Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

April 17, 2021 | 讛壮 讘讗讬讬专 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Yoma is sponsored by Vicky Harari in commemoration of her father's Yahrzeit, Avraham Baruch Hacohen ben Zeev Eliyahu Eckstein z'l, a Holocaust survivor and a feminist before it was fashionable. And in gratitude to Michelle Cohen Farber for revolutionizing women's learning worldwide.
  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Yoma 6

 

Today’s daf is dedicated by Hannah and Michael Piotrkowski for a refuah shleima of Yaakov Haim Ben Saada, a man who is an awesome presence in his family. May he heal from COVID and return to his family in full health.聽

What are the proof texts for the different opinions regarding how Moshe dressed Aharon and his sons with the avnet, belt: all at once or one after the other? How could Moshe possibly have dressed them at the same time? Why does the Kohen Gadol need to be separated from his wife? What are they concerned about? Is this only according to one opinion or does it also fit in with the rabbi鈥檚 opinion about one who has relations with his wife and she later finds out she is menstruating? Can one infer from here that one who becomes impure from having relations with a menstruating woman goes to the mikveh during the day or at night? Why are we not concerned that the Kohen Gadol will become impure from a dead body? Does this connect to the debate regarding whether impurity is overridden when it comes to communal obligations or entirely nullified?

 

讗诪专 诇讱 讛讛讜讗 讗讘谞讟讜 砖诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诇讗 讝讛 讛讜讗 讗讘谞讟讜 砖诇 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟

The Gemara answers that he could have said to you: That verse comes to teach that the belt of the High Priest is not the belt of the common priest. It is explicit in the Torah that the belt of the High Priest is made of fine blue and purple linen. On the other hand, the Torah does not state the materials used in the belt of the common priest, which was in fact linen like the rest of the garments of the common priest. And still one can say that Aaron and his sons were dressed simultaneously.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讛专谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘谞讬讜 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讞讙专转 讗讜转诐 讗讘谞讟 讗诪专 诇讱 讛讛讜讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讗讘谞讟讜 砖诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讝讛讜 讗讘谞讟讜 砖诇 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟

The Gemara asks: And according to the one who said that Moses dressed Aaron first and then his sons, is it not written: 鈥淎nd you will gird them with belts,鈥 indicating that they were girded simultaneously? The Gemara responds that he could have said to you: That verse teaches us that the belt of the High Priest is identical to the belt of the common priest. Both of them were from fine blue and purple linen. Therefore, although the Torah distinguishes between the girding of the belts, as Moses dressed Aaron before he dressed Aaron鈥檚 sons, there was a common command to make both belts, indicating that they were made of the same material.

讜讬讞讙讜专 讗讜转讜 讗讘谞讟 讜讬讞讙讜专 讗讜转诐 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讛专谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘谞讬讜 讜讘讘转 讗讞转 诪讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗拽讚讬诐

The Gemara asks: If they are identical, why do I need both the verse: 鈥淎nd he girded him with a belt,鈥 and the verse: 鈥淎nd he girded them鈥? The Gemara explains: Learn from it that Moses dressed Aaron first and then dressed his sons. The Gemara asks: And can you find a situation where Moses could have girded Aaron and his sons simultaneously? The Gemara explains: It is necessary only to state that Moses girded Aaron first and then proceeded to gird his sons in order of their significance. After girding Aaron he did not dress Aaron in any other garments before girding his sons.

诪驻专讬砖讬谉 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜讻讜壮 诇诪讛 诪驻专讬砖讬谉 诇诪讛 诪驻专讬砖讬谉 讻讚拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讬 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讗讬 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻讚讗讬转 诇讬讛

搂 After a long digression in which many peripheral issues were addressed, the Gemara returns to interpreting the mishna. It was taught in the mishna: The Sages would remove the High Priest from his house to the Chamber of Parhedrin. The Gemara asks: Why do the Sages remove him? The Gemara asks in astonishment: Why do the Sages remove him? It is as we stated above: Whether it is according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, as per his opinion: Sequestering of the High Priest is derived from the sequestering prior to the inauguration; or whether it is according to Reish Lakish, as per his opinion: Sequestering of the High Priest is derived from sequestering at Sinai, the answer is clear. What is the point of the Gemara鈥檚 question?

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪讘讬转讜 诇诪讛 驻讬专砖 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讛 讗讜诪专 砖诪讗 转诪爪讗 讗砖转讜 住驻拽 谞讚讛 讜讬讘讗 注诇讬讛

The Gemara explains: This is what the Gemara is saying. Why did he withdraw from his house, i.e., his wife? The Gemara explained why he must be removed to a special location; but why doesn鈥檛 his wife join him? It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: It is due to the concern lest his wife be found to be in a situation of uncertainty as to whether or not she has the halakhic status of a menstruating woman, and he will have relations with her and become impure.

