诇讛诐 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讗 讻讱 诇诪讚转谞讜 专讘讬谞讜 砖讜谞讛 讛讜讗 讘讛诇讻讜转 讚专讱 讗专抓 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪讬拽诇 讗谞讬 注诇 讗讞专讬诐 诪讞诪讬专 讗谞讬 注诇 注爪诪讬:

The Gemara relates an incident involving Rabbi Yehuda himself, who experienced a seminal emission and was walking along the riverbank with his disciples. His disciples said to him: Rabbi, teach us a chapter from Hilkhot Derekh Eretz, as he maintained that even in a state of impurity, it is permitted. He descended and immersed himself in the river and taught them Hilkhot Derekh Eretz. They said to him: Did you not teach us, our teacher, that he may study Hilkhot Derekh Eretz? He said to them: Although I am lenient with others, and allow them to study it without immersion, I am stringent with myself.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讛讬讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 诪注砖讛 讘转诇诪讬讚 讗讞讚 砖讛讬讛 诪讙诪讙诐 诇诪注诇讛 诪专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘谞讬 驻转讞 驻讬讱 讜讬讗讬专讜 讚讘专讬讱 砖讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 砖谞讗诪专 讛诇讗 讻讛 讚讘专讬 讻讗砖 谞讗诐 讛壮 诪讛 讗砖 讗讬谞讜 诪拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讗祝 讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讗讬谞谉 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛

Further elaborating on the issue of Torah study while in a state of impurity, it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira would say: Matters of Torah do not become ritually impure and therefore one who is impure is permitted to engage in Torah study. He implemented this halakha in practice. The Gemara relates an incident involving a student who was reciting mishnayot and baraitot hesitantly before the study hall of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira. The student experienced a seminal emission, and when he was asked to recite he did so in a rushed, uneven manner, as he did not want to utter the words of Torah explicitly. Rabbi Yehuda said to him: My son, open your mouth and let your words illuminate, as matters of Torah do not become ritually impure, as it is stated: 鈥淚s not my word like fire, says the Lord鈥 (Jeremiah 23:29). Just as fire does not become ritually impure, so too matters of Torah do not become ritually impure.

讗诪专 诪专 诪爪讬注 讗转 讛诪砖谞讛 讜讗讬谞讜 诪爪讬注 讗转 讛讙诪专讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬谞讜 讛诇讻讛 诪爪讬注 讗转 讛诪砖谞讛 讜讗讬谞讜 诪爪讬注 讗转 讛讙诪专讗 讻转谞讗讬 诪爪讬注 讗转 讛诪砖谞讛 讜讗讬谞讜 诪爪讬注 讗转 讛讙诪专讗 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讝讛 讜讝讛 讗住讜专 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讝讛 讜讝讛 诪讜转专

In this baraita the Master said that one who is impure because of a seminal emission expounds upon the mishna but does not expound upon the Gemara. The Gemara notes: This statement supports the opinion of Rabbi El鈥檃i, as Rabbi El鈥檃i said that Rabbi A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said in the name of Rabbeinu, Rav: The halakha is that one who experienced a seminal emission may expound upon the mishna but may not expound upon the Gemara. This dispute is parallel a tannaitic dispute, as it was taught: One who experienced a seminal emission expounds upon the mishna but does not expound upon the Gemara; that is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi 岣nina ben Gamliel: Both this and that are prohibited. And some say that he said: Both this and that are permitted.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讝讛 讜讝讛 讗住讜专 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛住谞讚诇专 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讝讛 讜讝讛 诪讜转专 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗

Comparing these opinions: The one who said that both this and that are prohibited holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan the Cobbler; the one who said that both this and that are permitted holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 谞讛讜讙 注诇诪讗 讻讛谞讬 转诇转 住讘讬 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 讘专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 讻专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讘讻诇讗讬诐 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讘讚讘专讬 转讜专讛

Summarizing the halakha, Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: The universally accepted practice is in accordance with the opinions of these three elders: In accordance with the opinion of Rabbi El鈥檃i with regard to the halakhot of the first shearing, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoshiya with regard to the laws of prohibited diverse kinds, and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira with regard to matters of Torah.

