Yoma 8b (ח:) — the Talmud in English

And we raised an objection:

In accordance with whose opinion is this taught in the following beraita: There is no difference between the priest who burns the red heifer and the High Priest

who officiates

on Yom Kippur

with regard to the laws of separation,

except

that

the High Priest, before Yom Kippur,

is separated for the

purpose of

sanctity,

in order to enter the camp of the Divine Presence.

And

therefore it is permitted that

his fellow priests touch him.

But

if

this

the priest who burns the red heifer,

is separated for the

purpose of

purity,

to impose greater stringency regarding his purity because of the leniency practiced with him, namely, to render him impure and immerse him on that same day, because of the Sadducees,

and

therefore they imposed greater stringency upon his purity, so that

his fellow priests may not touch him.

And now we explain:

in accordance with whose

opinion does this beraita hold?

And we conclude: Either the beraita holds in accordance with

Rabbi Meir,

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

or

in accordance with Rabbi

Yosei,

who maintains that in both cases they sprinkle only on the third and seventh days.

For if

it were in accordance with

Rabbi Ḥanina, the Deputy High Priest,

Rabbi Hanina, Deputy of the Priests,

there is also

a difference between the priest who burns the red heifer and the High Priest on Yom Kippur,

namely

that Rabbi Ḥanina distinguishes between them: They sprinkle upon the priest who burns the red heifer throughout all seven days, whereas upon the High Priest before Yom Kippur they sprinkle only on the third and seventh days.

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina raises an objection

to those tanna’im who maintain that they sprinkle upon him throughout all seven days:

Granted,

on the

first

day after his separation they sprinkle upon him as a precaution,

lest

today be the

third

day of his ritual impurity.

And likewise on the

second day, lest

it be the

third

day.

And likewise on the

third

day after his separation, there is still reason for concern

lest

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

third

day of his ritual impurity.

But on the

fifth

day after his separation, when there is no longer concern lest it be the third day, since he had already separated three days before this day, nevertheless they sprinkle upon him as a precaution,

lest

it be the

seventh

day of his ritual impurity; and he had already been sprinkled on the third day of his ritual impurity, which was the first day after his separation.

And likewise on the

sixth

day after his separation, they are concerned

lest

today be the

seventh

day.

And likewise on the

seventh

day after his separation, they are concerned

lest

it be the seventh day of his ritual impurity.

But on the

day

fourth

after his separation—

why do we need sprinkling at all!?

For

there is no

possibility that on this day it is the

third

day of his ritual impurity;

it is possible to be concerned

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

And

likewise,

there is no possibility that it is the seventh day

of his ritual impurity;

it is possible to be concerned

that it is so, because sprinkling on the seventh day does not purify unless he was sprinkled four days earlier as the sprinkling of the third day. But this man was not sprinkled on the day before his separation.

And we answer:

But according to your reasoning,

if you interpret the beraita as saying that they sprinkle upon him specifically throughout all seven days, then

is there sprinkling throughout all seven days—

is such a thing possible?

But we hold

that sprinkling,

for the purpose of purification, is a prohibition of

shevut

and

does not override

the mitzva of sprinkling

Shabbat.

Rather,

you are compelled

to say what: The phrase “all

The phrase that we learned, “all

seven” that we state means throughout a period of seven days, but not literally every day; rather,

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

except for Shabbat.

If so,

here too

we should interpret it as seven days

except for

the

fourth

day after his separation.

Rava said: Since we say that sprinkling on the fourth day after his separation is ineffective, and on Shabbat it is prohibited to sprinkle, it follows that during the seven-day period they do not sprinkle upon him on two days.

Rather, unless the fourth day after his separation falls on Shabbat, in which case Shabbat does not cause any sprinkling to be omitted, since sprinkling on that day is of no benefit.

Unless the fourth day of his separation falls on Shabbat; in that case Shabbat does not cancel any sprinkling, since sprinkling on that day is of no benefit.

Therefore,

when separating the

High Priest

who officiates

on Yom Kippur, since the matter does not depend upon us

as to when to separate him,

but the matter depends upon the establishment of the month—

the days of separation are determined according to the establishment of the month, since Yom Kippur is on the tenth of Tishrei, and the separation takes place seven days earlier—

therefore,

he must be separated on the third of Tishrei.

And whenever the third of Tishrei occurs—

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

we separate him

against our will, even though one sprinkling on one of the other days will consequently be omitted.

But in the case of the priest who burns the red heifer, since the matter depends upon us

to determine the day on which the red heifer is burned,

we separate him

ideally

on Wednesday, so that [

so that the] day

of his separation will fall on Shabbat,

and the only sprinkling omitted will be on the fourth day after his separation, when sprinkling is unnecessary.

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

to the Chamber of the Parhedrin.

It was taught in a beraita:

Rabbi

Yehuda said: And was

this chamber,

the Chamber of the “Parhedrin”,

which were officials appointed over the markets by the king,

called

by that name?

Was it not the Chamber of the “Balvoti”,

which were ministers,

called by that name, since it was more prestigious?

It was called that, since it was more prestigious.

Rather,

there were two periods during the Second Temple period.

The first was the period of Shimon HaTzaddik, who lived a long life, and in his days the High Priesthood held its proper status.

And in the period that followed, the High Priests were not appointed on the basis of their stature and sanctity.

Therefore,

at first they would call it—

this chamber in which they separated the High Priest—

the Chamber of the Balvoti,

because of its importance.

And because

afterward the High Priests were appointed by

those who

were

giving money for the 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 names. They were wicked, and they died within the year of their appointment.

And

it turned out that they were

replacing it—

the chamber—

every twelve months.

And it was

like these “Parhedrin”,

the officials

whom they replace—

by order 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 am haaretz must separate tithes from it—first tithe and second tithe, or the poor tithe, since amei haaretz were suspected with regard to tithes—and this produce is called “demai.”

And it is explained below that, since these tithes are permitted to non-priests, it is not necessary to give them to a Levite or a poor person after he has rectified the produce from its untithed state by separating the tithes, since this is neither certainly untithed produce nor even doubtfully untithed produce, but rather a stringency imposed by the Sages. Therefore, with regard to giving them, we say: “The one who seeks to extract from another bears the burden of proof,” and the Israelite eats them after separating them and rectifying his produce.

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

the bakers [the ḥaverim, who are not suspected with regard to tithes], who purchase grain from amei haaretz in order to bake bread and sell it—

the bakers [the “trustworthy people,” who are not suspected concerning tithes], who purchase grain from ignorant people in order to bake bread and sell it—

the Sages did not require them to separate

second tithe or poor tithe,

but

only to give from the first tithe

the terumat maaser [which is one-tenth of the first tithe] to a priest.

which is one 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 one-tenth from it, which is teruma, and give it to a priest; and it would be prohibited for non-priests to eat it, like teruma gedola.

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

And

they must also separate

ḥalla.

And we raised an objection: For what reason were the bakers treated more leniently than everyone else?

Granted, with regard to teruma gedola,

the reason

the Sages did not

require them—whether the bakers or anyone else—is because of that

which was taught: