Yoma 12

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>

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

[such uncleanness being of a lighter nature] so as to affect only foods and liquids.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' All original causes of uncleanness () render, by touch, man and vessels unclean, whereas the derived first and second and third causes affect only foods and liquids, but neither human beings nor 'vessels' (apparel, etc.) .');">³</span> Come and hear:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This phrase in our case introduces a refutation.');">⁴</span>

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

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 88a.');">⁵</span> This is [indeed] a refutation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This Tannaitic tradition is beyond the argument of any Amora. The refutation is complete.');">⁶</span>

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

Now whilst removing him from the [possible] impurity due to his house,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' l.e., his wife.');">⁷</span> remove him from the [possibility of] uncleanness through a corpse!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Keep away from him every company, lest someone die whilst in the same room with the high priest and render him unclean for seven days.');">⁸</span>

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

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'permissible'.');">⁹</span> Rabina said: You might also say that [the law of] corpse uncleanness is only suspended in case of a community,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is only suspended as by emergency and every effort is due to effect a proper service in its stead.');">¹⁰</span>

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

yet uncleanness due to contact with a corpse Is infrequent,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence no precautionary measures, such as, so to speak, quarantining the priest, are necessary.');">¹¹</span> whereas uncleanness due to marital life happens often.

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

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.

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

Whenever there are in the same priestly family-division<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Beth-Ab. V. Glos.');">¹²</span> men, both clean and unclean ones, nobody disputes the fact that the clean ones do the service and the unclean ones forego it.

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

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