This study of Yoma, page 8, is dedicated to the success of couples trying to have children. May the Holy One, blessed be He, bless them with healthy, lasting offspring. Amen.
We are beginning today’s page, at the beginning of the line that begins, “It was taught.” We are fourteen lines from the top. Once again, we return to a dispute between the Amoraim, Rav Nachman and Rav Sheshet.
We know that, in a communal offering, the priests are permitted to serve even when they are ritually impure through contact with the dead. The question is the level of this permission. Is ritual impurity permitted in a communal offering—an unequivocal permission, allowing the service to proceed in that condition? Or is ritual impurity merely deferred in a communal offering, meaning that, whenever another option is available, we should pursue that option, and only when there is no alternative may we proceed despite the impurity?
At the end of yesterday’s page, we attempted to say that this was not only a dispute among the Amoraim, but also a dispute among the Tannaim. The Gemara now asks whether we can find another group of Tannaim who also disagree about this issue.
It was taught: The high priest who was separated for seven days before Yom Kippur, and the priest who was separated for seven days before preparing the ashes of the red heifer, were both sprinkled with water from the ashes of the red heifer throughout all seven days. As we learned, they took ashes from all the communal red heifers—from the red heifer prepared by Moses and from the subsequent red heifers—and preserved a small amount of each. They mixed them together, and each day they sprinkled the priest who was preparing for Yom Kippur or the priest who was preparing the ashes of the red heifer.
These are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says that they did not need to sprinkle upon him every day; they sprinkled him only on the third and seventh days of his separation. Rabbi Hanina, the deputy high priest, distinguishes between the two cases. The priest preparing the ashes of the red heifer was sprinkled throughout all seven days, whereas the high priest preparing for the Yom Kippur service was sprinkled only on the third and seventh days.
The Gemara seeks to understand the basis of the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yose. What is the underlying disagreement that leads one rabbi to require sprinkling on all seven days and the other to require sprinkling only on the third and seventh days?
At first, the Gemara suggests that Rabbi Meir holds that ritual impurity is merely deferred in a communal offering. Since we should do everything within our ability to purify the priest as fully as possible and make him fit for the service, we sprinkle him every day. Rabbi Yose, by contrast, holds that ritual impurity is permitted in a communal offering. If so, there is no need to sprinkle him every day; sprinkling on the third and seventh days is sufficient.
The Gemara rejects this explanation. If Rabbi Yose holds that ritual impurity is completely permitted in a communal offering, why sprinkle him at all? If he is impure, what difference does it make? According to that view, no sprinkling would be necessary.
Rather, everyone agrees that ritual impurity in a communal offering is only deferred. The fact that both Tannaim require sprinkling in some form shows that both hold that we must make an effort to purify the priest. The question is therefore not whether sprinkling is necessary, but why Rabbi Meir requires sprinkling throughout all seven days, while Rabbi Yose requires it only on the third and seventh days.
The Gemara answers that Rabbi Meir holds that immersion at the proper time is a mitzvah. Since immersion must take place at its proper time, sprinkling at its proper time is also a mitzvah. Therefore, the priest must be sprinkled each day, because we do not know precisely when his third and seventh days are.
We are assuming that he became impure before he was brought into seclusion. If he became impure three days before he arrived, the first day of his seclusion would be his third day. If he became impure two days before he arrived, the second day of his seclusion would be his third day. If he became impure one day before, the third day of his seclusion would be his third day. Likewise, one of the days of his seclusion must be his seventh day. Since we do not know when he became impure, he must be sprinkled every day to ensure that he receives the sprinkling on the actual third and seventh days.
Rabbi Yose, however, does not hold that immersion at the proper time is a mitzvah. Accordingly, it is not necessary to ensure that the sprinkling itself takes place on the precise third and seventh days. It is sufficient to sprinkle him on the third and seventh days of his seclusion, with the proper interval between them, even if those are not the exact third and seventh days from the time he became impure. As long as there is a sprinkling on the third day and another on the seventh day, the Torah’s requirement has been fulfilled.
Rashi explains that the verse discussing immersion says that the impure person immerses on the seventh day and washes his garments. The verse itself teaches only that immersion must take place on the seventh day. How, then, do we know that sprinkling must also be done at its proper time?
