No man even if he were clean could enter the Temple Court without having immersed himself. Five immersions and ten sanctifications did the High Priest undergo on that day. And all on holy ground in the Parwah Cell with the exception of this one alone.
t.Yom.3.3
A. The entire rite of the Day of Atonement, stated in accord with its proper order - if one did one part of the rite before its fellow, he has done nothing whatsoever [M.Yoma 5.7A-B],
B. except for taking out the ladle and fire-pan,
C. for if he did one deed before its fellow,
D. what he has done is done.
MISHNAH: m.Yom.3.3No man even if he were clean could enter the Temple Court without having immersed himself. Five immersions and ten sanctifications did the High Priest undergo on that day. And all on holy ground in the Parwah Cell with the exception of this one alone.
MISHNAH: m.Yom.3.4AA linen sheet was spread between him and the people...
GEMARA: Ben Zoma [T3] was asked: What is the purpose of this immersion? He answered: If one who moves from one holy place to another and from one place [the entering of] which [in uncleanness] involves kareth to another place [the entering of] which [in uncleanness] involves kareth, requires immersion, how much more shall he require immersion who moves from profane ground into holy ground, and from a place [the entering of] which [in uncleanness] does not involve kareth, to a place [the entering of] which [in uncleanness] involves kareth! R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] said: It is only an immersion required for the sake of uniformity, so that he may remember if there is any uncleanness on him and abstain. In what principle do they differ? b.Yom.30b As to whether the service is profaned. According to Ben Zoma [T3] he profanes the service, according to R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] he does not. But does he, in accordance with Ben Zoma`s [T3] view, profane the service? Has it not been taught: If a high priest did not immerse or sanctify himself between garment and garment or between service and service, his service remains valid. But if either a high priest or a common priest has not washed his hands and feet in the morning and then had officiated at a service, that service is invalidated? Rather does the dispute concern the question as to whether he transgresses a positive command or not, Ben Zoma [T3] holding he transgresses a positive command, R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] that he does not. But does R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] hold this view? Has it not been taught: A leper immerses himself and stands in the Nicanor Gate. R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] said: He does not need to immerse himself, for he has done so already on the evening before! This has its own reason, as it was taught: `Because he had immersed himself on the eve before`. What does he ask who asks this? Because he wants to raise another objection, viz., [why was it called] the cell of the lepers, because lepers immerse themselves therein. R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] says: Not only of the lepers did they say [this] but of every man [who enters the Temple Court]? That is no difficulty. One statement refers to the case that he immersed himself, the other to the case that he did not. But, if he did not immerse himself, he must await the setting of the sun? Rather: In both cases he is presumed to have immersed himself, but in the one case he is presumed to have ceased to have his mind [on the necessity of preventing defilement], in the other he is presumed to have had his mind thereon all the time. But if he ceased to have his mind on it, he would need to be sprinkled on the third and the seventh day, for R. Dosthai b. Mattun said in the name of R. Johanan [PA2]: Wherever attention [from the need to prevent uncleanness] is diverted, sprinkling on the third and the seventh day is required? Rather: In both cases he is presumed not to have diverted the attention, yet there is no contradiction, for in the one case he is presumed to have immersed himself for the purpose of entering the Sanctuary, in the other he is assumed to have done so without that purpose in mind. Or, if you like, say: Read not of lepers did they say [this] but of every man. Rabina [BA6] said: R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] makes his statement only on behalf [of the view] of the Rabbis: As far as my view is concerned, no leper needs [another] immersion. But according to your opinion, admit at least that this was said not of lepers alone but of all people. And the Rabbis? The leper is accustomed to [his] impurity, all others are unaccustomed to it. Shall we say that the Rabbis who dispute with R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] are of the opinion of Ben Zoma [T3], notwithstanding which they make reference to the leper, to inform you of the far-reaching consequences of R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y]`s opinion; or perhaps the difference in the case of the leper lies in the fact that he is accustomed to the uncleanness? He answered: It is different with the leper, because he is accustomed to his uncleanness. Said Abaye [BA4] to R. Joseph [BA3]: Would an intervening object b.Yom.31a render this immersion invalid or not? He replied: `Whatever the Rabbis ordained, they endowed with the authority of a law of the Torah`. Said Abaye [BA4] to R. Joseph [BA3]: Is a partial entrance of the Sanctuary considered an entrance or not? He answered: The thumb and toe will prove that, for there but a partial entrance is involved, and it was taught: A leper immerses himself and stands in the Nicanor Gate! The question was asked: What about making for himself a long knife for slaughtering? This question is asked in accord with the view of both Ben Zoma [T3] and the Rabbis who oppose R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y]. This question is asked on the view of Ben Zoma [T3]: Perhaps Ben Zoma [T3] does not consider the immersion obligatory except in the case of one who actually enters, but not for one who stands outside; or perhaps even for the latter, because he might gradually enter. The question is also asked according to the view of the Rabbis who oppose R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y]: Perhaps the Rabbis hold their view only there because he does not perform a service, but where he officiates at a service they would agree, or do they make no difference? The question remains unanswered. Five immersions and ten sanctifications: Our Rabbis taught: The high priest underwent five immersions and ten sanctifications on that day, all of them on holy ground, in the Parwah Cell, with the exception of the first, which took place on profane ground, on top of the Water Gate, lying at the side of his [private] cell. Abaye [BA4] said: We infer therefrom that the Etam well was [at least] twenty-three cubits above the ground of the Temple Court. For we have learnt: All the doorways there were twenty cubits in height, ten cubits in breadth, with the exception of that of the Hall and it was taught: And he shall bathe all his flesh in water, i.e., in the waters of a mikweh, in water which covers his whole body. What `is its quantity? One cubit square, three cubits high, and the Sages have calculated that the required quantity for [the contents of] a mikweh is forty seah. b.Yom.31b But there is also one cubit of the ceiling and one cubit of the flooring? Since the gates of the Sanctuary are made of marble these were made of a small [thickness]. But there is some [additional thickness] however small? Since it is not even as much as a cubit, he does not count it. a linen sheet was spread between him and the people. Why of linen? As R. Kahana [BA1, PA2, BA3 or BA6] said [elsewhere]: So that he may perceive that the service of the day is to be performed in garments of linen. Thus here too it is that he might perceive that the service of the day is to be performed in garments of linen.
