## Yoma Daf 14a

###### Yoma 14a:1
[Yoma 14a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/14a:1)

לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹבֵד כׇּל הַיּוֹם, גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יֹאכַל. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה לְרָבָא: וּמִי גָּזַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה שֶׁמָּא יֹאכַל? וְהָתְנַן, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף אִשָּׁה אַחֶרֶת מַתְקִינִין לוֹ, שֶׁמָּא תָּמוּת אִשְׁתּוֹ. וְאִי מָיְיתָא אִשְׁתּוֹ עָבֵיד עֲבוֹדָה, וְלָא גָּזַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה שֶׁמָּא יֹאכַל! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם, כֵּיוָן דְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים הוּא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא קָא אָכְלִי, הוּא נָמֵי לָא אָתֵי לְמֵיכַל, הָכָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אָכְלִי — הוּא נָמֵי אָתֵי לְמֵיכַל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yehuda means **to say that** the High Priest **does not serve for the entire day** even though the Torah allows him to do so, due to a rabbinic **decree lest** he forget that he is an acute mourner and **eat** consecrated food forbidden to him. **Rav Adda bar Ahava said to Rava: And did Rabbi Yehuda issue a decree lest he eat? But didn’t we learn** in the mishna that **Rabbi Yehuda says:** The Sages would **even designate another wife for him lest his wife die? And if his wife dies,** he nevertheless **performs** the Temple **service, and Rabbi Yehuda did not issue a decree lest he eat.** That contradicts the other statement by Rabbi Yehuda that a High Priest may not serve for the entire day that he is an acute mourner. Rava **said to him: How can** these cases **be compared? There,** in the mishna, **since it is Yom Kippur, when everyone does not eat, he too** will **not come to eat.** However, **here,** during the rest of the year, **when everyone eats, he too** will **come to eat.** Therefore, a decree was issued.


###### Yoma 14a:2
[Yoma 14a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/14a:2)

וְכִי הַאי גַּוְונָא מִי חָיְילָא עֲלֵיהּ אֲנִינוּת? וְהָא מִיגָּרְשָׁא! נְהִי דַּאֲנִינוּת לָא חָיְילָא עֲלֵיהּ, אִטְּרוֹדֵי מִי לָא מִיטְּרִיד?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a question from a different perspective: **And** in a case **like this,** would the halakhic status of **acute mourning take effect on him,** considering that **she is divorced?** According to Rabbi Yehuda, the High Priest must give his wife a provisional divorce in which case she is no longer his wife and if she dies he is no longer obligated to mourn her. The Gemara answers: **Although** the status of **acute mourning does not take effect on him, is he not troubled** over the death of his wife? Therefore, according to Rabbi Yehuda, it is appropriate to prohibit his performance of the service on that day.


###### Yoma 14a:3
[Yoma 14a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/14a:3)

**מַתְנִי׳** כׇּל שִׁבְעַת הַיָּמִים הוּא זוֹרֵק אֶת הַדָּם, וּמַקְטִיר אֶת הַקְּטוֹרֶת, וּמֵיטִיב אֶת הַנֵּרוֹת, וּמַקְרִיב אֶת הָרֹאשׁ וְאֶת הָרֶגֶל. וּשְׁאָר כׇּל הַיָּמִים אִם רָצָה לְהַקְרִיב — מַקְרִיב, שֶׁכֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל מַקְרִיב חֵלֶק בָּרֹאשׁ, וְנוֹטֵל חֵלֶק בָּרֹאשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** During **all seven days** of the High Priest’s sequestering before Yom Kippur, **he sprinkles the blood** of the daily burnt-offering, **and he burns the incense, and he removes** the ashes of **the lamps** of the candelabrum, **and he sacrifices the head and the** hind **leg** of the daily offering. The High Priest performs these tasks in order to grow accustomed to the services that he will perform on Yom Kippur. **On all the other days** of the year, **if** the High Priest **wishes to sacrifice** any of the offerings, **he sacrifices them, as the High Priest sacrifices** any **portion** that he chooses **first and takes** any **portion** that he chooses **first.**


###### Yoma 14a:4
[Yoma 14a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/14a:4)

**גְּמָ׳** מַאן תַּנָּא? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא, דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. דְּאִי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, הָא אָמַר: טָהוֹר שֶׁנָּפְלָה עָלָיו הַזָּאָה טִמְּאַתּוּ, הֵיכִי עָבֵיד עֲבוֹדָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **Who** is the *tanna* who **taught** this mishna? **Rav Ḥisda said:** This mishna is **not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva, as if** it were in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva,** it is difficult. **Didn’t** Rabbi Akiva **say:** With regard to a **ritually pure** person **upon whom a sprinkling** of purification water **fell, it renders him impure?** This is based on the enigmatic principle with regard to the water of the red heifer: It purifies the ritually impure and renders impure the ritually pure. If so, **how** can the High Priest **perform the** Temple **service?** The High Priest is sprinkled with purification water on each of the seven days of his sequestering due to the possibility that he was impure with impurity imparted by a corpse. However, it is possible that he is ritually pure. If he is ritually pure, the sprinkling will render him impure.