讗讟讜 讘专砖讬注讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗诇讗 砖诪讗 讬讘讗 注诇 讗砖转讜 讜转诪爪讗 住驻拽 谞讚讛

The Gemara asks in astonishment: Is that to say that we are dealing with wicked people? Will the High Priest, aware of the uncertain status of his wife, have relations with her? Rather, rephrase the statement: It is due to the concern lest he have relations with his wife and then she be found to be in a situation of uncertainty as to whether or not she has the halakhic status of a menstruating woman. In a case where blood is found on the sheets after the couple engaged in relations, and there is uncertainty as to whether or not the High Priest had relations with his wife while she had the halakhic status of a menstruating woman, the status of the High Priest is one of uncertain impurity.

讗诪专讜讛 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 谞讚讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讗转 讘讜注诇讛 讚讗讬 专讘谞谉 讛讗 讗诪专讬 讗讬谉 谞讚讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讗转 讘讜注诇讛

The Sages stated the following assumption before Rav 岣sda: In accordance with whose opinion is that a reason for concern? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who said: A menstruating woman who found blood on the sheets within twenty-fours after having relations, creating uncertainty with regard to her status when she engaged in relations, renders the man who had with relations with her retroactively impure. As, if it were in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, it is difficult: Didn鈥檛 they say that a woman with regard to whom there is uncertainty as to whether or not she has the halakhic status of a menstruating woman does not render the man who had with relations with her retroactively impure. Therefore, the High Priest need not leave his wife during the week prior to Yom Kippur.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪专讜 专讘谞谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗诇讗 讘讗讞专 讗讞专 讗讘诇 讘讞讚 讗讞专 诪讜讚讜 诇讬讛

Rav 岣sda said to the Sages: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Akiva with regard to retroactive impurity only in a case where blood was discovered on the sheets long afterward, after there was time for the woman to leave the bed and bathe and only then discover the blood. Due to the time that elapsed, the Rabbis hold that there is no way to prove a connection between when the woman menstruated and when they engaged in relations. However, if the blood was found merely afterward, the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Akiva that she renders the man retroactively impure.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘讜注诇 谞讚讛 讗讬谞讜 讻谞讚讛 讜讟讜讘诇 讘讬讜诐

Rabbi Zeira said: Learn from it that one who is impure because he had relations with a menstruating woman is unlike a menstruating woman in terms of the time of immersion. Unlike the woman, who immerses after nightfall following the seventh day after her menstruation ceased, such a man may immerse on the seventh day and need not wait for nightfall. Therefore, if a High Priest has relations with his wife just before he is sequestered and there is uncertainty as to whether she has the halakhic status of a menstruating woman, the seventh day of his impurity occurs on Yom Kippur eve. He immerses himself that day and completes the purification process at nightfall. This allows him to enter the Temple to perform the Yom Kippur service.

讚讗讬 讗诪专转 讘讜注诇 谞讚讛 讻谞讚讛 讗讬诪转 讟讘讬诇 讘诇讬诇讬讗 诇诪讞专 讛讬讻讬 注讘讬讚 注讘讜讚讛 讜讛讗 讘注讬 讛注专讘 讛砖诪砖 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘讜注诇 谞讚讛 讗讬谞讜 讻谞讚讛

As, if you say that one who is impure because he had relations with a menstruating woman is like a menstruating woman in terms of the time of immersion, when does he immerse? He may immerse only at night after seven complete days. Since that night is Yom Kippur, how can he perform the Yom Kippur service the next day,? Isn鈥檛 he required to wait for sunset following his immersion to complete the purification process? Until then his status is that of one who immersed that day, who may not serve in the Temple until the nightfall following his immersion. Rather, must one not conclude from it that one who is impure because he had relations with a menstruating woman is unlike a menstruating woman in terms of the time of immersion? He immerses on the seventh day, Yom Kippur eve, and at nightfall he may serve in the Temple.

