Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Yoma 8

1) WHEN IS THE TZITZ "MERATZEH"

QUESTION: Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Yehudah argue concerning when the Tzitz is Meratzeh (that is, attains atonement for performing the Avodah while in a state of Tum'ah). Rebbi Shimon says that the Tzitz is Meratzeh even when the Kohen Gadol is not wearing it. Rebbi Yehudah says that it is Meratzeh only when the Kohen Gadol is wearing it. The Gemara questions the opinion of Rebbi Shimon by citing the verse in the Torah which implies that the Tzitz is Meratzeh only when it is "Al Mitzcho" (Shemos 28:38), while it is on the head of the Kohen Gadol. The Gemara answers that according to Rebbi Shimon, the verse means that the Tzitz is Meratzeh only when it is *fit* to be worn "Al Mitzcho," on the Kohen Gadol's forehead, but when it is not fit to be worn -- such as when it is broken -- it is not Meratzeh.

The Gemara then asks how Rebbi Yehudah -- who learns from the words "Al Mitzcho" that the Tzitz is Meratzeh only when it is upon the forehead of the Kohen Gadol -- knows that the Tzitz is not Meratzeh if it is broken?

What is the Gemara' s question? According to Rebbi Yehudah, the Tzitz is not Meratzeh unless the Kohen Gadol is wearing it, so certainly it will not be Meratzeh when it is broken! A verse is not necessary to teach that the Tzitz is not Meratzeh when it is broken! (TOSFOS YESHANIM)

ANSWER: TOSFOS YESHANIM answers that the Rebbi Yehudah learns that "Al Mitzcho" means that the Tzitz is Meratzeh only when it is worn, because he learned from another verse that the Tzitz is not Meratzeh if it is broken. That is, if there was no other verse teaching that the Tzitz is not Meratzeh when it is broken, he would have learned that from "Al Mitzcho," and consequently he would not have required the Tzitz to be on the head of the Kohen Gadol in order to be Meratzeh. But since he has another verse teaching that the Tzitz is not Meratzeh when it is broken, he learns that "Al Mitzcho" teaches that it must also be on the Kohen Gadol's head.

The RITVA adds that the reason Rebbi Yehudah would not have required that the Tzitz actually be on the Kohen's head if not for this extra verse is because logic tells us that the Tzitz should be Meratzeh wherever it is, even when it is not being worn. The Torah's objective is to maximize the Ritzuy and not limit it, and thus we would have said that the Tzitz is Meratzeh as much as possible. (Similar answers are offered by REBBI AKIVA EIGER and SHA'AGAS ARYEH #38.)

The SHA'AGAS ARYEH uses this principle to explain why the Halachah requires that a person touch his Tefilin intermittently while wearing them in order to keep his mind on them. The prohibition of "Hesech ha'Da'as" -- removing one's mind from the Tefilin -- is learned from Tzitz, which the Torah says must be on the Kohen Gadol's forehead "Tamid" (constantly), from which Rebbi Yehudah learns that the Kohen Gadol must constantly keep his mind on the Tzitz. Rebbi Shimon, on the other hand, derives from the term "Tamid" that the Tzitz is Meratzeh even while it is not being worn.

Dependent upon the dispute whether the Tzitz is Meratzeh while it is not being worn is another argument -- whether Tum'ah is "Hutrah" or "Dechuyah" with regard to public Korbanos (if Tum'ah is Hutrah b'Tzibur, then it is not necessary for the Tzitz to be Meratzeh while the Kohen is not wearing it; if Tum'ah is only Dechuyah, then the only way that it is permitted to bring a Korban Tzibur in a state of Tum'ah on Yom Kippur is if the Tzitz is Meratzeh even while it is not being worn). The Halachah follows the opinion of Rebbi Shimon who says that Tum'ah is Dechuyah. However, if the Halachah regarding Tum'ah follows Rebbi Shimon, then why is it that the Halachah regarding Tefilin is that one may not have a "Hesech ha'Da'as" while wearing Tefilin? It was only *Rebbi Yehudah* who maintains that "Tamid" teaches the prohibition of "Hesech ha'Da'as!" Rebbi Shimon uses that verse for something else!

The Sha'agas Aryeh explains that even Rebbi Shimon agrees that "Tamid" is not needed to teach that the Tzitz is Meratzeh when it is not being worn, because logically it is assumed that it is Meratzeh as much as possible, including when it is not being worn, unless an explicit verse states otherwise. Consequently, "Tamid" is an extra phrase, even according to Rebbi Shimon, which teaches that one may not remove his mind from the Tzitz.

8b

QUESTION: The Gemara says that (according to the Tana Kama), Haza'ah is done to the Kohen Gadol, and to the Kohen who burns the Parah Adumah, on each of the seven days of his Perishah. The purpose of this Haza'ah is to ensure that the Kohen is not Tamei with Tum'as Mes. Since "Haza'ah b'Zemanah Mitzvah" (performing Haza'ah at the proper time, i.e. the third and the seventh days of his Tum'ah, is a Mitzvah), the Haza'ah is performed every day in order to make sure that it is done on the day that it is required, for each day might be the third or seventh after he became Tamei.

