Talmud - Beitza 18b ביצה י״ח ב׳

on a hot day and washes himself even in putrid water in which flax was soaked, because the heat has made him so uncomfortable.

The Gemara raises another objection: This works out well in the summer season; however, in the rainy season, when people do not usually immerse themselves in water in order to cool off, what is there to say? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Sometimes a person comes home from the field soiled with mud and excrement and washes himself even in the rainy season.

The Gemara continues with another objection: This works out well and explains why it is permitted for one to immerse himself on Shabbat, when it is permitted to wash, and therefore it can be argued that it is not clearly evident that he is immersing in order to purify himself; but on Yom Kippur, when all bathing apart from ritual immersion is prohibited, what is there to say? His actions prove that his intention is to purify himself, and this should be prohibited because it looks as though he is repairing himself through purification.

Rava said: It is impossible to prohibit immersion on Yom Kippur alone, as is there anything that is permitted on Shabbat and the very same act is prohibited as labor on Yom Kippur? In fact, the prohibition against labor is more stringent on Shabbat than on Yom Kippur. Rather, since it is permitted on Shabbat, it is also permitted on Yom Kippur. The Sages did not issue decrees with regard to Yom Kippur that would make it more stringent than Shabbat. Therefore, since they allowed a person to immerse on Shabbat because it looks as if he is doing so for pleasure, to escape the heat or to remove dirt, and not necessarily in order to purify himself, they permitted it on Yom Kippur as well, even though it is evident in that situation that his immersion is for the purpose of achieving purity.

The Gemara asks: Does Rava accept the principle of: Since? But didn’t we learn in a mishna: One who is concerned about pain in his teeth may not sip vinegar through them on Shabbat in order to alleviate his toothache; however, he may dip his food in vinegar in his usual manner during the meal and eat it, and if he is healed by the vinegar, he is healed. And we raised a contradiction to this mishna from the following baraita: One may not sip vinegar and immediately spit it out, as this is clearly done for medicinal purposes; however, one may sip the vinegar and swallow it, since it looks as though he is drinking it. This indicates that there is a permitted way to use vinegar even without dipping his food into it.

And Abaye said: Also when we learned this ruling in the mishna, we learned it with regard to the case of one who sips and spits it out. Rava said: Even if you say that the mishna prohibits sipping vinegar even in a case where one sips and swallows it, it is still not difficult: Here, the baraita permits sipping vinegar before dipping one’s food in it, as he appears to be doing so for pleasure. There, the mishna prohibits sipping the vinegar after dipping his food in it, when it is clear that one is doing so for medicinal purposes only.

The Gemara completes its question: And if it is so that Rava accepts the principle of: Since, let him say: Since it is permitted to sip vinegar before dipping, it is also permitted to do so after dipping. The Gemara answers: Rava retracted that statement with regard to vinegar and accepted Abaye’s resolution of the difficulty, along with the principle of: Since.

The Gemara asks: And from where can it be determined that he retracted that teaching? Perhaps he retracted this statement with regard to immersion in a ritual bath on Yom Kippur. The Gemara answers: This cannot enter your mind that he retracted his view in that case, as it is taught in a baraita: All who are obligated in immersions immerse in their usual manner, both on the Ninth of Av and on Yom Kippur, even though it is prohibited to wash on these days. Rava would certainly have aligned his opinion with the explicit ruling of a baraita.

§ It was taught in the mishna: And Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel both agree that one may bring ritually impure water into contact with ritually pure water in stone vessels in order to purify the water. However, one may not immerse the impure water. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the mishna’s statement: However, one may not immerse the impure water? Shmuel said: One may not immerse an impure vessel on account of its water in order to purify it on a Festival. The Sages allowed impure water to be purified through contact with ritually pure water only in a stone vessel or in another vessel that does not contract impurity, but not in an impure vessel that would itself become purified through this immersion.

The Gemara asks: If that is its meaning, in accordance with whose opinion is the mishna? It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi nor with that of the Rabbis. As it is taught in the Tosefta: One may not immerse an impure vessel on account of its water in order to purify the vessel, and one may not bring impure water into contact with pure water in a stone vessel in order to purify the water; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And the Rabbis say: One may immerse an impure vessel on account of its water in order to purify the vessel, and one may bring impure water into contact with pure water in a stone vessel in order to purify the water.

If so, in accordance with whose opinion is the mishna? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, then the ruling with regard to bringing impure water into contact with pure water in a stone vessel is difficult, as in the Tosefta Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi prohibits doing so, whereas the mishna permits it; and if it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, then the ruling with regard to the immersion of an impure vessel on account of its water is difficult, as in the Tosefta the Rabbis permit this, while the mishna, as explained by Shmuel, prohibits it.

The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi; and if you wish, say instead that it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. How so? If you wish, say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and explain that the first clause of that baraita, i.e., the first part of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s statement in the Tosefta, deals with a Festival; it is in that case that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi prohibits immersing an impure vessel on account of its water, but bringing impure water into contact with pure water in a stone vessel would be permitted. And the latter clause, which extends the prohibition to bringing impure water into contact with pure water, is referring to the more stringent case of Shabbat. And the entire mishna is referring to a Festival, when it is permitted to purify impure water by bringing it into contact with pure water in a stone vessel.

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Beitza 18b examines whether immersion for ritual purity is permitted on Shabbat and Yom Kippur, weighing seasonal bathing habits against labor restrictions.