专讘 砖讬诪讬 诪谞讛专讚注讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讘讜注诇 谞讚讛 讻谞讚讛 讚诪驻专砖讬谞谉 诇讬讛 砖注讛 讗讞转 住诪讜讱 诇砖拽讬注转 讛讞诪讛

Rav Shimi from Neharde鈥檃 says: Even if you say that one who is impure because he had relations with a menstruating woman is like a menstruating woman with regard to the time of immersion, the High Priest is not removed from his house at night. Rather, we sequester him one hour just before sunset on the eighth day prior to Yom Kippur, slightly before the start of the seven-day period, leaving seven full days to count prior to Yom Kippur. Although he is removed from his house more than seven days prior to Yom Kippur, that slight addition is not sufficient to have the period considered eight days.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬 讟讘讬诇讜转 讟讘讬诇转谉 讘讬讜诐 谞讚讛 讜讬讜诇讚转 讟讘讬诇转谉 讘诇讬诇讛 谞讚讛 讗讬谉 讘讜注诇 谞讚讛 诇讗

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion that one who is impure because he had relations with a menstruating woman immerses at night: With regard to all those obligated in immersions, their immersion is during the day. The exceptions are a menstruating woman and a woman after childbirth, whose immersion is at night. It can be learned by inference: With regard to a menstruating woman, yes, she immerses at night; with regard to one who is impure because he had relations with a menstruating woman, no, he does not immerse at night.

谞讚讛 讜讻诇 讚讗转讬 诪专讘讜讬讬讗

The Gemara rejects that proof because the term menstruating woman in that baraita includes the woman and everyone whose inclusion in the impurity is derived from her status. The understanding is that a man who has relations with a menstruating woman assumes her impurity, and therefore his immersion would be identical to hers.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讘注诇 拽专讬 讻诪讙注 砖专抓 讘讜注诇 谞讚讛 讻讟诪讗 诪转 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讟讘讬诇讛 诇讗 诇讟讜诪讗转谉

The Gemara raises another objection: The halakhic status of one who is ritually impure due to a seminal emission is like that of one who came into contact with a creeping animal, whereas the legal status of one who is ritually impure because he had relations with a menstruating woman is like that of one who became impure with ritual impurity imparted by a corpse. The Gemara asks: What, does the baraita not mean that one who had relations with a menstruating woman is like one impure with impurity imparted by a corpse in terms of immersion, which he may perform during the day? The Gemara rejects that conclusion. No, the baraita is merely comparing the duration of their impurity. One who experiences a seminal emission is impure for one day, like one who came into contact with a creeping animal; one who has relations with a menstruating woman is impure for seven days, like one impure with impurity imparted by a corpse.

讟讜诪讗转谉 讘讛讚讬讗 讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 讛讗讬 讟讜诪讗转 砖讘注讛 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讜讛讗讬 讟讜诪讗转 砖讘注讛 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛

The Gemara wonders: For what purpose would the baraita come to teach the duration of their impurity? The Torah explicitly writes the durations of their impurity. This, one impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, has impurity of seven days written in his regard; and similarly, that, one who is impure because he had relations with a menstruating woman, has impurity of seven days written in his regard. There is no need for the baraita to derive a matter explicitly written in the Torah from another matter explicitly written in the Torah.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诇讟讘讬诇转谉

Rather, must it not be that the baraita is equating them with regard to their immersion, in that both one who has relations with a menstruating woman and one impure with impurity imparted by a corpse immerse during the day?

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 诇讟讜诪讗转谉 住讬驻讗 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 砖讞诪讜专 诪诪谞讜 讘讜注诇 谞讚讛 砖诪讟诪讗 诪砖讻讘 讜诪讜砖讘 讘讟讜诪讗讛 拽诇讛 诇讟诪讗 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诪砖拽讬谉

The Gemara rejects that conclusion. No; actually, the baraita is referring to the duration of their impurity. Although there is nothing novel in that equation, it was necessary for the tanna to teach the latter clause of the baraita: However, in one sense, the case of one who is impure because he had relations with a menstruating woman is more severe than one impure with impurity imparted by a corpse. One who is impure because he had relations with a menstruating woman transmits impurity through lying on a bed or sitting on a chair, even if he never came into direct contact with the chair or the bed. He renders the bed or chair impure with a mild form of impurity. He confers upon them first-degree ritual impurity status, sufficient only to render foods and liquids impure. One impure with impurity imparted by a corpse transmits impurity by means of direct contact.

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讛讝讘 讜讛讝讘讛 讜讛诪爪讜专注 讜讛诪爪讜专注转 讜讘讜注诇 谞讚讛 讜讟诪讗 诪转 讟讘讬诇转谉 讘讬讜诐 谞讚讛 讜讬讜诇讚转 讟讘讬诇转谉 讘诇讬诇讛 转讬讜讘转讗

Come and hear an additional proof that Rabbi 岣yya taught: For the zav and the zava and the leper and the female leper, and one who had relations with a menstruating woman, and one who is ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, their immersion is during the day. For a menstruating woman and a woman after childbirth, their immersion is at night. The Gemara concludes that this baraita is indeed a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Shimi from Neharde鈥檃, who said that one who is impure because he had relations with a menstruating woman immerses at night.

