The Eddie B. Sitt edition, an audio series of the Talmud Bavli (Babylonian Talmud). Masechet Yoma (Tractate Yoma) has been dedicated in memory of Mazal bat Ester Bagdadi and Yosef ben Mazal Bagdadi by their family. Ruach Hashem tenicham beGan Eden, amen. Today's daf (folio) has been dedicated in honor of Miriam Speer, by Steve, Hannah, Eve, and Jessie. It seems to be her birthday, and we wish her many years of health and happiness—120 years. May she derive much pleasure from her family, her children, and all her friends, and may she continue to have the strength to do all her work at home and in the community, amen.
Daf lamed-alef. Today's daf is being sponsored le'ilui nishmat (for the elevation of the soul) Avraham ben Ester. Ruach Hashem tenichenu beGan Eden, amen. Today's daf is being studied le'ilui nishmat Moshe ben Miryam, Mr. Moe Hittery, alav hashalom, whose yahrtzeit (anniversary of death) is this week. Mr. Moe Hittery was an upstanding member of our community, involved in many acts of chesed (kindness) and charities, specifically the Chevra Kadisha (burial society), as well as other acts of benevolence. Yehi zichro baruch vetehi nishmato tzrurah bitzror hachayim (May his memory be blessed, and his soul bound in the bond of life), amen.
We begin today's daf on daf lamed, two lines from the bottom. Amar leh Abaye leRav Yosef (Abaye said to Rav Yosef): “Tevilah zo” (immersion)—meaning the immersion required of every kohen (priest) before he enters the Azarah (Temple courtyard) each day, as we learned in the Mishnah. Regarding this tevilah (immersion), according to Rabbi Yehudah it is only miderabbanan (rabbinic). As we learned today, according to Rabbi Yehudah, the only reason you have to go to the mikveh (ritual bath) before entering the Beit Hamikdash (Temple) is a gezeirah (decree), because we're concerned about tum'ah yeshanah: he might have had a tum'ah (impurity) on him already and forgotten. By telling him to go to the mikveh, he becomes aware that there might be tum'ah on him, and that he needs ha'arev shemesh (sunset after purification); therefore, he will refrain from entering the Beit Hamikdash.
So according to Rabbi Yehudah, who says the whole tevilah is miderabbanan, chotzetz o eino chotzetz (Does it interpose or not?)? Are we concerned about the regular laws of chatzitzah (interposition) or not? Normally, in a regular tevilah, certain things are considered interference: they are interposed between him and the water, and therefore the tevilah is considered invalid. So are we lenient because this is only miderabbanan and the man is really tahor (pure), or are we concerned about all the laws of chatzitzah?
Look at the top of Rashi: “Chotzetz o eino chotzetz, leRabbi Yehudah de'amar mipnei serach tevilah be'alma hi.” (It is merely a precaution relating to immersion.) According to Rabbi Yehudah, who says the whole thing is a gezeirah, do we say that chatzitzah invalidates the immersion, as it does with other immersions? Or perhaps, since the immersion is only to remind him about tum'ah yeshanah and is not meant to purify him, chatzitzah does not invalidate it. Perhaps chatzitzah is not disqualifying here because the immersion is just meant to remind him that he might have another tum'ah on him; therefore, we're not as strict as we are with a regular tevilah.
The Gemara says: “Amar leh, kol detikun Rabbanan (Sages) ke'en de'oraita tikun.” Whenever the Rabbis make a decree, they fashioned it like Torah law. Since chatzitzah is a problem under Torah law, it is also a problem in this rabbinic law.
Now let's look at the top Tosafot (Tosafot commentary). “Chotzetz o eino chotzetz”—perush Rashi, the explanation of Rashi—“deRabbi Yehudah ka miba'ya leh.” Rashi understands that the question is davka (specifically) about Rabbi Yehudah, who holds that the whole tevilah is miderabbanan. “Vekashya li, de'im ken, hava leh lemeimar behedya: leRabbi Yehudah.” The Gemara should have said that explicitly. When Abaye asked Rav Yosef the question, he should have said, “According to Rabbi Yehudah, is chatzitzah a problem or not?”
Tosafot is asking why the Gemara didn't say explicitly that the question is specifically according to Rabbi Yehudah. “Ela nir'eh diben leBen Zoma, ben leRabbi Yehudah.” Tosafot wants to say that the question is being asked even according to Ben Zoma, who holds that the tevilah is de'oraita (Torah-level), but is discussing a tevilah for someone who is not going to perform the avodah (Temple service), and only wants to make a bi'ah rekanit (empty entry) into the Azarah. Even Ben Zoma agrees that entering the Azarah stam (without specific purpose), not to perform avodah, is only miderabbanan, because of shema ya'avod (Lest he perform the service)—a gezeirah in case he comes to perform the service, as Tosafot explained earlier. That's Tosafot's opinion.
“Veha deka miba'ya lei hacha chotzetz o eino chotzetz teimah, bechol tevilot derabbanan kegon yud chet davar vechayozei bahen.” Why is this the only place where the Gemara asks whether chatzitzah is a problem? There are many cases we learned about, specifically in Masechet Shabbat (Tractate Shabbat), including the yud chet davar (the eighteen enactments) and similar cases, which are only miderabbanan. There, the Gemara doesn't ask whether chatzitzah is a problem. Why does the Gemara ask about it specifically in this kind of tevilah?
“Yesh lomar, mishum deha tevilah ma'alah yeteirah hi,” because this tevilah is really a chumra (stringency). “Sheharei tahor gamur hu,” because the man is tahor, “ve'ein kan tzad chashash tumah.” There is no concern about tum'ah here; this is only an additional measure and an extra stringency. “Ulehachi miba'ya lei dilma eino chotzetz.” In all the other cases, there is a reason to say there might be tum'ah, and therefore the Gemara says that once there is a concern about tum'ah, chatzitzah is certainly a problem. Here, though, the whole thing is a stringency. We're discussing a case where even if you know the man is completely tahor, he still has to do this tevilah. Tosafot says that this is why the Gemara asks here: since the man is completely tahor, perhaps chatzitzah is not an issue.
So Tosafot makes two points here. First, Tosafot understands that the question is also according to Ben Zoma, in a case where the man is not entering to perform the avodah. Second, the Gemara asks about chatzitzah here, rather than in other cases, because in this case the man is entering tahor.
