Yoma 77b — the Talmud in English

If you afflict

, you shall not afflict my daughters by withholding them

from marital relations.

And if you take

—you shall refrain

from

taking additional wives, who will be

rivals

to my daughters.

And it is proven that withholding marital relations is called affliction.

And the Gemara rejects this:

But say: both this and that

, both “if you afflict” and “if you take,” mean refraining

from

taking

rivals.

And thus Laban said: “If you afflict my daughters” by taking rivals for them?!

And we answer:

Is it written “

if you afflict

if you take

,” so that you could say that it is all one matter? But

“and if you take” is written

, and necessarily Scripture speaks of two matters; and it is proven that withholding marital relations is affliction.

Still, this may be refuted:

But say: both this and that concern rivals.

One—

for his rivals

, so that he should not make the status of Bilhah and Zilpah, the maidservants, equal to the status of Leah and Rachel, the mistresses.

And one for rivals

additional foreign ones,

who come to him from elsewhere!

And it would be preferable to interpret it thus, for in this way the entire verse is interpreted as concerning one matter, rivals, and “if you afflict” would be

analogous to “if you take”.

And we answer: One must first administer an oath concerning the more difficult matter and afterward concerning the easier matter. And if the entire verse concerned rivals, Laban should first have administered an oath to Jacob that he would not take additional rivals, whose taking is more difficult for his daughters than making the status of the maidservants equal to that of the mistresses; and only afterward should he have administered an oath to him that he would not make the maidservants equal to his daughters.

Is it written, “if you take

additional rivals

and if you afflict

by making the maidservants equal to my daughters”?!

For

“if you afflict and if you take” is written

, and necessarily the affliction is from marital relations.

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: But

we find that the act of

marital relations itself is called affliction.

As it is written

concerning the act of Shechem son of Hamor with Dinah [Genesis 34]:

“And he lay with her—

and he afflicted her.”

And from where do you know that the withholding of marital relations is the affliction mentioned in Laban’s words?

He said to him: The affliction

there,

there

, in the act involving Dinah, was not affliction through the act of marital relations itself. Rather, it speaks there of

afflicting

her

by withholding other intercourse

, for she desired him while she was with him, and he afflicted her by not having intercourse with her.

The Sages taught: It is forbidden to wash part of one’s body, just as one’s entire body.

And if he was soiled with mud or excrement—

he washes in his usual manner and need not be concerned

, because this is not washing for pleasure but for removing the dirt.

And likewise,

it is forbidden to anoint part of one’s body, just as one’s entire body.

And if he was ill or had sores on his head—

he anoints himself in his usual manner and need not be concerned.

The school of Menashe taught: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: She washes

—removes—

one hand in water

, in order to remove the evil spirit that rests upon the hand at night,

and she gives

with her other hand

bread to a child, and need not be concerned

because of the prohibition against washing.

They said concerning him, concerning Shammai the Elder, that he did not wish to feed

the child

with one hand, and they decreed that he feed with

the taking of

both hands.

What is the reason

that he must wash his hands?

Abaye said: Because of

the evil spirit called

“Shivta.”

The Sages taught: One who goes to greet his father or his teacher, or one greater than he—

if there is a need for the matter, he

may pass through water up to his neck and need not be concerned.

But they did not permit this to everyone who goes to greet just any person.

They raised a dilemma before them: A teacher

who goes

to a student—

what

? Is it permitted for him to pass through water on Yom Kippur in order to reach his student and teach him Torah?

Come and hear, for Rav Yitzḥak bar bar Ḥana said: I saw Ze’iri going

—he went—

to Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi, his student

on Yom Kippur, and he passed through water.

Rav Ashi said: That one

who went and passed through water—

it was Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi

who went

to Ze’iri, his teacher.

Rava permitted the inhabitants of Ever Yamina

[a place-name]

to pass through water

in order

to guard

the

produce.

Abaye said to Rava: There is

a

beraita that supports you:

For it was taught:

Those who guard produce may pass through water up to their necks, and need not be concerned.

Rav Yosef permitted

them, the inhabitants of “Bei Tarbu,”

to pass through water in order to come to the lecture

, to come to the lesson. But

to go

back to their homes—

he did not permit them.

Abaye said to him: If so

, since you do not permit them to return,

you will cause them to stumble in the future

, for they will no longer come.

Some say: He permitted them to come, and he permitted them to go.

