Yoma 14a — the Talmud in English

to say

the opposite:

Although, according to the law, the High Priest is fit to perform the Temple service while he is an acute mourner, nevertheless the Sages imposed a stringency

that he may not perform the service all day,

as long as he is an acute mourner by Torah law,

lest

since he is permitted to perform the service even though he is an acute mourner, he forgets, and even

eats

from consecrated food.

Only at night, when by Torah law he is no longer an acute mourner—for Rabbi Yehuda holds that mourning at night after the deceased has been buried is only rabbinic—only then did the Sages permit him to offer sacrifices.

Rav Adda bar Ahava said to Rabba: And

is it

that Rabbi Yehuda imposed a decree

prohibiting an acute High Priest from performing the service because he was concerned

lest he eat

from consecrated food?

But we find in our Mishna that Rabbi Yehuda was not concerned about this. For,

did we not learn: Rabbi Yehuda says: They also prepare another wife for him

for the High Priest, because they are concerned

lest his wife die.

And if

indeed

his wife dies

on Yom Kippur,

he performs the service

[because he has another wife], even though he becomes an acute mourner when his wife dies.

And

it is evident that

Rabbi Yehuda did not impose a decree

prohibiting him from performing the service because of the concern

lest he eat.

Rava said to him

Rava:

This is not comparable. There,

[in the service of Yom Kippur,] Rabbi Yehuda did not decree that he may not perform the service while mourning,

since it is Yom Kippur,

which is a day of fasting—

everyone refrains from eating.

And therefore, certainly

he too will not come

[he will not come]

to eat

[to eat] as a result of performing the service.

But

here,

[during the rest of the year,]

everyone

who is not an acute mourner does

eat,

and there is concern that because he is performing the service while mourning,

he too may come to eat,

like everyone else.

It follows from Rav Adda bar Ahava’s question and Rava’s answer that if his wife dies, mourning does in fact take effect upon him.

And we raise a difficulty:

In such a case,

where the High Priest’s wife dies on Yom Kippur,

does mourning take effect upon him

at all?

But

she had already

been divorced

before she died.

For, as we established above, he gives his wife a bill of divorce on the condition that I enter the synagogue.

When he sees that she is nearing death, the High Priest hurries to enter the synagogue, so that the divorce takes effect retroactively. From that point, when she dies, she is no longer his wife, and mourning does not take effect upon him.

And we answer:

Granted that mourning,

according to the law,

does not take effect upon him.

Nevertheless,

he is distressed

by grief over her death—

would he not be distressed!?

This grief, too, prevents him from eating consecrated food, since consecrated food is eaten joyfully and in an elevated manner, as it is stated: “I have given them to you for anointing.” And we interpret this to mean that one eats them in the manner in which kings eat.

Mishna:

Throughout all seven days

of the High Priest’s separation,

he sprinkles the blood

of the daily offering,

burns the incense, prepares the lamps, and offers the head and the leg.

And

during

all the other days

of the year,

if he wishes

the High Priest

to offer—

he offers.

This is because

the High Priest offers

any

portion

that he chooses

first.

He takes precedence over everyone, and even the priestly division serving at that time cannot prevent him from doing so.

And

likewise, he

takes a portion

of the consecrated food

first,

before everyone else.

Gemara:

And we examine this:

which Sage taught

our Mishna?

Rav Ḥisda said:

Our Mishna is

not in accordance with Rabbi Akiva.

For if it were Rabbi Akiva—

he said: A pure person upon whom the sprinkling falls

when the water containing the ashes of the red heifer is sprinkled upon him—

it renders him impure!

And since we learned above [8a] that the water is sprinkled upon the priest [even if he is pure] during his days of separation, he becomes impure through that sprinkling until he immerses and waits until sunset.

And if so,

how does he perform the service

during these seven days!?

As it is taught in a beraita:

[Numbers 19:19]

“And the pure person shall sprinkle upon the impure.”

We learn from the apparently superfluous words “upon the impure”—for it is obvious in this matter that the sprinkling is performed upon the impure—that only if he sprinkled

upon the impure

is he

pure.

But

and

if he sprinkled

upon the pure,

he is

impure; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.