讻专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 讘专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 讗讜诪专 专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讗诇讗 讘讗专抓

The Gemara elaborates: In accordance with the opinion of Rabbi El鈥檃i with regard to the first shearing, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi El鈥檃i says: The obligation to set aside the first shearing from the sheep for the priest is only practiced in Eretz Yisrael and not in the Diaspora, and that is the accepted practice.

讻专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讘讻诇讗讬诐 讻讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 转讝专注 [讻专诪讱] 讻诇讗讬诐 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讗讜诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬讝专注 讞讟讛 讜砖注讜专讛 讜讞专爪谉 讘诪驻讜诇转 讬讚

In accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoshiya with regard to diverse kinds, as it is written: 鈥淵ou shall not sow your vineyard with diverse kinds鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:9). Rabbi Yoshiya says: This means that one who sows diverse kinds is not liable by Torah law until he sows wheat and barley and a grape pit with a single hand motion, meaning that while sowing in the vineyard he violates the prohibition of diverse kinds that applies to seeds and to the vineyard simultaneously.

讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讘讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛

In accordance with Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira with regard to one who experiences a seminal emission is permitted to engage in matters of Torah, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: Matters of Torah do not become ritually impure.

讻讬 讗转讗 讝注讬专讬 讗诪专 讘讟诇讜讛 诇讟讘讬诇讜转讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讘讟诇讜讛 诇谞讟讬诇讜转讗 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘讟诇讜讛 诇讟讘讬诇讜转讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘讟诇讜讛 诇谞讟讬诇讜转讗 讻讬 讛讗 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讬讬讟 讗诪讗谉 讚诪讛讚专 讗诪讬讗 讘注讬讚谉 爪诇讜转讗:

And the Gemara relates: When Ze鈥檌ri came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he succinctly capsulated this halakha and said: They abolished ritual immersion, and some say that he said: They abolished ritual washing of the hands. The Gemara explains: The one who says that they abolished immersion holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira that one who experienced a seminal emission is not required to immerse. And the one who says that they abolished washing of the hands holds in accordance with that which Rav 岣sda cursed one who goes out of his way to seek water at the time of prayer.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘注诇 拽专讬 砖谞转谞讜 注诇讬讜 转砖注讛 拽讘讬谉 诪讬诐 讟讛讜专 谞讞讜诐 讗讬砖 讙诐 讝讜 诇讞砖讛 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇讞砖讛 诇讘谉 注讝讗讬 讜讘谉 注讝讗讬 讬爪讗 讜砖谞讗讛 诇转诇诪讬讚讬讜 讘砖讜拽 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 转专讬 讗诪讜专讗讬 讘诪注专讘讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讝讘讬讚讗 讞讚 转谞讬 砖谞讗讛 讜讞讚 转谞讬 诇讞砖讛

The Sages taught in a baraita: One who experienced a seminal emission who had nine kav of drawn water poured over him, that is sufficient to render him ritually pure and he need not immerse himself in a ritual bath. The Gemara relates: Na岣m of Gam Zo whispered this halakha to Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Akiva whispered it to his student ben Azzai, and ben Azzai went out and taught it to his students publicly in the marketplace. Two amora鈥檌m in Eretz Yisrael, Rabbi Yosei bar Avin and Rabbi Yosei bar Zevida, disagreed as to the correct version of the conclusion of the incident. One taught: Ben Azzai taught it to his students in the market. And the other taught: Ben Azzai also whispered it to his students.

诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 砖谞讗讛 诪砖讜诐 讘讟讜诇 转讜专讛 讜诪砖讜诐 讘讟讜诇 驻专讬讛 讜专讘讬讛 讜诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 诇讞砖讛 砖诇讗 讬讛讜 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 诪爪讜讬讬诐 讗爪诇 谞砖讜转讬讛诐 讻转专谞讙讜诇讬诐

The Gemara explains the rationale behind the two versions of this incident. The Sage who taught that ben Azzai taught the law openly in the market held that the leniency was due to concern that the halakhot requiring ritual immersion would promote dereliction in the study of Torah. The ruling of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira eases the way for an individual who experienced a seminal emission to study Torah. This was also due to concern that the halakhot requiring ritual immersion would promote the suspension of procreation, as one might abstain from marital relations to avoid the immersion required thereafter. And the Sage, who taught that ben Azzai only whispered this halakha to his students, held that he did so in order that Torah scholars would not be with their wives like roosters. If the purification process was that simple, Torah scholars would engage in sexual activity constantly, which would distract them from their studies.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 砖诪注转讬 砖诪拽讬诇讬谉 讘讛 讜砖诪注转讬 砖诪讞诪讬专讬谉 讘讛 讜讻诇 讛诪讞诪讬专 讘讛 注诇 注爪诪讜 诪讗专讬讻讬谉 诇讜 讬诪讬讜 讜砖谞讜转讬讜

With regard to this ritual immersion, Rabbi Yannai said: I heard that there are those who are lenient with regard to it and I have heard that there are those who are stringent with regard to it. The halakha in this matter was never conclusively established and anyone who accepts upon himself to be stringent with regard to it, they prolong for him his days and years.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪讛 讟讬讘谉 砖诇 讟讜讘诇讬 砖讞专讬谉 诪讛 讟讬讘谉 讛讗 讗讬讛讜 讚讗诪专 讘注诇 拽专讬 讗住讜专 讘讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪讛 讟讬讘谉 讘讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 讗驻砖专 讘转砖注讛 拽讘讬谉 诪讛 讟讬讘谉 讘讟讘讬诇讛 讗驻砖专 讘谞转讬谞讛

The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: What is the essence of those who immerse themselves in the morning? The Gemara retorts: How can one ask what is their essence? Isn鈥檛 he the one who said that one who experiences a seminal emission is prohibited from engaging in matters of Torah and is required to immerse himself in the morning? Rather, this is what he meant to say: What is the essence of immersion in a ritual bath of forty se鈥檃 of water when it is possible to purify oneself with nine kav? Furthermore, what is the essence of immersion when it is also possible to purify oneself by pouring water?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讙讚专 讙讚讜诇 讙讚专讜 讘讛 讚转谞讬讗 诪注砖讛 讘讗讞讚 砖转讘注 讗砖讛 诇讚讘专 注讘讬专讛 讗诪专讛 诇讜 专讬拽讗 讬砖 诇讱 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 砖讗转讛 讟讜讘诇 讘讛谉 诪讬讚 驻讬专砖

Regarding this, Rabbi 岣nina said: They established a massive fence protecting one from sinning with their decree that one must immerse himself in forty se鈥檃 of water. As it was taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving one who solicited a woman to commit a sinful act. She said to him: Good-for-nothing. Do you have forty se鈥檃 in which to immerse and purify yourself afterwards? He immediately desisted. The obligation to immerse oneself caused individuals to refrain from transgression.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇专讘谞谉 专讘讜转讬 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗转诐 诪讝诇讝诇讬谉 讘讟讘讬诇讛 讝讜 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 爪讬谞讛 讗驻砖专 讘诪专讞爪讗讜转

Rav Huna said to the Sages: Gentlemen, why do you disdain this immersion? If it is because it is difficult for you to immerse in the cold waters of the ritual bath, it is possible to purify oneself by immersing oneself in the heated bathhouses, which are unfit for immersion for other forms of ritual impurity but are fit for immersion in this case.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜讻讬 讬砖 讟讘讬诇讛 讘讞诪讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 拽讗讬 讻讜讜转讱

Rabbi 岣sda said to him: Is there ritual immersion in hot water? Rav Huna said to him: Indeed, doubts with regard to the fitness of baths have been raised, and Rav Adda bar Ahava holds in accordance with your opinion. Nevertheless, I remain convinced that it is permitted.

