The Eddie B. Sitt Edition and Audio Series of the Talmud Bavli, Masechet Yoma, has been dedicated in memory of Mazal bat Esther Baghdadi and Yosef ben Mazal Baghdadi by their family. May their souls rest in the Garden of Eden. Amen.
Today’s daf has been dedicated by North Fork Bank and its private banking department, together with Gabriel Safdie, in memory of Yosef ben Mazal, Shlomo Rafael ben Mazal, and for the elevation of the soul of Avraham ben Esther. May their souls rest in the Garden of Eden. Amen.
We would like to thank North Fork Bank and, in particular, Mr. Gabriel Safdie, for his continued support of our programs at Daf Yomi, Torah Learning Resources, and the Torah Center. May these be meritorious deeds.
We begin today’s daf on 77b, beginning with “Rabbi Yosef raised an objection,” one line above the commentary of Rabbeinu Hananel.
Yesterday we learned that on Yom Kippur, a student may walk through a river in order to visit his rabbi. We explained that this is permitted because he is crossing the water for a mitzvah. Although there is a prohibition against bathing on Yom Kippur, in this case his intention is not to bathe, and he derives no pleasure from the water. He is simply passing through it because he needs to reach his rabbi.
The Gemara now raises a question from the standpoint of danger. Forget about Yom Kippur: is it even permissible during the week to walk through water that reaches as high as the neck? Rashi explains that we had said a person could walk through water up to his neck. The Gemara asks: Is this not dangerous? He might drown.
The Gemara cites a verse describing a prophetic vision in which an angel showed the prophet a river that would emerge from the Holy of Holies. At first, the stream would be very narrow, but gradually it would become wider and deeper.
The verse says that the angel measured one thousand cubits from the place where the river began and led the prophet through the water. At that point, the water reached his ankles. Thus, during the first thousand cubits, the water was only ankle-deep. We learn from this that it is permissible to cross water that reaches the ankles.
The angel then measured another thousand cubits, and the water reached the knees. From here we learn that it is permissible to walk through water that reaches the knees. He measured another thousand cubits, and the water reached the waist. From here we learn that it is permissible to cross water up to the waist.
After that, however, the stream continued to rise. The verse says that it became a river that could not be crossed. Thus, we see that one may not pass through water higher than the waist. Rashi, on the words “from there onward,” explains that beyond the waist it is considered a river that cannot be crossed.
The Gemara answers that the river emerging from the Holy of Holies is different because its waters flow swiftly. The water we were discussing in connection with Yom Kippur is ordinary, calm water, and therefore one may walk through it up to the neck. The water emerging from the Holy of Holies, however, would be a strong, rapidly flowing current capable of causing a person to drown.
The Gemara analyzes the verse further. Perhaps once the water rises above the waist, although one may not walk through it, one could swim through it. The word used for swimming indicates that possibility. The verse therefore says that the water swelled and became swimming water. In other words, the river became so deep that one could swim in it, yet the verse still says that it could not be crossed. Since the current was swift and powerful, even swimming through it would not be possible.
Perhaps, the Gemara continues, one could cross it in a small boat. The verse says that it could not be crossed by a vessel, which could refer to a small boat. Perhaps a large ship could cross it. The Gemara therefore explains, based on the translation of the verse by Yosef, that neither a fishing boat nor a great and mighty vessel could travel through it. The river would be impossible to cross by walking, swimming, or by means of a boat.
Rabbi Yehuda ben Pazi says that even the angel of death would not have permission to pass through it. The Gemara derives this from the language used in the verse. The verse speaks of a vessel that cannot pass through the water, using language related to traveling or wandering. The same expression is used regarding the Satan, who traveled throughout the earth and encountered Job. Since the language of traveling is used both regarding the Satan and regarding the waters, we learn that even the angel of death would not be permitted to travel through them.
The point is not that the angel of death would be physically unable to withstand the current. Rather, he would not have permission to pass through the waters, because they would emanate from the Holy of Holies.
The Gemara continues describing the stream that would emerge from the Holy of Holies. It would leave through the western entrance and flow toward the east. Initially, it would be an extremely narrow stream, the width of the antenna of a locust.
Ben Ish Hai points out that anyone who drinks from these waters would acquire great wisdom. Water symbolizes Torah, and when these waters spring forth from the Holy of Holies, they symbolize a great blessing of wisdom emerging from that sacred place.
At first, the stream would be as narrow as a reed. When it reached the entrance of the Sanctuary, it would become somewhat wider, as wide as the thread of the warp. When it reached the Ulam, the chamber before the Sanctuary, it would become wider still, as wide as the thread of the woof. When it reached the courtyard, it would become as wide as the mouth of a small flask.
This is what is meant by the statement of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov that these are “waters of Mifakin.” Rashi explains that when the water reaches the threshold of the Sanctuary, it will be like the mouth of a flask.
The stream would then emerge from the threshold of the Temple courtyard and continue to rise until it reached the entrance of the House of David, which is Mount Zion outside Jerusalem. When it reached the entrance to Mount Zion, it would become a swiftly flowing river.
People would stand in the river, and it would serve as a ritual bath for men and women who were ritually impure, including those with the status of zav or zavah, menstruating women, and women who had given birth. The verse says that on that day the spring would open for the House of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem for cleansing and purification.
The Gemara derives a halachic indication from this description. A menstruating woman who must immerse in a ritual bath must stand in water that reaches at least her neck. Since the waters described in the verse are deep enough to purify a menstruating woman, the Gemara understands that the water must reach her neck.
