Yoma 77
שָׁם מוֹשַׁב סֵמֶל הַקִּנְאָה הַמַּקְנֶה״, ״וַיָּבֵא אוֹתִי אֶל חֲצַר בֵּית ה׳ הַפְּנִימִית וְהִנֵּה פֶתַח הֵיכַל ה׳ בֵּין הָאוּלָם וּבֵין הַמִּזְבֵּחַ כְּעֶשְׂרִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה אִישׁ אֲחוֹרֵיהֶם אֶל הֵיכַל ה׳ וּפְנֵיהֶם קֵדְמָה וְהֵמָּה מִשְׁתַּחֲוִים קֵדְמָה לַשָּׁמֶשׁ״. מִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וּפְנֵיהֶם קֵדְמָה״, אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֲחוֹרֵיהֶם אֶל הֵיכַל ה׳? אֶלָּא, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֲחוֹרֵיהֶם אֶל הֵיכַל ה׳ — מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָיוּ פּוֹרְעִין עַצְמָן וְהָיוּ מַתְרִיזִין כְּלַפֵּי מַטָּה.
there was the seat of the image of jealousy, which provokes jealousy” (Ezekiel 8:3). “And he brought me into the inner court of the Lord’s House, and behold at the opening of the Entrance Hall of the Sanctuary of God, between the porch and the altar were about twenty-five men with their backs toward the Temple of the Lord, and their faces toward the east, and they worshipped the sun toward the east” (Ezekiel 8:16). The Gemara explains: From the fact that it is stated “and their faces toward the east,” is it not clear that their backs were to the Sanctuary, which is in the west? Rather, what is the meaning when the verse states “their backs toward the Temple of the Lord”? This teaches that they would uncover themselves and defecate downward, toward the Divine Presence. The verse used a euphemism to refrain from vulgar language.
אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמִיכָאֵל: מִיכָאֵל! סָרְחָה אוּמָּתֶךָ. אָמַר לְפָנָיו: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, דַּיִּי לַטּוֹבִים שֶׁבָּהֶם! אָמַר לוֹ: אֲנִי שׂוֹרֵף אוֹתָם וְלַטּוֹבִים שֶׁבָּהֶם, מִיָּד: ״וַיֹּאמֶר (לָאִישׁ) לְבוּשׁ הַבַּדִּים וַיֹּאמֶר בּוֹא אֶל בֵּינוֹת לַגַּלְגַּל אֶל תַּחַת לַכְּרוּב וּמַלֵּא חׇפְנֶיךָ גַחֲלֵי אֵשׁ מִבֵּינוֹת לַכְּרוּבִים וּזְרוֹק עַל הָעִיר וַיָּבֹא לְעֵינָי״. מִיָּד: ״וַיִּשְׁלַח הַכְּרוּב אֶת יָדוֹ מִבֵּינוֹת לַכְּרוּבִים אֶל הָאֵשׁ אֲשֶׁר בֵּינוֹת הַכְּרוּבִים וַיִּשָּׂא וַיִּתֵּן אֶל חׇפְנֵי לְבוּשׁ הַבַּדִּים וַיִּקַּח וַיֵּצֵא״.
The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Michael, the ministering angel of the Jewish people: Michael, your nation has sinned (see Daniel 10:21). He replied: Master of the Universe, may it be enough for the good people among them to save them from destruction. He said to him: I will burn them and the good among them because the good do not rebuke the wicked. Immediately, God spoke to Gabriel: “He spoke to the man clothed in linen and said: Go in between the wheelwork and beneath the cherub, and fill your hands with coals of fire from between the cherubs, and scatter them over the city; and he came before my eyes” (Ezekiel 10:2). Immediately: “And the cherub stretched out his hand from between the cherubs into the fire that was between the cherubs, and took and put it into the hands of him that was clothed in linen, who took it and went out” (Ezekiel 10:7).
אָמַר רַב חָנָא בַּר בִּיזְנָא אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן חֲסִידָא: אִילְמָלֵא לֹא נִצְטַנְּנוּ גֶּחָלִים מִיָּדוֹ שֶׁל כְּרוּב לְיָדוֹ שֶׁל גַּבְרִיאֵל — לֹא נִשְׁתַּיְּירוּ מִשּׂוֹנְאֵיהֶן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל שָׂרִיד וּפָלִיט.
