## Yoma Daf 6b

###### Yoma 6b:1
[Yoma 6b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/6b:1)

אֶלָּא לָאו, לִטְבִילָתָן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** must **it not** be that the *baraita* is equating them with regard **to their immersion,** in that both one who has relations with a menstruating woman and one impure with impurity imparted by a corpse immerse during the day?


###### Yoma 6b:2
[Yoma 6b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/6b:2)

לָא, לְעוֹלָם לְטוּמְאָתָן, סֵיפָא אִצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ: אֶלָּא שֶׁחָמוּר מִמֶּנּוּ בּוֹעֵל נִדָּה, שֶׁמְּטַמֵּא מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב בְּטוּמְאָה קַלָּה, לְטַמֵּא אוֹכָלִין וּמַשְׁקִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects that conclusion. **No; actually,** the *baraita* is referring **to** the duration of **their impurity.** Although there is nothing novel in that equation, it **was necessary for** the *tanna* to teach **the latter clause** of the *baraita*: **However,** in one sense, the case of **one** who is impure because he **had relations with a menstruating woman** is **more severe than** one impure with impurity imparted by a corpse. One who is impure because he had relations with a menstruating woman **transmits impurity through** lying on **a bed or** sitting on **a chair,** even if he never came into direct contact with the chair or the bed. He renders the bed or chair impure **with a mild** form of **impurity.** He confers upon them first-degree ritual impurity status, sufficient only to **render foods and liquids impure.** One impure with impurity imparted by a corpse transmits impurity by means of direct contact.


###### Yoma 6b:3
[Yoma 6b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/6b:3)

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: הַזָּב וְהַזָּבָה וְהַמְּצוֹרָע וְהַמְצוֹרַעַת וּבוֹעֵל נִדָּה וּטְמֵא מֵת טְבִילָתָן בַּיּוֹם, נִדָּה וְיוֹלֶדֶת טְבִילָתָן בַּלַּיְלָה! תְּיוּבְתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear** an additional proof **that Rabbi Ḥiyya taught:** For **the *zav* and the *zava* and the leper and the female leper, and one who had relations with a menstruating woman, and one who is ritually impure** with impurity imparted by **a corpse, their immersion is during the day.** For **a menstruating woman and a woman after childbirth, their immersion is at night.** The Gemara concludes that this *baraita* is indeed **a conclusive refutation** of the opinion of Rav Shimi from Neharde’a, who said that one who is impure because he had relations with a menstruating woman immerses at night.


###### Yoma 6b:4
[Yoma 6b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/6b:4)

וְעַד שֶׁאַתָּה מַפְרִישׁוֹ מִטּוּמְאַת בֵּיתוֹ, הַפְרִישֵׁהוּ מִטּוּמְאַת הַמֵּת! אָמַר רַב תַּחְלִיפָא אֲבוּהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא (בַּר תַּחְלִיפָא) מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת: טוּמְאַת הַמֵּת הוּתְּרָה הִיא בְּצִיבּוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the sequestering of the High Priest, the Gemara asks: **And before you remove him from the** potential of **impurity of his house, remove him from the** potential of the more severe **impurity** imparted by **a corpse.** The Sages should have instituted an ordinance prohibiting visitors to the High Priest lest one die while in his chamber and render him impure. **Rav Taḥlifa, father of Rav Huna bar Taḥlifa, said in the name of Rava: That is to say** that **impurity** imparted by a **corpse is permitted in** cases involving **the public.** In cases where the public is involved, impurity imparted by a corpse does not prevent the Temple service from being conducted. Since the service of the High Priest on Yom Kippur is a service involving communal offerings, impurity imparted by a corpse does not invalidate the service.


###### Yoma 6b:5
[Yoma 6b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/6b:5)

רָבִינָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא טוּמְאַת הַמֵּת דְּחוּיָה הִיא בְּצִבּוּר. טוּמְאַת הַמֵּת לָא שְׁכִיחָא, טוּמְאַת בֵּיתוֹ שְׁכִיחָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said: Even** if **you say that impurity** imparted by **a corpse is** merely **overridden in public** and not completely permitted, the idea that the High Priest is not removed from the potential of impurity imparted by a corpse can be understood. **Impurity** imparted by **a corpse is uncommon.** The likelihood that one visiting the High Priest will suddenly die is minimal. In contrast, **impurity of his house is common,** as uncertainty with regard to his wife’s status as a menstruating woman could arise at any moment.


###### Yoma 6b:6
[Yoma 6b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/6b:6)

אִיתְּמַר, טוּמְאַת הַמֵּת, רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: הוּתְּרָה הִיא בְּצִיבּוּר, וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: דְּחוּיָה הִיא בְּצִיבּוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
There is an amoraic dispute with regard to the effect of impurity imparted by a corpse on the conduct of the Temple service. **It was stated** with regard to **impurity** imparted by **a corpse** that **Rav Naḥman said: It is permitted in** cases involving **the public;** e.g., when a majority of the Jewish people is impure, the service of a ritually pure priest is not preferable to that of an impure priest. The Temple service proceeds as though there was no impurity at all. **And Rav Sheshet said:** Impurity imparted by a corpse is merely **overridden in** cases involving **the public,** and service performed by a ritually pure priest is preferable.


###### Yoma 6b:7
[Yoma 6b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/6b:7)

הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא טְמֵאִין וּטְהוֹרִין בְּהָהוּא בֵּית אָב — כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דִּטְהוֹרִין עָבְדִי, טְמֵאִין לָא עָבְדִי. כִּי פְּלִיגִי לְאַהְדּוֹרֵי וּלְאֵתוֹיֵי טְהוֹרִין מִבֵּית אָב אַחֲרִינָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara restricts the scope of the dispute. In a case **where there are** both **ritually impure and pure** priests in **that patrilineal family** tasked with serving in the Temple on that day, **everyone,** even Rav Naḥman, **agrees that the pure** priests **serve** and **the impure** priests **do not serve. When they disagree,** it is with regard to a case where the entire patrilineal family is impure. Is it necessary **to seek out and bring pure** priests **from a different patrilineal family** belonging to the same priestly watch, who are tasked with serving in the Temple on a different day that week?


###### Yoma 6b:8
[Yoma 6b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/6b:8)

רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: הֶיתֵּר הִיא בְּצִיבּוּר, וְלָא מַהְדְּרִינַן. וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: דְּחוּיָה הִיא בְּצִיבּוּר, וּמַהְדְּרִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman said:** The prohibition against performing the Temple service in a state of impurity imparted by a corpse **is permitted** in cases involving **the public, and we do not** need to **seek out** other priests. Since the Torah permitted the performance of the Temple service by priests impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, it is completely permitted and it is as though the service is performed in purity. **Rav Sheshet said:** The prohibition of impurity imparted by a corpse **is overridden** in cases involving **the public,** and wherever possible **we seek out** ritually pure priests.


###### Yoma 6b:9
[Yoma 6b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/6b:9)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אֲפִילּוּ הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא טְהוֹרִין וּטְמֵאִין בְּהָהוּא בֵּית אָב פְּלִיג רַב נַחְמָן, וְאָמַר: עָבְדִי נָמֵי טְמֵאִין,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Some say** that the dispute is slightly different: **Even** in a case **where there are** both **ritually pure and ritually impure** priests in **that patrilineal family, Rav Naḥman disagreed** with Rav Sheshet **and said** that the priests serve **even** when they are **impure,**