###### Yoma 14a:5
[Yoma 14a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/14a:5)

דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְהִזָּה הַטָּהוֹר עַל הַטָּמֵא״. עַל הַטָּמֵא — טָהוֹר, וְעַל הַטָּהוֹר — טָמֵא, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין הַדְּבָרִים הַלָּלוּ אֲמוּרִין אֶלָּא בִּדְבָרִים הַמְקַבְּלִים טוּמְאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it was taught** in a *baraita* that it is written: **“And the pure person will sprinkle it upon the impure person”** (Numbers 19:19); this emphasis that he sprinkles the water upon the impure person comes to teach that if he sprinkled **on the ritually impure** person, that person becomes **pure; but** if he sprinkled **on the pure** person, that person becomes **ritually impure.** This is **the statement of Rabbi Akiva. And the Rabbis say: These matters are stated** to teach that it is considered sprinkling **only** if it is performed **on items susceptible to impurity,** whereas if the water was sprinkled on items not susceptible to impurity, it is not considered sprinkling.


###### Yoma 14a:6
[Yoma 14a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/14a:6)

מַאי הִיא — כְּדִתְנַן: נִתְכַּוֵּון לְהַזּוֹת עַל הַבְּהֵמָה וְהִזָּה עַל הָאָדָם, אִם יֵשׁ בָּאֵזוֹב — יִשְׁנֶה. נִתְכַּוֵּון לְהַזּוֹת עַל הָאָדָם וְהִזָּה עַל הַבְּהֵמָה, אִם יֵשׁ בָּאֵזוֹב — לֹא יִשְׁנֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is** the halakhic implication of that statement? It is **as we learned** in a mishna: With regard to one who mistakenly **intended to sprinkle** purification water **on an animal,** which does not become impure when alive, **but** happened to **sprinkle** it **upon** an impure **person, if** water remains **on the hyssop** that he used to sprinkle the water, **he** should **repeat** the action and sprinkle the purification water on the person to purify him. Since the first sprinkling was onto a person, who can become impure, the water remaining on the hyssop may be reused, and it is not disqualified by improper use. However, with regard to one who **intended to sprinkle** purification water **on a person but** happened to **sprinkle** it **upon an animal,** even **if** water remains **on the hyssop, he** should **not repeat** the action. Since the first sprinkling was onto an animal, which cannot become impure, the water is disqualified by improper use, and may not be used in a second sprinkling.


###### Yoma 14a:7
[Yoma 14a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/14a:7)

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא? נִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא: ״וְהִזָּה הַטָּהוֹר עָלָיו״, מַאי ״עַל הַטָּמֵא״? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ עַל הַטָּמֵא — טָהוֹר, וְעַל הַטָּהוֹר — טָמֵא. וְרַבָּנַן: הַאי לִדְבָרִים הַמְּקַבְּלִין טוּמְאָה הוּא דַּאֲתָא. אֲבָל הָכָא, קַל וָחוֹמֶר הוּא: אִם עַל הַטָּמֵא — טָהוֹר, עַל הַטָּהוֹר — לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes the basis of the dispute: **What is the reason for** the opinion **of Rabbi Akiva?** Instead of writing: And the pure person will sprinkle it upon the impure person, **let the Merciful One write** in the Torah: **And the pure person will sprinkle it upon him,** and it would be clear that it is upon the aforementioned impure person. **What** is taught by the phrase: **Upon the impure person? Learn from it** that if he sprinkled **on the impure** person, that person becomes **pure; but** if he sprinkled **on the pure** person, that person becomes **impure. And the Rabbis** say with regard to **that** phrase: **It comes** to teach that it is only considered sprinkling if it is performed **on items susceptible to impurity. However, here,** with regard to sprinkling purification water on a pure person, it is derived through an ***a fortiori*** inference that he remains ritually pure: **If** the water falls **on the impure** person, he is **pure;** if the water falls on **the pure** person, **all the more so** is it **not** clear that he remains pure?


