Yoma 8

ומה ציץ שאין בו אלא אזכרה אחת אמרה תורה על מצחו תמיד שלא יסיח דעתו ממנו תפילין שיש בהן אזכרות הרבה על אחת כמה וכמה

Just as with regard to the frontplate, which has only one mention of God’s name, the Torah said: “It shall be always upon his forehead,” teaching that that he should not be distracted from it, with regard to phylacteries, which have numerous mentions of God’s name in their four passages from the Torah, all the more so one may not be distracted from them.

ולרבי שמעון דאמר תמיד מרצה והא כתיב על מצחו ונשא ההוא לקבוע לו מקום הוא דאתא

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Shimon, who says that the verse: “It shall be always upon his forehead,” teaches that the frontplate effects acceptance even when it is not on the High Priest’s forehead, isn’t it also written: “On his forehead…and shall gain forgiveness”? The Gemara answers: That verse comes to establish the place where the High Priest should position the frontplate, not to indicate that it effects acceptance only when it is on his forehead.

ורבי יהודה לקבוע לו מקום מנא ליה נפקא ליה מעל מצחו ורבי שמעון נמי תיפוק ליה מעל מצחו אין הכי נמי

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yehuda, from where does he derive the halakha to establish the frontplate’s place on the High Priest’s forehead? The Gemara answers: He derives it from that which is written: “On his forehead.” The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Shimon, too, let him derive the placement of the frontplate from: “On his forehead.” The Gemara responds: Yes, it is indeed so; that is Rabbi Shimon’s source.

אלא על מצחו ונשא מאי עביד ליה אמר לך ראוי למצח מרצה שאינו ראוי למצח אינו מרצה לאפוקי נשבר הציץ דלא מרצה

The Gemara asks: Rather, if so, with regard to the verse: “On his forehead…and shall gain forgiveness,” what does Rabbi Shimon do with that verse? The Gemara responds that Rabbi Shimon could have said to you: The frontplate that is intact and fit for placement on the High Priest’s forehead effects acceptance; that which is not fit for placement on the High Priest’s forehead does not effect acceptance. This comes to exclude a case where the frontplate broke, in which case it does not effect acceptance.

ולרבי יהודה נשבר הציץ מנא ליה נפקא ליה ממצח מצחו ורבי שמעון מצח מצחו לא משמע ליה

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yehuda, from where does he derive the ruling that in a case where the frontplate broke it does not effect acceptance? The Gemara responds: He derives it from the fact that the Torah did not say forehead, and instead said his forehead, teaching that it must be fit for the forehead of the High Priest. And Rabbi Shimon does not learn anything from the difference between forehead and his forehead.

נימא הני תנאי כהני תנאי דתניא אחד זה ואחד זה מזין עליו כל שבעה מכל חטאות שהיו שם דברי רבי מאיר רבי יוסי אומר אין מזין עליו אלא שלישי ושביעי בלבד רבי חנינא סגן הכהנים אומר כהן השורף את הפרה מזין עליו כל שבעה כהן גדול ביום הכפורים אין מזין עליו אלא שלישי ושביעי

§ The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the dispute between these tanna’im, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, who disagree with regard to a case of impurity involving the public, is like the dispute between those tanna’im, as it was taught in a baraita: Both in this case of a High Priest prior to Yom Kippur and in that case of a priest prior to burning the red heifer, on all seven days of his sequestering one sprinkles upon him purification water mixed with ashes from all the previous red heifer sin-offerings that were safeguarded there in the Temple. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Since these priests may have become impure with impurity imparted by a corpse at any point prior to their sequestering, one sprinkles the water upon them during all seven days, as there is no certainty which are the third and seventh days.
Rabbi Yosei says: One sprinkles the water upon him only on the third and seventh days, not on all seven, as sprinkling upon him twice is sufficient to purify him.
Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, says: With regard to the priest who burns the heifer, one sprinkles the water upon him all seven days. However, with regard to the High Priest on Yom Kippur, one sprinkles the water upon him only on the third and seventh days.

