יומא 6 — parallel

6:1

He will tell you: This is to teach you that the girdle of the high priest was not the same [material] as that of the average priest. According to the opinion that Aaron was girded and afterwards his sons, does not Scripture say, ‘And thou shalt gird them with a girdle’?- He will tell you this informs us that the girdle of the high priest was of the same [material] as the average priest. Was it then necessary to state: ‘And he girded him with a girdle’ and [then] ‘And he girded them’? From that we infer that Aaron came first and then his sons. But how could it have been possible simultaneously? — This only means to indicate that [Aaron] came first. THE HIGH PRIEST WAS REMOVED. Why was he removed?[You ask] why was he removed! [Is it not] as you have said, either according to the derivation of R. Johanan, or to that of Resh Lakish? — No, this is the question: Why was he separated from his house? — It was taught: R. Judah b. Bathyra said: Let his wife be found under doubt of being a menstruant and he have congress with her. Do we speak of wicked people? — Rather, perhaps he will have congress with his wife and she will then be found to be doubtfully a menstruant. [The Rabbis] were discussing the decision before R. Hisda: According to whom was it made?-Obviously according to R. Akiba, who said: A menstruant makes him who had congress with her impure [retrospectively]. For, according to the Rabbis, behold they say: A menstruant does not render impure him who had congress with her [retrospectively]. R. Hisda said to them: It may be in accord even with the Rabbis. For they conflict with R. Akiba only in the case in which [the blood stains are found] much later [than the congress], but, [if they be found] very soon afterwards, they agree with him. R. Zera said: Hence it is evident that to one who had congress with a menstruant do not apply the same restrictions as do to the menstruant herself and he may bathe [for purification] in day time. For, if you were to say that to one who had congress with a menstruant applied the same laws that apply to her, when could he bathe? Only at night. How could he, then, officiate on the morrow, since he would have to await sunset for becoming ritually pure? Hence it must be [clear] that one who had intercourse with a menstruant is not subject to the same restrictions as the menstruant herself. Said R. Shimi of Nehardea: You might even say [that the above decision is in accord with the view] that one who has intercourse with a menstruant is like the menstruant, yet [would the high priest be able to officiate at the service] for we would separate him from his house an hour before sunset. An objection was raised: All those who are obliged to take the ritual bath must take the bath at night. A menstruant and a woman after confinement immerse during the day. A menstruant, then, only, but not one who had intercourse with her? — [No, it means], A menstruant and all whom one may include in that term. Another objection was raised: One to whom pollution has happened is like one who touched an unclean [dead] reptile. One who had intercourse with a menstruating woman is like one who was made unclean through a corpse. Is it not concerning the bath? — No, it is concerning [the conditions of] their uncleanness. But [surely] concerning their uncleanness there are direct statements in Scripture! In the first case it is written that it lasts for seven days, and in the second case also the seven days’ duration is prescribed. 25

—

6:2

Must one not hence assume that the comparison concerns their bath? No, indeed it refers only to [the conditions of] their uncleanness, and it was necessary to mention that only because of the latter clause [of that Mishnah, viz.,] that one who had intercourse with a menstruant is afflicted with a graver form of impurity than he [who has become unclean through a corpse] in that he causes uncleanness of couch and seat [such uncleanness being of a lighter nature] so as to affect only foods and liquids. Come and hear: For R. Hiyya taught: A man or a woman afflicted with gonorrhoea or with leprosy, one who had intercourse with a menstruant, and one made unclean through a corpse, may take the bath during the day; a menstruant and a woman after confinement take their bath at night. This is [indeed] a refutation. Now whilst removing him from the [possible] impurity due to his house, remove him from the [possibility of] uncleanness through a corpse! R. Tahlifa, father of R. Huna, said in the name of Raba: This teaches that in the case of a community [the law of] corpse uncleanness is inoperative. Rabina said: You might also say that [the law of] corpse uncleanness is only suspended in case of a community, yet uncleanness due to contact with a corpse Is infrequent, whereas uncleanness due to marital life happens often. It has been said: As [to the law of] corpse-uncleanness R. Nahman said: It is inoperative in case of a community. R. Shesheth said: It is only suspended in case of an entire community. Whenever there are in the same priestly family-division men, both clean and unclean ones, nobody disputes the fact that the clean ones do the service and the unclean ones forego it. The dispute concerns only the question as to whether one is obliged to make an endeavour to obtain, clean ones from another family-division. R. Nahman said: [The law of] corpse-uncleanness is inoperative In case of a community, hence we need make no such effort. R. Shesheth says: That law is only suspended in case of a community and hence we must endeavour [to find clean priests for the service]. Some hold that even in a case in which there are both clean and unclean priests in the same family-division, R. Nahman insists that even the unclean ones may officiate

—