The Gemara's next point is: “Amar leh Abaye leRav Yosef, bi'ah bemiktzat shemah bi'ah o lo?” (Does partial entry count as entry or not?) Regarding this tevilah, suppose a person isn't entering fully into the Beit Hamikdash area, but is making a bi'ah bemiktzat (partial entry). For example, suppose he's standing at the threshold of the Sha'ar Nikanor (Nicanor Gate) and just sticks his hand in. Does he still need this tevilah, or is it required only for a bi'ah gemurah (complete entry)?
“Amar leh, bohonot yochichu.” (The thumbs will prove it.) The thumbs of the metzora (person with tzara'at) will prove it, since he makes a bi'ah bemiktzat. On the eighth day, when the metzora has blood sprinkled on him, he stands at Sha'ar Nikanor and sticks his thumb into the Kodesh (sanctuary). Wouldn't we say that he has to go to the mikveh on the eighth day in order to enter the Beit Hamikdash, even though he's only partially entering?
“VeTanya metzora tovel ve'omed beSha'ar Nikanor.” It should be pointed out that according to Rashi, if we're asking this according to Rabbi Yehudah—let's follow Rashi's approach—Rabbi Yehudah holds that this whole tevilah is derabbanan. We're asking whether we can be lenient about bi'ah bemiktzat. The answer is no: you have to be machmir (stringent). What's the proof? The metzora. But what do you mean? Rabbi Yehudah himself said that a metzora doesn't have to go to the mikveh during the day. On yesterday's daf, we learned that Rabbi Yehudah said that if he went the night before, he doesn't have to go the following morning. So what's the proof?
Tosafot explains this. Look at the second Tosafot: “VeTanya metzora tovel ve'omed beSha'ar Nikanor,” and Rashi explains that the question is according to Rabbi Yehudah. What can you prove from here? “Ha mahi lav Rabbi Yehudah, deRabbi Yehudah palig aleih le'eil.” This can't be Rabbi Yehudah, since Rabbi Yehudah argued earlier and said that the metzora doesn't have to go to the mikveh on the eighth day.
“Yesh lomar, af al pi chen pashit shapir.” We can still resolve the question. “Demiderabbanan da'avid da'avid ma'alah afilu bishvil bi'ah bemiktzat.” From the fact that the Rabbis hold that a metzora has to go to the mikveh because he's making a bi'ah bemiktzat, we can apply that here too: even according to Rabbi Yehudah, when an ordinary person has a tevilah that is derabbanan, he has to immerse even for a bi'ah bemiktzat. The Rabbis hold that bi'ah bemiktzat requires tevilah. I know that Rabbi Yehudah disagrees in the case of the metzora because he went to the mikveh the night before, but from here I can learn that in other cases, if a person is entering the Beit Hamikdash, bi'ah bemiktzat is an issue, and he therefore needs tevilah.
Now let's read Rashi. I want to make one point about this Rashi. “Mahu sheya'aseh”—I'm sorry—“shema bi'ah.” It's the fourth line: “Le'inyan tevilah zo vetzarich litbol im ba lehachnis echad me'eivarav la'Azarah.” As we learned, we're discussing a case where he just wants to bring one of his limbs into the Azarah.
Now we get to the next question. The Gemara says: “Iba'ya leho, mahu sheya'aseh sakin arukah (long knife) veyishchot?” Can he use a long knife to slaughter? He doesn't want to enter the Beit Hamikdash at all. He didn't go to the mikveh; he'll stay outside. He gets a long knife and extends it into the Beit Hamikdash area, because the shechitah (ritual slaughter) has to be done in the Beit Hamikdash area, and he performs the shechitah. Is that allowed or not?
“Tib'ei leBen Zoma, tib'ei leRabbanan depaligi aleih deRabbi Yehudah.” We'll ask this question according to both extreme opinions: Ben Zoma, who says tevilah is de'oraita before you enter, and the Rabbis in the baraita (early rabbinic teaching) we learned earlier, who said you don't have to go to the mikveh at all. Remember, we had a third opinion: they held that you don't have to go to the mikveh at all.
The Gemara says: “Tib'ei leBen Zoma: ad kan lo mechayev Ben Zoma ela le-gavai.” Ben Zoma only said you have to go to the mikveh when you're going in, le-gavai, inside. “Aval le-varai, lo.” But since you're still outside, even though the knife is inside, maybe you don't need a mikveh. Or perhaps, “atei le'amshuchei”: there is a gezeirah that he might get drawn in. Since the knife is inside, he might follow it in, and therefore he needs a tevilah.
“Tib'ei leRabbanan depaligi aleih deRabbi Yehudah.” We can even ask according to the Rabbis who said you don't need tevilah at all. “Ad kan lo ka'amri Rabbanan hatam delo ka avid avodah.” Maybe the Rabbis said that you don't need tevilah only when you're not performing a service, when you're not entering to do any sort of avodah. “Aval hacha deka avid avodah, lo.” But here, where you're entering to perform a service by doing the shechitah, perhaps they'll require tevilah. Or perhaps it makes no difference: maybe the Rabbis hold that whether you're entering to perform an avodah or not, you don't have to go to the mikveh.
The Gemara leaves this as a teiku (unresolved question). The Gemara says that Eliyahu HaNavi has to answer this question.
Now let's look at Rashi for a moment: “Mahu sheya'aseh sakin arukah, leftor atzmo min ha-tevilah.” He wants to exempt himself from tevilah; he doesn't want to go to the mikveh, but he wants to slaughter. “Ve-ya'amod chutz la-azarah, ve-yoshit yado lifnim.” The meforshim (commentators) point out that when Rashi says “ve-yoshit yado,” he means the knife. If you put your hand in, that's answering the last question. So when Rashi says “ve-yoshit yado,” he means the knife. “Ve-yishchot. Mi miftar be-hachi min ha-tevilah, o dilma ba'ya tevilah?” Does this exempt him from tevilah, or does he need tevilah? “Ul'inyan hachsherah de-korban lo ka mib'ya lan.” Regarding the validity of the korban (offering), we aren't asking: the korban would certainly be kasher (valid), since as long as it's slaughtered inside the Azarah, it's fine. Even though the slaughterer is standing outside and slaughters from there, it is valid. We learned in Zevachim (Tractate Zevachim): “Ben ha-bakar lifnei Hashem” (The young bull before God). The animal has to be in front of Hashem, but not the shochet (slaughterer).
“Tib'ei leBen Zoma, de-machmir bah. Tib'ei leRabbanan depaligi aleih deRabbi Yehudah, ve-amru kol adam lo ba'u tevilah. Le-gavai, ha-nichnas lah.” Good.
