QUESTION: Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Yehudah argue about when the Tzitz is Meratzeh. The Torah teaches that the Tzitz attains atonement when the Kohen performs 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 from the verse in the Torah which implies that the Tzitz is Meratzeh only when it is "Al Mitzcho" (Shemos 28:38), on the head of the Kohen Gadol. The Gemara answers that Rebbi Shimon understands the verse to mean that the Tzitz is Meratzeh only when it is fit to be worn "Al Mitzcho," on the Kohen Gadol's forehead. It is not Meratzeh when it is not fit to be worn (such as when it is broken).

The Gemara then questions the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah, who learns from the words "Al Mitzcho" that the Tzitz is Meratzeh only when it is on the forehead of the Kohen Gadol. From where does Rebbi Yehudah learn that the Tzitz is not Meratzeh when 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. Since he cannot wear the Tzitz when it is broken, it obviously is not Meratzeh and no verse is necessary to teach this. (TOSFOS YESHANIM)

ANSWER: The TOSFOS YESHANIM answers that Rebbi Yehudah understands that "Al Mitzcho" means that the Tzitz is Meratzeh only when it is worn, because he already derived from another verse that the Tzitz is not Meratzeh when it is broken. Had no other verse taught that the Tzitz is not Meratzeh when it is broken, Rebbi Yehudah would have derived that Halachah from "Al Mitzcho," and, consequently, he would have had no source to teach that the Tzitz is Meratzeh only when it is worn. Since he now has another verse that teaches that the Tzitz is not Meratzeh when it is broken, the verse of "Al Mitzcho" teaches that the Tzitz is Meratzeh only when it is on the Kohen Gadol's head.

The RITVA adds that the reason why Rebbi Yehudah would not have required that the Tzitz be worn in order to be Meratzeh if not for the additional verse is because it is more logical to assume that the Tzitz is Meratzeh all the time, even when it is not worn. The Torah's objective is to maximize the Ritzuy and not to limit it, and thus without an additional verse it would have been more logical to assume 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 approach to explain why the Halachah requires that one touch his Tefilin intermittently while he wears them in order to keep his mind on them:

The prohibition of "Hesech ha'Da'as" -- removing one's mind from the Tefilin -- is derived from the Tzitz. The Torah commands that the Tzitz must be "constantly (Tamid) on his forehead" (Shemos 28:37). Rebbi Yehudah derives from this verse that the Kohen Gadol must constantly keep his mind on the Tzitz while he wears it. Therefore, according to Rebbi Yehudah, one is also required to keep his mind on the Tefilin. Rebbi Shimon, in contrast, derives from the word "Tamid" that the Tzitz is Meratzeh even while it is not worn. According to Rebbi Shimon, who derives from the word "Tamid" that the Tzitz is Meratzeh even while it is not worn, one should not be required to keep his mind on the Tefilin at all times. Which opinion does the Halachah follow?

Another issue that depends on the dispute between Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon is the application of the principle of "Tum'ah Hutrah b'Tzibur." The Tana'im dispute whether Tum'ah is "Hutrah" or "Dechuyah" with regard to public Korbanos (Pesachim 77a, Yoma 7b). "Tum'ah Hutrah b'Tzibur" means that the Torah entirely cancelled the prohibitions of Tum'ah with regard to public Korbanos. "Tum'ah Dechuyah b'Tzibur" means that the Torah reluctantly allows the offering of public Korbanos to override the prohibitions of Tum'ah in the event of great necessity.

If Tum'ah is Hutrah b'Tzibur, then the Kohanim who are Tamei may offer a Korban Tzibur when they are Tamei even when the Tzitz is not Meratzeh. Accordingly, even if the Tzitz is not Meratzeh when it is not worn, the Korban Tzibur may be offered when the Tzitz is not worn, because the Ritzuy of the Tzitz is not necessary (since Tum'ah is Hutrah b'Tzibur). However, if Tum'ah is only Dechuyah b'Tzibur, then the only way the Kohanim may offer a Korban Tzibur when they are Tamei (even when the Kohen Gadol is not wearing the Tzitz) is if the Tzitz is Meratzeh even when it is not worn. (See Insights to Pesachim 77:2.)

The Halachah follows the opinion of Rebbi Shimon who says that Tum'ah is Dechuyah. Thus, the Halachah should follow Rebbi Shimon's opinion also with regard to whether the Tzitz is Meratzeh while it is not worn. However, if the Halachah follows Rebbi Shimon, then why, with regard to Tefilin, does the Halachah require that one not have a "Hesech ha'Da'as" while he wears Tefilin? It is only Rebbi Yehudah who maintains that "Tamid" teaches the prohibition of "Hesech ha'Da'as"; Rebbi Shimon derives a different law from that verse!

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 worn, because, logically, it is assumed that it is Meratzeh as much as possible, including when it is not worn, unless an explicit verse states otherwise. Consequently, "Tamid" is an extra phrase even according to Rebbi Shimon, and thus it teaches that one may not remove his mind from the Tzitz.

QUESTION: The Gemara says that according to the Tana Kama, Haza'ah is done to the Kohen Gadol on each of the seven days of Perishah before Yom Kippur. Similarly, it is done to the Kohen who prepares 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. The Haza'ah is performed every day in order to ensure that it is done on the day that it is required, because "Haza'ah b'Zemanah Mitzvah" (Haza'ah at the proper time is a Mitzvah). Haza'ah must be performed no earlier than the third day from the time one became Tamei, as well as four days after that, on the seventh day. Since each day of the Perishah might be the third or seventh day, Haza'ah is done every day.

The Gemara asks why Haza'ah must be done on the fourth day of Perishah. It is not possible that the fourth day is the third or seventh day after the Kohen became Tamei. It cannot be the third day, because three days earlier he had already started his Perishah and certainly did not become Tamei at that time. It cannot be the seventh day, because a seventh-day-Haza'ah is effective only when Haza'ah was performed on the third day. In this case, though, the Kohen did not have Haza'ah four days ago (his Haza'ah started only three days earlier, 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 the Kohen's Perishah is the seventh day of his Taharah process. He proposes such a scenario based on a novel teaching of the RASHASH in Chagigah (23b). The Torah teaches that a metal object which touches a Mes is considered an Avi Avos ha'Tum'ah, like the Mes itself. If a person (or another utensil) then touches the metal object, he becomes Tamei as an Av ha'Tum'ah like one who touches a Mes itself. Similarly, a metal object which touches a person who touched a Mes is considered an Av ha'Tum'ah, like the person himself, and a person who then touches the object becomes a Rishon l'Tum'ah. This Halachah is called "Cherev Harei Hu k'Chalal."

In the case of a metal object that touched a Mes and a person who touched the metal object, both the object and the person are Tamei for seven days and require Haza'ah on the third day and seventh day (see Pesachim 14b and Insights to Pesachim 14:2). The RASHASH points out an interesting peculiarity that arises from this law. If a person touches the metal object on the seventh day after the object touched a Mes, the person will be Tamei for six days longer than the object itself, because the object becomes Tahor in the evening of that day, the seventh day of its Tum'ah. The person will be Tamei longer than the object which made him Tamei, and his Taharah process may not begin until several days after the object itself has become Tahor. The Rashash says that this is not a logical way for Tum'ah to work. He suggests that perhaps the person who becomes Tamei merely continues the count of days of the object which was Metamei him (such a concept is called "Ya'aleh l'Raglo" and is discussed in Nidah 33a). Accordingly, if the metal object touched the person on its seventh day of Tum'ah, then the person becomes Tamei with the Tum'ah of the seventh day, and he is Tamei with Tum'as Mes for only one day.

According to the proposal of the Rashash, if, on the day before his Perishah begins, the Kohen Gadol 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, he acquires the level of Tum'ah of the metal object. Just as the object will have its second Haza'ah (its seventh-day Haza'ah) in four days from now, so, too, the Kohen Gadol who touched the object will need Haza'ah four days from now as his seventh-day Haza'ah. Consequently, there is a valid reason to require Haza'ah on the fourth day of the Kohen's Perishah -- in the event that on the day before his Perishah the Kohen touched a metal object which had been Tamei for four days. Why, then, does the Gemara say that there is no reason to do Haza'ah on the fourth day? It must be that the proposal of the Rashash is incorrect, and the Kohen would be Tamei for seven days in such a case.

Is there any way to reconcile the proposal of the Rashash with the words of the Gemara?

(a) The KEHILOS YAKOV (Taharos #18, or #53 in early editions) writes that perhaps the proposal of the Rashash can be reconciled based on the opinion of the BA'AL HA'ME'OR (Chulin 71b) and the RAMBAN (Bamidbar 19:16). They write that if a metal object touches a person who is Tamei with Tum'as Mes, the object does not need Haza'ah on the third and seventh days even though it becomes Tamei with Av ha'Tum'ah. (With regard to Haza'ah, it is like a Rishon and not an Av.) Similarly, if a person touches a metal object that touched a Mes and is Tamei with Avi Avos ha'Tum'ah, he does not need Haza'ah. Even though he is Tamei with Av ha'Tum'ah, he does not need Haza'ah on the third and seventh day to become Tahor.

Consequently, if the Kohen Gadol touched a metal object that touched a Mes, he does not need Haza'ah as a result of that Tum'ah. He is Tamei only because of the principle of "Cherev Harei Hu k'Chalal," and thus, according to the Ba'al ha'Me'or and Ramban, he does not need Haza'ah.

(b) Perhaps the Rashash's principle, that a person who touched the metal object should have the same level of Tum'ah as the object, applies only when he touched the metal object after its second Haza'ah, on the seventh day of its Tum'ah, or before the first Haza'ah was done on the third day. If he touched the metal object after its first Haza'ah on the third day but before its second Haza'ah, perhaps the first Haza'ah on the metal object does not "lower" the object's degree of Tum'ah such that the person needs only one more Haza'ah. The two Haza'os comprise a single set, and a Haza'ah on an object cannot be combined with a Haza'ah on a person. Rather, the person will need a new set of Haza'os. (The person's degree of Tum'ah is not considered more severe than that of the object he touched. Rather, it is the lack of Haza'ah, and not the level of his Tum'ah, which prevents him from becoming Tahor.) (M. Kornfeld)