Yoma 6a (ו.) — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

He can say to you:

Actually, one must say that the order of dressing stated in the verse describing the dedication is the primary one: the belts of all of them were girded at once. And what is stated in the passage describing the making of the garments—that Aaron’s belt was girded separately and his sons’ belts separately—does not teach us the order of girding; rather, it teaches us that the belts themselves differed in their manufacture.

For the Torah explicitly describes the making of Aaron’s belt, which was made of kilayim, as it is stated: “And the belt of twined linen, and blue, and purple” [linen is shesh, while blue is wool]. But concerning the other belts of his sons, the Torah does not mention that wool was woven into them.

Accordingly, one can say that

that

verse comes to teach us that

the belt of the High Priest,

which contained wool,

is not the belt of the ordinary priest,

which was made solely of linen.

We raise another difficulty:

And according to the one who says

that the girding of the belt of

Aaron

was done separately,

and

only

afterward

he girded

his sons—

and

was it not

written

in the passage of Tetzaveh:

“And you shall gird them with a belt”—

which implies that they were done together?

And we answer:

He can say to you: That

verse in the passage of Tetzaveh

comes to teach us

that the belts themselves were alike in their manufacture, so that

the belt of the High Priest,

which was made of kilayim,

is the belt of the ordinary priest as well,

for it too was made of kilayim.

And now, what is the purpose of what is written in the account of the making:

“And he girded him with the belt,”

and afterward it is written:

“And he girded them

with a belt”—

what do I need this for?

Rather, necessarily,

infer from it

that in the order of girding, he first girded

Aaron, and afterward

he girded

his sons.

And we challenge this according to the one who says that he girded them

all at once: Is it possible

that Moses girded all of them by himself at one time? Surely, necessarily, he girded one before the other?

And we answer:

It is not necessary to say this, for

certainly he

preceded

each one over the other [according to the order of their rank, as the Ritva explains], and he did not literally gird them all at the same time. Rather, the girding of all their belts took place without any interruption between one belt and the next. He waited and did not put Aaron’s belt on him until he had dressed his sons in the trousers and tunic [and the turban. Rashi explains it this way, although the Rashash noted that the implication of the verse is that they put on the turban after the belt]; afterward he girded Aaron’s belt, and immediately girded the belts of his sons.

We learned in the Mishna:

“They separate the High Priest, and so on.”

And we inquire about it:

Why do they separate him?

We wonder: What is the question

“Why do they separate him?”

After all, they separate him for the reason

as we stated

in the preceding passage:

If according to Rabbi Yohanan,

the reason for the separation is

as he holds,

for we derive it from the separation during the dedication of the Tabernacle.

And if according to Reish Lakish,

it was explained

as he holds,

for he derives it from Sinai.

And we explain: The question is not about the fundamental separation, in preparation for the Yom Kippur service.

Rather,

this is what it is saying: The language of the Mishna indicates that, in addition to the very separation from the Temple, he also separated from his home [that is, from his wife]. Concerning this the question was raised:

The wording of the Mishna indicates that, in addition to separating him from the rest of the people for the sake of the Temple service, he also separated from his home [that is, from his wife]. The question concerns this:

From his home—

why did he separate?

For surely his wife could also have stayed with him in this chamber of his in the Temple.

For the chamber was not sanctified with the sanctity of the Temple courtyard, since only the kings of the House of David were permitted to sit in the courtyard.

And we answer:

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says:

We are concerned

lest his wife be found to be possibly a menstruant, and

he

have relations with her,

and one who has relations with a menstruant is impure for seven days, thereby becoming disqualified from the Yom Kippur service.

And we challenge this:

Are we dealing with wicked people,

that we should be concerned that the priest would enter into a possible prohibition and have relations with a woman who might be a menstruant?!