מאי לאו בהא קא מיפלגי רבי מאיר סבר טומאה דחויה היא בציבור ורבי יוסי סבר טומאה היתר היא בציבור

The Gemara clarifies: What, is it not with regard to this point that they disagree? Rabbi Meir holds: The prohibition against performing the Temple service in a state of impurity is overridden in cases involving the public. Therefore, one sprinkles the water upon the priest all seven days to ensure purification. And Rabbi Yosei holds: The prohibition against performing the Temple service in a state of impurity is permitted in cases involving the public. Therefore, it may be sufficient to sprinkle the water on the third and the seventh days.

ותסברא אי סבר רבי יוסי היתר היא בציבור הזאה כלל למה לי אלא דכולי עלמא הני תנאי סברי טומאה דחויה היא בציבור

This suggestion surprises the Gemara: And how can you understand the opinion of Rabbi Yosei in that manner? If Rabbi Yosei holds that impurity imparted by a corpse is permitted in cases involving the public, why do I need sprinkling at all? Rather, it must be that everyone, i.e., both tanna’im, holds that impurity imparted by a corpse is overridden in cases involving the public, and that is why sprinkling is necessary.

והכא בהא קמיפלגי רבי מאיר סבר אמרינן טבילה בזמנה מצוה ורבי יוסי סבר לא אמרינן טבילה בזמנה מצוה

And here the tanna’im disagree with regard to this matter. Rabbi Meir holds: We say that immersion at its appointed time is a mitzva. Beginning with the moment that an impure person is eligible for immersion, whenever he immerses, even if he delays doing so, he is purified. Nevertheless, it is a mitzva to immerse as soon as one is eligible. It is similarly a mitzva to have the purification waters sprinkled as soon as the priest is eligible. Since there is concern that perhaps the High Priest became impure during the three days prior to his sequestering, there is an obligation to sprinkle him each day beginning with day one, since that might be the third day of his impurity. And Rabbi Yosei holds: We do not say that immersion at its appointed time is a mitzva, and the same is true with regard to sprinkling. Therefore, sprinkling on the third and seventh days of his sequestering is sufficient, despite their not necessarily being the third and seventh days of his impurity.

וסבר רבי יוסי לא אמרינן טבילה בזמנה מצוה והתניא הרי שהיה שם כתוב על בשרו הרי זה לא ירחץ ולא יסוך ולא יעמוד במקום הטנופת נזדמנה לו טבילה של מצוה כורך עליו גמי וטובל רבי יוסי אומר יורד וטובל כדרכו ובלבד שלא ישפשף

And does Rabbi Yosei hold that we do not say that immersion at its appointed time is a mitzva? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to one who had a sacred name of God written on his flesh, he may neither bathe, nor smear oil on his flesh, nor stand in a place of filth. If an immersion by means of which he fulfills a mitzva happened to present itself to him, he wraps a reed over God’s name and then descends and immerses, allowing the water to penetrate so that there will be no interposition between him and the water. Rabbi Yosei says: Actually, he descends and immerses in his usual manner, and he need not wrap a reed over the name, provided that he does not rub the spot and erase the name.

וקיימא לן דבטבילה בזמנה מצוה קא מיפלגי דתנא קמא סבר לא אמרינן טבילה בזמנה מצוה ורבי יוסי סבר אמרינן טבילה בזמנה מצוה אלא דכולי עלמא להני תנאי אמרינן טבילה בזמנה מצוה

And we maintain that it is with regard to the issue of whether immersion at the appointed time is a mitzva that they disagree. The first tanna holds: We do not say that immersion at its appointed time is a mitzva. Therefore, one must wait to immerse until he procures a reed with which to cover God’s name, even if it means delaying the immersion. And Rabbi Yosei holds: We say that immersion at its appointed time is a mitzva. Therefore, one must not delay the immersion until he procures a reed but must immerse immediately. The dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei was not based on whether or not immersion on time is a mitzva. Rather, it must be that everyone agrees that according to these tanna’im we say that immersion at its appointed time is a mitzva.

