BEITZAH - 018b – ביצה – פרק שני – יום טוב, יח ע”ב

…in a heat wave^[1]

בשרב - heat.

and bathes even in the soaking-water.

מי המשרה - in which flax is soaked.

That works in the summer; in the rainy season, what is there to say?

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: Sometimes a person comes from the field soiled with mud and filth, and bathes even in the rainy season.

That works on Shabbos; on Yom Kippur,

ביום הכפורים - when bathing is forbidden as a form of affliction, while an immersion for a mitzvah is permitted, as below.

what is there to say?

מאי איכא למימר - there it is certainly evident that he means to immerse, and not to cool himself.

Rava said: Is there anything that is permitted on Shabbos

מי איכא מידי - any act permitted on Shabbos, carrying no rabbinic prohibition for its resemblance to melachah,

and forbidden on Yom Kippur?

וביום הכפורים אסור - on account of melachah — as in this case, where you want to forbid it because he appears to be repairing.

Rather, since it is permitted on Shabbos,

כיון דבשבת - which is the stricter with regard to melachah, it is permitted for the reason of cooling oneself;

on Yom Kippur too it is permitted.

ביום הכפורים נמי שרי - even though he does not appear to be cooling himself, for you should not be stricter with regard to melachah on Yom Kippur than on Shabbos.

But does Rava hold of “since”?^[2]

ומי אית ליה הואיל - in the prohibitions of Shabbos in a case like this — that because it is permitted in one, you permit it in the other?

But we learned: One whose teeth pain him may not sip vinegar through them,^[3]

לא יגמע בהן את החומץ - as a remedy, for the Rabbanan decreed against every remedy on Shabbos on account of grinding ingredients, which is the av melachah of grinding.

but he may dip [his food] in the usual way, and if he is healed, he is healed.

אבל מטבל הוא - his food in it, in the usual way.

And we raised a contradiction against it: He may not sip and spit out — but he may sip and swallow!

לא יגמע ופולט - for it is evident that he is doing it as a remedy.

And Abaye said: When the Mishnah was taught too, it was “sip and spit out” that we learned.

ואמר אביי - this is the reading.

And Rava said: You may even say “sip and swallow”, and there is no difficulty:

ורבא אמר - this is the reading.

here, before dipping;

קודם טבול - before eating he may sip and swallow, for it is not evident that it is a remedy, since people think vinegar helps him to eat.

there, after dipping.

לאחר טבול - after eating, when he has already dipped his food in vinegar, it is evident that he does not want the taste of the vinegar but takes it as a remedy. Yet why? Before the Shabbos meal it was permitted — so for half of Shabbos you forbid it and for half of Shabbos you permit it!

And if it is so, let us say: since it is permitted before dipping, after dipping it is permitted too!

נימא הואיל - and before eating it is permitted, because he appears to want to swallow vinegar — after eating it is permitted too, for there is no division within the measure of Shabbos.

Rava retracted from that one.

הדר ביה רבא מההיא - the ruling on vinegar, and he taught it as Abaye did; and this one, on immersion, in which he holds of “since”, he said after retracting.

And how do we know that he retracted from that one?

Perhaps he retracted from this one!

דלמא מהא - the ruling on immersion on Yom Kippur is what he retracted from, and the one on vinegar he said last.

It cannot enter your mind,

לא ס"ד - to forbid immersion on Yom Kippur.

for it is taught: All who are obligated to immerse immerse in their usual way, whether on Tishah b’Av or on Yom Kippur.^[4]

בין בתשעה באב בין ביום הכפורים - even though they are forbidden to bathe.

And they agree that one may bring water into contact in a stone vessel, etc.^[5]

What is “but one may not immerse”?

Shmuel said: One may not immerse a vessel over its water to purify it on Yom Tov.^[6]

אין מטבילין כלי - one that needs immersion, together with the hashakah of its water, to purify it.

Whose view is our Mishnah?

Neither Rebbi nor the Rabbanan.

