Yoma — Daf 14a

לומר שאינו עובד כל היום גזירה שמא יאכל א"ל רב אדא בר אהבה לרבא ומי גזר רבי יהודה שמא יאכל והתנן ר' יהודה אומר אף אשה אחרת מתקינין לו שמא תמות אשתו ואי מייתא אשתו עביד עבודה ולא גזר רבי יהודה שמא יאכל אמר ליה הכי השתא התם כיון דיום הכפורים הוא דכולי עלמא לא קא אכלי הוא נמי לא אתי למיכל הכא דכולי עלמא אכלי הוא נמי אתי למיכל

וכי האי גוונא מי חיילא עליה אנינות והא מיגרשא נהי דאנינות לא חייל עליה אטרודי מי לא מיטריד

מתני׳ כל שבעת הימים הוא זורק את הדם ומקטיר את הקטורת ומיטיב את הנרות ומקריב את הראש ואת הרגל ושאר כל הימים אם רצה להקריב מקריב שכהן גדול מקריב חלק בראש ונוטל חלק בראש

גמ׳ מאן תנא אמר רב חסדא דלא כרבי עקיבא דאי ר"ע הא אמר טהור שנפלה עליו הזאה טמאתו היכי עביד עבודה

דתניא (במדבר יט, יט) והזה הטהור על הטמא על הטמא טהור ועל הטהור טמא דברי ר' עקיבא וחכמים אומרים אין הדברים הללו אמורין אלא בדברים המקבלים טומאה

מאי היא כדתנן נתכוון להזות על הבהמה והזה על האדם אם יש באזוב ישנה נתכוון להזות על האדם והזה על הבהמה אם יש באזוב לא ישנה

מ"ט דר' עקיבא נכתוב רחמנא והזה הטהור עליו מאי על הטמא שמע מינה על הטמא טהור ועל הטהור טמא ורבנן האי לדברים המקבלין טומאה הוא דאתא אבל הכא קל וחומר הוא אם על הטמא טהור על הטהור לא כל שכן

ור' עקיבא היינו דקאמר שלמה (קהלת ז, כג) אמרתי אחכמה והיא רחוקה ממני ורבנן ההוא למזה ולמזין עליו טהור ונוגע בהן טמא

ומזה טהור והכתיב (במדבר יט, כא) ומזה מי הנדה יכבס בגדיו מאי מזה נוגע והכתיב מזה והא כתיב נוגע ועוד מזה בעי כיבוס בגדים נוגע לא בעי כבוס בגדים

אלא מאי מזה נושא ונכתוב רחמנא נושא מ"ט כתיב מזה הא קמ"ל דבעינן שיעור הזאה

הניחא למ"ד הזאה צריכה שיעור אלא למ"ד הזאה אין צריכה שיעור מאי איכא למימר אפילו למ"ד הזאה אין צריכא שיעור הני מילי אגבא דגברא אבל במנא צריכה שיעור דתנן כמה יהא בהן ויהא כדי הזאה כדי שיטבול