讜注讚 砖讗转讛 诪驻专讬砖讜 诪讟讜诪讗转 讘讬转讜 讛驻专讬砖讛讜 诪讟讜诪讗转 讛诪转 讗诪专 专讘 转讞诇讬驻讗 讗讘讜讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 (讘专 转讞诇讬驻讗) 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讟讜诪讗转 讛诪转 讛讜转专讛 讛讬讗 讘爪讬讘讜专

With regard to the sequestering of the High Priest, the Gemara asks: And before you remove him from the potential of impurity of his house, remove him from the potential of the more severe impurity imparted by a corpse. The Sages should have instituted an ordinance prohibiting visitors to the High Priest lest one die while in his chamber and render him impure. Rav Ta岣ifa, father of Rav Huna bar Ta岣ifa, said in the name of Rava: That is to say that impurity imparted by a corpse is permitted in cases involving the public. In cases where the public is involved, impurity imparted by a corpse does not prevent the Temple service from being conducted. Since the service of the High Priest on Yom Kippur is a service involving communal offerings, impurity imparted by a corpse does not invalidate the service.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讛诪转 讚讞讜讬讛 讛讬讗 讘爪讘讜专 讟讜诪讗转 讛诪转 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 讟讜诪讗转 讘讬转讜 砖讻讬讞讗

Ravina said: Even if you say that impurity imparted by a corpse is merely overridden in public and not completely permitted, the idea that the High Priest is not removed from the potential of impurity imparted by a corpse can be understood. Impurity imparted by a corpse is uncommon. The likelihood that one visiting the High Priest will suddenly die is minimal. In contrast, impurity of his house is common, as uncertainty with regard to his wife鈥檚 status as a menstruating woman could arise at any moment.

讗讬转诪专 讟讜诪讗转 讛诪转 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讛讜转专讛 讛讬讗 讘爪讬讘讜专 讜专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讚讞讜讬讛 讛讬讗 讘爪讬讘讜专

There is an amoraic dispute with regard to the effect of impurity imparted by a corpse on the conduct of the Temple service. It was stated with regard to impurity imparted by a corpse that Rav Na岣an said: It is permitted in cases involving the public; e.g., when a majority of the Jewish people is impure, the service of a ritually pure priest is not preferable to that of an impure priest. The Temple service proceeds as though there was no impurity at all. And Rav Sheshet said: Impurity imparted by a corpse is merely overridden in cases involving the public, and service performed by a ritually pure priest is preferable.

讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讟诪讗讬谉 讜讟讛讜专讬谉 讘讛讛讜讗 讘讬转 讗讘 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讟讛讜专讬谉 注讘讚讬 讟诪讗讬谉 诇讗 注讘讚讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 诇讗讛讚讜专讬 讜诇讗转讜讬讬 讟讛讜专讬谉 诪讘讬转 讗讘 讗讞专讬谞讗

The Gemara restricts the scope of the dispute. In a case where there are both ritually impure and pure priests in that patrilineal family tasked with serving in the Temple on that day, everyone, even Rav Na岣an, agrees that the pure priests serve and the impure priests do not serve. When they disagree, it is with regard to a case where the entire patrilineal family is impure. Is it necessary to seek out and bring pure priests from a different patrilineal family belonging to the same priestly watch, who are tasked with serving in the Temple on a different day that week?

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讛讬转专 讛讬讗 讘爪讬讘讜专 讜诇讗 诪讛讚专讬谞谉 讜专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讚讞讜讬讛 讛讬讗 讘爪讬讘讜专 讜诪讛讚专讬谞谉

Rav Na岣an said: The prohibition against performing the Temple service in a state of impurity imparted by a corpse is permitted in cases involving the public, and we do not need to seek out other priests. Since the Torah permitted the performance of the Temple service by priests impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, it is completely permitted and it is as though the service is performed in purity. Rav Sheshet said: The prohibition of impurity imparted by a corpse is overridden in cases involving the public, and wherever possible we seek out ritually pure priests.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讟讛讜专讬谉 讜讟诪讗讬谉 讘讛讛讜讗 讘讬转 讗讘 驻诇讬讙 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讗诪专 注讘讚讬 谞诪讬 讟诪讗讬谉

Some say that the dispute is slightly different: Even in a case where there are both ritually pure and ritually impure priests in that patrilineal family, Rav Na岣an disagreed with Rav Sheshet and said that the priests serve even when they are impure,

Masechet Yoma is sponsored by Vicky Harari in commemoration of her father's Yahrzeit, Avraham Baruch Hacohen ben Zeev Eliyahu Eckstein z'l, a Holocaust survivor and a feminist before it was fashionable. And in gratitude to Michelle Cohen Farber for revolutionizing women's learning worldwide.
  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Yoma 2-9 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

Masechet Yoma describes the events leading up to Yom Kippur and the events of Yom Kippur itself, the holiest day...
talking talmud_square

Yoma 6: The Impure Kohen’s Avodah

Back to the kohen separating from his family - why must he separate? Beyond the parallels we have already discussed,...
introduction to yoma by gitta

Introduction to Yoma聽– The Main Structure

Masechet Yoma (literally, 鈥淭he Day鈥) deals with聽 Yom Kippur (YK).聽聽 Structure of the masechet:聽 The masechet is arranged in chronological聽...

Yoma 6

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yoma 6

讗诪专 诇讱 讛讛讜讗 讗讘谞讟讜 砖诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诇讗 讝讛 讛讜讗 讗讘谞讟讜 砖诇 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟

The Gemara answers that he could have said to you: That verse comes to teach that the belt of the High Priest is not the belt of the common priest. It is explicit in the Torah that the belt of the High Priest is made of fine blue and purple linen. On the other hand, the Torah does not state the materials used in the belt of the common priest, which was in fact linen like the rest of the garments of the common priest. And still one can say that Aaron and his sons were dressed simultaneously.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讛专谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘谞讬讜 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讞讙专转 讗讜转诐 讗讘谞讟 讗诪专 诇讱 讛讛讜讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讗讘谞讟讜 砖诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讝讛讜 讗讘谞讟讜 砖诇 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟

The Gemara asks: And according to the one who said that Moses dressed Aaron first and then his sons, is it not written: 鈥淎nd you will gird them with belts,鈥 indicating that they were girded simultaneously? The Gemara responds that he could have said to you: That verse teaches us that the belt of the High Priest is identical to the belt of the common priest. Both of them were from fine blue and purple linen. Therefore, although the Torah distinguishes between the girding of the belts, as Moses dressed Aaron before he dressed Aaron鈥檚 sons, there was a common command to make both belts, indicating that they were made of the same material.

讜讬讞讙讜专 讗讜转讜 讗讘谞讟 讜讬讞讙讜专 讗讜转诐 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讛专谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘谞讬讜 讜讘讘转 讗讞转 诪讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗拽讚讬诐

The Gemara asks: If they are identical, why do I need both the verse: 鈥淎nd he girded him with a belt,鈥 and the verse: 鈥淎nd he girded them鈥? The Gemara explains: Learn from it that Moses dressed Aaron first and then dressed his sons. The Gemara asks: And can you find a situation where Moses could have girded Aaron and his sons simultaneously? The Gemara explains: It is necessary only to state that Moses girded Aaron first and then proceeded to gird his sons in order of their significance. After girding Aaron he did not dress Aaron in any other garments before girding his sons.

诪驻专讬砖讬谉 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜讻讜壮 诇诪讛 诪驻专讬砖讬谉 诇诪讛 诪驻专讬砖讬谉 讻讚拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讬 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讗讬 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻讚讗讬转 诇讬讛

搂 After a long digression in which many peripheral issues were addressed, the Gemara returns to interpreting the mishna. It was taught in the mishna: The Sages would remove the High Priest from his house to the Chamber of Parhedrin. The Gemara asks: Why do the Sages remove him? The Gemara asks in astonishment: Why do the Sages remove him? It is as we stated above: Whether it is according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, as per his opinion: Sequestering of the High Priest is derived from the sequestering prior to the inauguration; or whether it is according to Reish Lakish, as per his opinion: Sequestering of the High Priest is derived from sequestering at Sinai, the answer is clear. What is the point of the Gemara鈥檚 question?

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪讘讬转讜 诇诪讛 驻讬专砖 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讛 讗讜诪专 砖诪讗 转诪爪讗 讗砖转讜 住驻拽 谞讚讛 讜讬讘讗 注诇讬讛

The Gemara explains: This is what the Gemara is saying. Why did he withdraw from his house, i.e., his wife? The Gemara explained why he must be removed to a special location; but why doesn鈥檛 his wife join him? It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: It is due to the concern lest his wife be found to be in a situation of uncertainty as to whether or not she has the halakhic status of a menstruating woman, and he will have relations with her and become impure.

讗讟讜 讘专砖讬注讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗诇讗 砖诪讗 讬讘讗 注诇 讗砖转讜 讜转诪爪讗 住驻拽 谞讚讛

The Gemara asks in astonishment: Is that to say that we are dealing with wicked people? Will the High Priest, aware of the uncertain status of his wife, have relations with her? Rather, rephrase the statement: It is due to the concern lest he have relations with his wife and then she be found to be in a situation of uncertainty as to whether or not she has the halakhic status of a menstruating woman. In a case where blood is found on the sheets after the couple engaged in relations, and there is uncertainty as to whether or not the High Priest had relations with his wife while she had the halakhic status of a menstruating woman, the status of the High Priest is one of uncertain impurity.

讗诪专讜讛 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 谞讚讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讗转 讘讜注诇讛 讚讗讬 专讘谞谉 讛讗 讗诪专讬 讗讬谉 谞讚讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讗转 讘讜注诇讛

The Sages stated the following assumption before Rav 岣sda: In accordance with whose opinion is that a reason for concern? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who said: A menstruating woman who found blood on the sheets within twenty-fours after having relations, creating uncertainty with regard to her status when she engaged in relations, renders the man who had with relations with her retroactively impure. As, if it were in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, it is difficult: Didn鈥檛 they say that a woman with regard to whom there is uncertainty as to whether or not she has the halakhic status of a menstruating woman does not render the man who had with relations with her retroactively impure. Therefore, the High Priest need not leave his wife during the week prior to Yom Kippur.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪专讜 专讘谞谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗诇讗 讘讗讞专 讗讞专 讗讘诇 讘讞讚 讗讞专 诪讜讚讜 诇讬讛

Rav 岣sda said to the Sages: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Akiva with regard to retroactive impurity only in a case where blood was discovered on the sheets long afterward, after there was time for the woman to leave the bed and bathe and only then discover the blood. Due to the time that elapsed, the Rabbis hold that there is no way to prove a connection between when the woman menstruated and when they engaged in relations. However, if the blood was found merely afterward, the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Akiva that she renders the man retroactively impure.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘讜注诇 谞讚讛 讗讬谞讜 讻谞讚讛 讜讟讜讘诇 讘讬讜诐

Rabbi Zeira said: Learn from it that one who is impure because he had relations with a menstruating woman is unlike a menstruating woman in terms of the time of immersion. Unlike the woman, who immerses after nightfall following the seventh day after her menstruation ceased, such a man may immerse on the seventh day and need not wait for nightfall. Therefore, if a High Priest has relations with his wife just before he is sequestered and there is uncertainty as to whether she has the halakhic status of a menstruating woman, the seventh day of his impurity occurs on Yom Kippur eve. He immerses himself that day and completes the purification process at nightfall. This allows him to enter the Temple to perform the Yom Kippur service.

讚讗讬 讗诪专转 讘讜注诇 谞讚讛 讻谞讚讛 讗讬诪转 讟讘讬诇 讘诇讬诇讬讗 诇诪讞专 讛讬讻讬 注讘讬讚 注讘讜讚讛 讜讛讗 讘注讬 讛注专讘 讛砖诪砖 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘讜注诇 谞讚讛 讗讬谞讜 讻谞讚讛

As, if you say that one who is impure because he had relations with a menstruating woman is like a menstruating woman in terms of the time of immersion, when does he immerse? He may immerse only at night after seven complete days. Since that night is Yom Kippur, how can he perform the Yom Kippur service the next day,? Isn鈥檛 he required to wait for sunset following his immersion to complete the purification process? Until then his status is that of one who immersed that day, who may not serve in the Temple until the nightfall following his immersion. Rather, must one not conclude from it that one who is impure because he had relations with a menstruating woman is unlike a menstruating woman in terms of the time of immersion? He immerses on the seventh day, Yom Kippur eve, and at nightfall he may serve in the Temple.