专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 讘讗讙谞讗 讚诪讬讗 讘讬 诪住讜转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇砖诪注讬讛 讝讬诇 讜讗讬讬转讬 诇讬 转砖注讛 拽讘讬谉 讜砖讚讬 注诇讜讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 诇诪讛 诇讬讛 诇诪专 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 讜讛讗 讬转讬讘 讘讙讜讜讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 诪讛 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 讘讟讘讬诇讛 讜诇讗 讘谞转讬谞讛 讗祝 转砖注讛 拽讘讬谉 讘谞转讬谞讛 讜诇讗 讘讟讘讬诇讛

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Zeira was sitting in a tub of water in the bathhouse. He said to his attendant: Go and get nine kav of water and pour it over me so that I may purify myself from the impurity caused by a seminal emission. Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said to him: Why does my master require all of this? Aren鈥檛 you seated in at least nine kav of water in the tub. He said to him: The law of nine kav parallels the law of forty se鈥檃, in that their halakhot are exclusive. Just as forty se鈥檃 can only purify an individual through immersion and not through pouring, so too nine kav can only purify one who experienced a seminal emission through pouring and not through immersion.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 转拽谉 讞爪讘讗 讘转 转砖注讛 拽讘讬谉 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讙诇讜住讟专讗 讗诪专讜 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讞讜诇讛 诇讗讜谞住讜 讗讘诇 诇讞讜诇讛 讛诪专讙讬诇 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛

The Gemara relates that Rav Na岣an prepared a jug with a capacity of nine kav so that his students could pour water over themselves and become pure. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yehuda Gelostera said: The halakha that one who experienced a seminal emission can be purified by pouring nine kav was only taught for a sick person who experienced the emission involuntarily. However, a sick person who experienced a normal seminal emission in the course of marital relations, is required to immerse himself in forty se鈥檃.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗转讘专 讞爪讘讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 讘讗讜砖讗 讛讜讛 注讜讘讚讗

Rav Yosef said: In that case, Rav Na岣an鈥檚 jug is broken, meaning it is no longer of any use, as few people fall into the category of sick people who experienced seminal emissions. Nevertheless, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: In Usha there was an incident

讘拽讬诇注讗 讚专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗转讜 讜砖讗诇讜 诇专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讞讜诇讛 讛诪专讙讬诇 讗讘诇 诇讞讜诇讛 诇讗讜谞住讜 驻讟讜专 诪讻诇讜诐 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗爪讟诪讬讚 讞爪讘讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉

that this problem was raised in Rav Oshaya鈥檚 chamber, and they came and asked Rav Asi. He said to them: They only stated the obligation to pour water over one who is impure because of a seminal emission with regard to a sick person who experienced a normal seminal emission, but a sick person who experienced an involuntary seminal emission is clearly exempt from anything and requires no immersion whatsoever. Rav Yosef said: In that case, Rav Na岣an鈥檚 jug is rejoined, meaning that it is effective with regard to purification.

诪讻讚讬 讻讜诇讛讜 讗诪讜专讗讬 讜转谞讗讬 讘讚注讝专讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讜谞讞讝讬 注讝专讗 讛讬讻讬 转拽谉

Up to now, discussion has focused on various problems pertaining to the laws of immersion as they concern one whose impurity is due to seminal emission. The Gemara asks: Since all of the amora鈥檌m and tanna鈥檌m disagree with regard to the decree of Ezra, let us examine how Ezra instituted this ordinance, as this is not an uncommon circumstance and we can see how they conducted themselves.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 注讝专讗 转拽谉 诇讘专讬讗 讛诪专讙讬诇 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 讜讘专讬讗 诇讗讜谞住讜 转砖注讛 拽讘讬谉 讜讗转讜 讗诪讜专讗讬 讜驻诇讬讙讬 讘讞讜诇讛 诪专 住讘专 讞讜诇讛 讛诪专讙讬诇 讻讘专讬讗 讛诪专讙讬诇 讜讞讜诇讛 诇讗讜谞住讜 讻讘专讬讗 诇讗讜谞住讜 讜诪专 住讘专 讞讜诇讛 讛诪专讙讬诇 讻讘专讬讗 诇讗讜谞住讜 讜讞讜诇讛 诇讗讜谞住讜 驻讟讜专 诪讻诇讜诐

Abaye said: Ezra did not institute a sweeping ordinance concerning every case of one who experienced a seminal emission; rather, he instituted only that a healthy person who experienced a normal seminal emission is required to immerse himself in forty se鈥檃, while for a healthy person who experienced an involuntary seminal emission, nine kav are sufficient. And the amora鈥檌m came and disagreed with regard to a sick person. One Sage held that a sick person who experienced a normal seminal emission is considered like a healthy person who experienced a normal seminal emission, while a sick person who experienced an involuntary seminal emission is considered like a healthy person who experienced an involuntary seminal emission. However, another Sage maintained that a sick person who experienced a normal seminal emission is considered like a healthy person who experienced an involuntary seminal emission, and consequently requires only that nine kav be poured over him, while a sick person who experienced an involuntary seminal emission is exempt from any form of immersion or purification.

讗诪专 专讘讗 谞讛讬 讚转拽谉 注讝专讗 讟讘讬诇讛 谞转讬谞讛 诪讬 转拽谉 讜讛讗诪专 诪专 注讝专讗 转拽谉 讟讘讬诇讛 诇讘注诇讬 拽专讬讬谉 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 注讝专讗 转拽谉 讟讘讬诇讛 诇讘专讬讗 讛诪专讙讬诇 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 讜讗转讜 专讘谞谉 讜讛转拽讬谞讜 诇讘专讬讗 诇讗讜谞住讜 转砖注讛 拽讘讬谉 讜讗转讜 讗诪讜专讗讬 讜拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讞讜诇讛 诪专 住讘专 讞讜诇讛 讛诪专讙讬诇 讻讘专讬讗 讛诪专讙讬诇 讜讞讜诇讛 诇讗讜谞住讜 讻讘专讬讗 诇讗讜谞住讜 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讘专讬讗 讛诪专讙讬诇 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 讜讞讜诇讛 讛诪专讙讬诇 讻讘专讬讗 诇讗讜谞住讜 转砖注讛 拽讘讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讞讜诇讛 诇讗讜谞住讜 驻讟讜专 诪讻诇讜诐

Rava said: Although Ezra instituted immersion for one who experienced a seminal emission, did he institute the pouring of nine kav? Didn鈥檛 the Master say that we have a tradition that Ezra only instituted immersion for those who experienced a seminal emission? Rather, Rava said: We must explain that the diverse opinions developed after Ezra鈥檚 decree. Ezra himself instituted immersion in forty se鈥檃 only for a healthy person who experienced a normal seminal emission. And the Sages came and instituted that a healthy person who experienced an involuntary seminal emission should have nine kav poured over him. And then the amora鈥檌m came and disagreed with regard to a sick person; one Sage held that a sick person who experienced a normal seminal emission is considered like a healthy person who experienced a normal seminal emission, while a sick person who experienced an involuntary seminal emission is considered like a healthy person who experienced an involuntary seminal emission, another Sage maintained that only a healthy person who experienced a normal seminal emission is required to immerse himself in forty se鈥檃 while a sick person who experienced a normal seminal emission is considered like a healthy person who experienced an involuntary seminal emission, requiring only nine kav. But a sick person who experienced an involuntary seminal emission is exempt from any form of immersion or purification.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻转讗 讘专讬讗 讛诪专讙讬诇 讜讞讜诇讛 讛诪专讙讬诇 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 讜讘专讬讗 诇讗讜谞住讜 转砖注讛 拽讘讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讞讜诇讛 诇讗讜谞住讜 驻讟讜专 诪讻诇讜诐:

Rava stated that the halakhic ruling is in accordance with the first opinion: A healthy person who experienced a normal seminal emission and a sick person who experienced a normal seminal emission require forty se鈥檃, while a healthy person who experienced an involuntary seminal emission suffices with nine kav. But a sick person who experienced an involuntary seminal emission is exempt from undergoing any rite of purification.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘注诇 拽专讬 砖谞转谞讜 注诇讬讜 转砖注讛 拽讘讬谉 诪讬诐 讟讛讜专 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 诇注爪诪讜 讗讘诇 诇讗讞专讬诐 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

The Sages taught in a Tosefta: One who experienced a seminal emission and had nine kav of drawn water poured over him is ritually pure. In what case is this statement said? In a case involving Torah study for himself, but in order to purify himself that he may teach Torah to others, he must immerse himself in forty se鈥檃. Rabbi Yehuda says: Forty se鈥檃 is required for purification in any case.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讞讚 诪讛讗讬 讝讜讙讗 讜讞讚 诪讛讗讬 讝讜讙讗 讗专讬砖讗 讞讚 讗诪专 讛讗 讚讗诪专转 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 诇注爪诪讜 讗讘诇 诇讗讞专讬诐 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讞讜诇讛 讛诪专讙讬诇 讗讘诇 诇讞讜诇讛 诇讗讜谞住讜 转砖注讛 拽讘讬谉 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讻诇 诇讗讞专讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讜诇讛 诇讗讜谞住讜 注讚 讚讗讬讻讗 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛

With regard to this issue, a dispute arose between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, and Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina. One member of this pair and one member of that pair disagreed with regard to the first clause of the Tosefta. One said: That which you said: In what case is this statement said? In a case involving Torah study for himself, but in order to purify himself that he may teach Torah to others, he must immerse himself in forty se鈥檃, was only taught regarding a sick person who experienced a normal seminal emission, but for a sick person who experienced an involuntary seminal emission, nine kav is sufficient even for teaching others. And one said that anyone who teaches others, even if he was sick and experienced an involuntary seminal emission, is not considered pure until there are forty se鈥檃.

讜讞讚 诪讛讗讬 讝讜讙讗 讜讞讚 诪讛讗讬 讝讜讙讗 讗住讬驻讗 讞讚 讗诪专 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘拽专拽注 讗讘诇 讘讻诇讬诐 诇讗 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讻诇讬诐 谞诪讬

And one member of this pair and one member of that pair disagreed with regard to the latter clause of the Tosefta. One said: That which Rabbi Yehuda said: Forty se鈥檃 in any case, was only taught when the water is in the ground, in accordance with the Torah law of ritual bath, but not if it was collected in vessels. And one said: Even forty se鈥檃 collected in vessels are sufficient for purification.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讻诇讬诐 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘拽专拽注 讗讬谉 讘讻诇讬诐 诇讗 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬

The Gemara clarifies this problem: Granted, according to the one who said that forty se鈥檃 purifies even in vessels. That is why the Tosefta taught: Rabbi Yehuda says: Forty se鈥檃 in any case. However, according to the one who said that Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion is that forty se鈥檃 in the ground, yes, it purifies, but in vessels, no, it does not purify, what does the expression in any case come to include?

诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讬诐 砖讗讜讘讬谉

The Gemara explains: In any case comes to include drawn water, as Rabbi Yehuda permits immersion in forty se鈥檃 of water collected in the ground even if the water was drawn by human hand.

