תלמוד על ברכות 3:1

It was stated: ⁶³Babli 30a. Rebbi Jehudah says, they instituted this immersion only as immersion of discipline, for sometimes when a person goes to wash he remembers an old emission of semen which he had and turns back⁶⁴In itself this immersion is useless. If a person actually is impure, he is forbidden to partake of sancta and to enter the sacred domain. Immersion in a miqweh will remove the impurity but the disability regarding sancta and the sacred domain is removed only by the following sundown (Lev. 22:7). Therefore immersion in the morning is only for pure persons; for R. Jehudah it is instituted so people should not inadvertently enter the sacred domain while still not qualified for it.. There, we have stated⁶⁵Mishnah Berakhot 3:6. The Mishnah is truncated; the full text explains the plural form of the verb: “The person with gonorrhea who had an emission of semen, as well as a menstruating woman who lost semen, and the woman who started menstruating while having intercourse, need immersion, but Rebbi Jehudah declares them not liable.”
An emission of semen pollutes, but it is a minor impurity which is removed by immersion in water and, for sancta, the following sundown. But gonorrhea and menstruation cause severe impurity for which immersion is possible only after seven days (Lev. 15:13,19). An immersion because of emission, before the time where immersion for the severe impurity is possible, is totally ineffective.
A different version of the following discussion is in Berakhot 3:6, Notes 260–264.: “the woman who started menstruating while having intercourse, needs immersion, but Rebbi Jehudah declares them not liable.” Why does Rebbi Jehudah disagree? Is it about immersion of discipline or because even if he immerses himself what would be its use? What is the difference? If he⁶⁶The male sufferer from gonorrhea, mentioned in the Mishnah. He had an emission before he started suffering from gonorrhea. He was obligated for an immersion before he became severely impure. had an emission. If you say that Rebbi Jehudah disagrees about immersion of discipline, it is a word of the Torah⁶⁷Lev. 15:16.. If you say, even if he immerses himself, what would be its use? It is useful that he immerse himself, as it was stated, Rebbi Jehudah says, they instituted this immersion only as immersion of discipline, for sometimes when a person goes to wash he remembers an old emission of semen which he had and turns back. This implies that Rebbi Jehudah did not disagree about immersion of discipline but because even if he immerses himself, what would be its use?

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah refers to someone in public, but if he is alone he interrupts following Rebbi Meïr²⁰³Since Mishnah 4 stated that he may not pronounce any benediction and the Amidah is composed of benedictions, it is clear that Mishnah 4 forbids formal praying. Both Mishnah 4 and Mishnah 5 are anonymous; an anonymous Mishnah is always supposed to represent the ideas of Rebbi Meïr since the latter’s collection was the basis of Rebbi’s edition of the Mishnah. To avoid two contradicting Mishnayot, it is spelled out here that the public embarrassment that would be caused by the rule of Mishnah 4 has to be avoided, see Halakhah 1, note 119. The opinion of R. Yehudah is given in Mishnah 4.. But following Rebbi Yehudah he does not interrupt even when alone, on condition that he have no water to immerse himself. But if he has water to immerse himself even Rebbi Yehudah agrees that he must interrupt.

¹⁵⁷This text appears also in Berakhot 3:1 (Notes 5–9). While it clearly is a commentary on Mishnah Berakhot 3:1, the manuscript text there is copied from here. A mourner may not put on tefillin on the first day; on the second day he puts on tefillin and when new faces appear during the seven days of mourning he takes them off; these are the words of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Joshua says: On the first and second days he does not put on tefillin; on the third day he puts on tefillin and if new faces come he does not take them off¹⁵⁸Babli 21a (with attributions switched). All authorities in all sources agree that a mourner may not put on tefillin the entire first day of mourning, even if the burial was conducted in the preceding night. So there is no connection between tefillin and the necessity to attend the burial.. If he does not put on tefillin even on the second day, why is it necessary to mention¹⁵⁹In Mishnah Berakhot 3:1 which rules that before the burial the family members do not recite Shema` nor put on tefillin. “anyone whose dead is lying before him”? Because he stated the one he stated the other<sup>160</sup>Since it is necessary to mention that he is free from reciting Shema` (and from prayer, whether that is stated in the Mishnah or not), the mention of tefillin is added as a memory aid in the orally transmitted Mishnah.. Rebbi Ze`ira, Mar Uqban in the name of Samuel; Rebbi Ze`ira, Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Eliezer in putting on and Rebbi Joshua in taking off. Rebbi Ze`ira inquired: If he put them on on the second day, following Rebbi Eliezer, would Rebbi Eliezer act like Rebbi Joshua, not to take them off? Rebbi Yose bar Abun said: Is it so that Rebbi Eliezer would act like Rebbi Joshua, not to take them off? If it were so, we should say “practice follows Rebbi Eliezer.”