יומא 14 — Soncino English Talmud

¹means to say that he does not officiate all that day, as a preventive measure lest he eat. 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? 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 conditions 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. MISHNAH. THROUGHOUT THE SEVEN DAYS HE SPRINKLES THE BLOOD AND BURNS THE INCENSE AND TRIMS THE LAMPS AND OFFERS THE HEAD AND THE HIND LEG; ON ALL OTHER DAYS HE OFFERS ONLY IF HE SO DESIRES; FOR THE HIGH PRIEST IS FIRST IN OFFERING A PORTION AND HAS FIRST PLACE IN TAKING A PORTION. 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 sprinkling fell upon a clean person, it rendered him unclean! How could he then officiate at the service? — For it has been taught: And the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean, 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] 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]. 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]. 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 this 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. — 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. — But is he who sprinkles clean? Surely it is written, And he that sprinkleth the water of sprinkling shall wash his clothes? — ‘Sprinkleth’ here means ‘toucheth’. — But the text reads ‘sprinkleth’ and also mentions ‘toucheth’; 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. That will be right according to him who holds that a definite minimum is necessary in the sprinkling, but according to him who holds there is no required minimum in the sprinkling, 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, 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^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ

^ᵃnote:Until the evening.
^ᵇnote:During the day he is forbidden by the Torah to eat, in the evening after burial the prohibition is only Rabbinical (Rashi).
^ᶜnote:This analogy is incorrect.
^ᵈnote:Since he would rush to the synagogue during her coma so that she would be divorced from him as soon as he entered 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.
^ᵉnote:upset by reminiscent tenderness, unable, as Rashi says, to be in the prescribed happy mood for eating sacrificial meat. [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.]
^ᶠnote:Of the daily morning and evening sacrifices on the outer altar. Ex. XXIX, 38-42.
^ᵍnote:Mornings and evenings on the golden inner altar, ibid. XXX, 1-8.
^ʰnote:Of the seven-branched candlestick, ibid. XXVII, 20-21; also XXX, 7-8. The trimming consisted of the following: 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.
^ⁱnote:According to Tam. IV, 2-3, the sacrificial lamb, after being slaughtered, was divided into certain parts, which, as a rule, were brought on the altar by the priests chosen by the count. Head and hind leg always were offered up first.
^ʲnote:The high priest had the prerogative to offer up at any time any portion of any sacrifice he desires, other priests could do so only during their particular week of service, v. Glos. s.v. Mishmar.
^ᵏnote:Of the flesh of the sacrifice which was distributed among the priests: he could choose any part he preferred.
^ˡnote:Of the ashes of the red heifer mixed with running water. Num. XIX, 17.
^ᵐnote:During the seven days of his separation, since he was to be sprinkled each day.
^ⁿnote:Num. XIX, 19: And the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean, the words ‘upon the unclean’ seem 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.
^ᵒnote:The Sages also consider the words superfluous, but they find in them the intimation that sprinkling has its effect 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.
^ᵖnote:(I.e., he can use the water left on the hyssop for a second sprinkling without necessarily dipping it again (Rash).]
^ᵠnote:V. Par. XIII, 3. [The hyssop must be dipped anew if the priest desires to perform with it another sprinkling. In 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.]
^ʳnote:The contention of the Sages that sprinkling could never have the effect of rendering unclean.
^ˢnote:Eccl. VII, 23. This matter is beyond logic, it is a law which has puzzled others already.
^ᵗnote:Num. XIX, 21.
^ᵘnote:Num. XIX, 21.
^ᵛnote:For rendering the one who carries the water unclean; that is indicated by expressing ‘carrying’ in terms of ‘sprinkling’.
^ʷnote:V. Nid. 9a.
^ˣnote:However small the quantity of the water that reaches him from the hyssop bundle, the cleansing is achieved.