专讘 驻驻讗 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讜专讘讗 (讘专讘讬) 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻专讬讻讜 专讬驻转讗 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讘讜 诇讬 诇讚讬讚讬 诇讘专讜讱 讚谞驻讜诇 注讬诇讜讗讬 转砖注讛 拽讘讬谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讗 (讘专讘讬) [讘专] 砖诪讜讗诇 转谞讬谞讗 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 诇注爪诪讜 讗讘诇 诇讗讞专讬诐 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 讗诇讗 讛讘讜 诇讬 诇讚讬讚讬 诇讘专讜讱 讚谞驻讜诇 注讬诇讜讗讬 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讘讜 诇讬 诇讚讬讚讬 诇讘专讜讱 讚诇讬讻讗 注讬诇讜讗讬 诇讗 讛讗讬 讜诇讗 讛讗讬

The Gemara relates that Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, and Rava bar Shmuel ate bread together. Rav Pappa said to them: Allow me to recite Grace after Meals for the group, as I am ritually pure because nine kav of water fell upon me; in other words, he poured it over himself. Rava bar Shmuel said to them: We learned, in what case is this statement that nine kav purify, said? In a case involving Torah study for himself. But, in order to purify himself that he may teach Torah to others, and by extension to fulfill the obligation of others, he must immerse himself in forty se鈥檃. Rather, allow me to recite Grace after Meals for the group, as forty se鈥檃 of water fell upon me; in other words, I immersed myself in a ritual bath. Rav Huna said to them: Allow me to recite Grace after Meals for the group, as I have had neither this nor that upon me because I remained ritually pure.

专讘 讞诪讗 讟讘讬诇 讘诪注诇讬 讬讜诪讗 讚驻住讞讗 诇讛讜爪讬讗 专讘讬诐 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转谉 讜诇讬转 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛:

It is also said that Rav 岣ma would immerse himself on Passover eve in order to fulfill the obligations of the masses. However the Gemara concludes: The halakha is not in accordance with his opinion that distinguishes between the purification for oneself and purification for the sake of others.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讬讛 注讜诪讚 讘转驻诇讛 讜谞讝讻专 砖讛讜讗 讘注诇 拽专讬 诇讗 讬驻住讬拽 讗诇讗 讬拽爪专

MISHNA: This mishna contains various statements with regard to individuals with different types of ritual impurity as well as the need to distance oneself from filth and impurity. One who was standing in prayer and he recalled that he experienced a seminal emission, and according to this opinion he is prohibited from praying, should not interrupt his prayer, rather he should abridge each individual blessing.

讬专讚 诇讟讘讜诇 讗诐 讬讻讜诇 诇注诇讜转 讜诇讛转讻住讜转 讜诇拽专讜转 注讚 砖诇讗 转讛讗 讛谞抓 讛讞诪讛 讬注诇讛 讜讬转讻住讛 讜讬拽专讗 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讬转讻住讛 讘诪讬诐 讜讬拽专讗 讜诇讗 讬转讻住讛 诇讗 讘诪讬诐 讛专注讬诐 讜诇讗 讘诪讬 讛诪砖专讛 注讚 砖讬讟讬诇 诇转讜讻谉 诪讬诐 讜讻诪讛 讬专讞讬拽 诪讛谉 讜诪谉 讛爪讜讗讛 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转:

They stated a general principle: One who descended to immerse himself, if he is able to ascend, cover himself with a garment, and recite the morning Shema before sunrise, he should ascend, cover himself, and recite Shema, and if not, he should cover himself in the water and recite Shema there. He may not, however, cover himself in either foul water, or water in which flax was soaked, until he pours other water into it. And in general, how far must one distance himself from urine and feces in order to recite Shema? At least four cubits.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讬讛 注讜诪讚 讘转驻诇讛 讜谞讝讻专 砖讛讜讗 讘注诇 拽专讬 诇讗 讬驻住讬拽 讗诇讗 讬拽爪专 讛讬讛 拽讜专讗 讘转讜专讛 讜谞讝讻专 砖讛讜讗 讘注诇 拽专讬 讗讬谞讜 诪驻住讬拽 讜注讜诇讛 讗诇讗 诪讙诪讙诐 讜拽讜专讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讘注诇 拽专讬 专砖讗讬 诇拽专讜转 讘转讜专讛 讬讜转专 诪砖诇砖讛 驻住讜拽讬诐

