Yoma 23B

אינה מביאה עגלה ערופה: ועוד: ״לא נודע מי הכהו״ כתיב, והא נודע מי הכהו! אלא, כדי להרבות בבכיה.

Jerusalem does not bring a heifer whose neck is broken. The reason for this is that the halakha of the heifer whose neck is broken applies only to land that was apportioned to a specific tribe of the Jewish people. Jerusalem alone was not divided among the tribes, but was shared equally by the entire nation. And furthermore, it is written that the heifer whose neck is broken is brought when “it be not known who had smitten him,” and here, in the case of the slain priest, it was well known who had smitten him. Rather, one must conclude that R' Tzadok invoked the halakha of the heifer whose neck is broken not because it actually applied in this case but only in order to arouse the people’s grief and to increase weeping.

בא אביו של תינוק ומצאו כשהוא מפרפר, אמר: הרי הוא כפרתכם ועדיין בני קיים [כו׳]. ללמדך שקשה עליהם טהרת כלים יותר משפיכות דמים. איבעיא להו: שפיכות דמים הוא דזל, אבל טהרת כלים ⁠— כדקיימא קיימא. או דילמא: שפיכות דמים ⁠— כדקיימא קיימא, אבל טהרת כלים היא דחמירא?

In relating the above incident the Tosefta said: The father of the boy came and found that he was still convulsing. He said: May my son’s death be an atonement for you. But my son is still alive, etc. This incident comes to teach you that the ritual purity of utensils was of more concern to them than the shedding of blood. A dilemma was raised before the rabbis: Should one conclude from this comment that murder had become trivialized in their eyes but their concern for purity of utensils remained where it was originally, meaning that while they cared less than they should have about murder, they did not exaggerate the importance of purity of utensils; or perhaps their concern for murder remained where it was originally, but their concern for purity of vessels had become too strict, to the extent that its importance was exaggerated beyond concern for human life?