²the buds therein and for the water to be sprinkled. Abaye said: [The Mishnah] may be in accord even with R. Akiba: He [the high priest] officiates all day, [and] in the evening is he sprinkled, then he takes the immersion and awaits the sunset. AND BURNS THE INCENSE AND TRIMS THE LAMPS. Hence [you may infer that] the incense came first and the lamps afterwards. A contradiction is raised against this: He to whom it fell to clear the inner altar of ashes . . . he to whom it fell to clean the candlesticks . . . he to whom it fell to burn the incense? R. Huna said: Who is the Tanna of [the Tractate] Tamid? R. Simeon of Mizpah. But surely we have learnt exactly the opposite. For we have learnt: As he came to the north-eastern corner [of the altar], he sprinkled to the east and north; then he came to the south-western corner and sprinkled it to the west and south. And with reference to this [Mishnaic statement] it was taught: Rabbi Simeon of Mizpah has this change in Tamid: As he came to the north-eastern corner he sprinkled it to the east and to the north; then he came to the south-western corner, and sprinkled it to the west and afterwards to the south. — Rather, said R. Johanan: Who is the authority for the order [given] in [the Tractate] Yoma? R. Simeon of Mizpah. But here is a contradiction between the order [given] in [the Tractate] Yoma and the order [given] in another passage therein: The second count decided who should slaughter, who should sprinkle [the blood], who should remove the ashes from the inner altar, who should remove the ashes from the candlestick, who should take up the limbs [of the burnt-offering] to the ramp [of the altar]. The third count: ‘Fresh ones, come and be counted for the incense!’ -Abaye said: This is no difficulty. The one case speaks of the trimming of the five lamps, the other of the trimming of the two lamps. Shall we say that the incense interrupted the trimming of the lamps? But Abaye was recounting the order [of the daily Temple service] in the name of a tradition and he has the trimming of the lamps interrupted by the blood of the regular daily offering? — I will tell you: This is no difficulty, the one refers to the [order of the daily Temple service] in accord with Abba Saul, the other in accord with the Sages, for it has been taught: He should not trim the lamps and after that burn the incense, but he should offer the incense first and then trim the lamps. Abba Saul says: He should first trim and then offer [the incense] — What is the reason for Abba Saul's view? — For it is written: Every morning, when he dresseth the lamps, and afterwards [it says], he shall burn it? — And the Sages? What the Divine Law intends here is^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ

^ʸnote:Par. XIII, 5.
^ᶻnote:Thus he would be clean at night and able to officiate again on the morrow. Next day exactly the same procedure will follow. V. infra 19a.
^ᵃᵃnote:The quotation is from two Mishnahs, Tam. III, 9 and ibid. V, 4.
^ᵃᵇnote:Here the trimming of lamps is mentioned as coming before the incense.
^ᵃᶜnote:[Ginzberg, Journal of Jewish Lore and Philosophy l, p. 200 takes this phrase to denote that the Tractate Tamid did not go through the hands of Rabbi as Redactor, but that it has comedown to us in the original form with R. Simeon of Mizpah, a contemporary of R. Gamaliel II, as its compiler.]
^ᵃᵈnote:V. Pe'ah II. He was either of Mizpah or ‘Governor of the Watch-tower of the Temple’ (Jastrow).
^ᵃᵉnote:R. Simeon of Mizpah opposes the teaching reported in Tamid.
^ᵃᶠnote:Tam. IV, 1.
^ᵃᵍnote:The priest who sprinkled the blood.
^ᵃʰnote:The sprinkling had to be made in such a manner that one constituted two, it was done in form of a Greek ‘gamma’, from the two corners. ‘
^ᵃⁱnote:[shn,c vban a difficult phrase. Rashi: ‘To change the order in connection with the Tamid, the daily regular offerings’. R. Hananel: He differs with the view laid down in Tamid. Ginzberg, op. cit., p. 285 n. 1 takes it as corresponding to hbn,, ‘teaches’, used in introducing ‘variants’: R. Simeon's version of Tamid is . . .]
^ᵃʲnote:R. Simeon insists that two separate applications had to be made from the south-western corner, one to the west and another to the south, and thus opposes the order given in Tamid, v. infra 15a, hence he could not be an authority for the Tractate.
^ᵃᵏnote:From here it is seen that incense was offered after the lamps, which contradicts our Mishnah here.
^ᵃˡnote:There were seven lamps, the trimming of which, according to this answer, was interrupted by the offering of the incense, so that five lamps were trimmed, then the incense offered, after which the last two lamps of the seven-branched candlestick were trimmed, v. infra 33a.
^ᵃᵐnote:[trnds vhnan. This expression seems to mean that Abaye could not give the precise source of his authority but referred it to ‘tradition’ in general, v. Bacher HUCA, 1924, p. 31.]
^ᵃⁿnote:His account thus varies from the statement he makes here.
^ᵃᵒnote:Ex. XXX, 7.
^ᵃᵖnote:Ibid. in the same passage.
^ᵃᵠnote:How do they explain this verse?