Yoma 8a (ח.) — the Talmud in English

And what of the tzitz,

whose sanctity is less stringent,

as it contains only one mention of the Divine Name,

of the Name, as it was written upon it: “Holy to the Lord,”

the Torah stated

concerning it

that it shall be

that it be

“upon his forehead continually,” so that he must not divert his attention from it.

The tefillin,

whose sanctity is more stringent,

since

for

they contain many mentions of the Divine Name—all the more so.

And we raise an objection:

But according to Rabbi Shimon, who says

that the verse is interpreted to mean that

it continually effects acceptance

that it

but it is written “

and it shall be

upon the forehead

of Aaron

and it shall effect acceptance”!?

And we answer:

That

verse, “upon the forehead of Aaron,”

came to establish a place for it

for wearing the tzitz

that is what it came for.

It teaches that the place where the tzitz is placed is upon the forehead.

And we raise an objection:

But according to Rabbi Yehuda,

who learned from this verse that the tzitz effects acceptance only when it is upon his forehead, we are compelled to say that he interpreted that this verse is not needed to teach us where the tzitz is worn. If so, this is difficult:

to establish a place for it

for the tzitz—

from where does he derive it!?

And we answer: Rabbi Yehuda

derives

the place of the tzitz

from

the latter part of the verse, as it is stated: “and it shall be

upon his forehead

continually.” The first part of the verse is superfluous and teaches us about the tzitz’s effecting acceptance.

And we raise an objection:

But Rabbi Shimon, too, should derive

the establishment of its place

from “upon his forehead”!?

And we reject this:

Yes, indeed.

But then

“upon the forehead

of Aaron

and it shall effect acceptance”—

what does he do with it?

Rabbi Shimon could have said to you: This verse indeed comes to teach us the laws of the tzitz’s effecting acceptance: If the tzitz was

fit

for the forehead,

then it is effective and

effects acceptance.

But when it

is not fit

at all

to

be upon the

forehead, it does not effect acceptance.

And this is

to exclude

a case in which

the tzitz broke,

as even Rabbi Shimon concedes

that it does not effect acceptance.

And we raise an objection:

But according to Rabbi Yehuda,

who excluded from this verse even a case in which the tzitz is intact but is not upon his forehead at the time it effects acceptance,

if the tzitz broke

completely,

from where does he derive

that it does not effect acceptance, such that our verse is superfluous to exclude a case in which it is not upon his forehead?

And we answer:

Rabbi Yehuda derives it

from the end of the verse: “and it shall be upon his forehead continually.” Since it would have been possible to write

“forehead”

without the additional letter vav, and it was written

“his forehead,”

we learn from this that the tzitz is ineffective when broken.

And again, the phrase “and it shall be upon the forehead of Aaron” is superfluous, to teach us that anything that is not actually upon his forehead does not effect acceptance.

And we raise an objection:

And Rabbi Shimon,

what does he expound from this superfluous vav?

And we answer: This exposition of

“forehead”—

“his forehead”—is not understood by Rabbi Shimon as something to expound

for this purpose.

And we consider this dispute concerning whether ritual impurity is permitted in the communal offering or is merely overridden:

Should

we say

that

the tannaim—

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon,

the tannaim

who disputed in a beraita—

as it was taught: Both this one

the priest who burns the cow,

and that one

the High Priest who performs the service on Yom Kippur, were sprinkled upon

every

day of those

seven

days during which they separated him,

from

the ashes of

all

the

sin-offerings that were

kept

there

in the Temple—

the statement of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yosei says: They sprinkle upon him only

on the

third and seventh

days of his separation

alone.

Rabbi Hanina, deputy of the priests, says: There is a distinction between them: The

priest who burns the

cow is sprinkled upon during all seven

days. But the

priest

the

High Priest

who performs the service

on Yom Kippur is sprinkled upon only

on the

third and seventh

days of his separation.

And we explain:

Is it not the case that in this

dispute

they disagree,

Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei:

Rabbi Meir holds that

the

ritual impurity is overridden in the communal offering,

and it is appropriate to make every possible effort for him to perform the service in a state of purity.

This is the reason for the sprinklings: We are concerned that perhaps he became impure through contact with the dead before his separation. Therefore, the sprinklings must be performed in accordance with their prescribed law—that is, at their proper times. Just as the sprinkling of the water of the parah aduma, to purify one impure through contact with the dead, is performed on the third and seventh days of his impurity, so, since on each of those seven days there is a possibility that it is the third or seventh day of his impurity, it is necessary to sprinkle on him every day, in order to purify him from the possible impurity imparted by the dead.

And Rabbi Yosei holds that

the

ritual impurity is fully permitted

in the

communal offering,

and there is no obligation to purify him even if he became impure.

