יומא 8 — Soncino English Talmud

¹If touching the front plate, on which the mention [of God] is but inscribed once, the Torah prescribes ‘And it shall be continually upon his forehead,’ i.e., he shall not dismiss it from his mind, how much more does this apply to the tefillin which contain the mention [of God] many a time! But according to R. Simeon who says the front plate effects pardon always, does not Scripture intimate [in the passage], ‘On the forehead [of Aaron] and he shall bear’ [that the effecting of pardon depends on his bearing the plate]?- No, that passage merely serves to indicate the place of the plate. Whence does R. Judah know that there is a definite place prescribed for the front plate? He infers that from ‘On his forehead’. Why should not R. Simeon infer it from the passage too? -Indeed he does. Then how does he interpret On the forehead [of Aaron] and he shall bear’?- He will tell you: [It means to say that] whatsoever is fit to rest ‘on the forehead’, can effect pardon, whatsoever is not fit to rest on the forehead cannot effect it. This excludes a broken plate, which, indeed, cannot effect a pardon. Whence now does R. Judah infer the law concerning a broken plate? — He derives it from the [fact that instead of] ‘the forehead’ the text has ‘his forehead’. R.Simeon, however, does not attach any significance to [the words] ‘the forehead’, [and] ‘his forehead’. Are the above Tannaim disputing the principle of the following Tannaim? For it has been taught: On both of them throughout the seven days they would sprinkle from all the sin-offerings that were there; these are the words of R. Meir. R. Jose said: They sprinkled him only on the third and seventh days. R. Hanina, the deputy high priest said: The priest that was to burn the red heifer they sprinkled on each of the seven days, but the high priest that was to officiate on the Day of Atonement was sprinkled only on the third and seventh day. Is it not that their difference rests on this principle: R. Meir holds the law concerning ritual uncleanness to be only suspended in the case of community, whilst R. Jose considers it inoperative in that case. But how can you understand the case of a community? If R. Jose holds that the law concerning ritual uncleanness is inoperative in case of a community, why is any sprinkling necessary? — Rather, you must assume that all agree that these Tannaim hold that law to be only suspended in case of a community and the point of issue here between them is this: R. Meir holds that we say that it is obligatory for the ritual immersion to be taken in its proper time, and R. Jose holds we do not say that it is obligatory for the ritual immersion to be taken in its proper time. But does R. Jose hold that we do not maintain that it is obligatory for the ritual immersion to take place in its proper time? Surely, it has been taught: One who has the name [of God] inscribed on his flesh must not bathe nor anoint himself nor stand at a place of filth. If he happens to have an obligatory ritual bath, he should place reed grass on that part and thus bathe. R. Jose says: He may go down to bathe as usual, provided he does not rub that part. And it is established that they are disputing the question as to whether it is obligatory for a ritual immersion to take place in its proper time; the first Tanna holding we do not say that it is obligatory for a ritual immersion to be taken in its proper time, and R. Jose affirming that we do say that it is obligatory for a ritual immersion to be taken in its proper place. — Rather: Everybody agrees that those two Tannaim both hold we do say that it is obligatory for a ritual immersion to be taken in its proper time, and their dispute above concerns the following principle: R. Meir is of the opinion that we compare the [law concerning] ‘sprinkling’ to [that concerning] the immersion and R. Jose holds we do not compare ‘sprinkling’ to immersion’. What about R. Hanina, the deputy high priest? If he compares ‘sprinkling’ to ‘immersion’, the high priest on the Day of Atonement too [should be sprinkled on every day]. And if he does not compare ‘sprinkling’ to ‘immersion’ the priest who burns the heifer [should] neither [be sprinkled on every day]? — In truth he does not make that comparison, the enactment touching the priest who burns the heifer being a mere special stringency. According to whose opinion is the following teaching: There is no difference between the priest who burns the heifer and the high priest on the Day of Atonement except^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:In the inscription ‘HOLY UNTO THE LORD’.