And we answer:

Rather,

we are concerned

lest

the High Priest

have relations with his wife

with permission, when she has the presumptive status of purity,

and

afterward she discovers that she is an impure menstruant. Since we would not know when she became impure—before he had relations with her or afterward—

she would be found

to have been

a possibly impure menstruant

at the time of intercourse, and he would consequently be possibly impure for seven days, by the law governing one who has relations with a menstruant under a situation of uncertainty, and he would not become pure before Yom Kippur.

The Sages stated

this beraita

before Rav Hisda,

and explained that it does not accord with everyone.

When a woman sees blood, we are concerned that she may have become impure retroactively, because we do not know when the flow of blood began.

By Torah law, there is no need to be concerned about rendering the woman impure retroactively; rather, only from the time she sees blood is she impure and renders others impure.

However, the Sages decreed that every woman who sees blood is considered possibly impure retroactively. And we maintain that retroactive uncertainty applies “for twenty-four hours”: the entire preceding day is treated as a period of possible impurity.

The Sages and Rabbi Akiva disagreed concerning this impurity, as to the matter for which she is considered impure.

The Sages hold that they decreed only that the ritually pure items that she touched during that period of twenty-four hours be rendered impure, since we are uncertain whether she became impure during it.

But if she had intercourse during the period of uncertainty, they did not decree that the man who had relations with her be rendered impure—for seven days—as one who has relations with a menstruant.

Rabbi Akiva holds that they also decreed retroactive impurity with regard to rendering the man who had relations with her impure.

It follows that the statement of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira—that we are concerned lest the High Priest have relations with his wife and she subsequently be found to be a possible menstruant—and that we established the Mishna in accordance with him—

in accordance with whom

did he state it?

In accordance with Rabbi Akiva,

who says: A menstruant

renders

retroactively

the man who had relations with her

with the impurity of one who has relations with a menstruant. Therefore, if he is not separated from his home and has relations with her, and she is found to be possibly a menstruant, the High Priest will be impure for seven days as one who has relations with a menstruant under a situation of uncertainty.

But according to the Sages, she does not render the man who had relations with her possibly impure. According to them, there is no reason to separate him from his wife for seven days before Yom Kippur.

Although she renders him impure through the impurity of contact, like anyone who touches ritually pure items, this impurity lasts only one day, and before Yom Kippur he can immerse and become pure; only the more severe impurity of one who has relations with a menstruant renders the man impure for seven days.

Rav Hisda said to them: Even if you say

that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira holds in accordance with

the Sages,

there is still a satisfactory explanation for why he was concerned that the High Priest be separated from his wife.

For

the Sages disagree with Rabbi Akiva only

in the case of a woman who sees blood

during

“after-after,”

as will be explained.

But

when she sees blood during the period

of “one after,”

they agree with him

that there is concern that she renders the man who had relations with her impure.

In tractate Niddah it is explained that there are three periods during which blood may be seen after intercourse, and during which there is concern that she had already become impure before intercourse. The laws of these three periods differ.

a. If she sees blood during the first period after intercourse, called otiyom [“immediately” in Greek], the blood is considered as though it had certainly been present at the time of intercourse. Both are certainly impure, and they are even liable to bring an offering for their unintentional transgression, as in the case of a menstruant with whom a man had relations and of one who has relations with a menstruant.

b. If the blood is found during the second period, called “one after” [that is, the first period, “one,” after the otiyom], she is not judged to have certainly been a menstruant at the time of intercourse, and neither of them is liable to bring an offering.

But with regard to impurity, there is concern that she had already become impure before intercourse, and even the man who had relations with her is impure for seven days under a situation of uncertainty.

c. If she sees blood during the period afterward [up to twenty-four hours], which is called “after-after” [that is, after the first period following the otiyom], Rabbi Akiva holds that the decree of retroactive impurity renders even the man who had relations with her impure as one who has relations with a menstruant, and he is impure for seven days.

According to the Sages, she does not render the man who had relations with her retroactively impure with the impurity of one who has relations with a menstruant; rather, he has the status of one who touches ritually pure items, and he is impure only for one day.

