Yoma 77b (עז:) — the Talmud in English

If you oppress your daughters by withholding

the conjugal relationship

from them.

And if you take

you will refrain

from

taking additional wives, who would be

co-wives

to my daughters.

This proves that abstention from conjugal relations is called oppression.

The Gemara rejects this:

But say that both

“if you oppress” and “if you take” mean refraining

from

taking

co-wives.

And this is what Laban said: If you oppress my daughters by taking co-wives for them!?

And we answer:

Is it written, “

if you oppress

if you take,”

so that you can say that it is all one matter? It is, however,

written: “And if you take,”

and necessarily the verse is speaking of two matters; this proves that withholding conjugal relations is oppression.

The objection nevertheless remains:

But say: Both refer to co-wives.

One

refers to his co-wives,

so that he should not equate the status of Bilhah and Zilpah, the maidservants, with that of Leah and Rachel, the wives.

And one refers to co-wives

additional foreign ones

who come to him from elsewhere!

And this interpretation should be preferred, because it explains the entire verse as referring to one matter, co-wives, and “if you oppress” would be

analogous to “if you take.”

And we answer: One must first administer an oath concerning the more severe matter and afterward concerning the less severe matter. If the entire verse were speaking of co-wives, Laban should have first administered an oath to Jacob not to take additional co-wives, for taking them would be more painful to his daughters than equating the maidservants with the wives; only afterward should he have administered an oath that he not equate the maidservants with his daughters.

Is it written, “if you take

additional co-wives

and if you oppress

by equating the maidservants with my daughters”!?

It is

written: “if you oppress and if you take,”

and necessarily the oppression refers to conjugal relations.

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: Here

we find that the act of

conjugal relations itself is called oppression,

as it is written

in the account of Shechem son of Hamor and Dinah [Genesis 34]:

“And he lay with her—

and oppressed her.”

But from where do you know that abstention from conjugal relations is the oppression mentioned in Laban’s words?

He said to him: The oppression

there,

in the case of

Dinah, was not oppression through the act of conjugal relations itself. Rather, it says there that he

oppressed

her

by withholding other relations,

for she desired him while she was with him, and he oppressed her by not having relations with her.

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

But if he was soiled with mud or excrement, he

may wash as usual and need not be concerned,

because this is not washing for pleasure but for removing the filth.

And likewise,

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

But if he was ill or had sores on his head, he

may anoint himself as usual and need not be concerned.

The tanna of 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 places

with that one hand

bread for a baby, and need not be concerned,

because of the prohibition against washing.

They said about Shammai the Elder that he did not wish to feed

the baby

with one hand, and they decreed that he feed him with

the washing 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 it, 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 anyone.

They raised a dilemma: A teacher

who goes

to a student—

what

is the ruling? Is he permitted to pass through water on Yom Kippur in order to reach his student and teach him Torah?

Come and hear, as Rav Yitzḥak bar bar Ḥana said: I saw Ze'iri go

who 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 the water

was Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi,

who

went to Ze'iri, his teacher.

Rava permitted the residents of Ever Yamina

[a place name]

to cross through water

in order

to guard

the

produce.

Abaye said to Rava:

There is

a beraita that supports you:

As it was taught:

Guardians of produce may pass through water up to their necks, and need not be concerned.

Rav Yosef permitted

them, the inhabitants of “Bei Tarbu,”

the residents of “Bei Tarbu” to cross through water in order to come to the lecture.

To come to the lesson. But

to go

back home—

he did not permit them.

Abaye said to him: If so,

since you do not permit them to return,

you will cause them to fail in the future,

as they will no longer come.

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

Abaye said to him: Granted, with regard to coming—

excellent,

very good

! But with regard to returning—

what is the reason

for permitting it?

And he said to him:

So that you will not cause them to fail in the future.

Rav Yehuda and Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehuda were standing

on Yom Kippur

at the bank

on the bank

of the Euphrates River, at the crossing

at the place of the crossing

leading to Ḥaẓdad

which leads to Ḥaẓdad.

And standing

was

Rami bar Pappa on the other side,

on the opposite side of the river.

He raised his voice to them,

Rami bar Pappa raised his voice toward them:

What is the ruling concerning crossing

through the river’s waters in order

to come to you

to come to you

to ask about a halakhic teaching

to ask about a teaching?

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

There is permission to be

crossing

the river in order to ask about a matter of Torah,

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

the edge

of his tunic.

For if he removes his hand and lifts the edge of his tunic, raising it, it appears as though he is carrying his tunic on his shoulder rather than wearing it, and it is prohibited to carry a burden on Yom Kippur in the public domain.

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

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

He may cross, provided that he does not remove his hand from beneath the hem of his tunic.

Rav Yosef raised an objection to this: And on

a weekday,

in a case such as this,

when he passes through water up to his neck—

is it permitted!?

How can one be permitted to endanger himself in this way?

But it is written, in the description of Ezekiel’s prophecy concerning the waters destined to emerge from the Temple [chapter 47]:

“And he measured

“And he measured

the angel a distance of

a thousand cubits

from the place where the waters emerged outside Jerusalem,

and he brought me across

there

through the water,

and the waters there were at the height of

ankles.”

That is, only ankle-deep.

From here it follows that one may cross

through water

up to the ankles.

“And he measured

the angel another distance of

a thousand

cubits, and there the waters had already risen,

and he brought me across through the water

at the height of

knee-deep waters”—

from here it follows that one may cross up to the knees.

“And he measured

the angel another

thousand

cubits,

and he brought me across

through water at the height of

the loins”—

from here it follows that one may cross up to the loins.

From this point onward, “and he measured”

the angel another

thousand

cubits, and the waters had already become

a stream

at a height

that I could not cross.

This indicates that one may cross through water only up to the height of the waist, and it is prohibited to endanger oneself by crossing through deeper water.

Abaye said: A stream is different,

the one emerging from the Holy of Holies,

because its waters flow swiftly,

and sweep things away; therefore, it was prohibited to cross it when its waters were higher than the waist. But in water that does not flow and sweep things away, one may cross up to the neck.

Could one cross it by swimming

by floating?

The verse states [Ezekiel 47]:

What is the meaning of “water in which one could swim”?

“For the waters rose high, waters for swimming.”

What is meant by “waters for swimming”?

Swimming.

For that which is called “swimming”

is called floating.

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

Could one cross it,

that stream which emerges and extends from the Holy of Holies,

in a small boat

in a boat

small?

The verse states [Isaiah 33]:

From where

“You shall not go there in a boat.”

Could one cross it in a large boat?

The verse states [Isaiah 33]:

“You shall not sail in it in a small fishing boat; even

“And no mighty ship shall pass through it.”

How is it implied

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

As Rav Yosef translates

this verse:

“You shall not sail in it in a fisherman’s boat

small, and even

a large boat

a large vessel

shall not pass through it,

shall not cross it.”

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

within this stream.

For

it is written here, “You shall not go there in a boat,” and it is written there,

concerning the Angel of Death, who returned

“from roaming the earth.”

This indicates that in this stream, in which it is impossible to sail, even the Angel of Death is not permitted to pass through.

Rabbi Pinḥas said in the name of Rav Huna the Tzipporite: The spring that emerges from the Holy of Holies

in Ezekiel’s prophecy,

at first

is extremely thin, and

resembles the horns of locusts.

Once it reaches the entrance of the Sanctuary, it

becomes as thick as

the thickness of

a warp thread.

Once it reaches the Entrance Hall, it

becomes like a weft thread,

which is thicker than a warp thread.

Once it reaches the entrance of the courtyard, it

becomes like

the

mouth of a small jug.

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