Talmud - Yoma 77b יומא ע״ז ב׳

This can be explained as: “If you shall afflict my daughters” by refraining from conjugal relations, “and if you shall take other wives” causing them to suffer from additional rival wives. The Gemara objects: And say that this phrase and that phrase are both referring to taking rival wives. The Gemara rejects this: Is it written: If you take? “And if you shall take” is written. Therefore, the clauses must be referring to two different kinds of affliction.

The Gemara challenges further: And say that this phrase and that phrase are referring to taking rival wives. One phrase is referring to his wives’ current rivals. “If you shall afflict” means that Jacob should not elevate the position of the two maidservants, Bilhah and Zilpah, to the status of wife, which would make them co-wives with Laban’s daughters. And one phrase is referring to rivals who might come to him from the world at large, which would be similar in meaning to “if you shall take.” The Gemara rejects this: Is it written: If you take and if you afflict? It is logical to first state the more severe warning and then the less severe one. But according to this proposed reading that “take” refers to rivals from the world at large and “afflict” refers to elevating the status of maidservants, the text would have first mentioned the less painful affliction of elevating the maidservants and then followed it with a warning about taking new rival wives, as “if you shall afflict and if you shall take” is written.

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: But conjugal relations themselves are called affliction, as it is written: “And Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her; and he took her, and he lay with her and afflicted her” (Genesis 34:2). If so, how can it be said that the affliction is in withholding conjugal relations? He said to him: There, Shechem afflicted her from different relations, meaning he slept with her in an unnatural way. That type of relations is clearly an affliction.

§ The Gemara clarifies some of the prohibitions relating to Yom Kippur. The Sages taught: It is prohibited to bathe part of the body just as it is prohibited to bathe the whole body. But if one is dirty from mud or excrement, he may bathe in his usual manner, and he need not be concerned about transgressing, since his goal is not pleasure. Similarly, it is prohibited to smear oil on part of the body just as it is prohibited to smear oil on the whole body. But if one was sick and needed to smear oil on his body for medicinal purposes, or if one had scabs on his head that would hurt if he did not smear oil on himself, he may smear oil in his usual manner, and he need not be concerned about transgressing.

The school of Menashe taught that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A woman may rinse one hand in water, so that she does not touch food before she has washed her hands in the morning, and give bread to her child, and she need not be concerned about violating the prohibition of bathing on Yom Kippur.

They said about Shammai the Elder that he did not want to feed his children with one hand, to avoid having to wash it. This prevented the children from eating during all of Yom Kippur. Due to concerns about the health and the suffering of his children, they decreed that he must feed them with two hands, forcing him to wash both hands. What is the reason that they also said in general that one must wash his hands before touching food? Abaye said: Due to an evil spirit named Shivta, who resides on hands that have not been washed in the morning.

§ The Sages taught: One who goes to greet his father or his teacher, or to greet one who is greater than him in wisdom, and has to cross a river on the way, may cross the water until his neck is in the water, and he need not be concerned that he is violating the prohibition against bathing on Yom Kippur.

A dilemma was raised before them, i.e., the students discussing this question: What is the law concerning a teacher going to visit his student? May he enter the water in order to teach his student? The Gemara tries to bring a proof: Come and hear from what Rav Yitzḥak bar bar Ḥana said: I saw Ze’iri, who went through a river on his way to Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi, his student. Rav Ashi said: This was not the case. Rather, in that case, it was the student Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi who went to Ze’iri, his teacher. Therefore, this incident does not answer the question.

Rava permitted those who lived on the right side of the Euphrates to pass through the water to guard the fruit in their fields on Yom Kippur. Abaye said to Rava: A baraita was taught that supports your opinion. We learned: Guards of fruit may cross the river until their necks are in the water, and they need not be concerned that they are violating the prohibition against bathing on Yom Kippur.

Rav Yosef permitted the people of the village of Bei Tarbu to cross in the water to come to the lecture he delivered on Yom Kippur. He did not, however, permit them to go back home through the water. Abaye said to him: If so, you are obstructing them from coming in the future. They will not come to the lecture knowing they will be prohibited from returning home. Some say the incident happened differently: Rav Yosef permitted them to come and permitted them to go back through the water. Abaye said to him: Granted, you allow them to come, that is well. But what is the reason you allow them to go back? He said to him: So as not to obstruct them from coming in the future.