For it is taught: One may not immerse a vessel over its water to purify it, and one may not bring water into contact in a stone vessel to purify it — the words of Rebbi.

And the Chachamim say: One may immerse a vessel over its water to purify it, and one may bring water into contact in a stone vessel to purify it.

Whose is it? If Rebbi — hashakah is difficult; if the Rabbanan — immersion is difficult!

If you wish, say it is Rebbi; if you wish, say it is the Rabbanan.

If you wish, say it is Rebbi: the first clause of the beraisa is on Yom Tov and the last clause on Shabbos, and the whole Mishnah is on Yom Tov.^[7]

הכי גרסינן - the passage reads: For it is taught: One may not immerse a vessel over its water to purify it, and one may not bring water into contact in a stone vessel to purify it — the words of Rebbi; and the Chachamim say: One may immerse a vessel over its water to purify it, and one may bring water into contact in a stone vessel to purify it. Whose is it? If Rebbi, hashakah is difficult; if the Rabbanan, immersion is difficult. If you wish, say Rebbi; if you wish, say the Rabbanan. If you wish, say Rebbi: the beraisa’s first clause is on Yom Tov and its last on Shabbos, and the whole Mishnah is on Yom Tov; and if you wish, say the Rabbanan, and the whole Mishnah is on Shabbos. And this is its meaning: if Rebbi, hashakah is difficult, for Rebbi forbids it while our Mishnah teaches that one may bring water into contact; if the Rabbanan, immersion is difficult, for they permit immersing while our Mishnah teaches that one may not immerse. And he answers: the first clause of the beraisa — the first part of Rebbi’s statement, which deals with immersion to forbid it, implying that hashakah is permitted — speaks of Yom Tov, and the last part of his statement, which forbids hashakah as well, speaks of Shabbos. And so too the Rabbanan: the first clause speaks of Yom Tov and the last of Shabbos, and this is what they say: one may immerse a vessel over its water to purify it on Yom Tov, and all the more so do hashakah; and one may bring water into contact in a stone vessel on Shabbos — hashakah yes, immersion no. And in the Tosefta of Beitzah and of Shabbos it is taught explicitly so: One may not immerse a vessel over its water to purify it on Yom Tov, and one may not bring water into contact in a stone vessel to purify it on Shabbos — the words of Rebbi; and the Chachamim say, etc. And now that the beraisa is set out this way: if you wish, say our Mishnah is the Rabbanan and the whole Mishnah is on Shabbos; therefore immersion is forbidden and hashakah permitted, like the Rabbanan, who say one may bring water into contact in a stone vessel to purify it on Shabbos — hashakah is what is permitted, but immersing vessels is forbidden.

Tosafos

הדר ביה רבא מההיא - That is, from that answer he gave: “here, before the meal,” etc. — it cannot enter your mind, since it is taught: all who are obligated to immerse, etc. And this is astonishing: how does the Gemara know that Rava retracted that answer? I could say he retracted the answer of ho’il. For what compels him to the reasoning of ho’il? Only that he explained the Mishnah on the grounds that one appears to be repairing. So say that he retracted that answer, and retracted the answer of ho’il as well, and that vessels are forbidden for the reason the Amoraim gave above: lest he carry it, or lest he delay, or lest he wring. One may answer that one gives way to two: the answer here, “here, before the meal,” gives way to the two answers — that it looks like repairing a vessel, and ho’il. But this is not satisfactory: first, the one depends on the other, since Rava’s answer “ho’il, on Shabbos,” etc. came entirely to uphold the answer that it looks like repairing; and further, the Gemara should have said explicitly that one gives way to two. Therefore it seems to me that the Gemara took it as established that he could not uproot “because it looks like repairing,” since he uses it to answer the Mishnah; but it thought he might uproot the answer of ho’il, and from this too it brings proof that it cannot be uprooted. [See further Tosafos, Shabbos 111a, s.v. לא.]