And the Sages say: The superfluous words “upon the impure” teach you something else:

of the sprinkling of the water of purification

These matters

of the sprinkling of the purification water

are stated

to be considered a valid sprinkling

only when

one sprinkles upon

objects that are susceptible to impurity.

But a sprinkling upon objects that are not susceptible to impurity is not considered a sprinkling. Therefore, if he immersed the hyssop in the purification water and sprinkled it upon an object that is not susceptible to impurity, the water remaining on the hyssop is disqualified.

What is it,

where do we find this law?

As we learned: The sprinkling of the purification water purifies only if the water was intentionally sprinkled upon the person in order to purify him.

intended to sprinkle

And if it happened that he

intended to sprinkle

the purification water

upon an animal, but sprinkled it upon a person,

which is an unintentional sprinkling and does not purify, then:

If there are

[water remaining]

on the hyssop,

he should again

perform

another sprinkling from the water remaining on the hyssop, upon the person.

But if it happened that he

intended to sprinkle upon a person, but sprinkled it upon an animal—

then even

if there is

water

on the hyssop,

he should not perform another sprinkling

upon the person from the water remaining on the hyssop.

And the Gemara explains:

What is Rabbi Akiva’s reason,

who holds that sprinkling purification water upon a pure person renders him impure?

The Merciful One should have written: “And the pure person shall sprinkle it upon him,”

Why

“upon the impure”?

But it is obvious that the sprinkling is performed upon the impure in order to purify him!

Conclude from this: Only if he sprinkles

upon the impure

upon the impure

is he

pure.

And

if he sprinkles

upon the pure,

he is

impure.

And

if

the Sages

hold that

this

extra phrase, “upon the impure,”

comes to refer to objects susceptible to impurity,

for only with regard to them is his sprinkling considered a sprinkling, as explained.

But here,

with regard to sprinkling upon a pure person,

it follows by an a-fortiori inference!

If

one sprinkles

upon the impure,

he becomes

pure.

When one sprinkles

upon the pure,

all the more so

should he remain pure and not become impure.

Rabbi Akiva

holds:

This is what Solomon was saying

[Ecclesiastes 7]:

“I said

regarding the passage of the red heifer:

I will become wise

and understand it,

but

even after understanding it,

it is far from me!”

And the Sages: That

verse, in which Solomon said that he did not merit understanding, refers

to the one who sprinkles

the purification water

and to those upon whom it is sprinkled—

he is

pure, but

if he

touches them, he is

impure.

And the Gemara is astonished:

And

is it true that

the one who sprinkles

the purification water remains

pure?

But

it is

written

[Numbers 19:21]:

“And the one who sprinkles the water of sprinkling

shall launder his clothes!”

And we answer:

What does “the one who sprinkles” mean?

It means one who

touches.

And we challenge this:

But it is written

also

“the one who sprinkles,” and it is written

also

“one who touches.”

And if so, it is impossible to say that “the one who sprinkles” means one who touches.

Furthermore,

there is another difficulty:

the one who sprinkles

must launder his clothes,

whereas

one who touches

does not have to launder his clothes.

Rather,

this is how it should be answered:

What does “the one who sprinkles” mean?

One who carries

the purification water.

And we ask: If so,

the Merciful One should have written “one who carries”

the water of sprinkling;

why does the verse say “the one who sprinkles”

the water of sprinkling?

And we answer:

This teaches us

that by using the expression “the one who sprinkles,” the verse teaches

that the measure of a sprinkling is required

in order to render the carrier of the water of sprinkling impure.

And we challenge this:

This works according to the one who says that a sprinkling requires a measure,

since the verse properly uses the expression “sprinkling” to teach that a certain measure must be carried in order to cause impurity.

But according to the one who says

that

a sprinkling does not require a measure—

what can be said?

And we answer:

Even according to the one who says that a sprinkling does not require a measure,

that statement applies

to sprinkling

on the back of a person,

upon the person’s body in order to purify him.

But with a vessel,

the vessel in which the hyssop is immersed in the purification water,

the sprinkling

must have a

measure,

for there must be a certain quantity of water in the vessel, and this quantity must be present when the water is carried.