Yoma 11

Chapter 11

א אמר לך ההוא אבנטו של כהן גדול לא זה הוא אבנטו של כהן הדיוט

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The girdle as described in Ex. XXXIX, 29 was to be made of fine twined linen, and blue and purple and scarlet, the work of the weaver in colours. The separate mention made of Aaron's girdle and that of his sons serves to indicate that they were not alike and that this description referred to the girdle of the high priest alone: the girdle of other priests was made of lesser material.');">1 According to the opinion that Aaron was girded and afterwards his sons,2

ב ולמאן דאמר אהרן ואח"כ בניו והכתיב וחגרת אותם אבנט אמר לך ההוא קמ"ל אבנטו של כהן גדול זהו אבנטו של כהן הדיוט

2 does not Scripture say, 'And thou shalt gird them with a girdle'? - He will tell you this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The answer is: The emphasis is not on the time or interval, but on the fact that father and son shall be girded with the same girdle, no distinction being allowed between the girdles worn by high priest and ordinary priest respectively.');">3 informs us that the girdle of the high priest was of the same [material] as the average priest.

ג ויחגור אותו אבנט ויחגור אותם למה לי שמע מינה אהרן ואח"כ בניו ובבת אחת מי משכחת לה לא צריכא דאקדים

3 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.

ד מפרישין כהן גדול וכו' למה מפרישין למה מפרישין כדקאמרי' אי לר' יוחנן כדאית ליה אי לריש לקיש כדאית ליה

4 But how could it have been possible simultaneously?4 - This only means to indicate that [Aaron] came first.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Torah does not command any simultaneity. Aaron is mentioned in one passage and his sons in another, in order to emphasize that he must come first-whether in the clothing of the garments or in the girding.');">5

ה הכי קאמר מביתו למה פירש תניא ר' יהודה בן בתירה אומר שמא תמצא אשתו ספק נדה ויבא עליה

5 THE HIGH PRIEST WAS REMOVED. Why was he removed?

ו אטו ברשיעי עסקינן אלא שמא יבא על אשתו ותמצא ספק נדה

6 [You ask] why was he removed!6 [Is it not] a you have said, either according to the derivation of R'Johanan, or to that of Resh Lakish? - No, this is7

ז אמרוה רבנן קמיה דרב חסדא כמאן כרבי עקיבא דאמר נדה מטמאה את בועלה דאי רבנן הא אמרי אין נדה מטמאה את בועלה

7 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.8 Do we speak of wicked people?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' No good Jew (v. Sheb. 18b; Shulhan Aruk, Yoreh Deah 184, 2) would approach his wife unless her ritual purity were beyond doubt, how much less a high priest. Hence such contingency is unthinkable. Dealing with high priests, are we dealing with wicked men?');">9

ח אמר להו רב חסדא אפילו תימרו רבנן ע"כ לא פליגי רבנן עליה דר"ע אלא באחר אחר אבל בחד אחר מודו ליה

8 - Rather, perhaps he will have congress with his wife and she will then be found to be doubtfully a menstruant.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bloodstains may be found on the bed after congress and the doubt would arise, whether the discharge occurred before or after congress. Such a doubt would render her husband impure for seven days and ritually unfit to enter the sanctuary.');">10 [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].11

ט אמר ר' זירא שמע מינה בועל נדה אינו כנדה וטובל ביום

9 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.

י דאי אמרת בועל נדה כנדה אימת טביל בליליא למחר היכי עביד עבודה והא בעי הערב השמש אלא לאו שמע מינה בועל נדה אינו כנדה

10 For they conflict with R'Akiba only in the case in which [the blood stains are found] much later12 [than the congress], but, [if they be found] very soon afterwards,13

יא רב שימי מנהרדעא אמר אפי' תימא בועל נדה כנדה דמפרשינן ליה שעה אחת סמוך לשקיעת החמה

11 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A menstruant is not permitted to bathe during the seventh day of her menstrual impurity, but only at night, after sunset, the beginning of the eighth day. But he who had congress with her would be permitted to bathe during the seventh day, without having to await the sunset of the seventh day. Hence he needs to be separated for but seven days. And if on the day of the separation he had congress and the doubt of her being a menstruant arose, he would count from the day of the separation until the day before the Day of Atonement, when he would take the bath during the day, await the sunset, and then be fit to enter the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement (Rashi) .');">14

יב מיתיבי כל חייבי טבילות טבילתן ביום נדה ויולדת טבילתן בלילה נדה אין בועל נדה לא

12 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.

יג נדה וכל דאתי מרבוייא

13 How could he, then, officiate on the morrow,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He would ritually be impure at the night of the Day of Atonement, hence there would have been no sunset before the Day of Atonement when he was pure and he would be unfit to officiate on the following day; thus the whole separation would be futile.');">15 since he would have to await sunset for becoming ritually pure?

יד מיתיבי בעל קרי כמגע שרץ בועל נדה כטמא מת מאי לאו לטבילה לא לטומאתן

14 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That is, on the even before the eighth day before the Day of Atonement. One hour is a very short period and unimportant, hence the separation would still be called 'one of seven days'. He could bathe on the evening before the eve of the Day of Atonement (the seventh day after having become ritually impure) and be fit to officiate on the Day of Atonement, having awaited the sunset on the day before his bath.');">16

טו טומאתן בהדיא כתיב בהו האי טומאת שבעה כתיב ביה והאי טומאת שבעה כתיב ביה

15 An objection was raised: All those who are obliged to take the ritual bath must take the bath at night.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Meg. 20a, based on Num. XIX, 19, for the law that all may bathe during the day: And on the seventh day he shall purify him and bathe himself in water and be clean at even. - That a menstruant must not bathe before the night of the seventh day is inferred from Lev. XV,19: And if a woman have an issue, she shall be in her impurity seven days. A woman after confinement is compared to a menstruant in Lev. XII, 2: If a woman be delivered . . , then she shall be unclean for seven days; as in the days of the impurity of her sickness shall she be unclean,; v. infra 88a');">17 A menstruant and a woman after confinement immerse during the day. A menstruant, then, only, but not one who had intercourse with her?18 - [No, it means], A menstruant and all whom one may include in that term.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the menstruant by contact communicates her impurity, it is logical to assume that the conditions of purification would be identical. Hence the implicit statement is sufficient.');">19 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.20 Is it not concerning the bath?21 - No, it is concerning [the conditions of] their uncleanness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One to whom defilement has happened is like one who touched a dead reptile in that both become clean in the evening, and are unclean in the first degree of uncleanness; and he who had intercourse with a menstruant is afflicted with uncleanness for seven days and is one of the original causes of uncleanness like him who was made unclean through a corpse.');">22 But [surely] concerning their uncleanness23 there are direct statements in Scripture! In the first case it is written that it lasts for seven days,24 and in the second case also the seven days' duration is prescribed.25

Previous Chapter Next Chapter