Abaye said to him: Granted, as for coming—

good

, well and good

! But as for going—

what is the reason

you permitted it?

And he said to him:

So that you should not cause them to stumble in the future.

Rav Yehuda and Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehuda were standing

on Yom Kippur

on the bank

of

the Euphrates River, at the crossing

of

Ḥazdad

, which leads to Ḥazdad.

And there was standing

—and he was standing—

Rami bar Pappa on the other side

of the river.

He called out to them

, Rami bar Pappa raised his voice toward them:

What is the law regarding passing through

the river water in order

to come to you

—to come to you—

to ask a halakhic teaching

—to ask a teaching?

Rav Yehuda said to him: Rav and Shmuel both say:

It is permitted to be

passing

through the river in order to ask a matter of Torah.

Provided that he does not remove his hand from beneath the hem

—the edge—

of his cloak

. For if he removes his hand and raises the edge of his cloak and lifts it, it appears as though he is carrying his cloak on his shoulder and is not wearing it, and it is forbidden to carry a load on Yom Kippur in the public domain.

Some say: Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehuda said to him: We learned

in a beraita, in answer to your question [and there is no need for the words of the amoraim]:

He may pass through, provided that he does not remove his hand from beneath the hem of his cloak.

Rav Yosef objected to this: And on

a weekday, in a case such as this,

is it permitted

, where he passes through water up to his neck—

is it permitted!?

How is it permitted to endanger oneself in this way?

But it is written

in the description of Ezekiel’s prophecy concerning the water that will emerge from the Temple [chapter 47]:

“And he measured

the angel a distance of

one thousand cubits

from the place where the water emerged outside Jerusalem,

and he brought me through

there

in water

, and the water there was at the height of

ankle-deep water.”

That is, at the height of the ankles alone.

From here it follows that it is permitted to pass through

water

up to the ankles.

“And he measured

the angel another distance of

one thousand

cubits, and there the water had already risen,

and he brought me through the water

at the height of

knee-deep water”—

from here it follows that it is permitted to pass through up to the knees.

“And he measured

the angel another

one thousand

cubits,

and he brought me

through water at the height of

waist-deep water”—

from here it follows that it is permitted to pass through up to the waist.

From here onward, and he measured

the angel another

one thousand

cubits, and the water was already

a stream

at a height

that I could not cross.

And it follows that it is permitted to pass through water only up to waist height, and it is forbidden to endanger oneself by passing through higher water.

Abaye said: A stream is different

—the one emerging from the Holy of Holies—

for the waters flow swiftly

, and sweep things away; therefore it was forbidden to pass through it when its waters were higher than the waist. But in water that does not flow and sweep things away, it is permitted to pass through up to the neck.

Could he bring him through by swimming

—by floating?

The verse states

[Ezekiel 47]:

“For the waters rose, waters of swimming.”

What is

“waters of swimming”?

Swimming.

For this is what they call “swimming”—

and that is, they were high and sweeping, so that it was impossible to swim in them.

Could he bring him through

that stream which emerges and extends from the Holy of Holies

in a small boat

—in a vessel—

?

The verse states

[Isaiah 33]:

“You shall not go in it—I am a ship.”

Could he bring him through in a large boat?

The verse states

[Isaiah 33]:

“And a mighty ship shall not pass through it.”

What does it imply

from this verse, that it is impossible to cross that stream neither in a small boat nor in a large boat?

As Rav Yosef translated

this verse:

“You shall not sail in it in a hunters’ boat

small, and even

a great boat

, a large ship,

shall not pass through it

, shall not cross through it.

Rabbi Yehuda ben Pazi said: Even the Angel of Death has no authority to pass through it

—through this stream.

For

it is written here, “You shall not go in it—I am a ship,” and it is written there

concerning the Angel of Death, who returned

“from roaming the earth.”

And it follows that in this stream, in which it is impossible to swim, even the Angel of Death is not permitted to pass through it.

Rabbi Pinḥas said in the name of Rav Huna Tzipora’a: The spring emerging from the Holy of Holies

in Ezekiel’s prophecy,

at first

it is exceedingly thin, and

resembles the horns of locusts.

When it reached the entrance of the Sanctuary—

it became like

the thickness of

a warp thread.

When it reached the Hall—

it became like a weft thread

, which is thicker than a warp thread.

When it reached the entrance of the Courtyard—

it became like

the opening

of a small jug.

And this is what we learned: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: