Shalom Aleichem Rabbanei Hakollel, Shlita!
Ben Zoma holds that "ein adam nichnas la'azara (la'avoda) afilu tahor ad sheyitvol" is a di'oraisa requirement which is derived from the following kal vachomer: If the kohein gadol on Yom
Kippur must immerse himself between avodos, even though he is just moving from one part of the mikdash to the other, surely someone who is moving from outside the mikdash into the mikdash for the first time must be toveil. Tosfot object to the biblical nature of this kal vachomer by pointing out that the service of Yom Kippur is unusually stringent in a number of ways, and so the fact the the KG must immerse between avodos cannot serve as a daily precedent for a mandatory immersion. They answer that, in fact, the stringencies of the Yom Kippur actually strengthen this kal vachomer: If the KG must immerse himself when moving between different parts of the mikdash, despite the fact the the service of Yom Kippur is so stringent and the KG will be careful to perform it diligently, then surely on a regular day one must certainly immerse when moving from the outside world into the mikdash! My question is why Tosfot treat this kal vachomer problem differently than the issue of deriving the issur of heseiach hada'as for tefillin from the tzitz (8a). In that case, Tosfot objected that the tzitz enjoys at least one superiority over tefillin in that the Tetragrammaton is exposed, whereas it is covered in the batim of the tefillin. Because of this objection, Tosfot asserted that the kal vachomer is not entirely true and it must be that the issur of heseiach hada'as in the case of tefillin is not di'oraisa. Why did Tosfot not give a similar answer there? "If the KG, while wearing the tzitz which only bears a single mention of G-d's name, must be cautioned by the Torah against heseiach hada'as despite the fact that he is obviously wearing an exposed holy name of the Deity, then surely it goes without saying that in the case of tefillin which have many azkaros which are covered, the Torah did not want any heseiach hada'as!" And if this manner of logical argument is not acceptable in the case of the tzitz, then why is it acceptable in the case of tevila?Thank you very much. Kol tuv!
Shalom Spira, Montreal, Canada
Tosfos explains that the Tevilah according to Ben Zoma is not because of a fear of Tumah, but rather for the additional KedushaH necessary when changing places. Therefore the more radical the change the greater the need for Tevilah. Therefore the added stringencies placed upon the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur decrease the need for Tevilah. However, although one is less likely to forget the Tzitz than he is to forget his Tefilin, still the exposed Shem requires greater care than the covered ones, and therefore there is a possibility that the Isur of Hesech ha'Da'as applies to the Tzitz alone.
Dov Zupnik