[A] A person does not enter the courtyard for the service, even if he is clean, unless he immerses.
[B] Five acts of immersion, and ten acts of sanctification of the hands and feet, does the high priest carry out on that day.
[C] And all of them are in the sanctuary at the Parvah chamber, except for this one alone. y.Yom.3.3 I
[A] This is the way the passage of the Mishnah is to be read:A person does not enter the courtyard and the service, even if he is clean, unless he immerses [m.Yom.3.3A].
[B] [That is to say,] it is not the end of the matter that he comes for the service. But even if it is not for the service, [he still must immerse]. y.Yom.3.3 I:2
[A] They asked Ben Zoma [T3], ``What is the reason for this immersion?``
[B] He said to them, ``If he who goes in from one holy area to an other requires immersion, he who enters from a secular area to a holy area all the more so should require immersion!`` (Cf. t.Yom.1.16B-C.]
[C] No, there is this question. It may be that, if one goes from one holy area to another holy area, he should not require immersion, while if he goes from an unconsecrated area to a holy area, he should require immersion. [So the proposed argument does not stand.]
[D] Said R. Shimi, ``This is the proper version:[He said to them] `If one who goes in from one holy area to another, a place not subject to the punishment of extirpation, requires immersion, he who enters from an ordinary area to a holy place, which is subject to punishment of extirpation, surely should require immersion` [t.Yom.1.16C].``
[E] And if one goes from one holy area to another, he should be liable to the punishment of extirpation [if he does not prepare appropriately] .
[F] It accords with the following, which we have learned there:
[G] If [when a person did not realize he was unclean and in the Temple and so had to leave,] he prostrated himself or remained there for an interval sufficient for prostrating himself...[m.Shebu.2.3C].
[H] How long is the time needed for prostrating oneself?
[I] R. Simon [T4] in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi [PA1]: ``It is the interval needed to recite the following: `[When all the children of Israel saw the fire come down and the glory of the Lord upon the Temple,] they bowed down with their faces to the earth on the pavement, and worshiped and gave thanks to the Lord, saying, For he is good, for his steadfast love endures forever` (2 Chr.7.3).``
[J] R. Abbahu [PA3] added, ``Up to `Praise the Lord, for he is good.```
[K] R. Mana [PA5] added, ``Up to `...for his steadfast love endures forever.``` y.Yom.3.3 I:3
[A] It has been taught [in T.`s version:] R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] says, ``This immersion too was required only because of real dirt.
[B] ``Sometimes an old source of uncleanness clings to one`s hands.
[C] ``Because sometimes one is going to immerse [to clean up], he remembers that he is unclean and goes back [immerses and then goes] along`` [t.Yom.1.16D-F].
[D] There we have learned:[He subject to flux who suffered a seminal flux, or a menstruant who discharged semen, or if] a woman had a flow of blood during sexual relations, they must immerse themselves [before they say the Prayer]. R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] declares them exempt [from having to do so] [m.Ber.3.6].
[E] [What is R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y]`s reasoning here?]
[F] Does he differ on the ground that the kind of immersion required here involves merely immersion on account of dirt?
[G] Or is his reason that it will do the person no good anyhow even if there is immersion [since the various people listed here are unclean, whether or not they immerse on the count of the flux or flow they have just had]?
[H] What is the practical difference between these two proposed reasons behind the view of R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y]?
[I] If someone produces a flow of semen.
[J] If you say that R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] differs because it is an immersion merely to remove dirt, this immersion is [not] required on the authority of the Torah [in which case], in this instance, Judah will [not] require [the immersion].
[K] If you say that his reason is that if one does immerse, it will do him no good anyhow, [40c] in this instance it does good if the man immerses, so here he will maintain the view he has expressed in the following teaching:
[L] Said R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y], ``This immersion too was required only because of real dirt. Sometimes an old source of uncleanness clings to one`s hands. Because sometimes one is going to immerse [to clean up], he remembers that he is unclean [on a more serious count], and he goes back, immerses, and then goes along [given in T.`s version, as above].`` [Accordingly, Judah`s reason is that even though the immersion is only to remove dirt, it may prove necessary after the fact, and therefore is to be carried out.]
[M] That is to say, R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] did not differ because it was a matter of immersion to remove dirt, but it was because of the theory that, even if one were to immerse, what good would it do him? [That is why he differed at m.Ber.3.6.]