Yoma 15

ומה ציץ שאין בו אלא אזכרה אחת אמרה תורה על מצחו תמיד שלא יסיח דעתו ממנו תפילין שיש בהן אזכרות הרבה על אחת כמה וכמה

If touching the front plate, on which the mention [of God] is but inscribed once,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the inscription 'HOLY UNTO THE LORD'.');">¹</span> 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!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">²</span>

ולר"ש דאמר תמיד מרצה והא כתיב על מצחו ונשא ההוא לקבוע לו מקום הוא דאתא

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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">³</span>

ורבי יהודה לקבוע לו מקום מנא ליה נפקא ליה מעל מצחו ור"ש נמי תיפוק ליה מעל מצחו אין ה"נ

He infers that from 'On his forehead'. Why should not R'Simeon infer it from the passage too?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The passage is simple and direct enough and untouched by the controversy.');">⁴</span>

אלא על מצחו ונשא מאי עביד ליה אמר לך ראוי למצח מרצה שאינו ראוי למצח אינו מרצה לאפוקי נשבר הציץ דלא מרצה

-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.

ולר' יהודה נשבר הציץ מנא ליה נפקא ליה ממצח מצחו ור"ש מצח מצחו לא משמע ליה

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'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the phrase 'On his forehead continually', R. Judah derives the law of the broken plate from the use of the possessive.');">⁵</span>

נימא הני תנאי כהני תנאי דתניא אחד זה ואחד זה מזין עליו כל שבעה מכל חטאות שהיו שם דברי רבי מאיר רבי יוסי אומר אין מזין עליו אלא שלישי ושביעי בלבד ר' חנינא סגן הכהנים אומר כהן השורף את הפרה מזין עליו כל שבעה כה"ג ביוה"כ אין מזין עליו אלא שלישי ושביעי

R'Simeon, however, does not attach any significance to [the words] 'the forehead', [and] 'his forehead'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There is nothing abnormal calling for special attention in the use of the possessive.');">⁶</span> Are the above Tannaim disputing the principle of the following Tannaim?

מאי לאו בהא קא מיפלגי ר"מ סבר טומאה דחויה היא בציבור ור' יוסי סבר טומאה היתר היא בציבור

For it has been taught: On both of them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 12 notes.');">⁷</span> throughout the seven days they would sprinkle from all the sin-offerings<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With water from the ashes.');">⁸</span>

ותסברא אי סבר רבי יוסי היתר היא בציבור הזאה כלל למה לי אלא דכולי עלמא הני תנאי סברי טומאה דחויה היא בציבור

that were there;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">⁹</span> these are the words of R'Meir.

והכא בהא קמיפלגי ר"מ סבר אמרינן טבילה בזמנה מצוה ורבי יוסי סבר לא אמרינן טבילה בזמנה מצוה

R'Jose said: They sprinkled him only on the third and seventh days. R'Hanina, the deputy high priest<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Segan. V. Sanh., Sonc. ed. p. 91, n. 1.');">¹⁰</span>

וסבר רבי יוסי לא אמרינן טבילה בזמנה מצוה והתניא הרי שהיה שם כתוב על בשרו הרי זה לא ירחץ ולא יסוך ולא יעמוד במקום הטנופת נזדמנה לו טבילה של מצוה כורך עליו גמי וטובל רבי יוסי אומר יורד וטובל כדרכו ובלבד שלא ישפשף

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Num. XIX, 19.');">¹¹</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which shows that R. Jose and R. Meir differ on the same principle as R. Judah and R. Simeon.');">¹²</span>

וקיימא לן דבטבילה בזמנה מצוה קא מיפלגי דתנא קמא סבר לא אמרינן טבילה בזמנה מצוה. ורבי יוסי סבר אמרינן טבילה בזמנה מצוה אלא דכולי עלמא להני תנאי אמרינן טבילה בזמנה מצוה

But how can you understand the case of a community?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit.,'Can you hold that opinion?'');">¹³</span> 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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mizwah may mean 'commandment', 'good deed', 'ought', 'is obligatory'.');">¹⁴</span>

והכא בהא קמיפלגי רבי מאיר סבר מקשינן הזאה לטבילה ור' יוסי סבר לא מקשינן הזאה לטבילה

for the ritual immersion to be taken in its proper time,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [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.]');">¹⁵</span> and R'Jose holds we do not say that it is obligatory for the ritual immersion to be taken in its proper time.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [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.]');">¹⁵</span>

ורבי חנינא סגן הכהנים אי מקיש הזאה לטבילה אפילו כהן ביוה"כ נמי אי לא מקיש הזאה לטבילה אפי' כהן השורף את הפרה נמי לא

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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lest he blot out the name of God.');">¹⁶</span>

לעולם לא מקיש וכהן השורף את הפרה מעלה בעלמא

nor anoint himself nor stand at a place of filth. I he happens to have an obligatory ritual bath, he should place reed grass on that part and thus bathe.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lest he blot out 'the name of God.');">¹⁷</span>

כמאן אזלא הא דתנו רבנן אין בין כהן השורף את הפרה לכהן גדול ביום הכפורים אלא

R'Jose says: He may go down to bathe as usual, provided he does not rub that part.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Shab. 120b.');">¹⁸</span> 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 i its proper place.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From here it would appear that R. Jose held the ritual bath should be taken as soon as it is due.');">¹⁹</span> - Rather: Everybody agrees that those two Tannaim<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Meir and R. Jose.');">²⁰</span> 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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">²¹</span> the [law concerning] 'sprinkling' to [that concerning] the immersion<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 12.');">²²</span> 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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That he be sprinkled on the third and fifth days.');">²³</span> touching the priest who burns the heifer being a mere special stringency.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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) .');">²⁴</span> 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