:ח A Sprinkling Every Day... Almost

כהן גדול ביום הכפורים דלא בדידן תליא מילתא אלא בקביעא דירחא תליא מילתא בתלתא בתשרי בעי לאפרושי וכל אימת דמתרמי תלתא בתשרי מפרשינן ליה

רש"י ד"ה וכל אימת דמתרמי מפרשינן ליה. ואע"ג דלא הוי רביעי שלו בשבת ונמצאת הזאתו בטלה שני ימים:

Indeed, as רש"י asserts, it is possible that we might miss two days of sprinkling. But is that really the maximum? Suppose יום כפור falls out on a Thursday. Therefore, Day 1 of separation is Thursday. Day 3 will be skipped because it is שבת (as will Day 4.) But now, when we reach Day 7, what is the purpose of sprinkling? Since we did not sprinkle on Day 3, sprinkling on Day 7 accomplishes nothing. Accordingly, if Days 1 or 2 were to fall out on שבת there would be no use in sprinkling on Day 5 or 6, respectively. So there would be three days on which we don't sprinkle. That being said, if Day 1 was Thursday and he somehow did manage to become טמא for real before being separated, we would have a serious issue since we would not be able to do both sprinklings before יום כפור.

:ח Sprinkling on Day 3

שלישי שמא שלישי

רש"י ד"ה בשלמא. ... וכן שלישי שמא שעה אחת קודם פרישתו נטמא:

We are entertaining the possibility that he became טמא on Day 1. This contradicts what we saw on .ו

רב שימי מנהרדעא אמר אפי' תימא בועל נדה כנדה דמפרשינן ליה שעה אחת סמוך לשקיעת החמה

If he is separated before sunset on Day 0, how is it possible for him to become טמא on Day 1?
Now, in the end we reject רב שימי's suggestion so certainly it comes out that practically we need not separate the כהן גדול before the onset of Day 1. So this isn't a serious difficulty. However, that being the case, could the גמרא not have brought this as a proof against רב שימי?

:וA Slight Correction

רש"י ד"ה לטמא אוכלין ומשקין. ולא לטמא אדם וכלים... ואנא ידענא דמשכבה טמא כמשכב נדה דהא כתיב ותהי נדתה עליו (שם) :

The above highlighted text is found in most versions up until the modern printings. Even my Telman version has it that way. But it should certainly be דמשכבו in masculine. Sure enough, the modern עוז והדר versions incorporated that correction without even making a note of it.

:ד Need to Know Basis

דאיתמר מלואים ר' יוחנן ורבי חנינא חד אמר כל הכתוב בהן מעכב בהן וחד אמר דבר המעכב לדורות מעכב בהן שאין מעכב לדורות אין מעכב בהן

It took me a while to get to the bottom of this but it does appear that this מחלוקת has no practical ramifications after the מילואים in the מדבר. Furthermore, not only is this discussion historical, it is also hypothetical. It relates only to what would have happened if someone would have left out one of these components. It is ironic that on the very next page, the גמרא asks כיצד הלבישן, how did they dress the כהנים? This question is immediately attacked - whatever was, was. And as far as what we might need to know in the end of days - משה and אהרן will tell us then! Quite a contrast.

There is one simple answer: Although the direct halachic ramifications are indeed constrained to the מילואים we do see from the exchange between ר' יוחנן and ריש לקיש that the understanding of those laws does impact how we would understand the laws governing the yearly separation of the כהן גדול. So it is important on that account.

Perhaps there might be a deeper answer to the general approach given to these issues. There are many times in ש"ס that the גמרא will seem to go a circuitous route to reach a final conclusion. Various approaches and understandings are suggested and debunked, some even seeming illogical from the start. Why arrange the גמרא this way? Why not just get to the end point directly? Clearly, רבינא and רב אשי intended the גמרא to be more than a collection of הלכות. We have ראשונים like the רי"ף and רמב"ם to zero in on what we need to know. But the גמרא is meant to mold are minds and train our brains for the analytical thinking that is required to fully grasp any one subject matter.

In addition to the irony mentioned above, תוספות ה: ד"ה מאי דהוה הוה also asks that the גמרא in סנהדרין discusses how an ox that made contact with הר סיני would have been judged and no objection is brought there either. So how are we to understand this? I believe that really, there is no problem with discussing a legal issue which has no practical import. If it was worthy of discussion then it is just as worthy of discussion now. So why then did the גמרא object to כיצד הלבישן? I think the answer might just be that the גמרא asked the question because there was an answer. The question was posed solely for the purpose of exposing the give-and-take that would ultimately teach us that there are two contradictory פסוקים which we need to understand. If there's no real answer to the question "why do I need to know this?" then the גמרא simply won't ask it. I hope this approach is not too controversial.

.ב Deliberate טומאה

מטמאין היו הכהן השורף את הפרה ומטבילין אותו להוציא מלבן של צדוקין שהיו אומרים במעורבי השמש היתה נעשית

תוס' ד"ה להוציא מלבן של צדוקין. לאו בטומאה דאורייתא מטמו ליה דלא הוי מזלזלי בה כולי האי

One question that arises from this explanation of תוספות is that in the end, how are we any better than the צדוקים if we too are careful not to make him טמא מדאורייתא?

However, what bothered me was that our practice doesn’t really make the intended point to the צדקים. We want to show them “Ha. You say the one who burns the cow can’t be a טבול יום but we’ll show you that he can be.” But if they have a complete disregard for any תורה שבעל פה, this טומאה דרבנן is absolutely meaningless to them and as far as they are concerned, he is completely טהור.

I went searching in the מתיבתא edition where I found a lot of attention devoted to the first question and finally, my question is addressed by מעיל שמואל. He writes the להוציא מלבן של צדוקין does not mean that we are addressing them directly. Rather, what is really meant is that we need to make the point to ourselves, to the masses, that they are incorrect. Therefore, the masses who recognize the reality of טומאה דרבנן will see that in fact a טבול יום may burn the cow and will know the צדוקים are wrong. We don’t concern ourselves with what the צדוקים will think.

The timing of this דף in תשפ"א is nearly perfect. The משנה יומית cycle is just about to finish נגעים and begin פרה next week.

:ט”ז Three boxes

ר"ח (בן גמליאל) אמר שלש תיבות עשאו שתים של זהב ואחת של עץ נתן של זהב בשל עץ ושל עץ בשל זהב

See this old shtikle of mine on פרשת תרומה regarding רש”י’s version of this גמרא.

.ב Plural of מקוה

Well, what is it? The 6^th מסכתא in טהרות is commonly known as מקואות. I would have to say that that is certainly the most common pronunciation. However, the text in our opening משנה seems to imply that perhaps it is מקוות. Is it possible that it depends on סמיכות? That is, the regular plural is מקואות but next to מים, it becomes מקוות מים.