Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Yoma 6

1) LETTING THE KOHEN GADOL STAY WITH HIS WIFE

QUESTION: The Gemara asks why the Kohen Gadol must separate from his wife during his Perishah before Yom Kipur; she should be permitted to remain in isolation together with him.

How can the Gemara suggest that the Kohen Gadol remain together with his wife when he isolates himself in the Lishkas Parhedrin? The Lishkah is located in the Azarah (11a), and we have learned (Pesachim 67b) that a Ba'al Keri is not only prohibited from entering the Azarah, but is also prohibited from entering Har ha'Bayis. How, then, can the Kohen Gadol remain there with his wife?

ANSWERS:

(a) RASHI (DH mi'Beiso) proves that the Lishkas Parhedrin did not have the Kedushah of the Azarah. If it had the Kedushah of the Azarah, then the Kohen Gadol would be required to stand there for seven days without sitting down at all, because it is forbidden to sit in the Azarah. Therefore, a Ba'al Keri was also permitted to be there.

TOSFOS (DH mi'Beiso) rejects this answer, arguing that even if the Lishkah did not have the Kedushah of the Azarah because it opened out into Har ha'Bayis and not into the Azarah (and as a result is considered part of Har ha'Bayis and not part of the Azarah, and thus sitting there was permitted), it still had the Kedushah of *Har ha'Bayis* and a Ba'al Keri is not permitted into Har ha'Bayis!

Perhaps Rashi means to say that the Lishkah was built on the roof of another structure, and roofs do not have Kedushah at all, as the Gemara says in Pesachim (86a).

(b) TOSFOS and TOSFOS YESHANIM explain that the Gemara is asking why the Kohen Gadol must isolate himself in the Azarah in the first place; let him go to a place that does not have Kedushas Azarah, such as the underground chambers (Mechilos) beneath the Har ha'Bayis, for those chambers had no Kedushah (Pesachim 86a).

(c) TOSFOS YESHANIM adds that the Kohen Gadol does not have to be in seclusion for the entirety of the seven days; he is permitted to go out for short periods of time to take care of his needs, just like Aharon went out of the Machaneh Leviyah during his Perishah at the time of the Milu'im (his Perishah was in the Mishkan, and the Mishkan was dismantled every night and had no Kedushah when it was dismantled). The Gemara's question, then, is that even though he is isolated in the Azarah, he should be allowed to go out to meet his wife in the underground chambers during the short periods that he goes out of seclusion.

QUESTION: The Gemara says that the Kohen Gadol must separate from his wife during the seven days of Perishah, because if he were allowed to be with her, she might discover that she was a Nidah a short time after having relations. Consequently, at the time that they were together, she was a Safek Nidah.

Why does the Gemara not say simply that she might discover *immediately* afterwards that she was a Nidah, making her a *Vadai* Nidah at the time that they were together?

ANSWERS:

(a) TOSFOS (Nidah 15a) and TOSFOS YESHANIM here explain that we are not concerned that they will find her to be a Nidah immediately after relations, because that is very unusual. We are only afraid that she will find herself to be a Nidah shortly afterwards, in which case she was a Safek Nidah at time of the relations.

(b) TOSFOS RID says that the Gemara is teaching the importance of ensuring that the Kohen Gadol be Tahor on Yom Kipur -- the Rabanan made an enactment to prevent the Kohen Gadol from living not only with a Vadai Nidah, but even with a Safek Nidah.

6b

The Gemara points out that the Kohen Gadol is isolated only from his wife, to prevent him from becoming Tamei with Tum'as Keri. He is not isolated from all other people to prevent him from becoming Tamei with Tum'as Mes. The Gemara proves from here that "Tum'ah Hutrah b'Tzibur." Even if the Kohen Gadol would be Tamei, it does not matter and he may perform -- l'Chatchilah -- the Avodah for a Korban Tzibur while he is Tamei with Tum'as Mes.

What about the Korban Yachid that he brings? We know that besides the Korbanos that he brings on behalf of the Tzibur, he also brings a private Par (cow) and Ayil (ram) for himself! How can he bring a Korban Yachid while he is Tamei? The Gemara (7a) tells us that even according to the opinion that "Tum'ah Hutrah b'Tzibur," Tum'ah is not Hutrah regarding the Ayil of Aharon, since it is a Korban Yachid and is not completely similar to a Korban Tzibur (it is only similar in that it has a set time, a Zeman Kavu'a, but it is not similar in that it is not owned by the Tzibur).

ANSWERS:

(a) The RITVA explains that the Par of Aharon, although it is privately owned, is considered a Korban Tzibur (so that Tum'ah is Hutrah for it). It is considered a Korban Tzibur because the atonement of the Tzibur is dependent upon it (if it is not brought, it will be Me'akev the Kaparah of the Tzibur), for its blood must be sprinkled in the Kodesh Kodashim together with the blood of the Se'ir (goat). The Acharonim (see SI'ACH YITZCHAK) explain that this is also the intention of Rashi (DH Hutrah), when he says regarding the Par of Aharon that "the Korban [of Klal Yisrael] is dependent on it."

However, this explains only why the Par is considered a Korban Tzibur. Why, though, is Tum'ah Hutrah for the *Ayil*s that the Kohen Gadol brings for himself? The Ritva explains that even though "Tum'ah Hutrah b'Tzibur" does not apply to the Ayil, which is a private Korban, that means that every effort must be made to avoid bringing it b'Tum'ah. Here, though, the Gemara is not discussing actually bringing the Korban b'Tum'ah. Rather, the Gemara is discussing whether we must be so stringent as to require the Kohen Gadol to separate from all people for seven days to avoid becoming Tamei with Tum'as Mes; he is *not* Tamei with Tum'as Mes now. Regarding the extent of effort that must be made while making precautions against the Ayil being brought b'Tum'ah, we say that Tum'ah is Hutrah and such extreme measures do not have to be taken to prevent him from becoming Tamei with Tum'as Mes.

(b) Alternatively, the RITVA in the name of TOSFOS says that the fact that the Ayil of Aharon cannot be brought b'Tum'ah since it is not a Korban Tzibur is *not* a reason to require that the Kohen Gadol separate from all people for seven days. Since it is only a single Korban, and it is private, the Rabanan did not find it necessary to separate him just to bring his Ayil b'Taharah. (Indeed, if he becomes Tamei, he will not bring his Ayil.)

(c) TOSFOS YESHANIM (DH v'Tisbera) and the SHA'AGAS ARYEH (#38) answer that mid'Oraisa, anything that has a set time (Zeman Kavu'a) is *Hutrah* b'Tzibur, even if it is a Korban Yachid. When the Gemara later says that the Ayil of Aharon is brought b'Tum'ah because it is a private Korban, that is only mid'Rabanan, for the Rabanan decreed that Tum'ah be avoided since it is a private Korban. However, since mid'Oraisa it may be brought b'Tum'ah for it has a set time, the Rabanan did not require that the Kohen Gadol separate for seven days to avoid becoming Tamei with Tum'as Mes. (See also TOSFOS 8a, DH Iy Savar)