It must therefore be that the sprinklings are merely an enhancement, derived from the separation for the inauguration of the priests. If so, it is necessary to sprinkle upon him only on the third and seventh days.

And we reject this:

Can you understand

that this is the basis of their dispute?

But

if

we say that

Rabbi Yosei holds

that ritual impurity

is permitted in the communal offering,

then

the sprinkling at all—

even on the third and seventh days—

why is it necessary? As we explained, the sprinklings are not to purify him, but are required because they are derived from the inauguration rites, and the third and seventh days have no relevance to them.

Rather, it must necessarily be explained

that all these tannaim

of the beraita

hold that

ritual impurity

is overridden in the communal offering,

and the sprinklings are intended to purify him from possible impurity imparted by the dead.

And here, it is with regard to this that

they

they disagree:

Rabbi Meir holds: We say that

immersion at its proper time

is a

mitzva,

mitzva

even though it is not indispensable. As it is stated: “And he shall cleanse himself on the seventh day, and wash his garments and bathe in water.” The same applies to the sprinkling of the water of the parah aduma: ideally, its mitzva is to perform it at its proper time, namely, on the third and seventh days of his impurity. Therefore, ideally, they sprinkle upon him on all seven days, since each day might be the third or seventh day.

And Rabbi Yosei holds: We do not say that immersion at its proper time is a

mitzva.

Even ideally, an impure person is permitted to purify himself a considerable time after becoming impure.

And with regard to the sprinkling of the water of the parah aduma as well, we are not particular that the sprinkling be performed on the third and seventh days of his impurity.

The fact that the Torah states the third and seventh days means only that he cannot be sprinkled before the third day of his impurity, and likewise that he must wait four days between one sprinkling and the next. Therefore, he holds that even ideally they sprinkle upon him only on the third and seventh days of his separation. For even if he became impure on the final day before his separation, the sprinkling is effective in purifying him.

And we refute this:

S

urely it is possible to say that

Rabbi Yosei holds that

we

do not say that immersion at its proper time is a—

mitzva?

But it was taught: If the Divine Name was

written on his flesh—which is forbidden to erase—

written on his flesh, he may neither bathe nor anoint himself,

so that he will not erase it.

A

nd likewise,

he may not stand in a filthy place,

because of the sanctity of the Divine Name.

And if

a mitzva immersion presented itself to him, he wraps a reed around it

so that he will not erase the Divine Name

and immerses.

Rabbi Yosei says: He descends and immerses in the usual manner

and need not wrap a reed around it,

provided that he does not scrub

the flesh at the place of the Divine Name with his hands.

And we have established

in tractate Shabbat

that with regard to the law of

immersion at its proper time,

whether it is

a

mitzva, they disagree.

As the first tanna holds

that we

do not say that immersion at its proper time is a

mitzva,

and he may postpone the immersion until he finds a reed with which to wrap the flesh, so that he will not erase the Divine Name.

And Rabbi Yosei holds that we say immersion at its proper time is a

mitzva,

and we are concerned that perhaps he will not immediately find a reed, and will delay his immersion, thereby nullifying the mitzva of immersion at its proper time.

From this point onward, it is impossible to explain that the Rabbi Yosei of our beraita holds that immersion at its proper time is not a mitzva.

And we conclude:

Rather, according to all these tannaim, we say: Immersion at its proper time is a

mitzva.

And here, it is with regard to this that they disagree:

Rabbi Meir holds that we juxtapose sprinkling with immersion,

and just as immersion at its proper time is a mitzva, so too with regard to sprinkling. Therefore, they sprinkle upon him on all seven days, since each day is possibly its proper time.

And Rabbi Yosei holds that we do not juxtapose sprinkling with immersion,

for only the time stated with regard to immersion is prescribed for the mitzva, whereas the time stated with regard to sprinkling serves only to establish that one may not perform it earlier, as explained above. Therefore, it is not necessary to sprinkle upon him except on the third and seventh days of his separation.

And we return to explain the beraita, and raise an objection:

And Rabbi Hanina, deputy of the priests,

who distinguishes between the sprinklings of the priest who burns the cow and those of the High Priest on Yom Kippur—what does he hold?

If he juxtaposes sprinkling with immersion

and holds that sprinkling at its proper time is also a mitzva,

even the priest

the High Priest who performs the service

on Yom Kippur as well

should be sprinkled upon on all seven days.

And if he does not juxtapose sprinkling with immersion,

then

even the priest who burns the cow as well should not

be required to receive sprinkling except on the third and seventh days.

And we answer:

Rabbi Hanina never juxtaposes

sprinkling with immersion. Therefore, they sprinkle upon the High Priest who performs the service on Yom Kippur only on the third and seventh days of his separation.

But the priest who burns the cow—

it is merely an enhancement

that they sprinkle upon him on all seven days, like the many other enhancements that they instituted with regard to its purification.