Yoma 14a (יד.) — the Talmud in English

to say the opposite:

Even though, as a matter of law, the High Priest is fit for service when he is an onen, nevertheless the Sages were stringent

and ruled that he does not perform the service all day,

as long as he is an onen by Torah law,

lest

since one permits him to perform the service even though he is an onen, he will forget and even

eat

from the sacred offerings.

Only at night, when by Torah law he is no longer an onen, because Rabbi Yehuda holds that the aninut of the 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

if so,

did Rabbi Yehuda decree

that a High Priest who is an onen may not perform the service because he is concerned

lest he eat

from the sacred offerings?

We find in our Mishna that Rabbi Yehuda was not concerned about this. For:

And we learned: 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 onen when his wife dies.

And

it is evident that

Rabbi Yehuda did not decree

that he may not perform the service because of the concern

lest he eat.

Rava said to him:

This is not comparable. There,

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

since it is Yom Kippur,

a day of fasting,

as everyone does not eat.

Therefore, certainly

he too will not come

[will not come]

to eat

[to eat] as a result of his service.

But

here

[during the rest of the days of the year],

everyone

who is not an onen

does

eat,

and there is concern that, because he performs the service while in a state of aninut,

he too will come to eat,

like everyone else.

It follows from Rav Adda bar Ahava’s question and Rava’s answer that if his wife dies, aninut does in fact apply to him.

And we raise an objection:

In such a case,

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

does aninut apply to him

at all?

But

she had already

been divorced

before she died.

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

When he sees that she is close to death, the High Priest hurries to enter the synagogue, so that the divorce takes effect retroactively. Therefore, when she dies, she is no longer his wife, and aninut does not apply to him.

And we answer:

Granted, with regard to aninut

as a matter of law

it does not apply to him.

Nevertheless,

he is distressed

over her death—

who would not be distressed!?

This distress also prevents him from eating sacred offerings, since sacred offerings are eaten joyfully and in a dignified manner, as it is stated: “I have given them to you for an anointing.” And we derive 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,

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

See the Rashash and the Sefat Emet concerning the lighting of the lamps.

And

on

all the other days

of the year,

if he wishes

the High Priest

to offer—

he offers.

Because

the High Priest offers

any

portion

that he chooses

first.

For he has precedence over everyone, and even the division that is serving at that time cannot prevent him from doing so.

And

likewise he

takes a portion

of the sacred offerings

first,

before everyone else.

Gemara:

And we inquire:

Which tanna

is the author of 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 “fell,”

meaning that they sprinkled upon him the water of the ashes of the red heifer,

rendered him impure!

And since we learned above [8a] that they sprinkle upon the priest [even if he is pure] during the days of his separation, he becomes impure through that sprinkling until he immerses and sunset has set for him.

And if so,

how can he perform the service

during these seven days?!

As it is taught: [Numbers 19:19]

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

We learn from the superfluous words “upon the impure”—for it is obvious in this matter that one sprinkles upon the impure, since only when one sprinkled

upon the impure

is he

pure.

But

if

one sprinkled

upon the pure,

he is

impure; these are the words of Rabbi Akiva.

And the Sages say: The superfluous words “upon the impure” come to teach you another matter:

These matters

of the sprinkling of the water of purification

are stated

as constituting a valid sprinkling

only when

one sprinkles upon

objects that are susceptible to impurity,

but sprinkling upon objects that are not susceptible to impurity is not considered a sprinkling. Therefore, if one dipped the hyssop in the water of purification and sprinkled upon an object that is not susceptible to impurity, the remainder of the water left in the hyssop becomes disqualified.

objects that are susceptible to impurity.

What is it?

Where do we find this law? As we learned:

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

And if it happened that one

intended to sprinkle

the water of purification

upon an animal, but sprinkled it upon a person,

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

If there is

[water remaining]

in the hyssop,

one should sprinkle again,

a second time,

from the water remaining in the hyssop, upon the person.

But if it happened that one

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

then even

if there is

water

in the hyssop,

he should not sprinkle again

upon the person from the water remaining in the hyssop.

And the Gemara explains:

What is the reason of Rabbi Akiva,

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

The Torah should have written: “And the pure person shall sprinkle upon him.”

What

is the meaning of “upon the impure”?

It is obvious that one sprinkles upon the impure in order to purify him!

Rather,

derive from it:

only when one sprinkles

upon the impure

is he

pure.

And

if one sprinkles

upon the pure,

he is

impure.

And

if

the Sages

hold that

this

superfluous phrase, “upon the impure,”

comes to refer to objects susceptible to impurity,

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

But here,

with regard to sprinkling upon the pure,

it follows by a kal va-chomer!

If one sprinkles

upon the impure

and he becomes

pure,

when one sprinkles

upon the pure—

all the more so

he should remain in his state of purity and not become impure.

Rabbi Akiva

holds:

This is what Solomon said [Ecclesiastes 7]:

I said

concerning the passage of the red heifer:

I will become wise

in order to understand it,

but

its understanding

is still 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 water of purification

and to those upon whom it is sprinkled—

he is

pure, but

if he

touches it,

he is

impure.

And the Gemara objects:

And does the one who sprinkles

the water of purification remain

pure?

But

it is written [Numbers 19:21]:

“And the one who sprinkles the water of sprinkling

shall wash his garments!”

And we answer:

What is the meaning of “the one who sprinkles”?

It means

one who touches.

And we refute this:

But it is written also

“the one who sprinkles,” and it is written also

“one who touches.”

If so, it is not possible to explain that “the one who sprinkles” means one who touches.

Furthermore,

there is another difficulty:

“The one who sprinkles”

requires the washing of garments,

whereas

“one who touches”

does not require the washing of garments.

Rather,

this is how it should be answered:

What is the meaning of “the one who sprinkles”?

It means

one who carries

the water of purification.

And we ask: If so,

the Torah should have written “one who carries”

the water of sprinkling;

what is the reason that it wrote “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 required for sprinkling

is necessary in order to render impure the one carrying the water of sprinkling.

And we refute this:

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

since it is appropriate for the verse to use the term sprinkling in order to teach the measure of carrying that renders one impure.

But for the one who says

that

sprinkling does not require a measure—

what can be said?

And we answer:

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

that statement applies

to sprinkling

on the back of a person,

upon the person in order to purify him.

But with regard to a vessel,

the vessel in which one dips the hyssop into the water of purification,

it requires

the sprinkling to have a

measure,

for the vessel must contain water in a defined quantity, and this quantity must be present when the water is carried.

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.