כל חייבי טבילות טובלין כדרכן בין בתשעה באב בין ביום הכפורים - This applies only to those who immerse a mitzvah immersion at its proper time. But nowadays, every immersion our women perform is an immersion not at its proper time, for they count seven clean days out of the doubt that they may be zavos; so they do not immerse on Tishah B’Av or on Yom Kippur. One could, however, draw a distinction, as it says in Yoma (88a): niddos and women after childbirth immerse at night; zavim and zavos immerse by day; a baal keri may go on immersing until Minchah, so that he prays Minchah in purity, but after Minchah he does not immerse. And the reason is explained there: were it for the sake of the Neilah prayer, he could wait until night, immerse, and pray Neilah at night. Now why does he not immerse by day, so that the immersion is at its proper time? Evidently that Tanna holds that immersing at the proper time is not a mitzvah — and even so it is permitted on Yom Kippur. On Tishah B’Av, however, one does not immerse, following Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus, who said: The House of our G‑d is worth the loss of one immersion a year. And the Yerushalmi says of this: Rabbi Levi ruled like Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus, and the halachah is not like this Mishnah which says “all who are obligated to immerse,” etc. The Ri says further that nowadays one immerses neither on Yom Kippur nor on Tishah B’Av. Only they, who dealt with taharos, needed to immerse at once, so as not to make the taharos tamei. But now that the immersion comes only to make her permitted to her husband, she can bathe and wash her hair on erev Yom Kippur, so that she may comb her hair, and wash a little on motzaei Yom Kippur, since the washing must be close to the immersion; and likewise on Tishah B’Av. For even if she were to immerse on Yom Kippur or on Tishah B’Av, she is forbidden to her husband.

ושוין שמשיקין המים בכלי אבן לטהרן - But not in a wooden vessel, for it receives tumah from the liquids, and he would turn out to be immersing a vessel. And if you ask: why may one not immerse it? There are two things in its favor: first, that it became tamei on Yom Tov, and second, that it became tamei only through a vlad hatumah — and everyone agrees that one may immerse such a vessel, according to all the explanations above. For the one who sets the Mishnah on Shabbos and in accordance with the Rabbanan, it is well; but for the one who sets it on Yom Tov, etc., it is difficult. One may answer: in any event one may not bring tumah upon a vessel with one’s own hands in order to immerse it. Only when it has already become tamei through a vlad hatumah may one immerse it; but it is forbidden to make it tamei in order to immerse it on Yom Tov.

אין מטבילין את הכלי על גבי מימיו לטהרו ואין משיקין וכו' - Rashi’s reading puts immersion before hashakah, both in Rebbi’s words and in the Chachamim’s. In the texts it was written the other way round, hashakah before immersion. It all comes to the same thing, except that the reading of the texts has the first clause on Shabbos and the second on Yom Tov, while by Rashi’s reading the first clause is on Yom Tov and the second on Shabbos. Rashi emended the reading on the basis of the Tosefta. And according to what is written in the texts, hashakah before immersion, you cannot explain the first clause as Yom Tov and the second as Shabbos unless you explain that it refers to our Mishnah, which teaches “one may do hashakah but may not immerse” — and that is an error, as Rashi explained.

Notes

1. 1. The end of Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak’s answer, begun at the foot of 18a.
2. 2. The reasoning just used is a hoil, “since”: because it is permitted in one case, it is permitted in the other. The Gemara now tests whether Rava accepts this form of argument.
3. 3. Mishnah Shabbos 14:4. As Rashi explains, the Rabbanan forbade medical treatment on Shabbos lest one come to grind medicinal ingredients.
4. 4. Since a mitzvah immersion is permitted on Yom Kippur in any case, Rava cannot have retracted from permitting it; his retraction must be from the ruling on vinegar.
5. 5. The Gemara returns to the Mishnah on 17b.
6. 6. Over its water: a tamei vessel holding tamei water is immersed with the water in it, so that a single act purifies both — the vessel by immersion and the water by its contact with the mikveh.
7. 7. Rashi records the correct reading of this passage, and at the head of 19a explains that in the texts of his day the two clauses had been reversed, which led most students astray.