Rav Ḥana bar Bizna said that Rabbi Shimon Ḥasida said: If it were not for the fact that the embers cooled as they were passed from the hand of the cherub to the hand of Gabriel, instead of Gabriel taking the embers directly himself as he had been told, not a remnant or a refugee of the enemies of the Jewish people, a euphemism for the Jewish people themselves, would have survived. The cooling of the embers limited the punishment.
וּכְתִיב: ״וְהִנֵּה הָאִישׁ לְבוּשׁ הַבַּדִּים אֲשֶׁר הַקֶּסֶת בְּמׇתְנָיו מֵשִׁיב דָּבָר לֵאמֹר עָשִׂיתִי כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתָנִי״. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה הוֹצִיאוּ לְגַבְרִיאֵל מֵאֲחוֹרֵי הַפַּרְגּוֹד, וּמַחְיוּהוּ שִׁיתִּין פּוּלְסֵי דְנוּרָא. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: אִי לָא עֲבַדְתְּ — לָא עֲבַדְתְּ, אִי עֲבַדְתְּ — אַמַּאי לָא עֲבַדְתְּ כִּדְפַקְּדוּךְ? וְעוֹד: דַּעֲבַדְתְּ, לֵית לָךְ אֵין מְשִׁיבִין עַל הַקַּלְקָלָה?
The Gemara continues. And it is written: “And behold, the man clothed in linen with the slate by his side, reported the matter saying: I have done as You have commanded me” (Ezekiel 9:11). Rabbi Yoḥanan said: At that moment, they cast out Gabriel from behind the curtain [pargod], where the inner angels reside, and they struck him with sixty blows [pulsei] of fire. They said to him: If you did not do it, you did not do it; if you did do it, why did you not do it according to what you were commanded but deviated from what you were instructed to do? Moreover, after you already did it, do you not have knowledge of the principle: One should not deliver a report about destruction? If one is sent on a mission of destruction, he should not deliver a detailed report of its success but should only hint at it.
אַיְיתוּהּ לְדוּבִּיאֵל שָׂרָא דְפָרְסָאֵי וְאוֹקְמוּהּ בַּחֲרִיקֵיהּ, וְשַׁמֵּשׁ עֶשְׂרִים וְאֶחָד יוֹם. הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״וְשַׂר מַלְכוּת פָּרַס עוֹמֵד לְנֶגְדִּי עֶשְׂרִים וְאֶחָד יוֹם וְהִנֵּה מִיכָאֵל אַחַד הַשָּׂרִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים בָּא לְעׇזְרֵנִי וַאֲנִי נוֹתַרְתִּי שָׁם אֵצֶל מַלְכֵי פָרָס״, יְהַבוּ לֵיהּ עֶשְׂרִין וְחַד מַלְכֵי וּפַרְווֹתָא דְּמַשְׁהִיג.
They then brought Dubiel, the ministering angel of the Persians and put him in the place of [baḥarikei] Gabriel and he served for twenty-one days. As it is written: “But the prince of the kingdom of Persia stood opposed to me for twenty-one days, but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me and I remained there beside the kings of Persia” (Daniel 10:13). Corresponding to those twenty-one days, they gave him, the ministering angel of Persia, twenty-one kings who ruled and the seaport of Mashhig.
אֲמַר: כְּתִיבוּ לִי לְיִשְׂרָאֵל בְּאַכְּרָגָא. כְּתַבוּ לֵיהּ. כְּתִיבוּ לִי רַבָּנַן בְּאַכְּרָגָא. כְּתַבוּ לֵיהּ. בְּעִידָּנָא דְּבָעוּ לְמִיחְתַּם, עָמַד גַּבְרִיאֵל מֵאֲחוֹרֵי הַפַּרְגּוֹד וְאָמַר: ״שָׁוְא לָכֶם מַשְׁכִּימֵי קוּם מְאַחֲרֵי שֶׁבֶת אוֹכְלֵי לֶחֶם הָעֲצָבִים כֵּן יִתֵּן לִידִידוֹ שֵׁנָא״, מַאי ״כֵּן יִתֵּן לִידִידוֹ שֵׁנָא״? אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: אֵלּוּ נְשׁוֹתֵיהֶן שֶׁל תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים שֶׁמְּנַדְּדוֹת שֵׁינָה בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה וְזוֹכוֹת לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, וְלֹא הִשְׁגִּיחוּ עָלָיו.
