(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


by Rabbi Ephraim Becker
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

Yoma 77

YOMA 59-88 have been dedicated to the memory of the late Dr. Simcha Bekelnitzky (Simcha Gedalya ben Shraga Feibush) of Queens N.Y. by his wife and daughters. Well known in the community for his Chesed and Tzedakah, he will long be remembered.


(a) The Malach Gavriel reported to Daniel V'Ani Basi Bidvarecha.
(b) As derived from the Pesukim in Yechezkel, Gavriel had been expelled from among the Malachim for improperly carrying out his agency.
1. He should have either not executed the decree against Klal Yisrael (anticipating a reprieve); or,
2. He should have carried it out exactly, and not cooled the flames somewhat by having the Keruv deliver the coals instead of taking them directly.
3. Although by doing so Gavriel saved the remnant of Klal Yisrael, he was punished with 60 lashes of fire and expelled.
(c) During the 21 days of his absence, the Malach Dubiel, Sar of the Persians, took his place.
(d) When Dubiel tried to exact a terrible price from his new status, that of taxing even the Talmidei Chachamim, Gavriel called out from Achorei HaPargod that they do not deserve this, given that all of their scholars combined do not equal Daniel.
(e) This defense of the People caused Gavriel to be invited back, as above, V'Ani Basi Bidvarecha.
(f) When he returned, he succeeded in diminishing somewhat the effect of the concessions made to Dubiel, but he was not successful in blunting the effect of Yavan.
(a) Alternate explanation for how Rechitzah is considered an Inui derives from Shlomo HaMelech's dialogue with Evyasar HaKohen.
1. Evyasar was spared being killed right away because he had participated in the Inui of Dovid HaMelech.
2. Included in that Inui was Ra'av (lack of bread), Tzameh (lack of water) and Ayef (lit. tiredness, understood to refer to Rechitzah) thus labeling Rechitzah as an Inui.
(b) Question: Perhaps the Ayef refers to (the lack of) wearing shoes?
(c) Answer: The Pasuk in Mishlei demonstrates that Ayef relates to the lack of cool water (presumably for washing).
(d) Question: Perhaps Ayef refers to their thirst (which would fit with the Pasuk in Mishlei, as well)?
(e) Answer: The Pasuk reads water *on* the tired soul, not *in* as would imply drinking.
(a) Question: Whence that Ne'ilas HaSandel is called an Inui?
(b) Answer: From the fact that Dovid HaMelech, when running from Avshalom (in the state referred to before as Inui) was Yachef (presumably, without shoes).
(c) Question: Perhaps Yachef means without a horse, in a manner of a king?
(d) Answer: The word Yachef is found, in Yeshayah, to mean unshod, thus informing its meaning by Dovid HaMelech.
(e) Question: Perhaps Yeshayah went with tattered shoes, and that is still called Yachef (just as Arom there surely does not mean fully unclothed, but with tattered clothes)?
(f) Answer: The Pasuk in Yirmiyah identifies Yachef with the exiles, who would truly be going barefoot.
(a) Question: Whence that Tashmish HaMitah is called an Inui?
(b) Answer: Lavan identified withholding Tashmish as an Inui.

1. Im Ta'aneh refers to withholding Tashmish.
2. VeIm Tikach refers to taking other wives.
3. Question: Perhaps both expressions refer to taking other wives (if you will oppress my daughters *by* taking other wives).
4. Answer: This translation is not plausible since Lavan said *VeIm* not *Im*.
5. Question: Perhaps it refers to two types of Tzaros, Bilhah and Zilpah, as well as other potential wives (which is contextually logical in the Pasuk)?
6. Answer: He would not have put the less painful matter (taking other unknown wives) first and the more painful matter (taking Bilhah and Zilpah) second.
(c) Question: We find (in the incident of Dina) that Tashmish itself is called Inui, thus casting doubt on its absence as being called Inui!?
(d) Answer: The Inui there was withholding further Tashmish from Dina, consistent with the definition of Inui.
(a) The Beraisa teaches that partial Rechitzah is forbidden on Yom Kipur; however, if one is soiled, he may wash normally.
(b) Similarly, while Sichah on even a part of the body is forbidden, one who is ill anoints normally.
(c) A woman is permitted to wash one hand (from the Ruach Ra'ah upon awaking which would transfer onto bread) in order to give bread to a child.
(d) Shamai HaZaken was concerned about using one hand (on account of the Shivsa), and they permitted him to feed the child after washing both hands.
(e) One who is going to greet his father or Rebbi, or another person greater than he, may enter water until his neck without concern.
(f) Question: What of the Rebbi on route to his Talmid?
(g) Answer: R. Yitzhok b. Chanah reported that Zeiri went to R Chiya.
1. R. Ashi reported that it was R. Chiya b. Ashi who went to Zeiri his Rebbi.
(h) Rava permitted people to cross through water to protect their fruit.
(i) (Abaye): A Beraisa supports this ruling, as reported.
(j) R. Yosef permitted people to cross to attend a Shiur, but not to return to their homes.
(k) (Abaye): If you will rule this way, you will cause them not to come next year to the Shiur.
1. An alternate reading has R. Yosef permitting both their coming and their return.
2. Abaye then asked why their return is permitted.
3. R. Yosef explained that the permission is so they should not be prevented from coming in the future.
(l) R. Yehudah, R. Shmuel b. R. Yehudah were standing on one side of the river, and Rami b. Papa was on the other.
1. Rami b. Papa called out to ask if he was permitted to cross in order to ask them about a matter of Torah.
2. R. Yehudah responded that Rav and Shmuel permitted one to cross, but being careful not to raise his hands.
3. An alternate reading has R. Shmuel b. R. Yehudah reporting the same response directly from a Beraisa.
(a) Question (R. Yosef): Is it *ever* permitted to enter deep waters and expose oneself to danger?!
1. The Malach showed Yechezkel the river which will lead out of Yerushalayim.
2. It was shallow for the first 1000 Amos, and got deeper after each 1000 Amos.
3. We see there that it is permitted to enter shallow water only up to one's waist!?
(b) Answer: That river is different because of the strong current, thus above waist deep is dangerous, as opposed to the still river we are speaking of.
(c) Question: Is he able to swim across that river?
(d) Answer: The continuation of the Pasuk indicates that it was too strong for that, as well.
(e) Question: Might he cross in a small boat?
(f) Answer: The Pasuk indicates that this, too, was not possible.
(g) Question: Might he cross with a large vessel?
(h) Answer: The river in Yechezkel's prophecy is too powerful even for that.
(i) The Targum confirms the impossibility of crossing this river.
(j) Even the Malach HaMaves will not be able to cross, as indicated by the word MiShut.
Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,