###### Yoma 14a:8
[Yoma 14a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/14a:8)

וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא? הַיְינוּ דְּקָאָמַר שְׁלֹמֹה ״אָמַרְתִּי אֶחְכָּמָה וְהִיא רְחוֹקָה מִמֶּנִּי״. וְרַבָּנַן? הַהוּא לַמַּזֶּה וְלַמַּזִּין עָלָיו — טָהוֹר, וְנוֹגֵעַ בָּהֶן — טָמֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Akiva** would respond to that *a fortiori* inference: **That is what** King **Solomon said: “I said I would become wise, but it eludes me”** (Ecclesiastes 7:23). According to tradition, even Solomon in his great wisdom could not understand the contradictory nature of the sprinkling of purification water that purifies an impure person and impurifies a pure person. **And the Rabbis** ascribe Solomon’s bewilderment to a different aspect of the *halakha*: **The one who sprinkles** the water **and the one upon whom one sprinkles** the water are **pure; but one who touches** the water unrelated to sprinkling is **impure.**


###### Yoma 14a:9
[Yoma 14a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/14a:9)

וּמַזֶּה טָהוֹר? וְהָכְתִיב: ״וּמַזֵּה מֵי הַנִּדָּה יְכַבֵּס בְּגָדָיו״. מַאי ״מַזֶּה״ — נוֹגֵעַ. וְהָכְתִיב ״מַזֶּה״, וְהָא כְּתִיב ״נוֹגֵעַ״? וְעוֹד: מַזֶּה בָּעֵי כִּיבּוּס בְּגָדִים, נוֹגֵעַ לָא בָּעֵי כִּבּוּס בְּגָדִים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Is** the **one who sprinkles** the water actually **pure? Isn’t it written: “He who sprinkles the purification waters will wash his clothes,** and he who touches the purification waters will be unclean until evening” (Numbers 19:21)? The Gemara responds: **What** is the meaning of the term: **He who sprinkles?** It means: **He who touches. But isn’t it written: He who sprinkles? And isn’t it written** in the same verse: And **he who touches? And furthermore,** in that verse, **one who sprinkles requires washing** of his **clothes,** indicating a more severe level of impurity, whereas **one who touches does not require washing** of his **clothes.** Apparently, when it is written: He who sprinkles, it is not referring to one who touches.


###### Yoma 14a:10
[Yoma 14a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/14a:10)

אֶלָּא: מַאי ״מַזֶּה״ — נוֹשֵׂא. וְנִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״נוֹשֵׂא״, מַאי טַעְמָא כְּתִיב ״מַזֶּה״? הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּבָעֵינַן שִׁיעוּר הַזָּאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the Rabbis assert: **What** is the meaning of: **He who sprinkles?** It refers to **one who carries** the purification water. The Gemara asks: **But** if so, **let the Merciful One write: One who carries; what is the reason** that **he who sprinkles is written** if the reference is to carrying? The Gemara answers: **This** use of the term sprinkling to depict carrying **teaches us** that in order to become impure from carrying purification water, one **must** carry the **measure** required for **sprinkling.**


###### Yoma 14a:11
[Yoma 14a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/14a:11)

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: הַזָּאָה צְרִיכָה שִׁיעוּר. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: הַזָּאָה אֵין צְרִיכָה שִׁיעוּר, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר! אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר הַזָּאָה אֵין צְרִיכָא שִׁיעוּר, הָנֵי מִילֵּי אַגַּבָּא דְגַבְרָא, אֲבָל בְּמָנָא — צְרִיכָה שִׁיעוּר. דִּתְנַן: כַּמָּה יְהֵא בָּהֶן וִיהֵא כְּדֵי הַזָּאָה — כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּטְבּוֹל

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **This** works out **well** according **to the one who said** that **sprinkling requires a** minimum **measure** of water, as then the concept of a measure required for sprinkling has meaning. **However,** according **to the one who said** that **sprinkling does not require a** minimum **measure** of water, **what can be said?** There is no concept of a measure required for sprinkling. The Gemara answers: **Even** according **to the one who said** that **sprinkling does not require a** minimum **measure** of water, **that applies** only to the measure of purification water that must be sprinkled on **the back of the** impure **man;** any amount will suffice. **However, in the vessel** into which one dips the hyssop in order to sprinkle the water, a certain **measure** of water **is required, as we learned** in a mishna: **How much** water should **be in** the vessel so that it **will be equivalent** to the measure required for **sprinkling?** It must be **equivalent** to the measure required **to dip**