^ᵇnote:In the four excerpts from the Torah, which they contain. Hence the obligation to touch tefillin all the time, as a reminder of the lessons they convey.
^ᶜnote:Since he interprets ‘On the forehead and he shall bear’ as indicating interdependence of pardon and plate, whence does he know the place of the plate?- Perhaps it may be worn elsewhere too.
^ᵈnote:The passage is simple and direct enough and untouched by the controversy.
^ᵉnote:In the phrase ‘On his forehead continually’, R. Judah derives the law of the broken plate from the use of the possessive.
^ᶠnote:There is nothing abnormal calling for special attention in the use of the possessive.
^ᵍnote:V. supra p. 12 notes.
^ʰnote:With water from the ashes.
^ⁱnote:Which remained from red heifers from the time of Moses until that period (Bertinoro). V. also Parah III, 5. From the ashes of every heifer some part was kept for future use.
^ʲnote:Segan. V. Sanh., Sonc. ed. p. 91, n. 1.
^ᵏnote:Cf. Num. XIX, 19.
^ˡnote:Which shows that R. Jose and R. Meir differ on the same principle as R. Judah and R. Simeon.
^ᵐnote:Lit.,’Can you hold that opinion?’
^ⁿnote:Mizwah may mean ‘commandment’, ‘good deed’, ‘ought’, ‘is obligatory’.
^ᵒnote:[On the day prescribed by the law, and the same applies to the sprinkling which for the reason explained infra must take place every day.]
^ᵖnote:Lest he blot out the name of God.
^ᵠnote:Lest he blot out ‘the name of God.
^ʳnote:V. Shab. 120b.
^ˢnote:From here it would appear that R. Jose held the ritual bath should be taken as soon as it is due.
^ᵗnote:R. Meir and R. Jose.
^ᵘnote:Lit., ‘analogy’, ‘comparison’, usually based on the close connection of two subjects in one and the same passage of the Torah. Arguments from Hekkesh are, in general, regarded as being more conclusive than those from Gezerah Shawah, the former not admitting of refutation. Both could be applied only for the purpose of supporting a traditional law. Mielziner, l.c.
^ᵛnote:Cf. supra p. 12.
^ʷnote:That he be sprinkled on the third and fifth days.
^ˣnote:As to the stringency v. p. 10, n. 2, but even so the sprinkling was not indispensable on any definite day; all that was prohibited was too long an interval between the first and the second sprinkling (Rashi).

²that the latter is removed for the purpose of sanctity, and his fellow priests were permitted to touch him, whilst the former is removed for purposes of ritual and his colleagues forbidden to touch him. According to whom [is this teaching]? According to the opinion either of R. Meir or of R. Jose. For if it were in accord with the opinion of R. Hanina, deputy high priest, there would be one more point of difference. R. Jose, the son of R. Hanina demurred to this: It is quite right that we sprinkle him on the first day, because that may be the third of his impurity; similarly on the second, because that may be the third day of his impurity; on the third, because that may be the third day of his impurity; on the fifth, because that may be the seventh day of his impurity; on the sixth, because that may be the seventh day of his impurity; on the seventh, because that may be the seventh day of his impurity. But on the fourth day why should there be any sprinkling at all? That day could not be in doubt as being either the third day or the seventh day of his impurity? — But, according to your own point of view, how can there be sprinkling throughout the seven days? For have we not an established rule that the sprinkling is forbidden as shebuth and as such cannot override the Sabbath? — But you must then needs say: ‘Seven days with the exception of the Sabbath’, similarly here, ‘Seven with the exception of the fourth day.’ Rabah said: For that reason since the matter of the high priest on the Day of Atonement does not depend on us but on the fixing of the calendar, he ought to be separated on the third of Tishri, and on whatever day the third of Tishri falls, we would remove him; but as to the priest who burns the heifer, since the matter depends on us, we should remove him on the fourth of the week, so that his fourth day would fall on the Sabbath. TO THE CELL OF THE COUNSELLORS etc. R. Judah said, Was it the ‘cell of the parhedrin [counsellors], was it not rather the ‘cell of the buleute [senators]’? Originally, indeed, it was called the ‘cell of the buleute’ but because money was being paid for the purpose of obtaining the position of high priest and the [high priests] were changed every twelve months, like those counsellors, who are changed every twelve months, therefore it came to be called ‘the cell of the counsellors’. We learnt elsewhere: upon the bakers the Sages imposed only the duty of setting apart enough for the heave-offering of tithe and hallah. Now, it is quite right [that they did not impose] the great heave-offering, because it has been taught:^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ

^ʸnote:As the high priest was about to enter the sanctuary, he was removed from all, in order that he may, in solitude, take upon himself the holiness of the day, shed all pride of office and concentrate on his great responsibility viz.,to obtain forgiveness of sin for Israel. As for the priest of the heifer, v. p. 2, n. 2.
