Yoma 8a — the Talmud in English

And what of the tzitz,

whose sanctity is lesser,

for it contains only one mention

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

the Torah said

concerning it

that

it shall be

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

The phylacteries,

whose sanctity is more severe,

for

behold,

they contain many mentions of the Name—how much more so.

And we raise an objection:

But according to Rabbi Shimon, who says

that the verse is interpreted as meaning that

it effects acceptance continually

—

and is it not 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 the wearing of the tzitz;

that is what it came for.

For the place where the tzitz is placed is upon the forehead.

And we raise an objection:

But Rabbi Judah,

who learned from this verse that the tzitz effects acceptance only when it is upon his forehead, necessarily interpreted that this verse is not needed to inform us where the place for wearing the tzitz is; and if so, this is difficult:

to establish a place for it

for the tzitz—

from where does he derive it?

And we answer: Rabbi Judah

derives

the place of the tzitz

from

the end of the verse, as it is stated, “And it shall be

upon his forehead

continually”; and the beginning of the verse is superfluous, to teach us about the acceptance effected by the tzitz.

And we raise an objection:

But Rabbi Shimon also should derive

the establishment of its place

from “upon his forehead”!

And we reject this:

Indeed, so it is.

But then,

“upon the forehead

of Aaron,

and it shall effect acceptance”—

what does he make of it?

He can say to you: Rabbi Shimon: This verse indeed comes to teach us the laws of the acceptance effected by the tzitz: 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

the case in which

the tzitz was broken,

for even Rabbi Shimon concedes

that it does not effect acceptance.

And we raise an objection:

But according to Rabbi Judah,

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

if the tzitz was broken

entirely,

from where does he derive

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

And we answer:

He derives it

Rabbi Judah from the end of the verse, “And it shall be upon his forehead continually.” It would have been possible to write

“forehead”

without a vav, but it was written

“his forehead”;

from this we learn the case of a broken tzitz.

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

And we raise an objection:

But Rabbi Shimon,

what does he expound from this superfluous vav?

And we answer: This exposition of

“forehead”—

“his forehead” is not understood by him

Rabbi Shimon as something to expound.

And we examine this dispute as to whether impurity is permitted in the community or is merely deferred:

Shall

we say

that

the Tannaim—

Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon—

are Tannaim

who disputed in a beraita?

For it was taught: Both this one,

the priest who burns the cow,

and this 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 words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yose says: They sprinkle upon him only

on the

third and seventh

days from his separation

alone.

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

There is a distinction between them: the

priest who burns the cow is sprinkled upon all seven

days. But the

priest

the

High

who performs the service

on Yom Kippur is sprinkled upon only

on the

third and seventh

days from his separation.

And we explain:

Is it not that, in this matter,

they

disagree, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yose:

Rabbi Meir

holds

that

impurity is deferred in the community,

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

And this is the reason for the sprinklings: they are concerned lest he became impure through a corpse before his separation. Therefore, the sprinklings must be performed according to their law—that is, at their proper times. Just as the sprinkling of sin-water, to purify one impure through a corpse, is performed on the third and seventh days of his impurity, so, since on each day of those seven days there is a doubt whether it is the third or seventh day of his impurity, it is necessary to sprinkle every day, in order to purify him from the doubtful impurity through a corpse.

And Rabbi Yose holds

that

impurity is a complete permission

in the

in the community,

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

And necessarily, the sprinklings are merely an excellence, learned from the separation for the inauguration; and if so, it is necessary to sprinkle upon him only on the third and seventh days.

And we reject this:

But can you understand

that this is what they disputed?

For

if

we say that

Rabbi Yose holds

that impurity

is a permission in the community,

then

sprinkling at all,

even on the third and seventh days,

why do I need it? For, as we explained, the sprinklings are not to purify him, but only because we derive them from the inauguration, and the time of the third and seventh days does not apply to them.

Rather, it is necessary to explain

that all these Tannaim

of the beraita

hold

that

impurity is deferred in the community, and the sprinklings are in order to purify him from doubtful impurity through a corpse.

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

And here, in this matter,

they

disagree:

Rabbi Meir holds:

We say that

immersion in its proper time,

even though it is not indispensable, nevertheless

is a mitzva. As it is stated: “And he shall purify himself on the seventh day, and wash his garments and immerse himself in water.” And the same applies to the sprinkling of sin-water: ideally, its mitzva is 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 may be the third or seventh.

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 Yose holds: We do not say that immersion in its proper time is—

a mitzva.

And even ideally, the impure person may purify himself a considerable time after his impurity.

And likewise, with the sprinkling of sin-water, we are not particular that the sprinkling be on the third and seventh days of his impurity.

And what is stated in the Torah concerning the third and seventh days means only that he cannot sprinkle 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 from his separation. For even if he became impure on the final day before the separation, the sprinkling is effective to purify him.

And we refute:

And

is it possible to say that

Rabbi Yose holds

that

we do not say that immersion in its proper time is—

a mitzva?

But it was taught: If the Name was there,

the Name—which is forbidden to erase—

written upon his flesh, he may neither wash nor anoint himself,

so that he should not erase it.

And

likewise,

he may not stand in a place of filth,

because of the sanctity of the Name.

And if

an immersion of a mitzva presents itself to him, he wraps a reed around it,

so that he should not erase the Name,

and immerses.

Rabbi Yose says: He descends and immerses in his usual manner,

and he need not wrap a reed,

provided that he does not rub

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

And it is established for us

in tractate Shabbat

that concerning

the law

of immersion in its proper time,

whether it is

a mitzva, they disagree.

For the first tanna holds

that

we do not say that immersion in its proper time is—

a mitzva,

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

And Rabbi Yose holds that we say immersion in its proper time is—

a mitzva,

and they are concerned lest he not find a reed immediately and delay his immersion until later, causing the mitzva of immersion in its proper time to be nullified.

And from now on, it is impossible to explain the opinion of Rabbi Yose in our beraita as holding that immersion in its proper time is not a mitzva.

And we conclude:

Rather, all these Tannaim say: immersion in its proper time is—

a mitzva.

And here, in this matter, they disagree:

Rabbi Meir holds that we compare sprinkling to immersion,

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

And Rabbi Yose holds that we do not compare sprinkling to immersion,

for only the time stated concerning immersion was stated for the mitzva, but the time stated concerning sprinkling concerns only the prohibition against performing it early, as explained above. Therefore, it is not necessary to sprinkle upon him except on the third and seventh days from his separation.

And we return to explaining 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 compares sprinkling to immersion

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

even the priest

High who performs the service

on Yom Kippur also

should be sprinkled upon on all seven days.

And if he does not compare sprinkling to immersion,

then

even the priest who burns the cow also should not

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

And we answer:

Rabbi Hanina never compares

sprinkling to immersion; therefore, the High Priest who performs the service on Yom Kippur is sprinkled upon only on the third and seventh days from his separation.

But the priest who burns the cow—

it is merely an excellence

that he is sprinkled upon on all seven days, like the many other excellences that they instituted concerning it for purity.