The ministering angel of the Persians said: Write for me that the Jews must pay taxes [akarga] to the Persians. They wrote it for him as he asked. He said: Write for me that the Sages must pay taxes. They wrote this for him. When they wanted to sign the documents, Gabriel stood from behind the curtain and said: “It is vain for you who rise early who sit up late to eat the bread of sorrow, for He gives His beloved sleep” (Psalms 127:2). What does “for He gives His beloved sleep” mean? Rav Yitzḥak said: These are the wives of Torah scholars who disturb their sleep in this world by staying up waiting for their husbands, who rise early and return late from learning Torah, and they thereby merit the World-to-Come. Gabriel asked: Is this the reward they deserve, to pay more taxes? They did not listen to Gabriel.
אָמַר לְפָנָיו: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם! אִם יִהְיוּ כׇּל חַכְמֵי אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם בְּכַף מֹאזְנַיִם, וְדָנִיֵּאל אִישׁ חֲמוּדוֹת בְּכַף שְׁנִיָּה, לֹא נִמְצָא מַכְרִיעַ אֶת כּוּלָּם?! אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: מִי הוּא זֶה שֶׁמְּלַמֵּד זְכוּת עַל בָּנַי? אָמְרוּ לְפָנָיו: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, גַּבְרִיאֵל. אָמַר לָהֶם: יָבֹא. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַאֲנִי בָאתִי בִּדְבָרֶיךָ״. אֲמַר לְהוּ: לֵיעוּל. אַעַיְילוּהוּ.
He said before Him: Master of the Universe, if all the wise men of other nations were placed on one side of the scale, and Daniel the beloved man were on the other side, would he not outweigh them? The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Who is the one who teaches the virtue of My children? They said to Him: Master of the Universe, it is Gabriel. He said to them: Let him come from behind the partition, as it is stated: “And I have come due to your words” (Daniel 10:12), meaning that Gabriel was permitted to enter from behind the partition because he mentioned Daniel’s name. God then said to the other angels: Let him ascend. They brought him up.
אֲתָא, אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ לְדוּבִּיאֵל דְּנָקֵט לֵיהּ לְאִיגַּרְתֵּיהּ בִּידֵיהּ, בְּעָא לְמִרְמַא מִינֵּיהּ, בַּלְעַהּ. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: מִיכְתָּב הֲוָה כְּתִיבָא, מִיחְתָּם לָא הֲוָה חֲתִימָא. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אַף מִיחְתָּם נָמֵי הֲוָה חֲתִימָא, כִּדְבַלְעַהּ, מְחֵיק לַהּ מִינֵּיהּ. הַיְינוּ דִּבְמַלְכוּתָא דְפָרַס, אִיכָּא דְּיָהֵיב כְּרָגָא וְאִיכָּא דְּלָא יָהֵיב כְּרָגָא: ״וַאֲנִי יוֹצֵא וְהִנֵּה שַׂר יָוָן בָּא״, עַוִּי עַוִּי וְלֵיכָּא דְּאַשְׁגַּח בֵּיהּ.
He came and found Dubiel the ministering angel of the Persians holding the letter in his hand. Gabriel wanted to take the letter from him, but Dubiel swallowed it. Some say the letter was written, but it was not signed. Some say it was also signed, but when he swallowed it, the signature was erased. The Gemara comments: This is why, in the kingdom of Persia, there are those who pay taxes and there are those who do not pay taxes, as the decree was not finalized. It also states there: “And when I depart from him, the prince of Greece comes” (Daniel 10:20). Gabriel screamed and screamed that the kings of Greece should not rule over the Jews, but no one listened to him.
וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: רְחִיצָה דְּאִיקְּרִי עִנּוּי מְנָא לַן — מֵהָכָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״וּלְאֶבְיָתָר הַכֹּהֵן אָמַר הַמֶּלֶךְ עֲנָתוֹת לֵךְ עַל שָׂדְךָ כִּי אִישׁ מָוֶת אָתָּה וּבַיּוֹם הַזֶּה לֹא אֲמִיתֶךָ כִּי נָשָׂאתָ [אֶת] אֲרוֹן ה׳ לִפְנֵי דָּוִד אָבִי וְכִי הִתְעַנִּיתָ בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר הִתְעַנָּה אָבִי״. וּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ בְּדָוִד: ״כִּי אָמְרוּ הָעָם רָעֵב וְעָיֵף וְצָמֵא בַּמִּדְבָּר״. רָעֵב מִלֶּחֶם, וְצָמֵא מִמַּיִם, עָיֵף מִמַּאי — לָאו מֵרְחִיצָה? וְדִילְמָא מִנְּעִילַת הַסַּנְדָּל?
