Yoma 8b — the Talmud in English

And we raised it:

In accordance with whom does this that the Sages taught in a beraita: There is no difference between the priest who burns the cow and the High Priest

who serves

on the Day of Atonement

with regard to the laws of separation

except ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page position")

that—

the High Priest before the Day of Atonement

his separation is for the

sake of

holiness

, to enter the camp of the Divine Presence.

And

therefore it is permitted that

his fellow priests touch him.

And

if

this—

the priest who burns the cow—

his separation is for the

sake of

purity

, to be stringent concerning his purity because of the leniency that they practice with him, to render him impure and immerse him on that same day because of the Sadducees,

and

therefore they were stringent concerning his purity,

so that his fellow priests do not touch him.

And now we explain:

In accordance with whom

does this beraita hold?

And we conclude: Either the beraita holds in accordance with

Rabbi Meir

, who holds that in both cases they sprinkle upon him all seven days,

or

in accordance with Rabbi

Yosei

, who holds that in both cases they sprinkle only on the third and on the seventh.

For if

it is in accordance with

Rabbi Hanina, the deputy of the priests—

Rabbi Hanina, Deputy of the Priests,

there is also

a difference between the priest who burns the cow and the High Priest on the Day of Atonement:

this

is what Rabbi Hanina distinguishes: The priest who burns the cow is sprinkled upon all seven days, whereas the High Priest before the Day of Atonement is sprinkled upon only the third and the seventh.

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Hanina, raised an objection

to those tannaim who hold that he is sprinkled upon all seven days:

Granted that on the

day

first

of his separation they sprinkle upon him because of uncertainty,

perhaps

today is the day

third

of his impurity.

And likewise on the

second day, perhaps

it is the day

third

of his impurity.

And likewise on the day

third

of his separation, there is still reason for concern

perhaps

he became impure on the day of his separation, one hour before his separation, and today is the day

third

of his impurity.

But on the day

fifth

of his separation, when there is already no concern that it is the third day, since he separated three days before this day, nevertheless they sprinkle upon him because of uncertainty,

perhaps

it is the day

seventh

of his impurity, and he was already sprinkled on the third day of his impurity, which is the first day of his separation.

And likewise on the day

sixth

of separation, they are concerned

perhaps

today is the day

seventh

of his impurity.

And likewise on the

seventh

day of separation, they are concerned

perhaps

it is the seventh day of his impurity.

But, on the day

day

fourth

of his separation—

why do I need sprinkling at all!?

For

there is no

day

third

of impurity

to be uncertain about

on this day, since he separated three days before this day, he knows that he did not again become impure through a corpse; and if he became impure before his separation, he was already sprinkled on the third day, yesterday.

And

likewise

there is no uncertainty on the seventh day

of impurity

to be entertained,

since seventh-day sprinkling does not purify without his having been sprinkled upon four days earlier by virtue of third-day sprinkling. But this one was not sprinkled on the day before his separation.

And we answer:

But according to your reasoning,

that you interpreted the beraita as saying that he is sprinkled specifically all seven days, is there such a thing as

sprinkling all seven days—

is there?

But we have established

that sprinkling

for purification is a prohibition

of shevut

,

and it does not override

the mitzva of sprinkling

the Shabbat.

Rather,

it is necessarily so:

what have you to say

? That when we taught “all

seven,” its meaning is during seven days, not literally every day, but

”— means during the span of seven days, not literally every day, but

apart from Shabbat.

If so,

here too

we must interpret

seven apart from

the day

fourth

of separation.

Rava said: Since we say that on the fourth day of his separation his sprinkling is not effective, and on Shabbat it is forbidden to sprinkle, it follows that out of the seven days there are two days on which he is not sprinkled.

Since we say that sprinkling on the fourth day of his separation is of no benefit, and sprinkling is prohibited on Shabbat, it follows that during the seven days there are two days on which they do not sprinkle upon him.