The answer is that sprinkling is compared to immersion. Just as immersion must take place at its proper time, so too sprinkling must take place at its proper time. Rabbi Meir derives this comparison from the verses. Rabbi Yose does not make this comparison. Therefore, according to Rabbi Yose, sprinkling need not take place on the precise third and seventh days from the time the person became impure.
The Gemara then asks whether anyone actually disputes the principle that immersion at the proper time is a mitzvah. It brings a teaching concerning a person who had the Divine Name written on his flesh—for example, a person who had a tattoo containing the Name.
Such a person may not wash himself or anoint himself in a way that would erase the Name, because the Torah says not to do so to the Lord your God. He may not stand in a place with a foul odor, because the Divine Name is on his body and it would be inappropriate for the Name to be present in such a place. This is the case when he is washing for ordinary hygiene.
What happens if he requires immersion as a mitzvah—for example, if he became impure through a discharge and must immerse in a ritual bath? He must immerse. Since he cannot allow the Divine Name to be erased, he takes a reed or another object and loosely wraps it over the Name before entering the water. The covering must be loose enough that the water can reach the area, so that it does not constitute an obstruction between his body and the water.
This is the opinion of the first Tanna. Rabbi Yose says that he should descend and immerse in the usual manner, provided that he does not rub the place where the Name is written. The Gemara asks what the basis of this dispute is. Why does one opinion require a covering, while Rabbi Yose does not?
The Gemara initially suggests that the dispute concerns whether immersion at its proper time is a mitzvah. Suppose this man’s proper time for immersion is Tuesday night. According to the first Tanna, he must obtain a reed or another covering before immersing. Even if it takes him two days to find one, he should wait. This indicates that immersion at its proper time is not a mitzvah, because he is told to delay the immersion until he finds the covering.
Rabbi Yose, however, says that he should immerse immediately and merely refrain from rubbing the Name. This would indicate that immersion at its proper time is a mitzvah, and therefore he may not delay his immersion while searching for a covering.
The Gemara then challenges this interpretation by citing the established principle that the dispute concerning immersion at the proper time is between Rabbi Yose and another authority. According to that source, Rabbi Yose holds that immersion at its proper time is a mitzvah. If so, how can the earlier teaching appear to present Rabbi Yose as though he does not accept that principle?
The Gemara answers that everyone agrees that immersion at its proper time is a mitzvah. Rabbi Yose certainly holds that a person should immerse at the proper time. The dispute is whether sprinkling is compared to immersion. Rabbi Meir makes the comparison: just as immersion at the proper time is a mitzvah, sprinkling at the proper time is also a mitzvah. Therefore, the priest must be sprinkled on every day of his seven-day separation, so that he will certainly receive the sprinkling on the actual third and seventh days.
Rabbi Yose does not make that comparison. He agrees that immersion at the proper time is a mitzvah, but he does not say that sprinkling must take place at its precise time. Therefore, he requires sprinkling only on the third and seventh days of the separation.
Rabbi Hanina, the deputy high priest, requires sprinkling on all seven days for the priest preparing the ashes of the red heifer, but only on the third and seventh days for the high priest preparing for Yom Kippur. We must therefore understand his position. If he makes the comparison between sprinkling and immersion, then he should require sprinkling throughout all seven days in both cases. If he does not make the comparison, then he should require sprinkling only on the third and seventh days in both cases.
The Gemara answers that Rabbi Hanina never makes the comparison between sprinkling and immersion. In principle, sprinkling at its proper time is not a mitzvah, as Rabbi Yose maintains. Why, then, does he require the priest preparing the ashes of the red heifer to be sprinkled throughout all seven days?
The answer is that the separation for the red heifer involves an additional stringency. We learned that, in preparing the red heifer, they intentionally imposed extra precautions. Since they had adopted a leniency by deliberately rendering the priest impure for a particular purpose, they added a stringency to offset that leniency. The requirement to sprinkle him throughout all seven days is one of those additional stringencies. It is not because sprinkling at its proper time is intrinsically a mitzvah.
The Gemara then explains another distinction between the two types of separation. The separation of the high priest before Yom Kippur is for sanctity. We want him to be prepared properly to enter the Divine Presence, so we remove him from ordinary life for a period of time and allow him to focus and prepare mentally for Yom Kippur. It is a matter of sanctity, not purification. Therefore, other priests may touch him, and we are not concerned that they will transmit impurity to him.
The separation of the priest preparing the ashes of the red heifer, however, is for purification. Since the entire purpose is to ensure his purity, we are concerned that another person might touch him and render him impure. Therefore, he is kept in a special chamber, and the precautions surrounding him are more stringent.
The Gemara asks which Tanna’s opinion is reflected in this teaching. It could fit either Rabbi Meir or Rabbi Yose, because regarding the number of days of sprinkling, Rabbi Meir would say that both priests require sprinkling throughout all seven days, while Rabbi Yose would say that both require sprinkling only on the third and seventh days. Rabbi Hanina, who distinguishes between them, would not fit the teaching.
The Gemara does not mention another distinction that might have been expected: the high priest is separated in one chamber, while the priest preparing the ashes of the red heifer is separated in another. The distinction between the purpose of the two separations is also reflected in the locations in which they are kept. Nevertheless, the Gemara does not raise that question here.
The reason for separating the high priest before Yom Kippur is to prepare him to enter the dwelling place of the Divine Presence without arrogance or distraction. He is removed from other people so that he will humble himself and prepare properly for the service of Yom Kippur.
The priest preparing the ashes of the red heifer is separated for a different reason: to impose additional care regarding his purity. The process of preparing the red heifer contained several special stringencies because they intentionally rendered the priest impure in order to refute the position of the Sadducees. Therefore, they went out of their way to guard his purity and ensure that he would not become impure through contact with another person.
The Gemara raises another question. If the priest is sprinkled every day because one of those days might be his third day and another might be his seventh day, why is he sprinkled on the fourth day? The first, second, and third days can each possibly be the third day from his original impurity. The fifth, sixth, and seventh days can each possibly be the seventh day. But the fourth day appears to be neither the third nor the seventh day.
On the first day, perhaps he became impure three days earlier. On the second day, perhaps he became impure two days earlier. On the third day, perhaps he became impure one day earlier. The fifth day may be the seventh day if the first day of his separation was his third day of impurity. The sixth day may be the seventh day in another calculation, and the seventh day may be the seventh day in yet another calculation.
The fourth day, however, is not the third day, because he did not become impure after entering seclusion, and it is not the seventh day, because there was no sprinkling on the third day preceding it in the relevant calculation. Why, then, is sprinkling required on the fourth day?
The Gemara ultimately addresses the broader issue of the seven-day period. One of those days may be Shabbat. Sprinkling on Shabbat is prohibited because it is considered a form of repair or improvement. Since sprinkling cannot be performed on Shabbat, the calendar may result in more than one day on which sprinkling cannot be performed.
It would have been ideal to arrange the calendar so that the fourth day would always be Shabbat, thereby eliminating only one day of sprinkling rather than two. But this cannot be arranged according to our preferences. The date on which the priest is separated is fixed, and the date on which Rosh Hashanah falls determines where the days of the separation fall. Sometimes the fourth day will be Shabbat and sometimes it will not. We cannot simply choose a different day for the separation in order to make the fourth day Shabbat.
The priest is separated on the established date, and whatever day of the week that date happens to be, the process proceeds accordingly. Therefore, there is no choice but to sprinkle him on all the days on which sprinkling is possible, even though in certain calendar arrangements the fourth day may not be necessary for the third-or-seventh-day calculation.
The chamber in which the high priest was separated for seven days before Yom Kippur was called the Chamber of the Deputies. The Gemara discusses the name of the chamber. Was it originally called the Chamber of the Deputies, or was it originally called simply the Chamber of the Nobles?
The term “deputies” refers to the king’s appointed officers, who were replaced periodically. The other name refers to the senior ministers or nobles. Originally, the chamber was called the Chamber of the Nobles. The name later changed because of the manner in which the high priests were appointed.
During the days of Shimon the Righteous, when he served as high priest for many years, the chamber was called the Chamber of the Nobles. Shimon the Righteous had a lengthy tenure, and the high priesthood was not being exchanged every year.