This is what Rav Hisda said: Even according to the Sages, he must be separated from his wife for seven days before Yom Kippur, because we are concerned lest she find blood during the second period, called “one after,” in which case he would become impure for seven days under a situation of uncertainty and be disqualified from the Yom Kippur service.

They were not concerned about the first period, which is very brief.

Rabbi Zeira said:

From what we explained—that the reason for separating him from his wife for seven days is the concern that he might become impure with the impurity of one who has relations with a menstruant—

infer from this

that the law of

one who has relations with a menstruant is not

exactly

that of a menstruant.

For a menstruant becomes pure only if she immerses after her seven days of menstruation have been completed, that is, on the night of the eighth day. But one who has relations with a menstruant, although he is impure for seven days, does not wait until the night of the eighth day; rather, he counts seven days,

and immerses during the day

of the seventh day, and when the sun of the seventh day sets, he becomes pure.

For

this

if you say

that the immersion of

one who has relations with a menstruant is like

the immersion of

a menstruant

herself, you would have to separate him for eight days before Yom Kippur. For if he became impure on the day preceding the separation itself, then on the seventh day of his impurity, which is the eve of Yom Kippur, he could not immerse.

Rather,

when would he immerse? At night,

of Yom Kippur, which is the eighth night of his impurity. If so,

the next day,

on Yom Kippur—

how could he perform the service?

But

he would still

require “sunset,”

in order to become completely pure. For no impure person becomes pure through immersion alone with regard to teruma and consecrated offerings unless the sun sets after his immersion. In his case, the sun would not set until the conclusion of Yom Kippur.

Rather, is it not so? Infer from this that

the

one who has relations with a menstruant,

the time of his immersion

is not like

the time of immersion of

a menstruant!

Rav Shimi of Nehardea

disagreed, and

said: Even if you say that

the

one who has relations with a menstruant

immerses at night,

like a menstruant,

nevertheless, one should explain what we learned: “seven days before Yom Kippur,”

that we separate him

on the eighth day before Yom Kippur

for one hour

at the end of that day,

close to sunset. Thus, the eve of Yom Kippur is the eighth day from his separation, and even if he became impure on the day of the separation, he immerses on the eve of Yom Kippur and becomes pure when the sun sets, at the beginning of Yom Kippur.

They raise an objection from a source: All those obligated to immerse

We raise an objection: All those obligated to immerse,

those who are impure for seven days,

immerse during the day

of the seventh day. But

a menstruant

and a woman after childbirth

do not

immerse

except

at night,

following the seven days of impurity.

And we infer:

A menstruant does not—

her immersion is specifically at night; but

one who has relations with a menstruant

does not have this restriction,

but may immerse even during the day on the seventh day. This is unlike Rav Shimi of Nehardea.

And we answer: The tanna’s intention in the beraita is to refer to

a menstruant

herself

and

also to

all those included by an additional derivation

from the verse in the passage concerning a menstruant, whose law is like that of a menstruant with regard to seven-day impurity.

That is, even one who has relations with a menstruant immerses at night, like a menstruant.

Furthermore,

we raise an objection: One who has experienced a seminal emission

has the same law

as one who has touched a creeping creature.

And one who has relations with a menstruant

has the same law

as one rendered impure by a corpse.

Is it not so that the law of one who has relations with a menstruant is like that of one rendered impure by a corpse

Is it not so that the law of one who has relations with a menstruant is like that of one rendered impure by a corpse

with regard

to the time of

immersion—just as one rendered impure by a corpse immerses on the seventh day, so too one who has relations with a menstruant!?

And we answer:

The comparison should

not

be understood as referring to immersion, but rather

to

the duration of

their impurity,

for both are impure for seven days.

And we reject this: With regard to the duration of

their impurity, there is no need to compare him to one rendered impure by a corpse, since the law of both of them is

written

explicitly

and expressly

written concerning them

in the Torah:

This one,

one rendered impure by a corpse—

“seven-day impurity is written concerning him”

explicitly.

And

also

this one,

one who has relations with a menstruant, likewise—

“seven-day impurity is written concerning him”

explicitly.