§ The Gemara returns to the issue of whether refraining from bathing is considered affliction. If you wish, say instead: The fact that bathing is considered affliction, from where do we derive this? As it is written: “And to Ebiathar the priest the king said: Get to Anatoth to your fields, for you are deserving of death. But I will not put you to death today, because you carried the Ark of the Lord God before David my father, and because you have been afflicted in all that my father was afflicted” (I Kings 2:26). And it is written with regard to David: “For they said the people is hungry, and weary, and thirsty in the wilderness” (II Samuel 17:29). Hunger means from lack of bread to eat, and thirst means from lack of water to drink. The word weary means lack from what? Is it not from bathing? The comparison of the verses suggests that that too is affliction. The Gemara challenges: And perhaps “weary” means from lack of wearing shoes? Therefore, this does not teach us that refraining from bathing is considered an affliction.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק, מֵהָכָא: ״מַיִם קָרִים עַל נֶפֶשׁ עֲיֵפָה״. וְדִילְמָא מִשְּׁתִיָּה? מִי כְּתִיב ״בְּנֶפֶשׁ עֲיֵפָה״? ״עַל נֶפֶשׁ עֲיֵפָה״ כְּתִיב.
Rather, another source needs to be found. Rav Yitzḥak said: It can be derived from here: “As cold water on a weary soul, so is good news from a far country” (Proverbs 25:25). This implies that the word weary is used to describe someone who has not bathed. The Gemara asks: But perhaps the verse is referring to weariness from not drinking? The Gemara rejects this: Is it written: As cold water in a weary soul? That would mean that it entered one like a drink. Rather, “on a weary soul” is written, which implies bathing.
וּנְעִילַת הַסַּנְדָּל מְנָא לַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְדָוִד עוֹלֶה בְמַעֲלֵה הַזֵּיתִים עוֹלֶה וּבוֹכֶה וְרֹאשׁ לוֹ חָפוּי (וְהוֹלֵךְ) יָחֵף״, יָחֵף מִמַּאי — לָאו מִנְּעִילַת הַסַּנְדָּל? וְדִילְמָא מִסּוּסְיָא וּמַרְטְקָא.
§ The Gemara clarifies the next point in the mishna: The fact that not wearing shoes is considered an affliction, from where do we derive this? As it is written: “And David went up by the ascent of the Mount of Olives, and wept as he went up, and he had his head covered, and was walking barefoot” (II Samuel 15:30). Barefoot implies a lack of what? Is it not a lack of wearing shoes? All these deprivations are described as affliction. The Gemara rejects this: No, perhaps he was barefoot from a horse and whip. Even if he was wearing shoes, a king without a horse and whip was considered as if he were going barefoot.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק, מֵהָכָא: ״לֵךְ וּפִתַּחְתָּ הַשַּׂק מֵעַל מׇתְנֶיךָ וְנַעַלְךָ תַחֲלוֹץ מֵעַל רַגְלֶךָ״, וּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּעַשׂ כֵּן הָלוֹךְ עָרוֹם וְיָחֵף״. יָחֵף מִמַּאי — לָאו מִנְּעִילַת הַסַּנְדָּל? וְאֵימָא בְּמִנְעָלִים הַמְטוּלָּאִים? דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי, ״עָרוֹם״ — עָרוֹם מַמָּשׁ, אֶלָּא בִּבְגָדִים בְּלוּיִים, הָכָא נָמֵי בְּמִנְעָלִים הַמְטוּלָּאִים.
Rather, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: We learn it from here, as it states: “Go and loose the sackcloth from your loins, and remove your shoe from your foot” (Isaiah 20:2). And it is written: “And he did so, walking naked and barefoot” (Isaiah 20:2). Barefoot implies a lack of what? Is it not a lack of wearing shoes? The Gemara challenges: And say that perhaps the meaning of barefoot is that Isaiah walked with patched shoes. Because if you do not say this, but you claim that the verse is to be understood literally, does “naked” mean actually naked? Rather, the meaning is that Isaiah walked in ragged garments. Here too, the meaning is that he walked in patched shoes.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק, מֵהָכָא: ״מִנְעִי רַגְלֵךְ מִיָּחֵף וּגְרוֹנֵךְ מִצִּמְאָה״, מִנְעִי עַצְמְךָ מִן הַחֵטְא כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יָבֹא רַגְלְךָ לִידֵי יִחוּף, מִנְעִי לְשׁוֹנֵךְ מִדְּבָרִים בְּטֵלִים כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יָבֹא גְּרוֹנֵךְ לִידֵי צִמְאָה.
