Yoma 78a (עח.) — the Talmud in English

Water

trickling

like the mouth of a small jug

is destined to emerge from beneath the threshold of the house.

And

from this point onward, it was

the flow of water

growing stronger and rising until it reaches the entrance of the House of David,

which was outside Jerusalem, in the place called Zion.

Once it reaches the entrance of the House of David—

the flow

became

like a rushing stream in which

those who immerse are

men and women with gonorrhea, menstruating women, and women who have given birth.

And as

it is stated

Zechariah 13]:

“On that day a spring shall be opened for the House of David and for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for

taking from them the water of

purification, and for

the immersion of a

menstruating woman.”

Rav Yosef said: From here,

from the fact that Scripture stated that the place suitable for a menstruating woman’s immersion is the place where the flow of water [which issues from the spring emerging from beneath the threshold of the Holy of Holies] is deepest, when it reaches the House of David, and not earlier, there is

an indication that a menstruating woman requires

immersion in water this deep, in which she can

sit

in it

until

even

her neck is in the water,

while she is sitting.

And the Gemara’s conclusion:

The halakha does not follow him

Rav Yosef; rather, whenever a ritual bath contains forty se’a and she immerses her entire body in it, her immersion is valid.

And the Gemara raises a dilemma:

Indeed, we find that it is permitted to pass through water on Yom Kippur, and there is no concern that his shoes might slip off in the water and he might come to carry them in his hand, since wearing shoes is prohibited on Yom Kippur.

But crossing through water on

Shabbat, when he has shoes

on his feet—

what

is the ruling? Is there concern that his shoe might slip off in the water and he might carry it in his hand, and therefore crossing through water should be prohibited, or is there no such concern?

Neḥemya, the son-in-law of the house of the Nasi, said: I saw

I saw

Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi when they reached

the

water channel,

a pool of water, and

crossed it

with their shoes

as ordinary wear.

The Gemara still raises a dilemma:

Granted, shoes,

there is no concern that they might fall off him, since they are fastened securely to the foot.

But

sandals,

which are not fastened tightly to the foot—

what is there to say?

Is there concern regarding them, so that one should not cross through water wearing them, lest they slip off him and he come to carry them?

Rav Reḥumi said: I saw Ravina cross

through water wearing a sandal

as ordinary wear.

Rav Ashi said: A sandal—

one should not, ab initio,

cross through water wearing it on Shabbat.

The Exilarch happened to come to Hagrunia, to the

house of study of

Rav Natan.

Rafram and all the Sages came to the lecture,

to hear the lecture delivered by the Exilarch on Shabbat, whereas

Ravina did not come,

he did not come to hear it.

The next day, Rafram wanted

to

bring out

and bring

Ravina

who had not come to the lecture,

because of his own initiative,

out of anger at

the Exilarch,

so that he would not resent him for failing to attend his lecture.

He said to him

Rafram said to Ravina in the presence of the Exilarch:

Why did the Master not come

on Shabbat

to the lecture?

He said to him

Ravina said to Rafram:

My foot was hurting.

My foot hurt.

Rafram said to him:

You should have put on shoes,

you should have put shoes on your painful feet and come.

Ravina answered him: The pain in my foot

was

in the upper part of the foot

and,

and I could not put on a shoe.

Rafram said to him:

You should have put on

and worn a

sandal,

which is broad and does not press against the top of the foot.

He said to him:

The water channel

was on the road,

a pool of water, and I could not cross it because I would have had to carry the sandal in my hand, and it is prohibited to do so on Shabbat.

Rafram said to him:

You should have crossed it

wearing the sandal on your foot,

as ordinary wear.

He said to him: Does the Master not accept that which Rav Ashi said: A sandal—one should not, ab initio,

cross through water wearing it!?

And with this, the Exilarch was appeased.

Yehuda bar Gerogrot taught: It is prohibited to sit on mud

mud

on Yom Kippur,

because the cooling moisture of the mud is something akin to bathing.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: And they said this only with regard to mud

that

makes one wet,

meaning that it releases water.

Abaye said: And

with regard to mud that is

“wet enough to make something else wet.”

That is, its moisture transfers to something else.

Rav Yehuda said: It is permitted to cool oneself by

touching or rubbing oneself with

fruit.

Rav Yehuda would cool himself with a gourd,

with the coolness of the gourd.

Rabba would cool himself with a child,

a baby, who touched him with his cool flesh [Meiri].

Rava would cool himself with a silver cup,

a silver cup, whose metal is cold.

Rav Pappa said: A silver cup,

if it is

full

of

water, it is

prohibited

to cool oneself with it, lest the water spill and he come to bathe.

If it is lacking,

meaning that it is not completely full of water,

it is permitted,

it is permitted to cool oneself with it.

