The Eddie B. Sitt Edition and Audio Series of the Talmud Bavli, tractate Yoma, has been dedicated in memory of Mazal bat Ester Baghdadi and Yosef ben Mazal Baghdadi by their family. May their souls rest in Gan Eden. Amen.
Today’s page has also been dedicated in memory of Yosef ben Mazal and Shlomo Ephraim ben Mazal. May their souls rest in Gan Eden. Amen.
We begin today’s page on 87b. We will go back a little and start five lines from the bottom. Although we have already studied these lines, we will review them in order to keep the discussion complete.
The Gemara begins: Rav said, “The Ne’ilah prayer exempts a person from the evening prayer.” Ne’ilah is the final prayer that we recite on Yom Kippur. The Jerusalem Talmud gives two explanations for its name. One possibility is that it refers to the closing of the gates of heaven. Another is that it refers to the closing of the gates of the Temple, meaning the end of the day, when the Temple would begin to close and its gates would be shut. Thus, Ne’ilah refers either to the gates of heaven or to the gates of the Temple.
In any event, Rav says that if a person prays Ne’ilah, he is exempt from praying the evening prayer. Rav is following his own position that Ne’ilah is an additional prayer consisting of seven blessings, like the other Amidah prayers of Yom Kippur. Since a person prayed Ne’ilah, he does not have to pray the evening prayer.
Obviously, we must also say that Rav is of the opinion that Ne’ilah was prayed at night. Since it was prayed at the time when the evening prayer is normally recited, Ne’ilah covers the evening prayer.
The Gemara raises a question. In tractate Berachot, there is a major discussion concerning the status of the evening prayer. Some authorities say that the evening prayer is only optional. If so, what does Rav mean when he says that Ne’ilah exempts a person from the evening prayer? A person does not need Ne’ilah to cover the evening prayer, because he does not have to pray the evening prayer in the first place.
According to the Tosafot in tractate Berachot, however, when we say that the evening prayer is optional, this does not mean that a person may simply pray if he wishes and refrain from praying if he does not wish to do so. Rather, it means that when a person is involved in another mitzvah, he does not have to pray the evening prayer. He is exempt from the evening prayer when he is occupied with another mitzvah.
According to Tosafot, we must explain that in this case, too, if the evening prayer is considered optional, the festive meal after Yom Kippur could itself exempt a person from the prayer. Eating after Yom Kippur is a mitzvah, because the meal is considered, in a sense, like a festival meal. As we say at the end of the Yom Kippur prayers, God has accepted our repentance. Therefore, the meal after Yom Kippur would be sufficient to exempt a person from the evening prayer, and one would not have to rely on Ne’ilah to cover it.
The Gemara answers that Rav was speaking according to the opinion that the evening prayer is an obligation. According to that view, Ne’ilah covers the evening prayer. Rav himself did not necessarily maintain that position; he was stating the law according to the opinion that considers the evening prayer obligatory.
The Gemara then raises a contradiction from a baraita. On the night of Yom Kippur, a person recites the Amidah of seven blessings and then confesses. The first opinion in the baraita says that a person must indeed pray, but he recites an abbreviated version of the Amidah known as Havineinu. This version contains the first three blessings of the Amidah, the final three blessings, and one middle blessing, Shema Koleinu, which includes a brief summary of all the middle blessings.
The reasoning behind this opinion is that people are fasting and are therefore tired. It would be difficult for the congregation to recite a long Amidah, so they recite the abbreviated version.
The Gemara rejects this and says that a person must recite all eighteen blessings of the full Amidah. The reason is that when a person must recite a particular addition to the prayer, he cannot insert that addition into the abbreviated version. The congregation might become confused and forget where it is holding. Therefore, since the required addition must be recited, there is no choice but to recite the full Amidah.
According to everyone, however, this baraita indicates that one prays the evening prayer on Yom Kippur. What, then, does Rav mean when he says that praying Ne’ilah can exempt a person from the evening prayer? Rav says that a person does not have to pray the evening prayer, while the baraita clearly says that he does.
The Gemara answers that this is a dispute among the Tannaim concerning whether Ne’ilah exempts a person from the evening prayer. Rav follows the opinion that it does, whereas the baraita follows the opinion that it does not. The Gemara now proceeds to identify the source of this dispute.
A baraita teaches that anyone who is obligated to immerse himself must immerse himself. This includes someone who came into contact with a corpse, someone who came into contact with a creeping creature, a man with a seminal discharge, a menstruating woman, a woman who gave birth, a leper, and anyone else who has a reason to immerse in a ritual bath. If the time for his immersion falls on Yom Kippur, he immerses in the usual manner on Yom Kippur.
One might ask how immersion is permitted on Yom Kippur when bathing is forbidden. The answer is that the prohibition concerns bathing for pleasure. A person who goes to a ritual bath is not going in to cool himself off or to enjoy the water. He is going because of a religious obligation.
Regarding a menstruating woman or a woman who has recently given birth, whose immersion is different from the ordinary cases because it must take place at night, the baraita says that she immerses in the usual manner on the night of Yom Kippur.
Regarding a man with a seminal discharge on Yom Kippur, the baraita says that he may immerse and continue throughout the day until the time of the afternoon prayer. This means that as long as he has not yet prayed the afternoon prayer, he may still immerse himself in the ritual bath. Once he has prayed the afternoon prayer, according to the first opinion of the Sages, he may no longer immerse.
Rabbi Yosei disagrees and says that he may immerse throughout the entire day.
What is the reasoning behind this dispute? Rashi explains that a man with a seminal discharge is prohibited from studying Torah, based on the principle that Ezra instituted immersion for those who experience such a discharge. He is also unable to pray while in that impure state. Therefore, on Yom Kippur, he has a need to immerse if he wishes to continue praying.
What do the Sages tell him? They say that he may immerse until the time of the afternoon prayer. If he experienced the discharge before that point, he may go to the ritual bath and then pray the afternoon prayer. Rabbi Yosei says that he may immerse throughout the entire day, even after praying the afternoon prayer.
The Gemara explains the first opinion as follows. If a person experienced the discharge before the afternoon prayer, he may immerse before praying the afternoon prayer. If he experienced it after the afternoon prayer, he must wait until nightfall and then immerse.
Why should he have to wait until night? Because according to the Sages, Ne’ilah is prayed specifically at night. Since Ne’ilah is prayed at night, a person may pray Ne’ilah and thereby cover his obligation to pray the evening prayer. Thus, we have found a Tannaitic source for Rav’s position: it is the opinion of the Sages in this baraita.
Rabbi Yosei, however, maintains that a person may immerse throughout the entire day. He must pray Ne’ilah, and one cannot tell him to wait until nightfall and thereby miss the time for Ne’ilah. Obviously, he cannot pray Ne’ilah during the day and use it to cover an obligation for the evening prayer at night. This is how the Gemara initially explains the dispute.
The early commentators raise an important question. We understand why the man with a seminal discharge is permitted to immerse on Yom Kippur: he needs to immerse in order to pray. But what about all the other cases listed in the baraita—the menstruating woman, the woman who gave birth, the man or woman with a discharge, the leper, the person who touched a creeping creature, and the person who came into contact with a corpse? They are permitted to pray even while impure, so what is their need to immerse specifically on Yom Kippur?
The early commentators explain that the baraita is discussing specific cases in which these people wish to eat terumah after Yom Kippur. In order for a priest to eat terumah, he must immerse during the day and then wait until sunset. Once night arrives, he becomes permitted to eat terumah. If he does not immerse on Yom Kippur during the day, he will not be able to eat terumah that night. This is the reason they are permitted to immerse during the day on Yom Kippur.
The man with a seminal discharge does not need this explanation. Even if he plans to eat ordinary food, he must immerse because he needs to pray.
The Gemara then raises another contradiction. We have established a dispute between the Sages and Rabbi Yosei, but another baraita appears to reverse their positions.
