Commentary for Berakhot 44:20

LET US EXAMINE HOW EZRA INSTITUTED [THIS ORDINANCE]. There are many disagreements throughout the entire Gemara about Rabbinic enactments. The Gemara almost never suggests – let us see how the original ruling was instituted. Tosfos explains why the Gemara suggests that here. In many places in regard to other Rabbinic enactments the Gemara does not ask this question, but here it is different because it is something that regularly occurs every day, therefore we remember the nature of the original enactment.

THE HALAKHA IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS [OPINION]. The Gemara related that Rav Chomo immersed himself in a mikvoh of forty s’ah on erev pesach before he would recite the Hagodoh for others. (It was the custom that only the leader of the seder said the Hagodoh, the others fulfilled their obligation by listening to him, via the process of - listening is the equivalent of saying.) Obviously he holds that when he is learning Torah himself it is not required to immerse in a mikvoh, rather pouring nine kav of water upon a person is sufficient. The Gemara concludes that the halochoh is not in accordance with Rav Chomo. Tosfos explores exactly which facet of Rav Chomo’s is not in accordance with the halochoh. The halochoho is not that immersion every day¹There is some difficulty with the text of the Tosfos. On the surface it appears that Rav Chomo require immersion when one is a baal keri on any day in forty s’ah. From the Gemara it would seem that the opposite is true. Rav Chomo himself immersed in a mikvoh of forty s’ah only erev pesach. When Tosfos uses the words אלא אפילו לאחרים, it seems that Tosfos had previously been speaking about requiring immersion in forty s'ah, when immersing in order to recite Torah for others. This concurs with our text of the Gemara. must be in a mikvoh of forty s’ah, rather even when one wants to recite words of Torah for the benefit of others it is sufficient to use nine kav.
According to this understanding we are only rejecting the special stringency of immersing in a mikvoh of forty s’ah, when reciting Torah for others. The enactment that one must use at least nine kav of water remains in full force. Alternatively, this is the explanation, and the halochoh is not like him, Rav Chomo, rather like R’ Yehudoh B’ Bsairoh who says that words of Torah do not become tomay and there is no need for any washing whatsoever, even nine kav.
According to this understanding the Gemara is ruling that the enactment of Ezra is not in effect at all. There are those who say that there is a remnant of Ezra’s enactment. And there are those who say that it is exclusively for Torah learning, that we say the enactment of Ezra is no longer in effect, but for praying, immersion is required. And the R’I explained that there is no difference and for prayer as well, immersion is not required.
Tosfos now examines a custom that was prevalent in his times. And one who immerses himself on Erev Yom Kipur²The Tur cites this custom and says it is based on Pirkay d’R’ Eliezer, who says that on Yom Kipur we must be pure as the ministering angels. It has therefore become the custom to immerse one's self Erev Yom Kipur. should not recite a blessing. And one who does recite a blessing, the b’rocho is in vain.

THE SACRIFICE OF THE WICKED IS AN ABOMINATION. When Raboh said that when one finds excrement in the area where he was praying, even though he sinned by not checking out in advance that it was free of excrement, his prayer is still a prayer. Rovo asks: but we have learned (Mishlay 21, 27) the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination. The Gemara’s question seems to encompass any situation where one found excrement where he prayed. R’I tells us that this is not so. R’I says that his prayer is an abomination only in a place where he should have had a doubt and assumed that there is excrement¹See Rosh Simon 22, where he cites Rabainu Yonoh who says that this can be seen from the Gemara earlier. When discussing one who discovered excrement while praying, the Braiso says that he should move to a position where the excrement is behind him or to his side. The Braiso does not say that he must repeat his prayers. This must be because the Braiso is discussing a place where one need not consider the likelihood of finding excrement. The dispute between Raboh and Rovo is speaking where the likelihood of finding excrement should be considered. in that place. Otherwise his prayer is not an abomination and he certainly need not pray again.

ALTHOUGH HE PRAYED, HIS PRAYER IS AN ABOMINATION. What is the ruling in this case where the prayer is deemed an abomination? And it is a “twisted thing that cannot be straightened” (Koheles 1, 15), in other words he cannot recite the prayer again. He therefore cannot correct the “twisted thing”. And R’I says that he should repeat the prayer once again.¹Most poskim accept this onion including the Shulchan Aruch Orac Chaim 76, 8.

[HE] WAITS UNTIL THE URINE CEASES. We will learn later that when one prays in the presence of urine his prayer is invalid. If so, how can the Braiso say that after he finishes urinating he may continue his prayers? The Braiso is speaking of when one is urinating on the earth or on clothing, and the area where the urine is falling is not damp enough to moisten something that comes in touches that area as can be understood from the Gemara later on 25a. For example the flow of the urine was drop by drop so that they are immediately absorbed in the ground or clothing. So did Horav R’ Yosaif explain our Gemara so that it should not contradict the later Gemara that says that one may not pray in the presence of urine. That Gemara is speaking where the urine is moist enough to moisten something else and our Gemara is speaking where there is not enough to moisten something else.
However, it makes more sense to say, that even if there is sufficient urine to make the area moist enough to moisten something else, it is permitted to continue praying. Since by Torah law it is only prohibited to pray opposite the flow of urine, as one is urinating, and it is the Rabanan who decreed the prohibition to recite Torah in the presence of urine even when one is not urinating. And since in this Braiso, he is already standing in middle of his prayer, the Rabanan did not trouble him to repeat his prayer.

M.: Ammi. Edd. more accurately: R. Assi.

It will be required as a consequence of this teaching.

M.: Tannaim and Amoraim.

M. : delicate person whose emission was voluntary and a healthy person when it was involuntary. But D. S. gives as the correct reading: delicate person whose emission was voluntary and a delicate person when it was involuntary.

See Bab. Kam. 82 a where Ezra's ordinances are enumerated.

M. : Tannaim and Amoraim.

Another reading is : R. Eliezer, but it is incorrect.

In a well or ditch or river.

Drawn water.

I.e. if water is drawn and poured into a hole in the ground, this would suffice.

Since there were three present, Grace woold be said with Zimmun (see Glossary, s.v.).

He draws an analogy between studying Torah and saying Grace.

In forty Saot, because he used then to teach Torah ; but on other days, when studying for himself, be poured nine Kabs over himself.

I.e. either nine Kabs suffice even to teach, or as R. Judah b. Batyra said, "Words of Torah do not contract defilement " and no purification is necessary.

Water in which e.g. flax or soiled clothes have been soaked.

I.e. from urine. The text of the Mishnah is defective here, as will be pointed out in the Gemara. See p. 168.

It refers here to reading a portion of the lection in the Synagogue ; and the minimum which constitutes a portion is three verses.

Some edd. add: "What remedy is there? Let him repeat the Tefillah"; but this is probably a marginal gloss which was incorrectly incorporated in the text.