Unless the fourth day of his separation falls on Shabbat, in which case Shabbat cancels no sprinkling, since sprinkling on this day is of no benefit.

Therefore,

with regard to the separation of the

High Priest

who serves

on the Day of Atonement, for the matter does not depend on us

as to when to separate him,

but the matter depends on the establishment of the month—

the days of separation are determined according to the establishment of the month, for the Day of Atonement is on the tenth of Tishrei, and the separation is seven days beforehand.

Therefore,

on the third of Tishrei he must be separated.

And whenever the third of Tishrei occurs—

whether it falls in such a manner that Shabbat occurs on the fourth day, on which there is no need to sprinkle, or whether it does not—

we separate him

against our will, even though one sprinkling from the other days will be cancelled.

But the priest who burns the cow, for the matter depends on us

to establish the day of the burning of the cow—

we separate him

initially

on the fourth day of the week, so that [

so that the day]

his fourth day falls on Shabbat

, and his sprinkling will be cancelled only on the fourth day of his separation, on which sprinkling is not needed.

We learned in the Mishna: They separate the High Priest from his house

to the Chamber of the Parhedrin.

It was taught:

[He] said,

Rabbi Yehuda: And was

this chamber

called “the Chamber of the Parhedrin,”

who were officials appointed over the markets on behalf of the king,

was it

called?

Was it not called “the Chamber of the Palutai,”

who are ministers,

was it

called, as it is more important?

Rather,

there were two periods during the days of the Second Temple.

The first was the period of Shimon the Righteous, who lived many years, and in his days the High Priesthood was in its proper status.

And in the period thereafter, the High Priests were not appointed according to their virtue and holiness.

Therefore,

at first they would call it—

this chamber in which they separated the High Priest—

the Chamber of the Palutai,

because of its importance.

And since

afterward the High Priests were appointed by

those who

would

give him money for the High Priesthood

to the king so that he would appoint them, and those High Priests who were appointed not for the sake of Heaven would customarily demolish the chamber and build another in its place for their own honor, so that it would be called by their name. And they were wicked, and they would die within their year.

And

it was found that they were

replacing it—

the chamber—

every twelve months.

And it was

like “the Parhedrin”

—like

these officials, whom they replace—

on behalf of the king—

every twelve months.

And

therefore they would call it the Chamber of the Parhedrin.

We learned there:

The Sages instituted that one who purchases produce from an ignoramus is obligated to separate tithes from it—first and second tithe, or poor tithe, since the ignoramuses were suspected concerning tithes—and this is called “demai.”

And it is explained below that, since the tithes are permitted for consumption by non-priests, it is not necessary to give them to a Levite or to a poor person [after he has put the produce in order by separating the tithes from its untithed status], for this is neither certainly untithed produce nor possibly untithed produce, but rather a stringency with which the Sages were stringent; therefore, with regard to giving them, we say, “The one who extracts from his fellow—the burden of proof is upon him,” and the Israelite eats them after separating them and putting his produce in order.

And therefore, they were also lenient in this enactment, so that

the bakers [

the “associates,” who are not suspected concerning the tithe], who purchase grain from ignoramuses in order to bake bread and sell it—

the Sages did not obligate them to separate

second tithe or poor tithe,

but

only to give from the first tithe

the tithe-offering [

which is a tenth of the first tithe] to a priest.

For if it were certainly untithed produce, the entire tithe would be given to a Levite, and the Levite would separate a tenth from it, which is an offering, and give it to a priest; and it is forbidden for non-priests to eat it, like the great offering.

But with regard to this demai produce, he separates the first tithe and eats it himself, as explained; however, he must separate that tenth which is forbidden to non-priests and give it to a priest.

And

likewise they must separate

the dough-offering.

And we raised it: For what reason were they lenient with the bakers more than with all other people?

Granted, the great offering,

the reason that

they did not

obligate them—the bakers as well as everyone else—is because of that

as it was taught: