Yoma 6a — the Talmud in English

And we explain:

He can say to you:

Actually, one should say that the order of dressing stated in the command was the primary one, meaning that the belts of all of them were fastened at the same time. The fact that, in the passage describing the performance, Aaron’s belt-fastening is mentioned separately and that of his sons separately was not intended to teach us the order of fastening. Rather, it teaches us that the belts themselves differed in how they were made.

For the Torah explicitly describes the making of Aaron’s belt: it was made of a mixture of wool and linen, as it is stated: “And the belt of twisted linen, and blue wool, and purple wool” [“linen” refers to flax, while blue is wool]. But concerning the other belts of his sons, the Torah does not mention that wool was mixed into them.

Accordingly, one may 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 only of linen.

We raise another objection:

And according to the one who says

that Aaron’s belt was fastened

for Aaron

separately,

and

only

afterward

he fastened

the belts for his sons—

why

is it

written

in the passage of Tetzaveh,

“And you shall fasten belts on them”,

which implies that they were done together?

And we explain:

He can say to you: That

verse in the passage of Tetzaveh

comes to teach us

that the belts themselves were made alike:

the belt of the High Priest,

which was made of a mixture of wool and linen,

is the belt of the ordinary priest,

for it too was made of a mixture of wool and linen.

Accordingly, the fact that the passage describing the performance states

“And he fastened it with a belt”,

and afterward states

“And he fastened belts on them”,

“belts”—

what need is there for this?

Rather, necessarily,

infer from this

that in the order of fastening, he first fastened the belt of

Aaron, and afterward

he fastened the belts

for his sons.

We raise a difficulty against this opinion, which says that he fastened them

all at once: Is that possible

—that Moses fastened the belts for all of them by himself at one moment? Surely he necessarily fastened one before the other!

And we explain:

It is necessary to say that

he certainly

fastened

each one before the other [according to their order of precedence, as the Ritva explains], and he did not literally fasten them all at once. Rather, the belts of all of them were fastened 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 their trousers and tunics [and turbans. This is Rashi’s explanation; the Rashash noted that the verse seems to indicate that they put on the turbans after the belts]. Afterward, he fastened Aaron’s belt, and immediately fastened the belts of his sons.

We learned in the Mishna:

“They separate the High Priest, etc.”

And we inquire about it:

Why do they separate him?

We are puzzled: What kind of question is

“Why do they separate him”?

After all, they separate him for the reason

as we said

in the earlier discussion:

If it follows Rabbi Yohanan,

the reason for the separation is

as he holds,

that we derive it from the separation during the inauguration.

And if it follows Reish Lakish,

it was explained

as he holds,

that he derives it from Sinai.

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

Rather,

this is what it means:

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?

After all, his wife could also be with him in this chamber 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 explain:

It was taught in a baraita; Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says:

We are concerned

that perhaps his wife will be found to be possibly menstruating, and

he

will have relations with her. One who has relations with a menstruating woman is impure for seven days, and this would disqualify him from performing the Yom Kippur service.

And we are puzzled:

And we challenge this:

Are we dealing with wicked people

that there is concern that the priest will enter into a doubtful prohibition and have relations with a woman who might be menstruating?

And we explain:

Rather,

we are concerned

that perhaps

the High Priest

will have relations with his wife

permissibly, when she has the presumptive status of being pure,

and

afterward she will discover that she is a menstruating woman. Since we will not know whether she became impure before he had relations with her or afterward,

she will be found

to have been

possibly menstruating

at the time of intercourse, and he will consequently be possibly impure for seven days, according to the law concerning one who has relations with a menstruating woman under conditions of uncertainty. He would not become pure before Yom Kippur.

The Sages stated

this baraita

before Rav Hisda,

and explained that it does not represent the view of everyone.

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

According to Torah law, there is no concern that the woman is impure retroactively. Rather, from the time she sees blood she is impure and renders others impure.

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

The Sages and Rabbi Akiva disagreed about the effect for which this impurity is considered applicable.

The Sages hold that they decreed only that ritual items she touched during that twenty-four-hour period, about which there is uncertainty whether she had already become impure, are rendered impure.

But if a man had relations with her during the period of uncertainty, they did not decree that he should be rendered impure—the seven-day impurity applicable to one who has relations with a menstruating woman.

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, who is concerned that perhaps the High Priest will have relations with his wife and afterward she will be found possibly menstruating—and we established the Mishna as following his opinion—

follows whom?

He stated it

in accordance with Rabbi Akiva,

who says: A menstruating woman

renders

retroactively

the man who has relations with her

impure with the impurity of one who has relations with a menstruating woman. Therefore, if he were not separated from his home and had relations with her, and she were then found possibly menstruating, the High Priest would become impure for seven days as one who possibly had relations with a menstruating woman.

But according to the Sages, she does not render the man who had relations with her impure as a matter of uncertainty. According to their view, there is no reason to separate him from his wife for seven days before Yom Kippur. [

And although she renders him impure through contact, as is the law with anyone who touches ritually pure items, this impurity lasts only one day, and before Yom Kippur he could immerse and become pure. Only the more severe impurity of one who has relations with a menstruating woman 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,

it is still understandable why he was concerned that the High Priest should be separated from his wife.

For

the Sages disagree with Rabbi Akiva only

when the woman sees blood

during

of “after the after”,

as will be explained.

But

if she sees blood during the period

of the single “after”—

they agree with him

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

In tractate Niddah, three periods are described during which blood may be seen after intercourse, and one must be concerned that the woman may already have become impure before intercourse. The laws of these three periods differ.

a. If she sees blood during the first period after intercourse, called “immediately” [in Greek], the blood is considered as though it certainly existed at the time of intercourse. Both are certainly impure, and both are liable to bring an offering for their inadvertent transgression, like a menstruating woman who had relations and like one who had relations with a menstruating woman.

b. If the blood is found during the second period, called “one after” [that is, the first period, the “one,” after the period of “immediately”], she is not treated as certainly menstruating at the time of intercourse, and neither of them is liable to bring an offering.

But with regard to ritual 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 as a matter of uncertainty.

c. If she sees blood during the period afterward [until twenty-four hours have passed], which is called “after the after” [that is, after the first period following “immediately”], Rabbi Akiva holds that the decree of retroactive impurity renders even the man who had relations with her impure like one who had relations with a menstruating woman, 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 had relations with a menstruating woman. Rather, he is treated like one who touched 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 that she might find blood during the second period, called “one after.” In that case, he would become impure for seven days as a matter of uncertainty and would be disqualified from performing the Yom Kippur service. [

They did not have concern for the first period, which is extremely brief.]

Rabbi Zeira said:

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

infer from this

that the law of

one who has relations with a menstruating woman is not

exactly

that of a menstruating woman.

A menstruating woman becomes pure only if she immerses after her seven days of menstruation have ended, namely, on the night of the eighth day. But one who has relations with a menstruating woman, although he is impure for seven days, does not wait until the eighth night. Rather, he counts seven days,

and immerses during the day

of the seventh day; when the sun sets at the end of the seventh day, he becomes pure.

For

that is,

if you say

that the immersion of

one who has relations with a menstruating woman is like

that of

the menstruating woman

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

Rather,

when could he immerse? At night,

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

on the following day,

on Yom Kippur—

how could he perform the service?

But

he would still

need “sunset”

in order to become completely pure. For no impure person becomes pure through immersion alone with regard to teruma and sacred offerings unless the sun sets after his immersion. His sunset would not occur until the conclusion of Yom Kippur.

Rather, is it not so that one may infer from this that

the

one who has relations with a menstruating woman

immerses at a time that

is not like

the time of immersion of

a menstruating woman?

Rav Shimi of Nehardea

disagreed and

said: Even if you say that

the

one who has relations with a menstruating woman

immerses at night,

like a menstruating woman,

—

we separate him

on the eighth day before Yom Kippur,

for one hour

at the end of that day,

close to sunset. It follows that the eve of Yom Kippur is the eighth day from his separation. Even if he becomes impure on the day of separation, he can immerse on the eve of Yom Kippur and become pure when the sun sets before Yom Kippur.

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

—those who are impure for seven days—

their immersion is during the day

of the seventh day. But

a menstruating woman

and a woman after childbirth

have no

immersion

except

at night,

after the seven days of impurity.

And we analyze it:

And we infer:

“A menstruating woman”—no—

her immersion is specifically at night. But

one who has relations with a menstruating woman—

no,

rather, he immerses even during the day of the seventh day. This is unlike Rav Shimi of Nehardea.

And we explain: The intention of the tannaitic source is

the menstruating woman

herself

and

also

anyone included through an additional derivation

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

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

Furthermore,

they raise an objection from a source: One who experienced a seminal emission

has the same status

as one who touched an impure creature.

And one who has relations with a menstruating woman

has the same status

as one rendered impure by a corpse.

Is it not so that the status of one who has relations with a menstruating woman is like that of one rendered impure by a corpse

закон вступившего с нидой подобен нечистому от соприкосновения с мертвым

with regard to

the time of

immersion

—just as one rendered impure by a corpse immerses during the day of the seventh day, so too does one who has relations with a menstruating woman?

And we explain:

No,

the comparison is not with regard to immersion, but

with regard to

the length of

their impurity: both are impure for seven days.

And we reject this: With regard to the length 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

explicitly

written

concerning them

in the Torah:

This one,

one rendered impure by a corpse—

a seven-day impurity is written concerning him

—

And

this one as well, one who has relations with a menstruating woman—

a seven-day impurity is written concerning him

explicitly.

this one,

one who has relations with a menstruant, likewise—

—

explicitly.