But a cup

of earthenware,

made of clay,

in either case,

whether it is full of water or not—

it is prohibited

to cool oneself with it,

because it absorbs and releases,

as the earthenware absorbs water and releases it, and the moisture that emerges onto its sides may not be used for cooling because of the prohibition against bathing.

Rav Ashi said: Even a silver cup that is lacking—

is also prohibited, because it may slip,

lest it slip from his hand and the water inside spill onto him, with the result that he bathes in water.

Ze’ira bar Ḥama—

was the host

the host

of Rabbi Ami, Rabbi Asi, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, and all the Sages of Caesarea.

He said to him

Ze’ira bar Ḥama, the host of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi,

to Rav Yosef, son of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: Lion’s son!

The son of a lion!

Come, let me tell you

come, and I will tell you

a fine matter

fine things

that your father used to do

that your father did.

He had a cloth on the eve of Yom Kippur, and

he would

soak it in water

on the eve of Yom Kippur,

and

he would wring it out, and

would make it

its degree of moisture

like dry garments [

clothing]

.

And the next day,

on Yom Kippur, he would

wipe his face, hands, and feet with it,

since the small amount of moisture in it did not constitute the prohibition against bathing.

But

on the eve of Tisha BeAv

he would not wring it out on the eve of Tisha BeAv, since he could wring it out on Tisha BeAv itself; rather, he would

soak it in water, and the next day

after it had almost completely dried,

pass it over his eyes.

And similarly, when Rabba bar Mari came

from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia,

he said

the same:

On the eve of Tisha BeAv

they would

bring him

to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi

a cloth.

And he would soak it in water, place it beneath his head, and the next day wipe his face, hands, and feet with it.

On the eve of Yom Kippur they would bring him a cloth and he would soak it in water, and make it like dry garments, and the next day pass it over his eyes.

Rabbi Ya’akov said to Rabbi Yirmeya bar Taḥlifa:

Behold,

you told us the opposite,

that on Tisha BeAv he wrung it out while it was still day, whereas on Yom Kippur he did not wring it out while it was still day.

And we refuted you

and challenged you: Behold, on Yom Kippur there is a prohibition against

wringing,

and if so, he should wring it out while it is still day.

The Gemara now brings a question that was posed before Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat concerning receiving permission to issue rulings regarding blemishes in firstborn animals, and it brings this question because another question concerning the laws of Yom Kippur was also posed before him: whether it is permitted to go out wearing a sandal made of rush.

Rav Menashya bar Taḥlifa said that Rav Amram said that Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: They asked Rabbi Elazar:

Someone who is

an elder,

an ordained judge,

and sits in the academy

of the Sanhedrin—does he

need to receive permission

from the Nasi in order

to permit firstborn animals

on the basis of a blemish that developed in them,

or does he not need

to receive permission?

And the Gemara explains:

What is their dilemma?

This is their dilemma:

Is issuing rulings concerning blemishes in a firstborn animal

like

as in

that which Rav Idi bar Avin said: “This matter,

the requirement to receive permission to issue rulings concerning blemishes in a firstborn animal,

was left to the house of the Nasi in order to enhance themselves

to elevate themselves

through it,

and therefore even an elder who sits on the Sanhedrin

needs to receive permission.

Or perhaps, since he is an elder and sits in the academy—

he does not need

to receive permission.

Since permission is required only to prevent people who are not experts in the matter from issuing rulings, whereas an elder who sits on the Sanhedrin is an expert in the matter.

Rabbi Tzadok ben Ḥaluka rose to his feet and said: I saw Rabbi Yosei ben Zimra, who was an elder and sat in the academy, and he stood

in the Sanhedrin

above the elder

grandfather

of

the Nasi

himself

of that generation,

and

nevertheless came and

received permission

from the Nasi

to permit firstborn animals.

Rabbi Abba said to him: That is not how the incident occurred,

that he received permission from the Nasi.

Rather, this is how the incident occurred:

Rabbi Yosei ben Zimra was a priest,

and he received firstborn animals, and caring for them was burdensome for him; once a blemish developed in them, there was no longer any need to guard them, and they could be eaten. And the priests were suspected of inflicting blemishes on firstborn animals.

And this was his dilemma:

whether

the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Meir, who said: “One who is suspected regarding a matter—

they may neither judge him nor accept his testimony.”

Even when the matter does not belong to him and does not concern him. Accordingly, a priest who is suspected regarding the matter cannot issue rulings concerning blemishes in a firstborn animal.

Or perhaps the halakha is in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who said that he is trustworthy

a priest is trustworthy to issue rulings

concerning

the blemishes of a firstborn animal belonging to

another person, but he is not trustworthy concerning his own.

And he resolved it: The halakha is in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.