מפת הסוגיא — יומא ע״זSugya map — Yoma 77

הגמרא חוזרת לשאלה אם רחיצה קרויה עינוי. ראיה מן הכתוב: דוד אמר לאביתר ״וכי התענית בכל אשר התענה אבי״, וכתוב בדוד ״רעב ועיף וצמא״ — רעב מלחם, צמא ממים, ועיף ממה? משמע מרחיצה. אך נדחה: שמא ״עיף״ היינו מחוסר נעילת הסנדל.

§ 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.

אלא ר׳ יצחק מביא ראיה אחרת: ״מים קרים על נפש עיפה״ — ה״עיף״ הוא מי שלא רחץ. ושמא הכוונה לעייפות משתייה? תשובה: לא נאמר ״בנפש עיפה״ (כמו שתייה הנכנסת לגוף) אלא ״על נפש עיפה״ — מבחוץ, היינו רחיצה.

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.

מניין שאיסור נעילת הסנדל קרוי עינוי? ״ודוד עולה במעלה הזיתים… יחף״ — היחף ממה? משמע מנעילת הסנדל. ונדחה: שמא ״יחף״ היינו שהלך בלא סוס ושוט, כדרך מלך אבל ולא מחוסר נעליים.

§ 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.

אלא רב נחמן בר יצחק: מישעיהו ״ונעלך תחלוץ… הלוך ערום ויחף״ — היחף מנעילת הסנדל. ונדחה: שמא ״יחף״ היינו מנעלים מטולאים, כשם ש״ערום״ אינו עירום ממש אלא בבגדים בלויים — אף כאן במנעלים מטולאים.

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.

אלא רב נחמן בר יצחק מביא: ״מנעי רגלך מיחף וגרונך מצמאה״ — מנע עצמך מן החטא כדי שלא יבוא רגלך לידי יחֵף, ומנע לשונך מדברים בטלים כדי שלא יבוא גרונך לידי צמאה. נמצא שהיחֵף נחשב עינוי.

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.

מניין שתשמיש המיטה קרוי עינוי, כך שמניעתו ביום הכיפורים היא עינוי? דכתיב (דברי לבן ליעקב): ״אם תענה את בנותי ואם תקח נשים על בנותי״.

§ 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).

הסבר הכתוב: ״אם תענה״ — עינוי מתשמיש המיטה; ״ואם תקח״ — עינוי מצרות (נשים נוספות). דחייה: ואמור ששתי הלשונות עוסקות בצרות? תשובה: לא נאמר ״אם תקח״ סתם אלא ״ואם תקח״ — וי״ו המפרידה, ומשמע שני סוגי עינוי.

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.

קושיא נוספת: ואמור ששתי הלשונות מצרות — אחת לצרות שיביא בעצמו, ואחת לצרות הבאות מן העולם? תשובה: סדר הכתוב מלמד אחרת — לא נאמר ״אם תקח ואם תענה״ (חמור ואחר כך קל), אלא ״אם תענה ואם תקח״; משמע ש״תענה״ הוא עינוי תשמיש, החמור, ואחריו הקל.

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.

רב פפא הקשה לאביי: והרי התשמיש עצמו קרוי עינוי, שכתוב בדינה ״וישכב אותה ויענה״ — ואם כן מניעתו אינה עינוי? השיב אביי: שם העינוי היה שעינה אותה בביאות שאינן כדרכן, ולא מן התשמיש הרגיל.

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.

תנו רבנן: אסור לרחוץ מקצת גופו כשם שאסור לרחוץ את כולו; אך אם היה מלוכלך בטיט ובצואה — רוחץ כדרכו ואינו חושש, שאין כוונתו לתענוג. וכן אסור לסוך מקצת גופו ככולו; ואם היה חולה או שהיו לו חטטים (פצעים) בראשו — סך כדרכו ואינו חושש.

§ 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.

תנא דבי מנשה בשם רשב״ג: מותר לאשה להדיח יד אחת במים (כדי שלא תיגע במאכל קודם נטילת ידים שחרית) ולתת פת לתינוק, ואינה חוששת לאיסור רחיצה ביום הכיפורים.

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.

אמרו על שמאי הזקן שלא רצה להאכיל את ילדיו ביד אחת (כדי שלא יצטרך להדיחה), ובכך מנע מהם אכילה; גזרו עליו להאכיל בשתי ידים. ומדוע צריך בכלל נטילת ידים? אמר אביי: משום רוח רעה ששמה ׳שיבתא׳ השורה על ידים שלא נוטלו בבוקר.

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.

תנו רבנן: ההולך להקביל פני אביו או פני רבו, או פני מי שגדול ממנו בחכמה, וצריך לעבור נהר בדרכו — עובר עד צווארו במים ואינו חושש לאיסור רחיצה ביום הכיפורים, שאין כוונתו לתענוג.

§ 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.