Now look at the third Tosafot on the daf: “O dilma atei le'amshuchei.” One possibility is that we might make a gezeirah because he could be drawn in after the knife. Tosafot says: “Ha de-amrinan be-reish perek Kol HaShechutin, ve-reish perek Kol HaPesulin, de-tmei'im (impure) be-mukdashin,” that anyone who is tamei should not, lechatchilah, slaughter with a long knife, “shema yig'u ba-basar,” in case they touch the meat. But the Gemara there doesn't say the reason is that he might be drawn in. Why is the gezeirah there that he might touch the meat? The man is tamei, and he wants to know if he can use a long knife. The Gemara says, “He might touch the meat.” Why don't they give the reason we gave here, that he might be drawn in?
“Da'af al gav de-hacha mesapka lei ei gazrinan dilma atei le'amshuchei o lo, hanei milei be-tahor.” The only uncertainty in this Gemara is about someone tahor, because the man is tahor here. The question is whether we suspect that he'll be drawn into the Azarah. “Aval be-tamei de-ika karet, ika le-meichash tefei.” In the other case, where the man is tamei, there is karet (spiritual excision), so there's even more reason to be concerned that he might be drawn in.
Tosafot asks: if, in another Gemara, we discuss a tamei person slaughtering with a sakin arukah, and the Gemara doesn't suspect that he might be drawn in, then, seemingly, there should certainly be concern that he might be drawn in there, because the consequences are serious: since he's tamei, it's an issur of karet. Here, by contrast, he's tahor. Tosafot answers: “Ve-yesh lomar aderaba.” He says that, on the contrary, “de-hatam keivan de-tamei hu zahir tefei.” Since the man knows he's tamei, he's very careful not to be drawn in, and he doesn't enter. But here, since he's tahor, he's not really concerned about getting drawn in. Therefore, here there's more reason to worry that he might be drawn in than in the case of a man who is tamei.
Let me point out one more thing. The Gevurat Ari explains that the question the Gemara asks about the sakin arukah is not only according to Ben Zoma and the Rabbanan, but certainly also according to Rabbi Yehudah. If the Gemara asks about the Rabbanan, who hold that tevilah is not necessary here at all, and still leaves open whether there might be a gezeirah that the man will be drawn in with the sakin arukah, or might enter to perform avodah and therefore need tevilah, then certainly the question applies according to Rabbi Yehudah, who requires tevilah miderabbanan: is tevilah needed, or is the sakin arukah acceptable?
The Gemara did say in the line of reasoning we just read, “delo ka avid avodah.” The Gemara said: “Ad kan lo ka'amri Rabbanan hatam delo ka avid avodah.” The Rabbis only said that you don't have to go to the mikveh when you're not doing avodah. “Aval hacha deka avid avodah.” Now we can ask: is shechitah an avodah? What do you mean, you're performing an avodah?
The meforshim explain this. I'm reading the Ritva: “Perush delo avid avodah beyadayim.” For example, in the case of the metzora, being sprinkled is not considered avodah beyadayim, because he is passive. In that case, the Rabbis would tell you that you don't have to do tevilah. “Deha dumya demetzora ka'amar she'eino oseh avodah beyadayim, ela shehakohen mazeh alav, mah she'ein ken bezo.” But here, “de'avid avodah dehainu shechitah, ve'af al gav deshechitah kesherah bezar avodah hi.” The meaning is that when we say avodah here, we mean an active service, as opposed to just standing and being passive. It isn't avodah in the ordinary understanding of avodah, because we know that a zar (non-kohen) can perform shechitah. Rather, it means an active action in the Beit Hamikdash area.
The Gemara continues: “Chamesh tevilot va'asarah kidushin tovel” (Five immersions and ten sanctifications). We learned that on Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement), the kohen gadol (High Priest) has to go to the mikveh five times, and he washes his hands and feet ten times. We call that kiddush yadayim veraglayim (washing hands and feet). “Tanu rabanan, chamesh tevilot va'asarah kidushin tovel kohen gadol umekadesh bo bayom.” On that day, it's five tevilot and ten kiddush yadayim veraglayim.
“Vechulam bakodesh beBeit Haparvah” (Parvah Chamber): all the tevilot are done in the chamber called Beit Haparvah. As we learned, there was a mikveh on top of Beit Haparvah, and he would immerse in the mikveh in the area of Kodesh. “Chutz merishonah”—except for the first tevilah. For that one, he would enter the Beit Hamikdash, take off his bigdei chol (ordinary garments), and put on his bigdei kodesh (sacred garments). That was done in chol, on top of the special chamber called Sha'ar Hamayim (Water Gate), which, as we said, was next to his chamber. The kohen would stay in Parhedrin (Parhedrin Chamber), which was next door to Lishkat Hamayim (Water Chamber), so it would be convenient for him to go from Parhedrin to Lishkat Hamayim for his first tevilah of the day.
The reason we said it was called Sha'ar Hamayim, if you remember, is that it was the gate they used to bring in the nisuch hamayim (water libation) on Sukkot (Festival of Sukkot). Hence the name Sha'ar Nisuch, Sha'ar Hamayim.
Tosafot points out: “Vechulan bakodesh begag Beit Haparvah.” Tosafot says: “Teima li veha gagin va'aliyot lo nitkadshu.” If you remember, we learned in Masechet Pesachim (Tractate Pesachim) that roofs didn't have the status of kedushah (sanctity). Seemingly, if the mikveh was on Beit Haparvah and the tevilot had to be done bakodesh, the roof of Beit Haparvah wasn't Kodesh. Tosafot says: “Veyesh lomar gag Beit Haparvah hayah shaveh lecharka Azarah.” If you remember, we also learned in Masechet Pesachim that, based on the configuration of the Beit Hamikdash, the Azarah and the wall of Beit Haparvah—the roof, I should say—were level with each other. Therefore, it had the status of the Azarah. So while perhaps the other roofs weren't Kodesh, the roof of Beit Haparvah was Kodesh because it was on the same level as the Azarah itself.
The Gemara says: “Amar Abaye, shema minah, Ein Eitam (Ein Eitam spring), “gavoha mikarka Azarah,” was higher than the floor of the Azarah by “esrim veshalosh amot” (twenty-three cubits).
What is this referring to? Let's read Rashi: “Ein Eitam, mimenu ba'ah amat hamayim leveit tevilat Sha'ar Hamayim she'al hachomah.” If Sha'ar Hamayim was on the roof, these mikva'ot were up high, so they needed a source—a spring higher than the mikveh—in order for the water to flow into it. You can't get water from a lower place to a higher place. The water has to flow naturally into the mikveh. They got the water from a spring called Ein Eitam.