Later, people began paying money to obtain the high priesthood. During the Second Temple period, the ruling authorities were bribed to appoint undesirable men as high priests. Since these high priests were replaced every twelve months, the chamber was renamed the Chamber of the Deputies, referring to officials who are replaced periodically.
It is difficult to understand how a person could witness what happened to the previous high priest and still desire the position. The high priest who entered the Holy of Holies improperly would die there, yet people continued to seek the honor of serving as high priest for a single year. Honor can remove a person’s judgment. A person may understand the danger and still pursue the position because of the honor associated with it.
Each year, the new high priest would renovate the chamber. He would add something, improve the appearance, and build a more beautiful structure than the one before it, so that it would appear that he had accomplished something significant. The building was continually remodeled, just as the officials were continually replaced. That is why the chamber eventually received the name connected with rotating officials.
This discussion also helps us understand the expression “Rabbi Hanina, the deputy high priest.” Rabbi Hanina is mentioned here, and he is also mentioned in Pirkei Avot, where he teaches that one should pray for the welfare of the government. Without government, people would swallow one another, and society would become a struggle in which the strongest person prevails.
One question asked about Rabbi Hanina’s title is why he is called the deputy high priest. If he was the deputy, one would expect him to become the high priest when the incumbent died. The answer is that, because of the corruption described here, Rabbi Hanina was repeatedly passed over. Instead of appointing him, the authorities would appoint another man who had obtained the position through money or political influence.
Rabbi Hanina therefore remained the deputy high priest throughout his life. One might have expected him to resent the government, since it had prevented him from becoming high priest. Yet he still taught that one must pray for the welfare of the government. He did not allow his personal disappointment to make him pray for the destruction of the government. Whatever injustice had been done to him personally, it was still worthwhile to have an orderly government rather than chaos.
We now turn to the practical halachic material connected to this page. In Shulchan Aruch, in the laws of family purity, it is ruled that when a woman’s husband is in town, she has a mitzvah to immerse in the ritual bath at the proper time and not delay even for one night. The reason is that she should not nullify the mitzvah of marital intimacy and having children.
The discussion cites Rabbi Tam, who says that immersion at the proper time is not generally a mitzvah, but that it is a mitzvah when the husband is in town. The Gemara describes Joshua son of Nun as having caused the Jewish people to refrain from marital relations and having children for one night, and he was punished for doing so. This demonstrates the importance of not delaying immersion when the husband is present.
Another source says that if a woman delays immersion in order to cause pain or distress to her husband, she can bring serious trouble into the world. The point is that when the husband is present, immersion should take place at the proper time so that the mitzvah will not be unnecessarily delayed.
The ruling continues that a woman may immerse on Friday night when she was unable to immerse beforehand. The Ramah adds that if she could have immersed before Shabbat but did not, and her husband arrived on Friday evening, there are authorities who prohibit her from immersing on Friday night. This is the practice in some places, while in places where that custom is not followed, one should not be stringent.
The concern is that she may have prepared herself on Friday but postponed the immersion because her husband was not present. If he then returns on Friday night, there may be a significant separation between the preparation and the immersion. In earlier times, preparing at night was more difficult, because the woman needed adequate light and the preparation could take much of the day. Therefore, some authorities required the preparation to be performed during the day and were concerned about relying on an earlier preparation when the immersion was delayed.
If she immersed on Thursday night and then her husband arrived on Friday, she may immerse again on Friday night if the matter is considered immersion at its proper time or if she needs to correct an issue with her previous preparation. If there is no need for the immersion itself, it may be viewed merely as entering the water rather than as performing the act of immersion for ritual purification.
There is also a discussion of an unmarried widow who is preparing for her first immersion on Friday night. She may not marry her on Friday if the marriage would involve the first marital relations on Shabbat. The reason is that, in the case of a widow, the principal act establishing the marriage is the marital act itself. Performing that act on Shabbat would create the marriage on Shabbat, which is not permitted.
This differs from the case of an ordinary bride. With an ordinary bride, the principal act of acquisition is the canopy ceremony. Even if she is not yet physically fit for marital relations at the time of the ceremony, the canopy can establish the marriage. In the case of a widow, however, the principal act is the marital act, and therefore it must not be performed for the first time on Shabbat or on a Festival.
For this reason, when the immersion of the widow is scheduled for Friday night, the canopy ceremony should take place during the day, with the couple then spending time in seclusion in a manner that is suitable for marital relations. In this way, the marriage is established before Shabbat rather than through the first marital act on Shabbat.
Some later authorities extend this concern even to a virgin bride and require that the couple spend time in appropriate seclusion during the day before Shabbat. Other authorities maintain that, in the case of a virgin, the canopy itself is sufficient, even if the first marital act will take place later. The distinction is that the principal act of acquisition for a virgin is the canopy, whereas for a widow it is the marital act.
These are significant halachic distinctions. The practical question is not simply whether the woman immersed before or after Shabbat, but whether she is a virgin or a widow, whether her husband was present, whether she could have immersed earlier, whether she prepared herself during the day, and whether the immersion is occurring at the proper time.
Regarding immersion on Friday night, there is a further discussion about whether the woman may immerse when it is not the proper time. Some authorities object because entering the water can appear to be bathing, which is restricted on Shabbat. According to the Sephardic practice described here, however, there is room to permit immersion in cold water, because it can be understood as cooling off rather than as bathing. The concern is especially reduced when the ritual bath itself is not warm.
According to the Ashkenazic practice described, immersion on Friday night is permitted when it is at the proper time. In other circumstances, the authorities discussed whether the immersion may be performed when it is not at the proper time. The issue is whether the action appears to be an ordinary bath or whether it is clearly being performed for ritual immersion.
There is also a concern about drying or squeezing the hair on Shabbat. Therefore, after immersing on Friday night, the woman must be careful not to squeeze her hair. She should dry herself by patting rather than wringing or squeezing.
When immersion must take place on Friday night, the preparations should ideally be performed before Shabbat and as close as possible to the time of immersion. If she was unable to immerse earlier for a valid reason, she may immerse on Friday night. The same applies when she could have gone earlier but did not and the matter now involves immersion at the proper time, according to the authorities who permit it.
Some authorities wrote that women should not immerse on Shabbat when the immersion is not at its proper time. Their reasoning is that immersion at the proper time is not a mitzvah in such a case, and it would therefore resemble bathing on Shabbat. Other authorities respond that, once the immersion itself is permitted, there is no reason to prevent the woman from entering the water merely because the immersion is not at its proper time.
The discussion also touches on whether one may immerse in warm water on Friday night. The concern is that warm water may look like bathing, and there are additional concerns about heating or using water on Shabbat. Some mikvaot therefore arrange the hours of opening in a way that avoids these concerns, sometimes allowing immersion during the period between sunset and nightfall and sometimes opening later.
The precise practice depends on the local arrangement and the halachic authority being followed. The central issue is whether the immersion is at the proper time, whether the water is warm or cold, whether the woman prepared during the day, and whether there is a concern that the immersion will appear to be ordinary bathing.
In the case of a bride, there is a custom in Jerusalem for her to immerse during the day. This is a separate practice and does not necessarily determine the practice for every other woman. Each case must be considered according to its own circumstances.
To summarize the practical distinctions discussed: when the husband is in town, immersion at the proper time is treated as a mitzvah so that marital intimacy and having children will not be unnecessarily delayed. When the husband is not in town, there may be no need to immerse immediately, and some authorities raise a concern about a woman immersing when she is alone. In such a case, the practice mentioned is to take precautions, such as carrying a knife or wearing an item belonging to the husband, though the exact practice depends on the concern and the authority being followed.
When immersion falls on Friday night, the woman should prepare before Shabbat whenever possible. If she was unable to immerse earlier, or if the immersion is at its proper time and the husband is present, there is greater room to permit immersion on Friday night. When the immersion is not at its proper time, some authorities are stringent, while others permit it, particularly in cold water and where it does not appear to be ordinary bathing.
The underlying principle throughout these discussions is the same one we saw in the Gemara: the halachic result depends on the distinction between what is required at the proper time and what may be done later, between immersion and sprinkling, between purification and sanctity, and between a requirement, a custom, and an added stringency.