The Gemara asks why must Haza'ah be done on the fourth day, for it is not possible for the fourth day to be the third or seventh day after he became Tamei from a Mes. It cannot be the third day, because three days ago he had already started his Perishah and certainly did not become Tamei then. It cannot be the seventh day, because a seventh-day-Haza'ah works only when there was a Haza'ah on the third day, but in this case the Kohen did not have Haza'ah four days ago (he only started having Haza'ah three days prior, on the first day of his Perishah).

The MIKDASH DAVID (Taharos #49) asks that it *is* possible to have a situation in which the fourth day of his Perishah might be the seventh day of Tum'ah. He proposes such a scenario based on a Chidush of the RASHASH in Maseches Chagigah (23b). There is a Halachah in the Torah that a metal object which touches a Mes is considered to be an Avi Avos ha'Tum'ah, just like the Mes itself, and if a person (or another utensil) touches the metal object, he will be Tamei as an Av ha'Tum'ah as if he had touched the Mes itself. This Halachah is called "Cherev Harei Hu k'Chalal." Both the metal object and the one who touched it are Tamei for seven days and require Haza'ah on the third day and seventh day (see Pesachim 14, and Insights there). The RASHASH points out a problem that might arise from this Halachah. If a person touches the metal object on its seventh day after having touched the Mes, the person will be Tamei for six days longer than the object itself which was Metamei him, because the metal object becomes Tahor in the evening of that day (the seventh day of its Tum'ah). The person who becomes Tamei, then, will be Tamei longer than the thing which made him Tamei, as that thing will become Tahor before he does. Logically, says the RASHASH, this should not be so. The RASHASH suggests, therefore, that perhaps the person that becomes Tamei merely continues the count of the item which was Metamei him (such a mechanism is found in Maseches Nidah 33a and is called "Ya'aleh l'Raglo"). That is, if it was the seventh day of Tum'ah of the metal object, then the person who touches that object is also considered to be Tamei with the Tum'ah of the seventh day, and he is Tamei for only one day!

According to this assertion of the RASHASH, what will happen if a Kohen Gadol -- on the day before his Perishah begins -- touches a metal object which had touched a Mes four days earlier and had already had Haza'ah on the third day of its Tum'ah? According to the RASHASH, the Kohen Gadol would acquire the level of Tum'ah of the metal object. Just like the object will have Haza'ah in four days from now as its seventh-day-Haza'ah, so, too, the person who touched the object will need Haza'ah four days from now, as his seventh-day-Haza'ah! Accordingly, there is a valid reason for requiring Haza'ah on the fourth day of the Kohen's Perishah -- in case the Kohen touched a metal object (which had been Tamei for four days) on the day before his Perishah! Why does the Gemara say that there is no reason to do Haza'ah on the fourth day? It must be that the assertion of the RASHASH is incorrect, and the Kohen would be Tamei in such a case for seven days.

Is there any way to reconcile the Chidush of the RASHASH with our Gemara?

ANSWERS:

(a) The KEHILOS YAKOV (Taharos #18 (#53 in early editions)) says that perhaps the RASHASH can be reconciled based on the opinion of the BA'AL HA'ME'OR in Chulin (71b) and the RAMBAN (Bamidbar 19:16). They suggest that a metal object which is Tamei because of the principle of "Cherev Harei Hu k'Chalal" and has the same Tum'ah-status as the item it touched, differs from the object that it touched. If it touched someone who is Tamei with Tum'as Mes, then even though it becomes an Av ha'Tum'ah, it does *not* need Haza'ah on the third and seventh days (i.e. in that respect, it is like a Rishon and not an Av). Similarly, a Cherev which touched a Mes and is an Avi Avos ha'Tum'ah, will not make the person who touches it an Av with regard to Haza'ah. Although the person who touches it will be Tamei seven days, he will not need Haza'ah during those seven days to become Tahor.

Consequently, if the Kohen Gadol touched a metal object that touched a Mes, since the Tum'ah of the Kohen comes about only because of the principle of "Cherev Harei Hu k'Chalal," the Kohen does *not* need Haza'ah as a result of that Tum'ah.

(b) The assertion that the person who touched the metal object is considered to have the same level of Tum'ah as that object is true only when he touched the metal object after the second Haza'ah, on the seventh day, was done to the object, or before the first Haza'ah was done. However, if he touched the metal object after it had received only one Haza'ah (on the third day), then perhaps that Haza'ah on the metal object is not effective for the person to require that he have only one more Haza'ah, since we cannot combine a Haza'ah on an object with a Haza'ah done to a person. Rather, the person will need a new set of Haza'os. (This is not considered as though the person is more Chamur than the object that he touched, since it is the lack of *Haza'ah* that is preventing him from becoming Tahor, and not the level of his Tum'ah.) (M. Kornfeld)