For the Parvah, or for the—? Rashi says it was for Sha'ar Hamayim. That would be for Lishkat Hamayim, the one next to his office.
Rashi says: “Ulefi inyan hamikra'ot,” according to what he knows from the pesukim (verse), “nir'eh li shehu ma'yan Mei Neftoach (Mei Neftoach).” Another name for this spring is Mei Neftoach, mentioned in the book of Yehoshua (Joshua). “Shemisham hagvul mashpe'a veyored lemizrach ulema'arav, ma'arav, vehu hagvul bechol Eretz Yisrael.” He says that was the border of Eretz Yisrael (Land of Israel), to the east and the west, when it was divided among the tribes; some received land east of Ein Eitam and some west of it.
“Vehech milta de'Abaye.” What is Abaye discussing here? In Zevachim, there's a whole discussion: “Savur lemibnyehe leBeit Hamikdash beEin Eitam.” When Shemuel HaMelech—sorry, Shemuel HaNavi—and David were discussing building the Beit Hamikdash, the original idea was to build it in the highest place, because the pesukim and the re'ayot say that it should be built high on a mountain. The highest place in Yerushalayim (Jerusalem) is Ein Eitam, so the original plan was to build it by that spring.
“Amrei, nechtei beh purta.” They said, “Let's build it a little below Ein Eitam.” Why? “Dichtiv, uvein ketefav shachen” (He dwells between his shoulders). It says that the Shechinah (Divine Presence) dwells between the shoulders. That means it's not at the head, but at the shoulders, a little below the highest point. “Sheken sham'inan mineih shehu gavoha min hakol.” So we know that Ein Eitam is the highest place. “Velo peireish mena leih.” We never saw proof that Ein Eitam was the highest place, but from this Gemara we're going to prove that it was indeed higher than the area of the Beit Hamikdash. How?
“Amar Abaye, shema minah.” We can learn from this Gemara that Ein Eitam is higher than the floor of the Azarah by twenty-three amot (cubits). “Ditnan, kol hapetachim shehayu sham”—all the entrances in the Beit Hamikdash—“gevohin esrim amah,” were twenty amot high, “verochban eser amot,” and ten amot wide, “chutz mishel Ulam,” except for the Ulam. Rashi says that the Ulam was actually forty amot high and twenty amot wide.
We also have a baraita: “Verachatz besaro bamayim.” Regarding the measurement of a mikveh, the pasuk says, “Verachatz besaro bamayim.” A person who goes to the mikveh has to immerse his basar, his flesh, in water. From the word mayim, we learn “bemei mikveh”: it has to be mikveh water, as opposed to mayim she'uvin (drawn water); it has to be natural mikveh water. From “kol besaro” (all his flesh), we learn “mayim shekol gufo oleh bahem”: water in which his whole body can be immersed. What is the measurement? “Amah al amah”—one amah wide by one amah long—“berum gimel amot,” with a depth of three amot. The Chachamim (Sages) measured the mikveh as arba'im se'ah (forty se'ah). We know that in a space one by one by three, you could fit forty se'ah.
The Gemara assumes that the measurements are divided as I told you: one in width, one in length, and three in depth. Tosafot asks how we know that. Seemingly, you could arrange the measurements differently. Look at Tosafot near the bottom of the page—or actually, look at the Tosafot on Ein Eitam: “Ein Eitam gavoha mikarka Azarah chaf-gimel amot. Teimah lan, umenalan debeit hatevilah hayetah gevohah shalosh amot?” The Gemara is going to say that the Beit Hatevilah was on the roof. We know the mikveh itself had a depth of three amot. So above the Azarah, you have the roof of the chamber, then the depth of the mikveh, three amot, and the Ein Eitam spring has to be higher than the mikveh so the water can flow into it. It has to be at least three amot above the mikveh.
Based on the measurements we're given here, the gate was twenty amot above the Azarah, so the top of the chambers was also twenty amot above the Azarah. Then you add three amot for the depth of the mikveh. That's twenty-three amot, and Ein Eitam has to be at least twenty-three amot higher than the floor of the Azarah so water can flow into the mikveh on the roof. So the Gemara proves its point.
Tosafot asks who told us the mikveh's depth was three amot. Maybe it was two amot deep, and the other amah was added to its length or width. Tosafot says: “Ein Eitam gavoha mikarka Azarah chaf-gimel amot, teimah lan, umenalan debeit hatevilah hayetah gevohah shalosh amot? Dilma lo hayetah gevohah ela amah, ve'orkah shalosh amot.” Perhaps it was only one amah deep and three amot long. “VehaKohen hayah mashkiv atzmo betocho”: perhaps the kohen had to lie down in it to cover his body. If the mikveh was long and less deep, the kohen would have to lie down to immerse. “I nami, lo hayetah gevohah ela shtei amot, vehakohen gadol yoshev betocho.” Or perhaps it was two amot deep, and the kohen gadol could sit and immerse.
Tosafot answers: “Veyesh lomar demistama kol mah sheyecholim lehakeil alav, mishum chulsha dekohen gadol hayu osim, vederech amidah hayah tovel ki zeh nekel lo yoter la'asot.” We assume they constructed the mikveh in the easiest way possible for the kohen gadol (High Priest) to immerse, especially on Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement), when he's fasting and weak. The easiest way to immerse is standing. So they would make it deeper rather than longer, which would require him to lie down. We learned that on Yom Kippur, the kohen gadol has to go to the mikveh five times, and he washes his hands and feet ten times.
Now look at Rashi: “Gavoha mikarka Azarah esrim veshalosh amot, kemidat govah Sha'ar Hamayim, uvinyan kli shel shalosh amot milma'lah.” Above Sha'ar Hamayim, you needed a vessel three amot high “lehachazik arba'im se'ah she'i efshar lamayim la'alot af shehu gavoha mimakom shenov'in misham.” The lishkah was twenty amot high, because we know all the gates were twenty amot high. So the roof was twenty amot high. They put a mikveh on top of the roof, which means they needed another three amot for its depth. The spring that filled the mikveh had to be above that.
But what about the roof? Why couldn't it be in the ground? It wasn't, because the mikveh was on the roof. He walked up steps to get to the mikveh. They could have done whatever they wanted, but the point is that it was on the roof itself. If it's on the roof, that adds another three amot on top, because the mikveh was three amot deep. The spring that supplied the water had to be higher than that.