איבעיא להו: הרב ההולך אצל תלמיד — האם אף הוא עובר במים? תא שמע: רב יצחק בר בר חנה ראה את זעירי עובר נהר בדרכו אל רב חייא בר אשי תלמידו. דחה רב אשי: לא כך היה, אלא רב חייא בר אשי התלמיד הוא שהלך אל זעירי רבו — ואין מכאן ראיה.

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.

רבא התיר לבני עבר הנהר הימני (פרת) לעבור במים כדי לשמור את פירותיהם ביום הכיפורים. אמר לו אביי: ברייתא מסייעת לך — שומרי פירות עוברים עד צווארם במים ואינם חוששים.

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.

רב יוסף התיר לאנשי בי תרבו לעבור במים כדי לבוא לדרשתו (פרק) ביום הכיפורים, אך לחזור לא התיר. אמר לו אביי: אם כן אתה מכשילם לעתיד — לא יבואו. ואיכא דאמרי: התיר אף לחזור; ושאל אביי על הליכה־חזרה, והשיב: כדי שלא תהא מכשילן לעתיד לבוא.

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.

רב יהודה ורב שמואל בנו עמדו על שפת הנהר, ורמי בר פפא עמד בעבר השני ושאל: מהו לעבור במים כדי לבוא אליכם לשאול הלכה? אמר לו רב יהודה: רב ושמואל אמרו שניהם — עובר, ובלבד שלא יוציא ידו מתחת שולי חלוקו (שלא יגביה בגדיו, שזו טלטול). ואיכא דאמרי שרב שמואל בר רב יהודה השיב כן בשם ברייתא.

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.

מתקיף רב יוסף: וכי בחול מותר לעבור במים עמוקים כל כך (עד הצוואר), שיש בהם סכנת טביעה? והרי כתוב בנהר העתיד (יחזקאל) ״וימד אלף… מי אפסים״ — מכאן שמותר לעבור רק עד הקרסוליים.

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.

המשך דרשת רב יוסף מן הכתוב: ״מים ברכים״ — מותר עד הברכיים; ״מי מתנים״ — עד המותניים; ומכאן ואילך ״נחל אשר לא אוכל לעבור״ — משמע שאסור לעבור במים גבוהים יותר, מפני הסכנה. וקשה אם כן על ההיתר לעבור עד הצוואר.

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.

תירוץ אביי: אין מכאן קושיא — שונה נחל שמימיו רצים (זרם חזק), שבו יש סכנה אף במים נמוכים; אבל במים עומדים מותר לעבור אף עמוק יותר.

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.

אגב הנהר העתיד, הברייתא דורשת פסוקים: יכול יעבור בשחייה? תלמוד לומר ״כי גאו המים מי שחו״ — מים שאין עוברים בהם אלא בשיוט. יכול בספינה קטנה? ת״ל ״בל תלך בו אני שיט״. יכול בספינה גדולה? ת״ל ״וצי אדיר לא יעברנו״, כתרגום רב יוסף — לא ספינת ציידים ולא ספינה גדולה.

§ 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.

ר׳ יהודה בן פזי: אף מלאך המוות אין לו רשות לעבור בנהר זה. גזירה שווה: ״בל תלך בו אני שיט״, ונאמר במלאך (איוב) ״משוט בארץ״ — אף השטן, שהוא מלאך המוות, אינו עובר בו.

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.

ר׳ פנחס בשם רב הונא הציפורי: המעיין היוצא מקודש הקודשים — בתחילה דק כקרני חגבים; הגיע לפתח ההיכל — כחוט השתי; לאולם — כחוט הערב; לפתח העזרה — כפי פך קטן. וזהו ששנינו במשנה, ר׳ אליעזר בן יעקב אומר: ״מים…״.

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,

המשך המשנה: מים מפכים (נובעים) עתידים לצאת מתחת מפתן הבית; ומשם ואילך מתגבר ועולה עד פתח בית דוד, ושם נעשה כנחל שוטף שבו רוחצים זבים וזבות, נדות ויולדות, שנאמר ״ביום ההוא יהיה מקור נפתח לבית דוד… לחטאת ולנדה״.

in the future, will bubble from under the threshold of the Temple. From this point forward, the spring will grow in strength and rise until it reaches the opening of David’s house, i.e., his grave, which is outside of Jerusalem. When it reaches the opening of David’s house, it will become a flowing river in which zavim and zavot, menstruating women, and women after childbirth will bathe to purify themselves. As it is stated: “On that day there shall be a fountain opened for the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for purification and for sprinkling” (Zechariah 13:1).

אמר רב יוסף: מכאן רמז לנדה שצריכה לישב עד צווארה במים — שזהו שיעור עומק מי המקווה לטבילה. ומסקנת הגמרא: ולית הילכתא כוותיה — אין הלכה כמותו; אלא די במים המכסים את כל גופה.

Rav Yosef said: From here, there is an allusion that a menstruating woman must be able to sit up to her neck in water, i.e., that this is the appropriate depth for waters of a ritual bath to purify. The Gemara comments: But the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion. Rather, the depth of the water is irrelevant. As long as the water can cover an entire adult body, the ritual bath is kosher.