Commentary for Yoma 12:1

אלא לאו לטבילתן

Must one not hence assume that the comparison concerns their bath?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since a statement as to the duration of their uncleanness, from its express form in the Torah, seems superfluous. But 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.');">¹</span> 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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [As many couches as are under him become unclean although they had not been in direct contact with him, which is not the case with one who suffers corpse-uncleanness. He defiles only those couches which his body actually touches.] vtnuyv ,uct');">²</span>

Explore commentary for Yoma 12:1. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.