“Veha'ika amat tikrah,” the Gemara asks. What do you mean? There's another amah for the roof, which means this wasn't an outdoor mikveh; they covered it. So you have at least an amah of ceiling. Exactly. And there's also “amat ma'azivah,” the plastering at the base of the mikveh, so it wouldn't leak. If the base of the mikveh were dirt and they filled it with water, the water would leak through the Beit Hamikdash. They would have to plaster the bottom, adding another amah, which would bring the total to twenty-five.
The Gemara answers: “Sha'arei deVeit Hamikdash, keivan deshisha ninhu, bemashehu avdei lehu.” Since the gates of the Beit Hamikdash were made of marble, they only needed a very thin roof. The marble would support it, so the roof wasn't significant. Furthermore, they would also marbleize the floor of the mikveh. Since the mikveh had a marble floor, they weren't concerned about leakage.
The Gemara asks: “Veha'ika hai mashehu?” Fine, but it's not twenty-three; it's twenty-three and a little more. The Gemara answers: “Keivan dela havya amta lo chashiv lei.” Since it wasn't an amah, it wasn't counted. It was twenty-three, more or less; they weren't being that technical with the measurement.
Let's read the top of Rashi here: “Veha'ika amah, ovi tikrah al chalal hasha'ar, al hasha'ar”—the thickness of the roof, or the ceiling over the gate. “Ve'amat ma'azivah, shel tit vechol megubal yachad,” like cement, “lihyot mayim nochim sham levad omek hachalal shalosh amot, she-shechashavta.” Besides the three amot, you'd have to raise it a little more to add plastering so that the water would be contained. “Bemashehu avdei lei tikrah shelahen.” Good.
The Gemara continues—no, no, the ceiling of the gate. The ceiling of the gate, yes, so you have to count it. The Gemara is saying that the ceiling of the gate was only a very small amount, so it wasn't significant.
The Gemara continues: “Sadin shel butz” (linen sheet). We said that in the morning, the kohen gadol's first tevilah was done in chol, at Sha'ar Hamayim. They took a linen garment and used it as a mechitzah (partition) between the kohen and the people, so he could undress and go to the mikveh. The Gemara asks: “Parsu sadin shel butz, mai shena shel butz?” Why did they have to use a linen garment?
As Rav Kahana says: “Kedei sheyakir she'avodat hayom bevigdei butz (linen garments).” Rav Kahana will later say that the reason was to remind the kohen that the day's service is done with the bigdei butz. Normally, the kohen gadol wears bigdei zahav (golden garments), so they were reminding him that today he would also wear bigdei lavan (white garments), the linen garments. Therefore, they put up a linen partition to remind him. Here too, the reason is to remind him that the day's service is done with bigdei butz.
Look at Rashi: “She'avodat hayom bevigdei butz, sheyesh hayom alav avodah shehi bebigdei botz.” He has service that day in linen garments, “lefi she'eino ragil lesharet belo shemonah vegadim.” The kohen gadol isn't accustomed to serving without the eight garments, and some of those are made of gold, “kegon tzitz (forehead plate), vechoshen (breastplate), ve'efod (ephod), ufamonei hame'il (robe).” Rashi is listing the bigdei zahav: the tzitz the kohen wore, the choshen, which had gold straps, the efod, and the bells at the bottom of the ketonet (tunic) of the me'il—they were also gold.
Now look at Tosafot: “Kedei, kid'amar Rav Kahana, kedei sheyakir Kohen Gadol she'avodat hayom shel botz.” Tosafot says that later, when Rav Kahana discusses bringing the bigdei lavan, he'll teach us that they do things to remind the kohen gadol that his clothes that day are butz. Tosafot asks: “Teima, mai shena de'amrah lemiltei aseifa velo areisha?” Why did Rav Kahana wait to tell us this rule about reminding the kohen of the bigdei butz? He could have told us here, in the reisha (first part) of our Mishnah, where the partition is mentioned. Rav Kahana could have said there that the reason for the butz partition is to remind the kohen. Why did he wait until the next part of the Mishnah, the seifa (final part), to mention it?
Tosafot answers: “Venir'eh li de'areisha lo chashash le'omro.” He didn't feel he needed to tell us that here. It's obvious that a reminder is needed, so the kohen doesn't make a mistake and put on all the garments in the usual way. Every day, when he takes off his bigdei chol, he puts on all eight garments. So when they put up a linen partition here, it's obvious that it's to remind him that this isn't like every day: he shouldn't put on his bigdei zahav; he should remember that today he wears bigdei lavan. It's obvious that that's why they use the butz.
“Ela bifnei atzmam, aval beseifa.” At the end of the Mishnah, though, it discusses his taking off the bigdei zahav during the day. He has to put on other garments, his bigdei lavan. “Salka da'atach amina delo aba tzarich hekeira devaddai lo atei lemite'ei.” You might have thought that no reminder was needed, since he only has two garments: if he's taking off the bigdei zahav, what else would he put on? Still, when he takes off the bigdei zahav, they put up a butz partition to remind him that he's putting on bigdei butz. Therefore, Rav Kahana felt he needed to tell us the new point there, because the reminder was more necessary there than here.
“Ve'od salka da'atach amina keivan dekvar pirsu pa'am achat sadin shel botz kedei sheyakir sagi behachi.” I might also have thought that since they had already put up the butz once to remind him, one reminder was enough for the day. Therefore, Rav Kahana had to tell us later that during the day they also put up a sadin shel butz to remind the kohen that the avodah was done in bigdei lavan. That's why Rav Kahana had to explain that they used two reminders: the first one and then the second one.
Now, that's the—what did they put up on a regular day? Maybe anything; maybe they weren't careful to use butz.
A new Mishnah. “Pashat”—he takes off his garments. “Yarad vetaval,” he goes down to the mikveh and immerses. “Alah,” he comes out, “venistapeg,” and dries himself. They bring him the bigdei zahav, the first garments he wears, and he puts them on. Then he performs kiddush yadayim veraglayim. He goes to the kiyor (laver), the special place, and washes his hands and feet.
They bring him the korban tamid (daily offering). He slaughters it, and another person completes the shechitah for him—or after him—because, as we learned, the kohen has to perform not only the shechitah but also the kabbalat hadam (receiving the blood). How can he perform shechitah and kabbalat hadam? After he performs the shechitah, the blood is already on the floor. So the Mishnah says he performs shechitah on berov simanim (most of the identifying signs), another kohen steps in and finishes the shechitah, and then the kohen himself takes the keli (vessel) to catch the blood.
