The Elliot B. Sitt edition presents an audio series of the Talmud Bavli, specifically focusing on Gemara Taanit Daf Yud Gimmel. Today’s study is dedicated to the elevation of the soul of Avraham ben Ester, and may his spirit find peace in the Garden of Eden, Amen. Additionally, we pray for a complete recovery for Eliyahu Chaim ben Shafia Sofia, may he be restored to health among all the sick of Israel, Amen. We begin today’s daf on Yud Gimmel Amud Rishon, starting four lines from the top. The Gemara opens with the statement of Rav Amram bar Papa in the name of Rav Chisda.
Rav Chisda states: “Any time there is a fast due to a situation of mourning, such as on Tisha B'Av, or when a mourner is grieving for a close relative, it is forbidden for them to bathe, whether in hot or cold water.” This prohibition applies equally to both. The reasoning is that bathing, whether in hot or cold water, is considered a form of pleasure, and during mourning, one should refrain from pleasurable activities. Conversely, for a fast that is primarily a matter of abstaining from pleasure, such as a public fast called by the sages due to drought, the rules differ. In such cases, bathing in hot water is prohibited while bathing in cold water is permitted, as cold water does not bring the same level of pleasure as hot water.
To support this, let us refer to Rashi, who explains that when the sages prohibited bathing due to mourning, they specifically referenced Tisha B'Av, which commemorates the destruction of the Temple. Rashi further emphasizes that a mourner who has lost a close relative experiences profound anguish, thus reinforcing the prohibition against bathing in both hot and cold water. In contrast, when the prohibition stems from the need to abstain from pleasure, the sages only restrict hot water, while cold water remains permissible.
Rav Idi bar Avin then asserts that we have a source to confirm Rav Chisda’s ruling. He cites the Mishnah which states that on fast days due to drought, the bathhouses are closed. This implies that bathing in hot water is forbidden, while cold water remains allowed. Abaye challenges this interpretation, questioning how one could deduce that cold water is permissible when one cannot simply close rivers to prevent access to cold water sources. The implication is that if cold water were also forbidden, the Mishnah would have stated that the rivers should be blocked as well.
Rav Shisha, son of Rav Idi, clarifies his father’s point, stating that the Mishnah indeed teaches us that while bathing is forbidden, the emphasis on closing the bathhouses specifically refers to hot water. This redundancy in the Mishnah indicates that the prohibition applies only to hot water, while cold water remains permissible. Rashi supports this by noting that the Mishnah must clarify that only hot water is forbidden, as otherwise, it would imply a blanket prohibition on all forms of bathing.
Next, the Gemara presents a proof to Rav Chisda’s position by discussing the obligations of those who require immersion in a mikvah. It states that individuals such as a niddah or a woman who has recently given birth may immerse themselves in a mikvah even on Tisha B'Av and on Yom Kippur. The Gemara questions what type of mikvah this refers to, as it cannot be a hot mikvah due to the prohibition against hot water. Thus, it must be a cold mikvah, implying that cold water is permissible for those who have an obligation to immerse.
However, this leads to a contradiction against Rav Chisda’s assertion that cold water is forbidden during mourning. The Gemara resolves this by explaining that the leniency applies only to those who are required to immerse, suggesting that the prohibition against cold water may not apply to them. The discussion continues, analyzing the implications of these rulings and the distinctions between different types of fasts and their associated restrictions.
Ultimately, the Gemara concludes that for a mourner, bathing in cold water is indeed permissible for specific body parts, such as the face, hands, and feet, while full-body bathing remains prohibited. This distinction highlights the nuanced approach of the sages in balancing the needs of mourning with the necessity of maintaining some level of personal hygiene.
In summary, the halachic principles emerging from this discussion illustrate the complex interplay between mourning practices and the allowances for personal care. Rav Chisda’s ruling underscores the importance of understanding the context of each fast and the accompanying restrictions, ensuring that while one observes the solemnity of mourning, one also maintains the dignity of personal hygiene within the established halachic framework.