means to say that he does not officiate all that day,1 as a preventive measure lest he eat.2 Said R. Adda b. Ahabah to Raba: But did R. Judah enact a preventive measure lest he eat? Have we not learnt, R. Judah said: WE ALSO PROVIDE ANOTHER WIFE FOR HIM, LEST HIS WIFE DIE? Now when his wife dies he may perform the service [on the same day] without R. Judah becoming apprehensive lest he eat?-He replied: Now is this so?3 There, because it is the Day of Atonement, on which all the world does not eat, he, too, would not be likely to eat, but here [on any day] when all the world is eating, he would also be ready to eat — But under such conditions4 what mourning would be coming upon him because of her, since she is divorced from him? — Granted that no mourning would be obligatory, but he would surely be distracted.5 MISHNAH. THROUGHOUT THE SEVEN DAYS HE SPRINKLES THE BLOOD6 AND BURNS THE INCENSE7 AND TRIMS THE LAMPS8 AND OFFERS THE HEAD AND THE HIND LEG;9 ON ALL OTHER DAYS HE OFFERS ONLY IF HE SO DESIRES; FOR THE HIGH PRIEST IS FIRST IN OFFERING A PORTION10 AND HAS FIRST PLACE IN TAKING A PORTION.11 GEMARA. Who is the authority [for our Mishnah]? — R. Hisda said: It is not in accord with R. Akiba, for if it were, R. Akiba Surely holds that if some of the sprinkling12 fell upon a clean person, it rendered him unclean! How could he then officiate at the service?13 — For it has been taught: And the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean,14 i.e., [if sprinkled] ‘upon the unclean’, [he becomes] clean, [if sprinkled] upon the clean [he becomes] unclean, this is the opinion of R. Akiba. But the Sages hold that these matters [concerning sprinkling]15 apply only to such things as are susceptible to uncleanness. I What is it about? — As we have learnt: If he intended sprinkling an animal and [happened to] sprinkle a man, then, if there be sufficient water on the hyssop, he may repeat [the sprinkling].16 If he intended sprinkling a man and he [happened to] sprinkle an animal, then,if there be enough water on the hyssop, he may not repeat [the sprinkling].17 What is the reason for R. Akiba's view? — Let the Divine Law write ‘And the clean person shall sprinkle upon him’, what is the meaning of ‘upon the unclean,’? Infer from this that [if sprinkled] the unclean becomes clean, and [if sprinkled] the clean becomes unclean. And [what is the reason for the view of] the Rabbis? — These words emphasize that [sprinkling is right] only upon matter susceptible to uncleanness. But this18 case can be deduced a minori ad majus: If sprinkling upon an unclean makes clean, how much more shall sprinkling upon a clean [keep or make more] clean! And R. Akiba? — It is with reference to this that Solomon said: I said, I will get wisdom,, but it is far from me.19 — And the Sages? [They explain] this [passage to refer] to [the fact that] he who sprinkles and he who is sprinkled are clean, whereas he who touches them [the waters of purification] is rendered unclean.20 — But is he who sprinkles clean? Surely it is written, And he that sprinkleth the water of sprinkling shall wash his clothes?21 — ‘Sprinkleth’ here means ‘toucheth’. — But the text reads ‘sprinkleth’ and also mentions ‘toucheth’;21 furthermore, he who ‘sprinkleth’ must wash his clothes, whereas he who ‘toucheth’ need not wash his clothes? — Rather ‘sprinkleth’ here means carrieth’ — Then let the Divine Law write ‘carrieth’, why is ‘sprinkleth’ written? — That [is meant] to let us know that there must be a quantity sufficient for the sprinkling.22 That will be right according to him who holds that a definite minimum is necessary in the sprinkling,23 but according to him who holds there is no required minimum in the sprinkling,23 what is there to be said? Even according to him who holds there is no required minimum [it will be right], for that refers only to the back of the man,24 but in the vessels there must be a definite quantity, as we have learnt: How much water is necessary to be sufficient for the sprinkling? Enough for dipping (Rashi). it (v. infra), hence how could he be considered a mourner for his divorced wife. It is interesting to observe that sudden death does not enter among the many possibilities considered in this discussion. It would invalidate the suggestion of his leaving for the synagogue as soon as his wife was near death. [V. Hul. 132b, so that but for the fact that the apprehension lest he may eat does not arise on the Day of Atonement, he would not have been allowed to perform under such conditions the Temple service lest he eat of the sacrifices, Tosaf. Yesh.] Every evening the lamps were kindled by a priest, every morning cleaned, filled with oil, and provided with fresh wick. All this work during the seven days was performed by the high priest. rule, were brought on the altar by the priests chosen by the count. Head and hind leg always were offered up first. do so only during their particular week of service, v. Glos. s.v. Mishmar. superfluous, ‘upon him’ would have been clear enough. From this R. Akiba infers that only upon the unclean has the sprinkling a cleaning effect, with opposite effect on the clean. only upon things susceptible to uncleanness, hence, if sprinkled upon things unsusceptible to uncleanness it has been misused, and whatever is left of the water is invalid and may no more be used for sprinkling and cleansing. having been sprinkled on the animal the water on the hyssop became disqualified as water of purification with which work has been done, and can no longer be used for ritual sprinkling. Thus the Sages infer from the superfluous words ‘upon the unclean’ that the water of purification may be used only for such things as are susceptible to uncleanness, and by being sprinkled on things not so susceptible it becomes invalid (Rashi). R. Hananel on the basis of another reading explains differently.] ‘sprinkling’.