The second baraita says that a man with a discharge, a woman with a discharge, a person who became impure through contact with a menstruating woman, and a person who came into contact with a corpse all immerse in the usual manner on Yom Kippur. A menstruating woman and a woman who gave birth immerse in the usual manner at night. But a man with a seminal discharge may immerse throughout the entire day.
This second baraita says that the man with a seminal discharge may immerse throughout the entire day, whereas the first baraita says that he may immerse only until the afternoon prayer. In the first baraita, Rabbi Yosei says that he may immerse until the end of the day, while here Rabbi Yosei appears to say that once he has prayed the afternoon prayer, he may no longer immerse. Thus, Rabbi Yosei’s position seems to be reversed.
The Gemara asks how we can reconcile the two baraitot. Rashi explains that the question applies to both opinions. The Gemara answers that there is no contradiction. The issue is whether the person prayed Ne’ilah.
When Rabbi Yosei says in the second baraita that once a person has prayed the afternoon prayer he may no longer immerse, the reference is to a person who has also prayed Ne’ilah. The afternoon prayer and Ne’ilah are both prayed during the period before sunset. Therefore, once he has prayed the afternoon prayer and Ne’ilah as well, there is no purpose in immersing. He has completed all his prayers during that period.
In the first baraita, however, the person has not yet prayed Ne’ilah. Therefore, we have answered the contradiction concerning Rabbi Yosei in a straightforward manner: one baraita discusses a person who has prayed Ne’ilah, while the other discusses a person who has not.
The Gemara then says that this answer creates a difficulty concerning the Sages in the second baraita. The second baraita says that a man with a seminal discharge may immerse throughout the day. Why should he be permitted to immerse after praying, when there is no longer any purpose for him to do so?
The Gemara answers that the Sages in the second baraita are discussing the principle that immersion at its proper time is a mitzvah. Even if the person has already prayed all his prayers, he should not postpone the immersion. The matter of immersing on Yom Kippur is not only connected to prayer. Immersion at the proper time is itself a mitzvah.
Thus, the person must immerse on Yom Kippur at the first available opportunity. He should not delay the time of immersion. He must go to the ritual bath at the proper time, even if, from the standpoint of prayer, he no longer needs to do so.
Rashi explains that in the case of a man with a seminal discharge, the time for immersion is during the day. Once night arrives, the opportunity has passed. Therefore, he immerses during the day and becomes ritually pure.
The Gemara now brings another baraita. If a person has one of the Divine Names written on his flesh, he may not bathe, anoint himself, or walk in a dirty place or in a place with a bad odor, because the Name is written on his body.
What should he do if he must immerse in a ritual bath? He should take a reed or a similar plant and loosely wrap it around his hand to cover the written Name. It should not be wrapped tightly, so that water can still penetrate. The purpose is to divert the flow of water from the written Name and prevent the water from erasing it.
Rabbi Yosei says that he does not need to use a reed. He should immerse in the ordinary manner, but he must be careful not to rub the written Name, because rubbing could erase it.
The Gemara explains that the disagreement between the Sages and Rabbi Yosei in this baraita is also based on the question of whether immersion at its proper time is a mitzvah. The Sages tell him to find a reed and wrap it around his hand. Since one does not always have access to a reed, the Sages are effectively saying that if he cannot find one, he should not immerse. This indicates that they maintain that immersion at its proper time is a mitzvah, and therefore he must take the necessary precautions to immerse correctly.
Rabbi Yosei, because he also maintains that immersion at its proper time is a mitzvah, says not to become involved with finding a reed. He does not want the person to delay his immersion. Under all circumstances, he should immerse, but he must be careful not to rub the written Name.
Rashi explains that the reed is intended to protect the written Name from the flow of the water. Rabbi Yosei, however, says not to use a reed because we do not want the person to delay the immersion.
At first, we can say that the Sages in this baraita are the same Sages as those in the first baraita. In the first baraita, the Sages say that a person immerses in any event, whether or not he has prayed Ne’ilah. This would indicate that they do not maintain that immersion at its proper time is a mitzvah. Nevertheless, the problem remains concerning Rabbi Yosei.
In the second baraita, we explained Rabbi Yosei’s position by saying that he does not permit immersion after the afternoon prayer because the person has already prayed Ne’ilah. That explanation implied that Rabbi Yosei does not maintain that immersion at its proper time is a mitzvah. Here, however, Rabbi Yosei says that the person should immerse under all circumstances and should not delay while searching for a reed. That clearly indicates that he does maintain that immersion at its proper time is a mitzvah.
How can we reconcile Rabbi Yosei with Rabbi Yosei?
The Gemara answers that the Rabbi Yosei in the second baraita is Rabbi Yosei bar Yehudah. There are two different Tannaim named Rabbi Yosei: Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Yosei bar Yehudah. Therefore, we should not create a contradiction between the two baraitot. One baraita follows the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, while the other follows the opinion of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehudah.
The Gemara then seeks a source showing that Rabbi Yosei bar Yehudah maintains that immersion at its proper time is not a mitzvah. It finds one in tractate Niddah.
A baraita there teaches that it is sufficient for a woman to immerse at the end of the entire process. The Gemara is discussing a complicated case, and we will not enter into all of its details and technicalities here; they belong to the discussion in tractate Niddah.
The case concerns a woman whose abdomen had been full, leading everyone to assume that she was pregnant, but who later returned with an empty abdomen. We do not know whether she gave birth to a boy, a girl, or something that was not a viable birth. The distinction affects her status and the time at which she may become ritually pure, because a woman who gives birth must undergo a particular process before immersing.
There are other variables as well. She does not know whether she was in the status of a woman who had experienced an irregular discharge at the time she gave birth, or at the time she believed she had given birth. That also affects her counting and the first time she may immerse.
The Gemara in Niddah discusses the dispute between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel. Both sides maintain that immersion at its proper time is a mitzvah, so they calculate every possible day or night on which she might need to immerse in order to cover all the possibilities. The House of Hillel gives one number, and the House of Shammai gives another. The House of Hillel says thirty-five immersions, while the House of Shammai says ninety-five.
Rabbi Yosei bar Yehudah, however, says that she needs to immerse only once, at the end of the entire process. “It is sufficient for her to immerse at the end.” This indicates that Rabbi Yosei bar Yehudah does not maintain that immersion at its proper time is a mitzvah. If immersion at the proper time were mandatory, she would have to immerse at each possible time. Since he says that one immersion at the end is sufficient, he clearly does not hold that immersion at its proper time is a mitzvah.
Rashi explains the calculation as follows. The woman returned with an empty abdomen, but she did not know what had occurred. Her status required a process involving alternating periods, and the next ten weeks alternated in this manner, making a thirteen-week process in total.
The first time she could have relations with her husband would be at night after the thirty-fifth day. She had to remain pure for three weeks, which accounts for twenty-one days. She then had one week of impurity, bringing the count to twenty-eight days, followed by one week of purity, bringing it to thirty-five days. The first night on which she could have relations with her husband was therefore after the thirty-fifth day.
The House of Shammai calculates that in order to account for every possibility, she would have to immerse ninety-five times. The House of Hillel calculates that she would have to immerse thirty-five times. All of those calculations end at the same time. The discussion in tractate Niddah explains the logic behind the numbers.
The basis of those opinions is that the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel maintain that immersion at its proper time is a mitzvah. Rabbi Yosei bar Yehudah says that it is sufficient for her to immerse once at the end because he does not maintain that immersion at its proper time is a mitzvah.
Regarding the Rabbi Yosei in the baraita about the reed, who says that the person should immerse without delaying to find a reed because immersion at its proper time is a mitzvah, we must say that he is not Rabbi Yosei bar Yehudah. He is Rabbi Yosei from the House of Halafta. In this way, we can reconcile all the baraitot and all the opinions concerning whether immersion at its proper time is a mitzvah.
The Gemara continues with another baraita. If a person experiences a seminal discharge on Yom Kippur, he immerses during the day. At night, he should scrub himself thoroughly.
The Gemara asks: If he must scrub himself, why not do so at night? What happened has already happened. He immersed during the day, and once night has arrived, the matter is over.
The Gemara therefore explains that the baraita should be understood as saying that he must scrub himself before nightfall. He must anticipate that he may experience a seminal discharge on Yom Kippur and will have to immerse. Therefore, Rashi derives from this discussion that a person should take a thorough, hot shower before Yom Kippur, ensuring that his body is clean and free of anything that might constitute an obstruction, so that he will be able to immerse properly if necessary.
Rashi explains that once a person emerges from the ritual bath, whatever was on his body is already there. Scrubbing afterward will not help him remove an obstruction that has already formed. The baraita therefore teaches that he should scrub before nightfall, so that if he experiences a discharge, his body will already be clean and he will be able to immerse without difficulty.
A question is raised: If this discussion concerns obstructions to immersion, why does the Gemara specifically mention a man with a seminal discharge? It should seemingly advise every person who must immerse on Yom Kippur to take a hot shower before Yom Kippur.
The commentators therefore explain the Gemara differently. The issue is not only anything else that may be on the person’s body. The seminal discharge itself may dry and become an obstruction. The Gemara is saying that if the person experiences the discharge during the day, it is still moist and he can wipe it off his body; it will not constitute an obstruction. If he experiences the discharge at night, however, by the time morning arrives it may have dried and become an obstruction.
Thus, the Gemara is not merely discussing an obstruction that was already on the body. It is discussing whether the discharge itself is interfering with the immersion. If he experienced it during the day, he can clean it off. If he experienced it at night, he must ensure that it has been removed before immersing in the morning.
The Gemara then brings another baraita before Rabbi Nachman. “A person who experiences a seminal discharge on Yom Kippur has his sins forgiven.” We will explain this statement shortly.
Another baraita, however, says the opposite: his sins are not forgiven; rather, they are arranged before him. What does it mean that his sins are arranged before him? Are they arranged in order to punish him, or arranged in order to forgive him?
The commentators explain this based on the principle that God removes the first sin first. When God places a person’s mitzvot and transgressions on the scale, the first sin is removed. This is what it means when the baraita says that the sins are arranged in order to be forgiven.
A person must have at least an equal balance of merits and transgressions in order to be judged favorably. Once the balance is equal, God tips the scale in his favor. If the sins are arranged in order, the first sin is removed from the scale, followed by the second, the third, and so on. The person is therefore found worthy.
If the sins are not arranged in order, however, the first sin may really be the final one. In that case, the first sin is not removed at the beginning, and the person may be punished. This is the meaning of the statement that the sins are arranged before him in order to be forgiven.
In any event, we see that experiencing a seminal discharge on Yom Kippur can be a good sign. Rashi points out that the baraita is referring to a case in which the discharge occurred unintentionally. The person did not do anything to cause it. He did not eat or drink foods that normally bring about such a discharge, and he certainly did not engage in any activity that would cause it. It happened unexpectedly and without his having brought it upon himself.
Rashi brings a verse as a hint to this idea. The verse speaks of a person who sees seminal discharge. The commentators explain that the discharge is white, and the whiteness symbolizes that his sins have been cleansed.
The commentators further explain that this refers to a man who was otherwise very pure. He had no improper thoughts or other reason for the discharge to occur, and yet it occurred. If God is removing impurity from his body, it is as though God is removing the impurity within him. Since this was not self-inflicted, it is a sign that he is in fact a very good person.
Nevertheless, the Gemara says that he should be concerned throughout the entire year. What should concern him? Rashi explains that perhaps this is an indication that God did not accept his service and fasting on Yom Kippur. Perhaps God is saying that He is not interested in the person’s service, and that He satisfied him with something else.
This can be compared to a servant who prepares a cup of wine or water for his master. The master takes the cup and throws it back in the servant’s face, indicating that he is not interested in the servant’s service. Similarly, one possibility is that God is saying, “I am not interested in your fasting and service.” For this reason, the person should be concerned.
The Gemara, however, says that if he makes it through the year, he may rest assured. What does this mean? Some explain that because this occurred, he must make a proper rectification throughout the year in order to avert any punishment that might otherwise befall him.