Rather, a different source must be found. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that we derive it from here: It states: “Withhold your foot from being barefoot, and your throat from thirst” (Jeremiah 2:25), meaning: Keep yourself from sin, so that your feet will not come to be barefoot; keep your tongue from idle talk, so that your throat will not come to be thirsty. Consequently, we learn that being barefoot is considered an affliction.
תַּשְׁמִישׁ הַמִּטָּה דְּאִיקְּרִי עִנּוּי מְנָא לַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״אִם תְּעַנֶּה אֶת בְּנוֹתַי וְאִם תִּקַּח נָשִׁים״.
§ The Gemara continues to clarify another of the afflictions of Yom Kippur: From where do we derive the halakha that refraining from conjugal relations is called affliction? As it is written, Laban said to Jacob: “If you shall afflict my daughters, and if you shall take other wives beside my daughters” (Genesis 31:50).
״אִם תְּעַנֶּה״ — מִתַּשְׁמִישׁ, ״וְאִם תִּקַּח״ — מִצָּרוֹת. וְאֵימָא אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי מִצָּרוֹת? מִי כְּתִיב ״אִם תִּקַּח״? ״וְאִם תִּקַּח״ כְּתִיב.
This can be explained as: “If you shall afflict my daughters” by refraining from conjugal relations, “and if you shall take other wives” causing them to suffer from additional rival wives. The Gemara objects: And say that this phrase and that phrase are both referring to taking rival wives. The Gemara rejects this: Is it written: If you take? “And if you shall take” is written. Therefore, the clauses must be referring to two different kinds of affliction.
וְאֵימָא אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי מִצָּרוֹת, חַד לְצָרוֹת דִּידֵיהּ, וְחַד לְצָרוֹת דְּאָתְיָין לֵיהּ מֵעָלְמָא, דּוּמְיָא דְּ״אִם תִּקַּח״! מִי כְּתִיב ״אִם תִּקַּח וְאִם תְּעַנֶּה״? ״אִם תְּעַנֶּה וְאִם תִּקַּח״ כְּתִיב.
The Gemara challenges further: And say that this phrase and that phrase are referring to taking rival wives. One phrase is referring to his wives’ current rivals. “If you shall afflict” means that Jacob should not elevate the position of the two maidservants, Bilhah and Zilpah, to the status of wife, which would make them co-wives with Laban’s daughters. And one phrase is referring to rivals who might come to him from the world at large, which would be similar in meaning to “if you shall take.” The Gemara rejects this: Is it written: If you take and if you afflict? It is logical to first state the more severe warning and then the less severe one. But according to this proposed reading that “take” refers to rivals from the world at large and “afflict” refers to elevating the status of maidservants, the text would have first mentioned the less painful affliction of elevating the maidservants and then followed it with a warning about taking new rival wives, as “if you shall afflict and if you shall take” is written.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: הָא תַּשְׁמִישׁ גּוּפֵהּ אִיקְּרִי עִנּוּי, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּשְׁכַּב אוֹתָהּ וַיְעַנֶּהָ״! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם שֶׁעִינָּהּ מִבִּיאוֹת אֲחֵרוֹת.
Rav Pappa said to Abaye: But conjugal relations themselves are called affliction, as it is written: “And Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her; and he took her, and he lay with her and afflicted her” (Genesis 34:2). If so, how can it be said that the affliction is in withholding conjugal relations? He said to him: There, Shechem afflicted her from different relations, meaning he slept with her in an unnatural way. That type of relations is clearly an affliction.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אָסוּר לִרְחוֹץ מִקְצָת גּוּפוֹ כְּכׇל גּוּפוֹ, וְאִם הָיָה מְלוּכְלָךְ בְּטִיט וּבְצוֹאָה — רוֹחֵץ כְּדַרְכּוֹ וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ. אָסוּר לָסוּךְ מִקְצָת גּוּפוֹ כְּכׇל גּוּפוֹ, וְאִם הָיָה חוֹלֶה, אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ חֲטָטִין בְּרֹאשׁוֹ — סָךְ כְּדַרְכּוֹ וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ.