Let's read that in the Mishnah again: “Karatzo,” he performs the shechitah, “umirek acher shechitah al yado,” and another kohen finishes the shechitah for him. “Kibel et hadam,” he receives the blood—the same kohen, the kohen gadol—“vezarko,” and then sprinkles it on the mizbe'ach (altar). “Nichnas lehaktir ketoret (incense) shel shachar,” he enters the inner altar, called the golden altar, to bring the ketoret. We know that each day the ketoret was offered as machatzito baboker (half in the morning), machatzito ba'erev (half in the evening). “Uleheitiv et haneirot,” then he goes and cleans out the menorah (lampstand), the wick and the oil, and so on. “Ulehakriv et harosh ve'et ha'eivarim,” then he brings the head and all the limbs of the korban tamid. “Vehachavitin,” and of course he brings the special minchat chavitin (daily flour offering) of a kohen gadol, which he has to bring every day. “Ve'et hayayin,” and then, of course, he pours the wine on the mizbe'ach.
“Ketoret shel shachar hayetah kerevah bein dam le'eivarim.” The morning ketoret was offered between the sprinkling of the blood and the placing of the korban tamid's limbs on the mizbe'ach. “Shel bein ha'arbayim bein eivarim linesachim.” The afternoon ketoret was offered between the placing of the afternoon korban's limbs on the mizbe'ach and the pouring of the wine.
“Im hayah kohen gadol zaken o istenis,” if the kohen gadol was, for example, old or istenis (delicate or sensitive), “mechamin lo chamim (hot water),” they heated water before Yom Kippur, “umetilin le-toch hatzonin (cold water),” and poured the hot water into the cold mikveh “kedei she-taphig tzinatan,” to take the chill out of the water. They didn't have heated mikva'ot. They would pour hot water into the cold mikveh to make the water lukewarm, so that an old or weak kohen gadol wouldn't have a problem.
Let's read Rashi on the Mishnah: “Venistapeg, mit'atef be-aluntit (towel) shel beged.” He would wrap himself in a cloth “lispog mayim she-al besaro,” to absorb the remaining water on his body. “Venistapeg venitkaneyach,” and he dries himself. Why would he have to dry himself? The meforshim explain one of two reasons: either the water itself is a chatzitzah between the garments and his flesh—the garments have to be worn on his flesh, which is why he has to dry himself—or there might be dirt in the water, and that dirt would cause a chatzitzah between his flesh and the garment. Therefore, he has to dry himself thoroughly.
Rashi says: “Kidesh yadav veraglav min hakiyor.” He washes his hands and feet from the kiyor. Rashi continues: “Kidi-alif lekaman she-tzarich lechol chalifot bigdei hayom kiddush lifshitah (removal of garments) ... vekiddush lilvishah (putting on garments).” We're going to learn that before and after taking off and putting on garments, he needs kiddush yadayim veraglayim. For every peshita and leveishah, there are two kiddush yadayim veraglayim.
“Utevilah rishonah zo she-pashat bigdei chol lo tzarich kiddush al hapeshitah.” Since the first garments he takes off are bigdei chol, he doesn't need kiddush yadayim veraglayim after taking them off. So he only performs kiddush yadayim veraglayim after putting on the bigdei zahav for the first time. Normally he would always do a tevilah after he takes off the garments and then after he puts on the garments. Here, after taking off the first garments, which are bigdei chol, he doesn't need kiddush yadayim veraglayim. So the first set requires just one, after he puts on his garments.
“Karatzo”—what does that mean? He slaughters the korban tamid. The Gemara explains the word. “Umirak acher”: another kohen completes the shechitah, because kabbalat hadam is valid only when done by a kohen gadol, and he has to hurry to receive the blood. “Al yado”: Rashi gives two explanations. It could mean “for him,” as in the example of a person cutting for himself; alternatively, al yado means “after him.” So either the other kohen performs the shechitah for him, or, after the kohen begins the shechitah, another kohen comes after him and completes it. Rashi quotes pesukim there.
“Ketoret shel shachar hi hayetah kerevah”—the Gemara explains this. “Mechamin lo chamim be-erev Yom HaKippurim,” they heated water on the eve of Yom Kippur, “umetilin be-Yom HaKippurim le-toch chakak binyan beit tevilato,” and poured it on Yom Kippur into the hollow built for the Beit Hatevilah. “Shetafig”—to immediately take away the chill. Leh afig means to weaken the cold. The hot water weakens the chill. The Mikra speaks of “vayafog libo,” when Ya'akov Avinu saw Yosef after 22 years. It says that his heart weakened. “Mefigin ta'aman, vereicho lo namar, metargeminan vereicho lo fag.”
The Gemara says: “Amruha Rabbanan kamei deRav Pappa.” The Rabbis said in front of Rav Pappa, “Ha dela cheRabbi Meir.” Our Mishnah doesn't follow Rabbi Meir. If you were to say it's Rabbi Meir, then, since he says that for every dressing there are two kiddush yadayim veraglayim—one before you dress and one after—you wouldn't need one at this point for the hafshatah (undressing). You would need them for dressing. Therefore, in this Mishnah, where it says you perform kiddush yadayim veraglayim only once, it can't be Rabbi Meir. If the Mishnah were Rabbi Meir, it would also require two kiddush yadayim veraglayim here, after taking off the bigdei chol: not for the bigdei chol, since you're about to wear bigdei kodesh, but one before putting on bigdei kodesh and one after. Since our Mishnah doesn't say that, it seems not to follow Rabbi Meir—this is about kiddush yadayim veraglayim, not the mikveh, which is a different matter.
Rav Pappa said to them: “Bein Rabbanan bein Rabbi Meir.” Our Mishnah follows either opinion: “chad afshitah debigdei kodesh vechad albeishah.” You made a mistake. You thought Rabbi Meir holds both kiddushim are for leveishah? No, one is for hafshatah and one is for leveishah. Here he isn't taking off bigdei kodesh; he's taking off bigdei chol. So even Rabbi Meir says he only has to perform one. If both were for the wearing—one before and one after—you'd be right that the Mishnah couldn't follow Rabbi Meir. But that isn't Rabbi Meir's position. He holds that one is for taking off bigdei kodesh and one is for putting them on.
