Yoma — Daf 6b

אלא לאו לטבילתן

לא לעולם לטומאתן סיפא אצטריכא ליה אלא שחמור ממנו בועל נדה שמטמא משכב ומושב בטומאה קלה לטמא אוכלין ומשקין

ת"ש דתני רבי חייא הזב והזבה והמצורע והמצורעת ובועל נדה וטמא מת טבילתן ביום נדה ויולדת טבילתן בלילה תיובתא

ועד שאתה מפרישו מטומאת ביתו הפרישהו מטומאת המת אמר רב תחליפא אבוה דרב הונא (בר תחליפא) משמיה דרבא זאת אומרת טומאת המת הותרה היא בציבור

רבינא אמר אפילו תימא טומאת המת דחויה היא בצבור טומאת המת לא שכיחא טומאת ביתו שכיחא

איתמר טומאת המת רב נחמן אמר הותרה היא בציבור ורב ששת אמר דחויה היא בציבור

היכא דאיכא טמאין וטהורין בההוא בית אב כולי עלמא לא פליגי דטהורין עבדי טמאין לא עבדי כי פליגי לאהדורי ולאתויי טהורין מבית אב אחרינא

רב נחמן אמר היתר היא בציבור ולא מהדרינן ורב ששת אמר דחויה היא בציבור ומהדרינן

איכא דאמרי אפי' היכא דאיכא טהורין וטמאין בההוא בית אב פליג רב נחמן ואמר עבדי נמי טמאין

Must one not hence assume that the comparison concerns their bath?1 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 seat2 [such uncleanness being of a lighter nature] so as to affect only foods and liquids.3 Come and hear:4 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.5 This is [indeed] a refutation.6 Now whilst removing him from the [possible] impurity due to his house,7 remove him from the [possibility of] uncleanness through a corpse!8 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.9 Rabina said: You might also say that [the law of] corpse uncleanness is only suspended in case of a community,10 yet uncleanness due to contact with a corpse Is infrequent,11 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-division12 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 such repetition is illogical and hence the interpretation that it applies to the bathing is justified which proves that he who has intercourse with the menstruant may immerse by day. not the case with one who suffers corpse-uncleanness. He defiles only those couches which his body actually touches.] derived first and second and third causes affect only foods and liquids, but neither human beings nor ‘vessels’ (apparel, etc.). unclean for seven days.