§ The Gemara clarifies some of the prohibitions relating to Yom Kippur. The Sages taught: It is prohibited to bathe part of the body just as it is prohibited to bathe the whole body. But if one is dirty from mud or excrement, he may bathe in his usual manner, and he need not be concerned about transgressing, since his goal is not pleasure. Similarly, it is prohibited to smear oil on part of the body just as it is prohibited to smear oil on the whole body. But if one was sick and needed to smear oil on his body for medicinal purposes, or if one had scabs on his head that would hurt if he did not smear oil on himself, he may smear oil in his usual manner, and he need not be concerned about transgressing.
תְּנָא דְּבֵי מְנַשֶּׁה: רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: מְדִיחָה אִשָּׁה יָדָהּ אַחַת בְּמַיִם, וְנוֹתֶנֶת פַּת לַתִּינוֹק, וְאֵינָהּ חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת.
The school of Menashe taught that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A woman may rinse one hand in water, so that she does not touch food before she has washed her hands in the morning, and give bread to her child, and she need not be concerned about violating the prohibition of bathing on Yom Kippur.
אָמְרוּ עָלָיו עַל שַׁמַּאי הַזָּקֵן שֶׁלֹּא רָצָה לְהַאֲכִיל בְּיָדוֹ אַחַת, וְגָזְרוּ עָלָיו לְהַאֲכִיל בִּשְׁתֵּי יָדַיִם. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מִשּׁוּם שִׁיבְתָּא.
They said about Shammai the Elder that he did not want to feed his children with one hand, to avoid having to wash it. This prevented the children from eating during all of Yom Kippur. Due to concerns about the health and the suffering of his children, they decreed that he must feed them with two hands, forcing him to wash both hands. What is the reason that they also said in general that one must wash his hands before touching food? Abaye said: Due to an evil spirit named Shivta, who resides on hands that have not been washed in the morning.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַהוֹלֵךְ לְהַקְבִּיל פְּנֵי אָבִיו אוֹ פְּנֵי רַבּוֹ, אוֹ פְּנֵי מִי שֶׁגָּדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ — עוֹבֵר עַד צַוָּארוֹ בְּמַיִם וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ.
§ The Sages taught: One who goes to greet his father or his teacher, or to greet one who is greater than him in wisdom, and has to cross a river on the way, may cross the water until his neck is in the water, and he need not be concerned that he is violating the prohibition against bathing on Yom Kippur.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: הָרַב אֵצֶל תַּלְמִיד מַאי? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר בַּר חָנָה: אֲנָא חֲזֵיתֵיהּ לִזְעֵירִי דַּאֲזַל לְגַבֵּי רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי תַּלְמִידֵיהּ. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: הָהוּא רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי הוּא דַּאֲזַל לְגַבֵּיהּ דִּזְעֵירִי רַבֵּיהּ.
A dilemma was raised before them, i.e., the students discussing this question: What is the law concerning a teacher going to visit his student? May he enter the water in order to teach his student? The Gemara tries to bring a proof: Come and hear from what Rav Yitzḥak bar bar Ḥana said: I saw Ze’iri, who went through a river on his way to Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi, his student. Rav Ashi said: This was not the case. Rather, in that case, it was the student Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi who went to Ze’iri, his teacher. Therefore, this incident does not answer the question.
רָבָא שְׁרָא לִבְנֵי עֲבַר יַמִּינָא לְמֶעְבַּר בְּמַיָּא לְנַטּוֹרֵי פֵּירֵי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרָבָא, תַּנְיָא דִּמְסַיַּיע לָךְ: שׁוֹמְרֵי פֵּׂירוֹת עוֹבְרִין עַד צַוָּארָן בְּמַיִם וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין.
Rava permitted those who lived on the right side of the Euphrates to pass through the water to guard the fruit in their fields on Yom Kippur. Abaye said to Rava: A baraita was taught that supports your opinion. We learned: Guards of fruit may cross the river until their necks are in the water, and they need not be concerned that they are violating the prohibition against bathing on Yom Kippur.
רַב יוֹסֵף שְׁרָא לְהוּ לִבְנֵי בֵּי תַרְבּוּ לְמִיעְבַּר בְּמַיָּא לְמֵיתֵי לְפִירְקָא, לְמֵיזַל לָא שְׁרָא לְהוּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אִם כֵּן אַתָּה מַכְשִׁילָן לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: שְׁרָא לְהוּ לְמֵיתֵי וּשְׁרָא לְהוּ לְמֵיזַל, אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמֵיתֵי — לְחַיֵּי, אֶלָּא לְמֵיזַל מַאי טַעְמָא? כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא מַכְשִׁילָן לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא.
Rav Yosef permitted the people of the village of Bei Tarbu to cross in the water to come to the lecture he delivered on Yom Kippur. He did not, however, permit them to go back home through the water. Abaye said to him: If so, you are obstructing them from coming in the future. They will not come to the lecture knowing they will be prohibited from returning home. Some say the incident happened differently: Rav Yosef permitted them to come and permitted them to go back through the water. Abaye said to him: Granted, you allow them to come, that is well. But what is the reason you allow them to go back? He said to him: So as not to obstruct them from coming in the future.
רַב יְהוּדָה וְרַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יְהוּדָה הֲווֹ קָיְימִי אַגּוּדָּא דִּנְהַר (פָּפָּא) אַמַּבָּרָא דְחַצְדַּד, וַהֲוָה קָאֵי רָמֵי בַּר פָּפָּא מֵהָךְ גִּיסָא. רְמָא לְהוּ קָלָא: מַהוּ לְמִיעְבַּר לְמֵיתֵי לְגַבַּיְיכוּ לְמִשְׁאַל שְׁמַעְתָּא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יְהוּדָה: רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ — עוֹבֵר, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יוֹצִיא יָדוֹ מִתַּחַת חֵפֶת חֲלוּקוֹ. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יְהוּדָה, תְּנֵינָא: עוֹבֵר, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יוֹצִיא יָדוֹ מִתַּחַת חֵפֶת חֲלוּקוֹ.
It is told: Rav Yehuda and Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehuda were standing on the bank of the Pappa River next to the Ḥatzdad crossing, and Rami bar Pappa was standing on the other side of the river. He raised his voice to them and asked: What is the ruling with regard to crossing over to come to you to ask a halakha? Rav Yehuda said to him: It is Rav and Shmuel who both say: One may cross in the water, provided that he does not remove his hand from under the hem of his cloak. One may not raise the hems of his cloak to his shoulders to keep them dry, since this form of carrying renders one liable to bring a sin-offering. Rather, one should walk normally and get his clothes wet in the water. Some say this is not how the incident happened. Rather, Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehuda said to him: We learned in a baraita: One may cross over, provided that he does not remove his hand from the hem of his cloak.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: וּבְחוֹל כִּי הַאי גַּוְנָא מִי שְׁרֵי? וְהָכְתִיב: ״וַיָּמׇד אֶלֶף בָּאַמָּה וַיַּעֲבִירֵנִי בַמַּיִם מֵי אׇפְסָיִם״ — מִכָּאן שֶׁמּוּתָּר לַעֲבוֹר עַד אׇפְסַיִים.
Rav Yosef strongly objects to this: And on a weekday is it permitted to walk in such deep water that it presents a danger of drowning? But isn’t it written with regard to the river that, in the future, will issue forth from the Holy of Holies: “He measured a thousand cubits, and he led me through the water; the water was ankle deep” (Ezekiel 47:3); from here it is derived that one is permitted to pass through water that reaches up to the ankles.
״וַיָּמׇד אֶלֶף וַיַּעֲבִירֵנִי בַמַּיִם מַיִם בִּרְכָּיִם״ — מִכָּאן שֶׁמּוּתָּר לַעֲבוֹר עַד בִּרְכַּיִם. ״וַיָּמׇד אֶלֶף וַיַּעֲבִירֵנִי מֵי מׇתְנָיִם״ — מִכָּאן שֶׁמּוּתָּר לַעֲבוֹר עַד מׇתְנַיִם. מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ: ״וַיָּמׇד אֶלֶף נַחַל אֲשֶׁר לֹא אוּכַל לַעֲבוֹר״!
Rav Yosef continues explaining the verse: “Again he measured a thousand and he led me through the water, the water was knee deep” (Ezekiel 47:4); from here it is derived that one is permitted to pass through water that reaches up to the knees. “He measured a thousand and led me through the water up to the waist” (Ezekiel 47:4); from here it is derived that one is permitted to pass through water that reaches up to the waist. From this point forward: “And he measured a thousand, a river that I could not pass through” (Ezekiel 47:5). This implies that one is never permitted to pass through water that is more than waist high, because it is dangerous.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: שָׁאנֵי נַחַל דִּרְדִיפִי מַיָּא.
Abaye said: That is not a proof, because a river with fast flowing water is different. If it is higher than one’s waist, he could drown. However, one is permitted to cross still water even if it is deeper than that.
יָכוֹל יַעֲבִירֶנּוּ בְּסִיחוּי — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כִּי גָאוּ הַמַּיִם מֵי שָׂחוּ״. מַאי ״מֵי שָׂחוּ״ — שִׁיּוּטָא, שֶׁכֵּן קוֹרִין לְשַׁיָּיטָא סַיָּיחָא. יָכוֹל יַעֲבִירֶנּוּ בְּבוּרְנִי קְטַנָּה — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בַּל תֵּלֶךְ בּוֹ אֳנִי שַׁיִט״. יָכוֹל יַעֲבִירֶנּוּ בְּבוּרְנִי גְּדוֹלָה — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְצִי אַדִּיר לֹא יַעַבְרֶנּוּ״. מַאי מַשְׁמַע? כְּדִמְתַרְגֵּם רַב יוֹסֵף: לָא תֵּזִיל בֵּיהּ בִּסְפִינַת צַיָּידִין וּבוּרְנִי רַבְּתִי לֹא תְּגוּזִינֵּהּ.
§ Apropos the river that will flow in the future, the Gemara explains additional verses in Ezekiel. One might think that Ezekiel could cross the river by swimming. The verse states: “For the water had swollen into saḥu waters” (Ezekiel 47:5). What does “saḥu waters” mean? Water that can be traversed only with a boat [shiyuta], as sailing [shayta] is sometimes called swimming [sayḥa]. I might have thought Ezekiel could pass across in a small boat [burni]. Therefore, the verse states: “No galley with oars shall go” (Isaiah 33:21). I might have thought he could pass through in a large boat. Therefore, the verse states: “Neither shall a fishing boat [tzi adir] be able to cross it” (Isaiah 33:21). The Gemara asks: From where can it be inferred that the words tzi adir mean fishing boat? The Gemara explains: This is how Rav Yosef translated this verse: A fishing boat [sfinat tzayyadin] will not travel on it and a large ship will not cross it.
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן פַּזִּי: אַף מַלְאַךְ הַמָּוֶת אֵין לוֹ רְשׁוּת לַעֲבוֹר בְּתוֹכוֹ, כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״בַּל תֵּלֶךְ בּוֹ אֳנִי שַׁיִט״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״מִשּׁוּט בָּאָרֶץ״.
The Gemara continues its discussion of the river that will in the future come out of the Holy of Holies. Rabbi Yehuda ben Pazi said: Even the Angel of Death does not have permission to pass through it to the other side of this river, and proof of this is in the verse, as it is written here: “No galley with oars [ani shayt] can travel” and as it was written there: “Then Satan answered the Lord and said: From going to and fro [mishut] the earth and from walking up and down in it” (Job 1:7). Even Satan, who is also the Angel of Death, cannot cross through this river.
אָמַר רַבִּי פִּנְחָס מִשּׁוּם רַב הוּנָא צִפּוֹרָאָה: מַעְיָן הַיּוֹצֵא מִבֵּית קׇדְשֵׁי הַקֳּדָשִׁים, בַּתְּחִילָּה דּוֹמֶה לְקַרְנֵי חֲגָבִים, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְפֶתַח הֵיכָל — נַעֲשֶׂה כְּחוּט שֶׁל שֶׁתִי, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לָאוּלָם — נַעֲשֶׂה כְּחוּט שֶׁל עֵרֶב, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ אֶל פֶּתַח עֲזָרָה — נַעֲשֶׂה כְּפִי פַּךְ קָטָן, וְהַיְינוּ דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: מַיִם
The Gemara cites more midrashim about the river that will flow from the Holy of Holies. Rabbi Pineḥas said in the name of Rav Huna of Tzippori: The spring that comes forth from inside the Holy of Holies is at first very narrow and resembles grasshoppers’ antennae in width. Once it reaches the opening of the Sanctuary it becomes as thick as the thread of the warp; once it reaches the Entrance Hall of the Sanctuary, it becomes as thick as the thread of the woof, which is wider than the warp thread. Once it reaches the opening of the Temple courtyard it becomes like the mouth of a small jug. This is as we learned in a mishna: Rav Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: Water,