So in our Mishnah, you took off bigdei chol, and it's the first—no, it's not. In this Mishnah, everybody agrees. There's no argument about this first one. So where is the machloket (dispute)? Where do Rabbi Meir and the Chachamim argue? The Gemara says: “Vehacha beha kamipalgei.” They argue about the following: “Ufashat verachatz velavash.” The pasuk (verse) says—and I'll quote the full pasuk—“Ufashat et bigdei habad asher lavash”: he takes off the white clothes he was wearing, the bigdei habad (linen garments); “verachatz et besaro bamayim”: he goes to the mikveh; “bemakom kadosh velavash et begadav”: then he puts on his other garments.
The Gemara learns here—and later it will tell us this is a gezerah shavah—that these two kiddush yadayim veraglayim are connected to the word rachatz in the pasuk. Even though the pasuk says verachatz only once, it places the word between the hafshatah and the leveishah. The Gemara learns that you need one rechitzah for hafshatah, taking off the garments, and another for halbashah, putting them on.
What is the machloket? “Rabbi Meir savar makish peshitah lilveishah.” Rabbi Meir says we compare taking off to putting on. “Mah leveishah lovesh ve'achar kach mekadesh, af peshitah poshet ve'achar kach mekadesh.” Just as you put on the garments and then perform kiddush yadayim veraglayim, you first take off the garments and then perform kiddush yadayim veraglayim. The peshitah is parallel to the leveishah: just as the kiddush for leveishah is done after you put on the garments, the kiddush for peshitah is done after you take them off.
The Chachamim, however, say the opposite. “VeRabbanan savrei makish peshitah lilveishah. Mah leveishah keshehu lavush mekadesh, af peshitah keshehu lavush mekadesh.” They make a hekesh (textual comparison) between taking off and putting on: just as, for leveishah, he performs kiddush yadayim veraglayim while wearing the garments, so too, for peshitah, he performs kiddush yadayim veraglayim while the garments are still on, before taking them off.
So we have a machloket between Rabbi Meir and the Chachamim about when the kiddush yadayim veraglayim were performed. Everyone agrees that one is for peshitah and one is for leveishah; there's no argument about that. The question is when they did them. According to the Chachamim, peshitah is compared to leveishah: just as the leveishah kiddush is done while he's dressed, the peshitah kiddush is done while he's dressed, before taking off the garments. Rabbi Meir says the opposite. He compares peshitah to leveishah so that, just as the leveishah kiddush is done after he gets dressed, the peshitah kiddush is done after he takes off the garments, after he undresses.
So while both hold that you need kiddush for peshitah and leveishah, the question is at what point. In our Mishnah, there's no argument, because what's the first thing he's taking off? Bigdei chol. Everyone holds that you don't need kiddush yadayim veraglayim when taking off bigdei chol. So when does the first kiddush yadayim veraglayim take place? After he puts on the bigdei kodesh, the bigdei zahav. That's the first time he needs kiddush yadayim veraglayim.
The Gemara says: “Amru leih Rabbanan leRav Pappa.” The Rabbis say to Rav Pappa: “Umi matzit amrit hachi?” Can you really say this? You want to say that our Mishnah follows Rabbi Meir, and that only one kiddush yadayim veraglayim is required because he's taking off bigdei chol. Is that so? We have a baraita: “Parsu sadin shel butz beino levein ha'am.” As we learned, they put a linen partition between the kohen and the people. “Pashat veyarad vetaval, alah venistapeg, hevi'u lo bigdei zahav velavash vekidesh yadav veraglav.” He takes off his clothes, goes to the mikveh, comes out and dries himself, then they bring him the bigdei zahav; he puts them on and performs kiddush yadayim veraglayim. Good, so far.
Rabbi Meir says: “Pashat, kidesh yadav veraglav, yarad vetaval, alah venistapeg, hevi'u lo bigdei zahav velavash vekidesh yadav veraglav.” He takes off his bigdei chol, performs kiddush yadayim veraglayim, goes down to the mikveh, comes out and dries himself, then they bring him the bigdei zahav; he puts them on and performs kiddush yadayim veraglayim. So you see that according to Rabbi Meir, even with bigdei chol, there are two.
He answers them—this is the question they asked Rav Pappa. Rav Pappa was trying to say that the Mishnah follows Rabbi Meir. They say, “What are you talking about? There's an explicit baraita that says otherwise.” He replies: “Ei tanya tanya.” What can I tell you? If there's a baraita, there's a baraita. That means, “You got me.” I can't argue with the baraita. I guess I was wrong; the Mishnah can't follow Rabbi Meir. “Ein hachi nami.” All right, you have a baraita; I didn't know about this baraita. It's clear that according to Rabbi Meir, there have to be two.
Let's read Rashi briefly. The first Rashi is “Rabbanan.” The Gemara doesn't explain who said, “Amruah Rabbanan kamei deRav Pappa”—the Rabbis said this in front of Rav Pappa. Rashi says: “Rabbanan, talmidei deRav Pappa amru chein lifnei rabam.” Rav Pappa's students said this in front of their teacher. “Ha matnitin, dela tenan bah shnei kiddushin bitvilah rishonah, dela cheRabbi Meir.” Our Mishnah, which doesn't say that there are two kiddushim at the first tevilah, doesn't follow Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Meir argues in the Mishnah later, at the second tevilah, with the Chachamim, who would perform kiddush before peshitah. He says peshitah comes before kiddush. At this point, we're understanding that if he takes off the garments first and then performs kiddush, that kiddush is not for taking them off; it's preparation for putting on the next garments.
Rashi continues: “Detnan Rabbi Meir omer pashat vekidesh, veshameenan mineih, desvirah leih, deshnei kiddushin she'itztarich hakatuv, bein beged lebeged, kedeilif lekaman, tarvaihu mishum levishat begadim hamitchalfim tachat rishonim hu.” We learned from this that Rabbi Meir understands the two kiddushim the Torah requires between garments as both relating to putting on the replacement garments.
“Dekhamaan matnitin? Lav kevatai?” Our Mishnah can't follow him. If it were Rabbi Meir, then at the first tevilah he would also require two kiddushim, since he is coming to put on the bigdei kodesh, the bigdei zahav.
The Gemara says, no: “The real issue is that one is for afshitah,” Rashi says. Since the peshitah here is of bigdei chol, it doesn't require kiddush. But by the second tevilah, when he takes off the bigdei zahav, Rabbi Meir disagrees with the Chachamim about doing peshitah before kiddush. It's not because he thinks the first kiddush before each tevilah is needed for leveishah. Rather, they argue about the Torah's decree. Why, then, does one say you perform kiddush while still dressed and the other say you do it after undressing? It's a machloket about how to understand the pesukim.