What is the proper rectification? The Mishnah of the Rav says that if a person normally studies one chapter a day, he should begin studying two chapters a day. If he normally studies one page a day, he should begin studying two pages a day. He should also perform more acts of kindness than he normally does.
In support of this, he quotes a verse that mentions kindness and truth. Kindness represents acts of kindness, while truth represents Torah. These are the two principal ingredients through which a person can be forgiven for his sin.
Once a person passes the year and God does not exact punishment from him, this shows that God was not rejecting him. Rather, the experience was a sign of God’s regard for him.
What is the sign of this regard? The Gemara explains that the entire world is starving, while this man is satiated. The entire world is abstaining from marital relations and experiencing the affliction of that abstention. When God allows this man to experience a seminal discharge, it is as though He has satiated him while everyone else is starving.
This is why the discharge may be considered a gift from God. He is saying, in effect, “You do not need to suffer in this way. You are already righteous, and you do not need this additional affliction.”
Again, however, the matter remains uncertain until the following year. There are two ways to understand what occurred. Perhaps God is saying, “I am not interested in your service.” Alternatively, perhaps it is a sign of favor, indicating that God wishes the person to be satiated. Only after the year has passed can one know which interpretation is correct.
If the person does not survive the year, it is obvious what the discharge signified. If he does survive the year, that indicates that God was declaring him to be completely righteous.
Rashi explains that the entire world is hungry because of abstention, while this man is satiated. He did not request this for himself; it happened unintentionally and without his consent. Nevertheless, if he survives the year, it is an indication that he is completely righteous.
Rabbi Yitzchak goes even further. He says that not only will such a person be forgiven, but he will also have a long life. Furthermore, his descendants will multiply. He will have children and grandchildren, as suggested by the verse in Isaiah that Tosafot also cites at the end of the tractate.
The commentators offer a moral lesson connecting the beginning and the end of the tractate, as is often done. The first letter of the tractate is the letter shin. If we return to the first page, the tractate begins with the seven days during which the High Priest was secluded in the Chamber of Parhedrin before Yom Kippur.
The final letter of the Mishnah is the letter lamed. The final statement is that Rabbi Akiva said, “Fortunate are the people of Israel. Before whom are you purified, and who purifies you? Your Father in heaven.” The Mishnah then brings the relevant verses, and its final word is “purifies.” Thus, the final letter is lamed.
A work called Hon Ashir says that the first and final letters form a hint to the word shal, meaning “remove.” Where do we find this word in the Torah? When Moses approached the burning bush, God told him, “Remove your shoe from your foot.”
We must understand what God meant by telling Moses to remove his shoe. It is not to be understood in the modern sense, as when someone walks into a house and is told to remove his shoes. At that moment, Moses had reached a level of complete spirituality at which his physical body was subjugated to his soul. His soul had become the primary dimension of his existence and was more manifest than the physical body.
This is symbolized by removing the shoe from the foot. Normally, the soul can exist only within a body. We do not speak of souls being born independently; the soul is always linked to a body. The body is the receptacle that contains the soul.
The shoe is comparable to the body, while the foot is comparable to the soul. Just as the shoe houses the foot, the physical body houses the soul. When Moses reached the level at which the physical could be removed, he could remove the shoe. He had entered a holy sphere in which his soul had risen above the physical.
This is also the reason we remove our shoes on Yom Kippur. On Yom Kippur, we are considered similar to angels, and angels walk barefoot because they have no physicality and therefore do not need shoes. They do not need a physical house for their souls.
On Yom Kippur, we likewise elevate ourselves to a spiritual state. We are like the angels. This is why we wear white throughout the day and why we recite certain prayers aloud.
Thus, the beginning and the end of the tractate convey the idea that through Yom Kippur a person can elevate himself. It should also be noted that the author of Mesilat Yesharim, Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto, writes that during the Ne’ilah prayer a person can elevate himself to the level of Adam before the sin.
These are the heights that a person can reach on Yom Kippur. This idea was already hinted at by Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi when he began the Mishnah with the letter shin and concluded the tractate with the statement that God purifies Israel. Amen.