Yoma 78a — the Talmud in English

Water ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

trickled

like the mouth of a small flask,

and was destined to emerge from beneath the threshold of the House.

And

from that point onward, it would

the flow of water

grow stronger and rise, until it reached the entrance of the House of David,

which was outside Jerusalem, in the place called Zion.

Once it reached the entrance of the House of David—

the flow

would become

like a rushing stream, in which they would bathe,

immerse

men and women with fluxes, menstruants, and women after childbirth.

And as

it is stated [

Zechariah 13]:

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

taking from them the water of

the purification offering, and for

the immersion of

a menstruant.”

Rav Yosef said: From here,

from the fact that Scripture stated that the place fit for the immersion of a menstruant is the place where the flow of water [which issues from the threshold of the Holy of Holies] becomes deepest, when it reaches the House of David, and not before it, there is

an indication that a menstruant requires

immersion in such deep water, in which she can

sit

in them

until

even

her neck is in the water,

when she is sitting.

And the conclusion of the Gemara:

But the halakha is not in accordance with him

of Rav Yosef; rather, whenever there are forty seah in a ritual bath and she immerses her entire body in them, her immersion is valid.

And the Gemara raises a doubt:

Indeed, we find that it is permitted to cross through water on Yom Kippur, and there is no concern that perhaps his shoes will slip from him in the water and he will come to carry them in his hand, since wearing footwear is forbidden on Yom Kippur.

But to cross through water on

Shabbat, when he has footwear

on his foot—

what

is the ruling? Is there concern that perhaps the footwear will slip off in the water and he will carry it in his hand, and because of this it should be forbidden to cross through water, or is there no concern for this?

Nahumiah, the son-in-law of the House of the Nasi, said: I saw

I saw

Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi, when they reached

who arrived at

a pool of water,

a pool of water,

and they crossed it

in their footwear

in the ordinary manner of wearing it.

And the Gemara still raises a doubt:

That is fine with regard to footwear,

for there is no concern that perhaps it will fall from him, since it is fastened firmly to the foot.

But

a sandal,

which is not fastened firmly to the foot—

what can be said,

is there concern regarding it, so that he should not cross through water wearing it, lest it slip from him and he come to carry it?

Rav Rehumai said: I saw Ravina cross

through water in a sandal

in the ordinary manner of wearing it.

Rav Ashi said: A sandal—

initially, he should not

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 of the Exilarch, which was delivered on Shabbat, whereas

Ravina did not come,

he did not come to hear it.

On the following day, Rafram wanted

to go

to bring out

to bring

Ravina,

who had not come to the lecture,

on his own initiative,

out of his anger

at the Exilarch,

so that he would not hate him for failing to appear at his lecture.

He said to him

Rafram said to Ravina in the presence of the Exilarch:

“For what reason did the Master not come

on Shabbat

to the lecture?”

He said to him

Ravina said to Rafram:

“My foot was hurting me.”

My foot was hurting me.

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 in

the upper part of the foot

in the upper part of the foot

was,

and I could not put on a shoe.

Rafram said to him:

“You should have put on

put on

a sandal,

which is wide and does not press upon the upper part of the foot.

He said to him: “There was a pool of water

a pool of water

on the road,

and I could not cross it because I would have had to carry the sandal in my hand, and it is forbidden to do so on Shabbat.”

Rafram said to him:

“You should have crossed it

with the sandal fastened on your foot,

in the ordinary manner of wearing it.”

He said to him: “Does the Master not accept this which Rav Ashi said: ‘A sandal, initially, he should not

cross through water wearing it’”?

And with this, the Exilarch was appeased.

Judah bar Gerogrot taught: It is forbidden to sit upon mud

mud

on Yom Kippur,

for the moisture of the mud, which cools, is something close to bathing.

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: And with regard to mud

which is

moistening,

they said that it releases water.

Abaye said: And with regard to

mud which is

“moist enough to moisten something else”.

For the moisture passes onward.

Rav Judah said: It is permitted to cool oneself by

touching or rubbing against

fruits.

Rav Judah cooled himself with a pumpkin,

with the coolness of the pumpkin.

Rabbah cooled himself with a child,

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

Rava cooled 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 forbidden

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

And if it is

partly empty,

which is not completely full of water,

it is permitted,

it is permitted to cool oneself with it.

But a cup

of earthenware,

of earthenware,

in either case,

whether it is full of water or not—

it is forbidden

to cool oneself with it,

because it absorbs and releases,

for the earthenware absorbs water and releases it, and it is forbidden to cool oneself with the moisture released onto its sides, because of bathing.

Rav Ashi said: A partly empty silver cup—

is also forbidden, because it may slip,

lest it slip from his hand and the water inside it spill upon him, and he will thereby bathe in water.

Zeira bar Hama—

was the host

the host

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

He said to him

Zeira bar Hama, the host of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi,

to Rav Yosef, son of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: “Son of a lion!”

son of a lion!

“Come, I will tell you

come and I will tell you

an excellent matter

good 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

make it

its degree of moisture

like dry vessels

[garments]

that are dry.

And on the following day

on Yom Kippur he would

wipe his face, hands, and feet with it,

because the small amount of moisture in it did not constitute a prohibition of bathing.

But

on the eve of the Ninth of Av

he would not wring it out on the eve of the Ninth of Av, since he could wring it out on the Ninth of Av itself, but only

soak it in water, and on the following day

after it had almost completely dried,

pass it over his eyes.

And likewise, when Rabbah bar Mari came

from the Land of Israel to Babylonia,

he said

so:

“On the eve of the Ninth of Av

they would

bring him

to Rabbi Joshua ben Levi

a cloth.

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

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

Rabbi Jacob said to Rabbi Jeremiah bar Taḥlifa:

Behold,

you told us the opposite,

that on the Ninth of Av he would wring it out during the day before, whereas on Yom Kippur he would not wring it out during the day before.

And we raised an objection to you

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

wringing,

and if so, he should wring it out during the day before.

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

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

One who is

an elder,

an appointed judge,

and sits in the session

of the Sanhedrin—does he

need to receive permission

from the Nasi in order

to declare firstborn animals permitted

on the basis of a blemish that occurred in them,

or does he not need

to receive permission?

And the Gemara explains:

“What is it that they are asking?”

This is what they are asking: Is issuing rulings concerning blemishes in a firstborn animal

Is issuing rulings concerning blemishes in a firstborn animal

like

like

that which Rav Idi bar Avin said: “This matter

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

they left it to the House of the Nasi in order to magnify themselves

to become exalted

through it

and therefore even an elder who sits in the Sanhedrin

needs to receive permission.

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

he does not need

to receive permission.

Since the receipt of permission is only in order to prevent rulings by people who are not experts in the matter, whereas an elder who sits in the Sanhedrin is an expert in the matter.

Rabbi Zadok ben Ḥaluka stood on his feet and said: “I saw Rabbi Yosei ben Zimra, who was an elder and sat in the session, and he stood

in the Sanhedrin

above the elder

his grandfather

of

the Nasi of

this

generation,

and

nevertheless he came and

received permission

from the Nasi

to declare firstborn animals permitted.”

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 kohen

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

And this is what he was asking:

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 is not his and does not concern him. And according to this, the kohen, 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

the kohen to issue rulings

concerning

the blemishes of a firstborn animal belonging to

his fellow, but he is not trustworthy concerning his own.

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