והכא בהא קמיפלגי רבי מאיר סבר מקשינן הזאה לטבילה ורבי יוסי סבר לא מקשינן הזאה לטבילה

And here they disagree with regard to this matter. Rabbi Meir holds: We equate sprinkling with immersion; just as immersion at its appointed time is a mitzva, so too, sprinkling at its appointed time is a mitzva. And Rabbi Yosei holds: We do not equate sprinkling with immersion; although immersion at its appointed time is a mitzva, sprinkling at its appointed time is not.

ורבי חנינא סגן הכהנים אי מקיש הזאה לטבילה אפילו כהן ביום הכפורים נמי אי לא מקיש הזאה לטבילה אפילו כהן השורף את הפרה נמי לא

The Gemara asks: And with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, why does he distinguish between sprinkling purification water on the High Priest before Yom Kippur and doing so to the priest before he burns the red heifer? If he equates sprinkling with immersion, then one should sprinkle purification water all seven days even on the High Priest prior to Yom Kippur. If he does not equate sprinkling with immersion, then even on the priest who burns the red heifer one would also not sprinkle purification waters all seven days.

לעולם לא מקיש וכהן השורף את הפרה מעלה בעלמא

The Gemara answers: Actually, Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, does not equate sprinkling with immersion, and fundamentally, one need not sprinkle purification water all seven days in either case. And with regard to the priest who burns the heifer, the Sages merely established a higher standard. This is one of the many stringencies that the Sages instituted with regard to the priest who burns the heifer in an attempt to underscore that the ritual must be performed in purity.

כמאן אזלא הא דתנו רבנן אין בין כהן השורף את הפרה לכהן גדול ביום הכפורים אלא

The Gemara asks: With whose opinion, among the tanna’im cited above, does the following baraita that the Sages taught, correspond? The only difference between the priest who burns the heifer and the High Priest performing the service on Yom Kippur is

שזה פרישתו לקדושה ואחיו הכהנים נוגעין בו וזה פרישתו לטהרה ואין אחיו הכהנים נוגעין בו כמאן או רבי מאיר או רבי יוסי דאי רבי חנינא סגן הכהנים הא איכא נמי הא

that the sequestering of this High Priest prior to Yom Kippur is for the purpose of sanctity, i.e., to ensure that he appreciates the gravity of the occasion and to fill him with reverence in preparation for entering the Holy of Holies. His brethren, the priests, may touch him, as the objective of his sequestering is unrelated to any concern of impurity. In contrast, the sequestering of that priest who burns the heifer is for the purpose of purity, and his brethren, the priests, may not touch him. In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of either Rabbi Meir or Rabbi Yosei. As, if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, isn’t there also this difference between the two priests: One sprinkles purification waters on the priest who burns the heifer all seven days that he is sequestered, whereas one sprinkles purification waters on the High Priest before Yom Kippur only on the third and seventh days?

מתקיף לה רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא בשלמא ראשון שמא שלישי שני שמא שלישי שלישי שמא שלישי חמישי שמא שביעי ששי שמא שביעי שביעי שמא שביעי

§ Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, strongly objects to the opinion that one sprinkles purification waters on the priest who burns the heifer all seven days because those days may be the third or seventh day of his impurity. Granted, on the first day of the seven one sprinkles the water, as perhaps it is the third day of his impurity; and on the second day of the seven one sprinkles the water, as perhaps it is the third day of his impurity, if he became impure the day before he was sequestered. The same is true for the third day; one sprinkles the water, as perhaps that is the third day of his impurity. By the same token, on the fifth day one sprinkles the water, as perhaps that is the seventh day of his impurity if he became impure two days before he was sequestered. On the sixth day one sprinkles the water, as perhaps that is the seventh day of his impurity if he became impure the day before he was sequestered. On the seventh day one sprinkles the water, as perhaps that is the seventh day of his impurity.

אלא רביעי למה לי הזאה כלל לא בשלישי איכא לספוקי ולא בשביעי איכא לספוקי

However, on the fourth day after he was sequestered, why do I require sprinkling at all? Neither with regard to the possibility that it may be the third day of his impurity is there uncertainty, since he has already been sequestered for three days, nor with regard to the possibility that it may be the seventh day of his impurity is there uncertainty, as even if it were, sprinkling would be useless because he did not have purification water sprinkled on him on the third day of his impurity. Nothing is accomplished by sprinkling the water on the priest on the fourth day.

ולטעמיך הזאה כל שבעה מי איכא והא קיימא לן דהזאה שבות ואינה דוחה את השבת אלא מאי אית לך למימר שבעה לבר משבת הכא נמי שבעה לבר מרביעי

The Gemara asks: And according to your reasoning, is there ever sprinkling on the priest all seven days? Don’t we maintain that sprinkling is prohibited by rabbinic decree issued to enhance the character of Shabbat as a day of rest, and therefore, sprinkling does not override Shabbat. Rather, what have you to say? When it was instituted to sprinkle the water on the priest, it was for seven days except for Shabbat. Here too, say that sprinkling is performed for seven days except for the fourth day of sequestering.

אמר רבא הלכך כהן גדול ביום הכפורים דלא בדידן תליא מילתא אלא בקביעא דירחא תליא מילתא בתלתא בתשרי בעי לאפרושי וכל אימת דמתרמי תלתא בתשרי מפרשינן ליה אבל כהן השורף את הפרה דבדידן תליא מילתא מפרשינן ליה ברביעי בשבת כי היכי דניתרמי רביעי שלו בשבת

Rava said: Therefore, with regard to the High Priest on Yom Kippur, where the matter of the beginning of the seven-day period is not dependent on us; rather, the matter is dependent on the determination of the first day of the new month, for that reason it is required to remove the High Priest from his home on the third of Tishrei, and whenever the third of Tishrei occurs on a weekday, we remove him from his house. Therefore, both on the fourth day of his sequestering and on Shabbat, no sprinkling is performed. However, with regard to the priest who burns the heifer, where the matter of the beginning of the seven-day period is dependent on us, we remove him from his home on the fourth day of the week, Wednesday, so that the fourth day of his sequestering will occur on Shabbat. In that way, sprinkling will not be performed only one day of the seven, as the day on which sprinkling is prohibited will coincide with the day on which sprinkling is unnecessary.

ללשכת פרהדרין תניא רבי יהודה וכי לשכת פרהדרין היתה והלא לשכת בלווטי היתה

§ Having discussed the obligation to sequester the High Priest prior to Yom Kippur, the Gemara interprets the next matter in the mishna: The High Priest is removed from his house to the Chamber of Parhedrin. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: And was it called the Chamber of Parhedrin, the chamber for the annual royal appointees? Wasn’t it called the Chamber of Balvatei, the chamber for ministers and council heads?

אלא בתחלה היו קורין אותה לשכת בלווטי ומתוך שנותנין עליו ממון לכהונה ומחליפין אותה כל שנים עשר חודש כפרהדרין הללו שמחליפין אותם כל שנים עשר חודש לפיכך היו קוראין אותה לשכת פרהדרין

Rather, initially, during the era of Shimon HaTzaddik and his colleagues, who were rewarded with long lives due to their righteousness, they would call it the Chamber of Balvatei, a term connoting significance, since it was a place designated for the High Priest. However, because people were giving money in order to be appointed to the High Priesthood, the position was filled by unworthy individuals. Due to their wickedness, they did not survive the year, and they were replaced every twelve months like the parhedrin who are replaced every twelve months. Therefore, the chamber was called disparagingly the Chamber of Parhedrin. Since the High Priest was replaced every year, the new appointee would renovate the chamber to reflect his own more elaborate tastes.

תנן התם הנחתומין לא חייבו אותן חכמים להפריש אלא תרומת מעשר וחלה

Apropos the Parhedrin chamber, the Gemara discusses a related halakha. We learned in a mishna there in tractate Demai: With regard to doubtfully tithed produce, i.e., produce purchased from an am ha’aretz with regard to whom there is uncertainty whether or not he tithed the produce, the Sages required bakers to separate only teruma of the tithe, which is one one-hundredth of the produce that is given to the priests, and ḥalla, separated from the dough and given to priests.

בשלמא תרומה גדולה לא דתניא

The Gemara asks: Granted, teruma gedola, which is equal to approximately one-fiftieth of the produce and is given to a priest, need not be separated from doubtfully-tithed produce, as it was taught in a baraita: