Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 6, scan section 8

children " [Ex. xxix. 9]. But how can it be said that he attired them at the same time (it is written plainly that first he attired Aaron, and then his sons) ? There is a difference between a girdle of the high-priest and that of an ordinary priest. That means, when it is written he girdled Aaron first, it is meant. TRACT YOMAH (DAY OF ATONEMENT). 7 with the girdle of the high-priest ; but with the ordinary girdles he attired them all at once. The high-priest is removed,*' etc. For what purpose was he removed ? " For what purpose ? " Has it not been said above, R. Johanan gave one reason, Resh Lakish another ? We mean to ask, why had he to be removed from his home (he could practise at home) ? Because it was learned in a Boraitha that R. Jehudah b. Bathyra said, it is apprehended lest he have inter- course with his wife, when there is doubt that she is in her sickness (then he would become unclean for the next seven days, and be unable to serve in the temple). It was taught : The uncleanness contracted from a dead body is not considered in the case of an entire congregation, according to R. Na'hman. R. Shesheth, however, says, it is only post- poned in that case. If there are individuals in the family of priests thus defiled, there is no difference of opinion that those individuals may not serve ; but if the whole family was thus de- filed, there is a difference of opinion between R. Na'hman and R. Shesheth. According to R. Na'hman, clean individuals of another family need not be sought because, where there is a con- gregation, the defilement is not considered at all. And accord- ing to R. Shesheth, who says it is only postponed, individuals of another family may be looked for. According to others, R. Na'hman says: Even the unclean individual also served, as in case of a congregation defilement is not taken into consideration. Said R. Shesheth : The authority for my decree is the following Boraitha: " If one stand sacrificing the Omer, and it become unclean in his hand, he shall so notify, and the congregation shall bring another in its stead. But if there is no other, he is told to have sense and to keep silent." Now we see that in the beginning it is said, another one should be brought in its stead; hence it is not permitted, but only postponed. Said R. Na'h- man : I grant that, in a case in which the remains of the sacrifice must be eaten, when undefiled can be obtained, it is better. On this point the Tanaim of the following Boraitha differed : " The golden plate [Ex. xxviii. 36] which is made for the high- priest, whether it is on his brow or not, it atones for all defile- ments of the offerings." So said R. Simeon; but R. Jehudah said, when it is on his brow it atones, but not otherwise. Said R. Simeon to him : The high-priest who serves on the Day of Atonement has not the plate on his brow, and nevertheless atones for all sins ; hence we see that it atones even when not 8 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. on his brow. Answered R. Jehudah: Leave the high-priest on the Day of Atonement alone, for defilement is allowed to him when the whole congregation is defiled. Now, from R. Jehu- dah's answer that the defilement is allowed, we must conclude that R. Simeon holds that the defilement is only postponed, but not allowed. Said Abayi : When the plate had been broken, all agree that it does not atone. They differ only when it is suspended on a peg. R. Jehudah says, because it is written [Ex. xxviii. 38], " it shall be upon Aaron's forehead, and Aaron shall atone," etc., (therefore) it only atones when it is on the brow. But R. Simeon's opinion is: Because it is said, "always they maybe received in favor before the Lord " [ibid., ibid.]; and it cannot be said that it is meant that it should always be on his forehead, because he must satisfy human needs and sleep; hence we must say, it means that it always receives the Lord's favor. But what will R. Jehudah say to this " always " ? He explains that it is meant, it should never be absent from his mind. Shall we assume that the former Tanaim differ as the Tanaim of the following Boraitha: Both the high-priest and the priest that was to burn the red cow were sprinkled upon during the seven days with all the ashes that were there. So said R. Meir. R. Jose, however, said: He was sprinkled only on the third and on the seventh day. R. Hanina the Segan of the priests said : " The priest that was to burn the red cow used to be sprinkled on during all the seven days, but the high-priest was sprinkled only the third and seventh." Now, shall we assume that the point of difference is, because R. Meir says the defilement is only postponed in case of the congregation, and therefore he has to be sprinkled upon during the seven days, and R. Jose holds the defilement is not considered at all ? (How can you say this ? If R. Jose holds that the defilement is not considered, why the sprinkling at all on the third and the seventh ?) Therefore we must say that all the Tanaim of this Boraitha hold that the de- filement is only postponed, and not allowed, and the point on which they are at variance is this : R. Meir holds we compare the sprinkling to the bathing; as the bathing at the proper times is a religious duty, so also is the sprinkling. And R. Jose holds, we do not compare (the sprinkling to the bathing). Now, then, what is the opinion of R. Hanina the Segan ? If we compare it to bathing, the high-priest has to be sprinkled also every day ; and if not, why is the other priest of the red cow sprinkled every TRACT YOMAH (DAY OF ATONEMENT). 9 day ? He does not compare ; only in case of the priest of the red cow it is an optional improvement. R. Jose b. R. Hanina opposes this : Why is he sprinkled on the fourth day > (The law- is that one unclean must be sprinkled on the third day and on the seventh [Num. xix. 12]. The first three days it was appre- hended lest each be the third or seventh (after his unintentional defilement), but the fourth after the removal from his house can neither be the third nor the seventh. Even without this, could he be sprinkled all the seven days ? One of them must have been on Sabbath, and sprinkling does not supersede Sabbath ? Therefore we must say that what is said of the seven days, is meant with the exception of Sabbath. The same is the case with the fourth ; it is meant, all the seven days, except the fourth. Said Rabba: Therefore the high-priest must be re- moved seven days before the Daj/ of Atonetnent, whose date is not dependent on us; but on the third day of the month,* he must be removed seven days before that day, no matter when the fourth day falls. But the priest of the red cow, the date of whose removal depends on us, should be removed on such a day