^ᶻnote:For according to R. Hanina, there is this additional difference that the high priest is sprinkled on the third and seventh day only, whereas the priest who is to burn the heifer is sprinkled on each of the seven days.
^ᵃᵃnote:Of the priest's separation, Num. XIX, 19: And the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean person on the third day, and on the seventh day; and on the seventh day shall he purify him. Ibid. 12: But if he purify himself not on the third day and on the seventh day, he shall not be clean.
^ᵃᵇnote:For, since he became separated he did not touch a corpse.
^ᵃᶜnote:For if the fourth day of his separation were the seventh day of his impurity, then the day before his separation would needs have been the third day of his impurity, and not having been sprinkled on that day, he could not be sprinkled on the seventh day of his impurity (the fourth day of his separation) for a first sprinkling on the third day of the impurity is indispensable for the second sprinkling on the seventh day.
^ᵃᵈnote:Lit., ‘rest’, work forbidden by the Rabbis on the Sabbath and festivals as being out of spirit with the ceremony of the day.
^ᵃᵉnote:I.e., the prohibition of work on the Sabbath. Pes. 65a.
^ᵃᶠnote:‘Seven’ must be understood to mean exceptis excipiendis, with the exception of those days on which the sprinkling is not lawful or not necessary.
^ᵃᵍnote:Lit., ‘month’. His entering the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement on the tenth of Tishri depends only on the fixing of the new moon by the Sanhedrin (Cf. Sanh. 2a), from which the tenth would be counted.
^ᵃʰnote:There is no definite time prescribed for the burning of the red heifer.
^ᵃⁱnote:[**, the members of the **, the administrative body of the city of Jerusalem. V. Buchler, Synedrion p. 232.]
^ᵃʲnote:To the Hasmonean kings and their satellites.
^ᵃᵏnote:[So Rashi cur. ed. (lit.,) ‘they gave money for it’ etc. The phrase ‘for it’ ( uhkg) is obscure.]
^ᵃˡnote:This is not to be taken literally. On an average, as the Talmud tells later on, these high priests lasted twelve months, no longer. [MS.M. reads: ‘They were changed by Heaven’. I.e., they did not survive the twelve months. Others: ‘They were removed by the king when a higher price was offered him for the priesthood.’ Rashi reads: ‘They changed it,’ ‘it’ referring to the chamber. Each new priest on his accession would set up a new chamber for himself.]
^ᵃᵐnote:Rashi: The king removed his counsellors annually.
^ᵃⁿnote:Bakers who were ‘Fellows’ of the pharisaic order. As such they had to undertake scrupulous observance especially of the laws of levitical purity. The haberim (fellows) were distinguished from the great mass of the ‘ame ha-arez, the untrained multitude, who were suspects as to levitical purity and also as to the payment of tithe. V. infra.
^ᵃᵒnote:From the doubtfully tithed fruit which they had brought of the ‘amme ha-aretz.
^ᵃᵖnote:Terumath Ma'aser. V. Glos. s.v. terumah. Terumah Gedolah. V. Glos. s.v. terumah.
^ᵃᵠnote:The priest's share of the dough. V. Demai II, 4.