It is told: Rav Yehuda and Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehuda were standing on the bank of the Pappa River next to the Ḥatzdad crossing, and Rami bar Pappa was standing on the other side of the river. He raised his voice to them and asked: What is the ruling with regard to crossing over to come to you to ask a halakha? Rav Yehuda said to him: It is Rav and Shmuel who both say: One may cross in the water, provided that he does not remove his hand from under the hem of his cloak. One may not raise the hems of his cloak to his shoulders to keep them dry, since this form of carrying renders one liable to bring a sin-offering. Rather, one should walk normally and get his clothes wet in the water. Some say this is not how the incident happened. Rather, Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehuda said to him: We learned in a baraita: One may cross over, provided that he does not remove his hand from the hem of his cloak.

Rav Yosef strongly objects to this: And on a weekday is it permitted to walk in such deep water that it presents a danger of drowning? But isn’t it written with regard to the river that, in the future, will issue forth from the Holy of Holies: “He measured a thousand cubits, and he led me through the water; the water was ankle deep” (Ezekiel 47:3); from here it is derived that one is permitted to pass through water that reaches up to the ankles.

Rav Yosef continues explaining the verse: “Again he measured a thousand and he led me through the water, the water was knee deep” (Ezekiel 47:4); from here it is derived that one is permitted to pass through water that reaches up to the knees. “He measured a thousand and led me through the water up to the waist” (Ezekiel 47:4); from here it is derived that one is permitted to pass through water that reaches up to the waist. From this point forward: “And he measured a thousand, a river that I could not pass through” (Ezekiel 47:5). This implies that one is never permitted to pass through water that is more than waist high, because it is dangerous.

Abaye said: That is not a proof, because a river with fast flowing water is different. If it is higher than one’s waist, he could drown. However, one is permitted to cross still water even if it is deeper than that.

§ Apropos the river that will flow in the future, the Gemara explains additional verses in Ezekiel. One might think that Ezekiel could cross the river by swimming. The verse states: “For the water had swollen into saḥu waters” (Ezekiel 47:5). What does “saḥu waters” mean? Water that can be traversed only with a boat [shiyuta], as sailing [shayta] is sometimes called swimming [sayḥa]. I might have thought Ezekiel could pass across in a small boat [burni]. Therefore, the verse states: “No galley with oars shall go” (Isaiah 33:21). I might have thought he could pass through in a large boat. Therefore, the verse states: “Neither shall a fishing boat [tzi adir] be able to cross it” (Isaiah 33:21). The Gemara asks: From where can it be inferred that the words tzi adir mean fishing boat? The Gemara explains: This is how Rav Yosef translated this verse: A fishing boat [sfinat tzayyadin] will not travel on it and a large ship will not cross it.

The Gemara continues its discussion of the river that will in the future come out of the Holy of Holies. Rabbi Yehuda ben Pazi said: Even the Angel of Death does not have permission to pass through it to the other side of this river, and proof of this is in the verse, as it is written here: “No galley with oars [ani shayt] can travel” and as it was written there: “Then Satan answered the Lord and said: From going to and fro [mishut] the earth and from walking up and down in it” (Job 1:7). Even Satan, who is also the Angel of Death, cannot cross through this river.

The Gemara cites more midrashim about the river that will flow from the Holy of Holies. Rabbi Pineḥas said in the name of Rav Huna of Tzippori: The spring that comes forth from inside the Holy of Holies is at first very narrow and resembles grasshoppers’ antennae in width. Once it reaches the opening of the Sanctuary it becomes as thick as the thread of the warp; once it reaches the Entrance Hall of the Sanctuary, it becomes as thick as the thread of the woof, which is wider than the warp thread. Once it reaches the opening of the Temple courtyard it becomes like the mouth of a small jug. This is as we learned in a mishna: Rav Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: Water,

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

Yoma 77b explores rabbinic interpretations of Jacob's covenant with Laban, distinguishing affliction from withholding intimacy versus taking rival wives.