专讘 砖讬诪讬 诪谞讛专讚注讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讘讜注诇 谞讚讛 讻谞讚讛 讚诪驻专砖讬谞谉 诇讬讛 砖注讛 讗讞转 住诪讜讱 诇砖拽讬注转 讛讞诪讛

Rav Shimi from Neharde鈥檃 says: Even if you say that one who is impure because he had relations with a menstruating woman is like a menstruating woman with regard to the time of immersion, the High Priest is not removed from his house at night. Rather, we sequester him one hour just before sunset on the eighth day prior to Yom Kippur, slightly before the start of the seven-day period, leaving seven full days to count prior to Yom Kippur. Although he is removed from his house more than seven days prior to Yom Kippur, that slight addition is not sufficient to have the period considered eight days.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬 讟讘讬诇讜转 讟讘讬诇转谉 讘讬讜诐 谞讚讛 讜讬讜诇讚转 讟讘讬诇转谉 讘诇讬诇讛 谞讚讛 讗讬谉 讘讜注诇 谞讚讛 诇讗

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion that one who is impure because he had relations with a menstruating woman immerses at night: With regard to all those obligated in immersions, their immersion is during the day. The exceptions are a menstruating woman and a woman after childbirth, whose immersion is at night. It can be learned by inference: With regard to a menstruating woman, yes, she immerses at night; with regard to one who is impure because he had relations with a menstruating woman, no, he does not immerse at night.

谞讚讛 讜讻诇 讚讗转讬 诪专讘讜讬讬讗

The Gemara rejects that proof because the term menstruating woman in that baraita includes the woman and everyone whose inclusion in the impurity is derived from her status. The understanding is that a man who has relations with a menstruating woman assumes her impurity, and therefore his immersion would be identical to hers.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讘注诇 拽专讬 讻诪讙注 砖专抓 讘讜注诇 谞讚讛 讻讟诪讗 诪转 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讟讘讬诇讛 诇讗 诇讟讜诪讗转谉

The Gemara raises another objection: The halakhic status of one who is ritually impure due to a seminal emission is like that of one who came into contact with a creeping animal, whereas the legal status of one who is ritually impure because he had relations with a menstruating woman is like that of one who became impure with ritual impurity imparted by a corpse. The Gemara asks: What, does the baraita not mean that one who had relations with a menstruating woman is like one impure with impurity imparted by a corpse in terms of immersion, which he may perform during the day? The Gemara rejects that conclusion. No, the baraita is merely comparing the duration of their impurity. One who experiences a seminal emission is impure for one day, like one who came into contact with a creeping animal; one who has relations with a menstruating woman is impure for seven days, like one impure with impurity imparted by a corpse.

讟讜诪讗转谉 讘讛讚讬讗 讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 讛讗讬 讟讜诪讗转 砖讘注讛 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讜讛讗讬 讟讜诪讗转 砖讘注讛 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛

The Gemara wonders: For what purpose would the baraita come to teach the duration of their impurity? The Torah explicitly writes the durations of their impurity. This, one impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, has impurity of seven days written in his regard; and similarly, that, one who is impure because he had relations with a menstruating woman, has impurity of seven days written in his regard. There is no need for the baraita to derive a matter explicitly written in the Torah from another matter explicitly written in the Torah.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诇讟讘讬诇转谉

Rather, must it not be that the baraita is equating them with regard to their immersion, in that both one who has relations with a menstruating woman and one impure with impurity imparted by a corpse immerse during the day?

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 诇讟讜诪讗转谉 住讬驻讗 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 砖讞诪讜专 诪诪谞讜 讘讜注诇 谞讚讛 砖诪讟诪讗 诪砖讻讘 讜诪讜砖讘 讘讟讜诪讗讛 拽诇讛 诇讟诪讗 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诪砖拽讬谉

The Gemara rejects that conclusion. No; actually, the baraita is referring to the duration of their impurity. Although there is nothing novel in that equation, it was necessary for the tanna to teach the latter clause of the baraita: However, in one sense, the case of one who is impure because he had relations with a menstruating woman is more severe than one impure with impurity imparted by a corpse. One who is impure because he had relations with a menstruating woman transmits impurity through lying on a bed or sitting on a chair, even if he never came into direct contact with the chair or the bed. He renders the bed or chair impure with a mild form of impurity. He confers upon them first-degree ritual impurity status, sufficient only to render foods and liquids impure. One impure with impurity imparted by a corpse transmits impurity by means of direct contact.

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讛讝讘 讜讛讝讘讛 讜讛诪爪讜专注 讜讛诪爪讜专注转 讜讘讜注诇 谞讚讛 讜讟诪讗 诪转 讟讘讬诇转谉 讘讬讜诐 谞讚讛 讜讬讜诇讚转 讟讘讬诇转谉 讘诇讬诇讛 转讬讜讘转讗

Come and hear an additional proof that Rabbi 岣yya taught: For the zav and the zava and the leper and the female leper, and one who had relations with a menstruating woman, and one who is ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, their immersion is during the day. For a menstruating woman and a woman after childbirth, their immersion is at night. The Gemara concludes that this baraita is indeed a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Shimi from Neharde鈥檃, who said that one who is impure because he had relations with a menstruating woman immerses at night.

讜注讚 砖讗转讛 诪驻专讬砖讜 诪讟讜诪讗转 讘讬转讜 讛驻专讬砖讛讜 诪讟讜诪讗转 讛诪转 讗诪专 专讘 转讞诇讬驻讗 讗讘讜讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 (讘专 转讞诇讬驻讗) 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讟讜诪讗转 讛诪转 讛讜转专讛 讛讬讗 讘爪讬讘讜专

With regard to the sequestering of the High Priest, the Gemara asks: And before you remove him from the potential of impurity of his house, remove him from the potential of the more severe impurity imparted by a corpse. The Sages should have instituted an ordinance prohibiting visitors to the High Priest lest one die while in his chamber and render him impure. Rav Ta岣ifa, father of Rav Huna bar Ta岣ifa, said in the name of Rava: That is to say that impurity imparted by a corpse is permitted in cases involving the public. In cases where the public is involved, impurity imparted by a corpse does not prevent the Temple service from being conducted. Since the service of the High Priest on Yom Kippur is a service involving communal offerings, impurity imparted by a corpse does not invalidate the service.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讛诪转 讚讞讜讬讛 讛讬讗 讘爪讘讜专 讟讜诪讗转 讛诪转 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 讟讜诪讗转 讘讬转讜 砖讻讬讞讗

Ravina said: Even if you say that impurity imparted by a corpse is merely overridden in public and not completely permitted, the idea that the High Priest is not removed from the potential of impurity imparted by a corpse can be understood. Impurity imparted by a corpse is uncommon. The likelihood that one visiting the High Priest will suddenly die is minimal. In contrast, impurity of his house is common, as uncertainty with regard to his wife鈥檚 status as a menstruating woman could arise at any moment.

讗讬转诪专 讟讜诪讗转 讛诪转 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讛讜转专讛 讛讬讗 讘爪讬讘讜专 讜专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讚讞讜讬讛 讛讬讗 讘爪讬讘讜专

There is an amoraic dispute with regard to the effect of impurity imparted by a corpse on the conduct of the Temple service. It was stated with regard to impurity imparted by a corpse that Rav Na岣an said: It is permitted in cases involving the public; e.g., when a majority of the Jewish people is impure, the service of a ritually pure priest is not preferable to that of an impure priest. The Temple service proceeds as though there was no impurity at all. And Rav Sheshet said: Impurity imparted by a corpse is merely overridden in cases involving the public, and service performed by a ritually pure priest is preferable.

讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讟诪讗讬谉 讜讟讛讜专讬谉 讘讛讛讜讗 讘讬转 讗讘 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讟讛讜专讬谉 注讘讚讬 讟诪讗讬谉 诇讗 注讘讚讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 诇讗讛讚讜专讬 讜诇讗转讜讬讬 讟讛讜专讬谉 诪讘讬转 讗讘 讗讞专讬谞讗

The Gemara restricts the scope of the dispute. In a case where there are both ritually impure and pure priests in that patrilineal family tasked with serving in the Temple on that day, everyone, even Rav Na岣an, agrees that the pure priests serve and the impure priests do not serve. When they disagree, it is with regard to a case where the entire patrilineal family is impure. Is it necessary to seek out and bring pure priests from a different patrilineal family belonging to the same priestly watch, who are tasked with serving in the Temple on a different day that week?

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讛讬转专 讛讬讗 讘爪讬讘讜专 讜诇讗 诪讛讚专讬谞谉 讜专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讚讞讜讬讛 讛讬讗 讘爪讬讘讜专 讜诪讛讚专讬谞谉

Rav Na岣an said: The prohibition against performing the Temple service in a state of impurity imparted by a corpse is permitted in cases involving the public, and we do not need to seek out other priests. Since the Torah permitted the performance of the Temple service by priests impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, it is completely permitted and it is as though the service is performed in purity. Rav Sheshet said: The prohibition of impurity imparted by a corpse is overridden in cases involving the public, and wherever possible we seek out ritually pure priests.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讟讛讜专讬谉 讜讟诪讗讬谉 讘讛讛讜讗 讘讬转 讗讘 驻诇讬讙 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讗诪专 注讘讚讬 谞诪讬 讟诪讗讬谉

Some say that the dispute is slightly different: Even in a case where there are both ritually pure and ritually impure priests in that patrilineal family, Rav Na岣an disagreed with Rav Sheshet and said that the priests serve even when they are impure,

Scroll To Top