What are the pesukim? “Ufashat verachatz velavash.” The pasuk doesn't say rachatz twice; it says, “Ufashat verachatz velavash.” But since rachatz is between peshitah and leveishah, the Gemara learns that rechitzah applies to both. You need rechitzah for leveishah and rechitzah for hafshatah.
The Gemara says: “Ufashat et bigdei habad”—the white clothes, the bigdei lavan, “asher lavash,” and next it says, “verachatz et besaro bamayim bemakom kadosh velavash et begadav.” The Torah puts rechitzah between peshitah and leveishah. The Gemara later, on the next daf, will explain that rachatz here doesn't mean tevilah; it refers to kiddush yadayim veraglayim. We learn from it two kiddushim, applying the word verachatz to both ufashat and velavash, as if the pasuk said, “Ufashat verachatz velavash verachatz.”
Rabbi Meir's view is: “Makish kiddush pshitah lekiddush levishah.” We compare the kiddush of undressing to the kiddush of dressing. Just as, for leveishah, he gets dressed and then performs the second kiddush, as we'll learn later—and everyone agrees that the second kiddush is done while he's dressed—so too, for the kiddush of peshitah, he first undresses and then performs kiddush. Just as he dresses and then performs kiddush, he undresses and then performs kiddush. Therefore, Rabbi Meir says it's after he gets undressed.
The Chachamim make a different comparison: “Mah leveishah keshehu lavush mekadesh, o ledivrei hakol kiddush batra halavishah, af peshitah keshehu lavush begadim shehu ba lifshot mekadesh ve'achar kach poshet.” Just as the kiddush for leveishah is done after he gets dressed—meaning, while he's wearing the garments—the kiddush for hafshatah is done while he's still wearing the garments, before he takes them off. They both compare hafshatah to leveishah; the machloket is about the comparison.
Rashi then says: “Umi matzit amrat?” The Gemara asks if you can really say Rabbi Meir is the author of our Mishnah, since Rabbi Meir doesn't require two kiddushim at the first tevilah. We learned in a baraita—Rashi says it should say “gabei tevilah rishonah tanya”—that this baraita must be referring to the first tevilah, after he takes off his bigdei chol. How do we know? “Mide'lo matzrichu lerabanan ela chad kiddush.” The Rabbis in that baraita say that only one kiddush yadayim veraglayim is needed. Normally, the Chachamim hold that when you're taking off bigdei kodesh, you need one for hafshatah and one for leveishah. But in this baraita, they say you need only one. So we're forced to understand that it's discussing the first tevilah, after taking off bigdei chol.
Once we've established that we're discussing bigdei chol, “ela ta'ama deRabbi Meir mishum dekasavar tarvaihu mishum begadim shehu lovesh shava.” Clearly, according to Rabbi Meir, who says in that baraita that you need two kiddush yadayim veraglayim, it's because both are for leveishah. It's not like Rav Pappa's explanation, that one is for hafshatah and one for leveishah. Rather, both are for leveishah: one before and one after. It doesn't matter that he's taking off bigdei chol; the point is that he's putting on bigdei zahav. So he needs one before putting on the bigdei zahav and one after.
Therefore, the Gemara says Rav Pappa replies: “Ei tanya,” if you have an explicit baraita “behedya” that requires two kiddushim, “tanya!” That's it; it's explicit. “Umai ika lemishma deta'ama deRabbi Meir mishum detarvaihu alevishah?” We can clearly deduce that Rabbi Meir holds both are for leveishah. “Aval i lo ashkechitu matnitin behedya,” if I hadn't found this baraita explicitly, “lo hava sham'inan leh miplugta detevilah sheniyah dememeila didan ika lefarushei keRabbi Meir nami.” Without the baraita, I could have explained it according to Rav Pappa: everyone agrees that one is for hafshatah and one for leveishah, and I could have said that Rabbi Meir agrees with our Mishnah. But once we have an explicit baraita, it's clear that Rabbi Meir holds that both are for leveishah.
The Gemara continues: “Bishlama leRabbi Meir, hainu demashkachat lah asarah kedushin.” That's fine according to Rabbi Meir. The Mishnah said that on Yom Kippur there were ten kiddush yadayim veraglayim. According to Rabbi Meir, we understand how you get ten: there are five tevilot, with two kiddush yadayim veraglayim for each tevilah, including the first, one before and one after putting on the bigdei zahav.
“Ela leRabbanan, tish'ah havu!” But according to the Chachamim, there are only nine kiddush yadayim veraglayim, because at the first tevilah he performs only one. So where do the Chachamim get ten?
The Chachamim answer: “Amri lach Rabbanan, kiddusha batra, ki pashit bigdei kodesh velavish bigdei chol avid leh hatam.” The last kiddush is when he takes off his bigdei kodesh and puts on bigdei chol. Before he takes off the bigdei kodesh, he performs one more kiddush yadayim veraglayim. That makes the tenth.
Look at Rashi: “Asarah kedushim lechamesh tevilot.” According to Rabbi Meir, it's clear: there are ten kiddush yadayim veraglayim for five tevilot. According to the Chachamim, “tish'ah havu dechasra leh tevilah rishonah chad kiddush”: at the first tevilah, one kiddush is missing.
The Chachamim answer: “Amri lach Rabbanan, kiddush asiri,” the missing tenth kiddush, “kiddusha batra.” At the end of the day's service, when he takes off bigdei kodesh and puts on bigdei chol, he performs it before taking off the bigdei kodesh. According to the Chachamim, one kiddush is for peshitah and one for leveishah, so now that he's taking off bigdei kodesh, he needs one more for hafshatah.
“UleRabbi Meir lo mekadesh midi she'ein ba lilbosh bigdei kodesh.” According to Rabbi Meir, kiddush is always for leveishah. So when he's taking off bigdei kodesh, there's no reason to perform another kiddush yadayim veraglayim.
The conclusion is that Rabbi Meir holds the two kiddush yadayim veraglayim are for leveishah. At the end of the day, he has bigdei kodesh on. He isn't going to wear anything else; he's putting on bigdei chol. So there's no reason for Rabbi Meir to have him perform another kiddush yadayim veraglayim. He just takes off the garments and finishes.
But according to the Chachamim, one kiddush is for peshitah. When is that one done? While he's still wearing the garments, just as we learned regarding leveishah. So before he takes off his final bigdei kodesh to put on bigdei chol, the Chachamim say he needs the tenth and final kiddush yadayim veraglayim.
Baruch Hashem le'olam amen ve'amen.