GEMARA: A baraita further elaborates on the first halakha in the mishna. The Sages taught: One who was standing in prayer and he recalled that he had experienced a seminal emission, should not interrupt his prayer. Rather, he should abridge. One who was reading the Torah and recalled that he experienced a seminal emission, does not interrupt his reading, but rather reads quickly with less than perfect diction. Rabbi Meir disagrees and says: One who experienced a seminal emission is not permitted to read more than three verses in the Torah, as one may read no fewer than three verses in the Torah. After he completes three verses, he must stop and let someone else continue.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讛讬讛 注讜诪讚 讘转驻诇讛 讜专讗讛 爪讜讗讛 讻谞讙讚讜 诪讛诇讱 诇驻谞讬讜 注讚 砖讬讝专拽谞讛 诇讗讞讜专讬讜 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜讛转谞讬讗 诇爪讚讚讬谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗驻砖专 讛讗 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专

It was taught in another baraita: One who was standing in prayer and he saw feces before him must walk forward until he has placed it four cubits behind him. The Gemara challenges this: Wasn鈥檛 it taught in another baraita that it is sufficient if he distances himself four cubits to the side? The Gemara resolves this contradiction: This is not difficult, as that baraita which taught that it must be four cubits behind him, is referring to a case where it is possible for him to advance that distance, while that baraita which taught that he may distance himself four cubits to the side, is referring to a case where it is not possible to advance four cubits, in which case he must at least step to the side.

讛讬讛 诪转驻诇诇 讜诪爪讗 爪讜讗讛 讘诪拽讜诪讜 讗诪专 专讘讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讞讟讗 转驻诇转讜 转驻诇讛 诪转拽讬祝 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讜讛讗 讝讘讞 专砖注讬诐 转讜注讘讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讞讟讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛转驻诇诇 转驻诇转讜 转讜注讘讛:

The Gemara cites another halakha: One who was praying and later found feces in the place where he prayed, Rabba said: Although he committed a transgression in his failure to examine that venue to determine if it was worthy of prayer (Tosafot), his prayer is a valid prayer and he fulfilled his obligation. Rava strongly objects to his statement: Isn鈥檛 it stated: 鈥淭he sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination, the more so as he offers it in depravity鈥 (Proverbs 21:27), from which we derive that a mitzva performed inappropriately is no mitzva at all? Consequently, the fact that he did not pay proper attention invalidates his prayer. Rather, Rava said: Because this person committed a transgression, although he prayed, his prayer is an abomination and he must pray again.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讬讛 注讜诪讚 讘转驻诇讛 讜诪讬诐 砖讜转转讬谉 注诇 讘专讻讬讜 驻讜住拽 注讚 砖讬讻诇讜 讛诪讬诐 讜讞讜讝专 讜诪转驻诇诇 诇讛讬讻谉 讞讜讝专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讞讚 讗诪专 讞讜讝专 诇专讗砖 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诇诪拽讜诐 砖驻住拽

The Sages taught in a baraita: One who was standing in prayer when, for some reason, urine is flowing on his knees, he must interrupt his prayer until the urine ceases, and then resume praying. The Gemara, asks: To where in the prayer does he return when he resumes his prayer? Rav 岣sda and Rav Hamnuna disagreed; one said: He must return to the beginning of the prayer, and the other said: He must return to the point where he stopped.

诇讬诪讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

The Gemara notes: Let us say that they disagree about this:

Scroll To Top