The reasoning is that when a woman immerses, she must bend. Bending causes folds and creases in the body, and the water might not reach those places. If the water reaches her neck, she needs to bend only slightly to place her head beneath the water, allowing the water to touch every part of her body.
The Gemara says that this derivation does not follow the opinion of another sage. According to that view, as long as the water reaches the navel, or even one handbreadth above the navel, it is considered sufficiently deep. The woman can bend in such a way that the water reaches all parts of her body.
Rashi explains that the verse does not say that the waters were suitable for a menstruating woman until they became a swift-flowing river. Rather, it says that they became suitable only at that later stage, when the water was very deep. This indicates that she must stand or sit in water that reaches her neck. The word “sitting” in this context actually refers to standing. The commentary of the Mizrahi does not mention the requirement that the water reach the neck; according to him, the verse merely indicates that the water must be deep.
The Gemara now returns to the question of walking through water. We understand why this is permitted on Yom Kippur: a person is not wearing shoes, so there is no concern that his shoes might fall off and that he will carry them. Carrying is prohibited on Yom Kippur, but in this case he is not wearing shoes in the first place.
What about Shabbat? On Shabbat, a person is wearing shoes. May he walk through the water, or do we fear that his shoes might fall off and that he will carry them?
Nechemiah, the son-in-law of the Nasi, said that he had observed people crossing a pool of water on Shabbat while wearing their shoes. Rashi explains that they were wearing shoes, and therefore there was no concern that the shoes would fall off and that they would come to carry them.
The Gemara explains that this may apply to a shoe that covers most of the foot and is fastened securely. In such a case, we do not make a decree that it might fall off. What about a sandal? A sandal cannot be tied around the foot as securely as a shoe. Perhaps it will slip off, leading the person to carry it.
Rav Rechumi said that he saw Ravina wearing sandals on Shabbat. Rav Ashi, however, said that with regard to a sandal, one should not walk through water at all. Thus, there is a dispute regarding a sandal: Ravina permitted it, while Rav Ashi prohibited it.
Once, the Resh Galuta came to Hagronia and spent Shabbat in the home of Rav Natan. Rav Hama and all the other rabbis came to deliver a Torah lesson to the Resh Galuta on Shabbat, but Ravina did not come.
The following day, Rav Hama wanted to prevent the Resh Galuta from having negative feelings toward Ravina because he had not attended the lesson. In the presence of the Resh Galuta, Rav Hama asked Ravina why he had not come. Ravina replied that his foot was hurting him.
Rav Hama said, “You should have put on shoes and come.” Ravina replied that the top of his foot was hurting him, and shoes cover the top of the foot. Wearing them would therefore have caused him pain.
Rav Hama said, “Then put on sandals.” Ravina replied that there had been a pool of water on the way. Rav Hama said, “You should have put them on and crossed through the water.” Ravina responded that he followed the opinion of Rav Ashi, who ruled that one should not walk through water while wearing sandals.
The Tosafot Yeshanim raises an obvious question. We just learned that Ravina was among those who wore sandals through water on Shabbat. Here, however, Ravina said that he followed Rav Ashi and would not walk through water while wearing sandals. Which opinion did Ravina actually follow?
The Tosafot Yeshanim offers a major explanation: perhaps there were two sages named Ravina. The first Ravina permitted walking through water with sandals, while the second Ravina prohibited it. Alternatively, Ravina may originally have been lenient but later changed his position and adopted the opinion of Rav Ashi, that one may not cross water while wearing a sandal.
The Gemara now discusses washing on Yom Kippur. Rabbi Yehuda bar Gerogrot taught that it is prohibited to sit on mud on Yom Kippur. Why would someone sit on mud? Rashi explains that this refers to moist mud. The moisture provides a pleasurable sensation, almost like bathing.
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says that this applies only to mud that is sufficiently moist. Rav Yehuda explains the required degree of moisture: it must be moist enough that if one sits on it, the moisture can transfer to him, and he could then transfer that moisture to someone else who sits there afterward.
Rav Yehuda says that it is permissible on Yom Kippur to cool oneself with fruit. One may take cold fruit and rub it against his body to cool himself. Rav Yehuda would cool himself with a squash. Rava would cool himself with a baby, holding the child and rubbing the child’s cool flesh against himself. He would also cool himself with a silver cup, since the metal was cool.
Rav Pappa says that one may cool himself with a silver cup only if it is not full. If the cup is full of water, it is prohibited, because the water might spill onto him. If the cup is not full, it is permitted.
With regard to an earthenware cup, however, it is prohibited whether the cup is full or empty. Liquid seeps through the sides of earthenware, and the water might fall onto the person. Since bathing is prohibited on Yom Kippur, this is not permitted.
Rav Ashi says that even a silver cup that is not full is prohibited. Rashi explains that silver is slippery. It might slip from the person’s hand, causing the water to spill on him, and this would be considered bathing.
There was a man who hosted all the rabbis of Caesarea, and the rabbis would regularly stay in his home. He said to Rabbi Yosef, the son of Rabbi Yosef the son of a lion, “Your father was a great sage. Come, and I will tell you something your father used to do.”
His father would take a towel on the eve of Yom Kippur and soak it in water. He would then dry it thoroughly, making it into what the Gemara calls a dry vessel. On Yom Kippur, he would use it to wipe his face, hands, and feet. Rashi compares it to a handkerchief.
According to another interpretation of Rashi, he would dry his hands with the towel on the eve of Yom Kippur, and then use the slightly damp towel on Yom Kippur to clean the crust from his eyes. In either case, the towel had been dried before Yom Kippur, and the small amount of moisture remaining in it was not considered bathing.
On the eve of Tisha B’Av, he would likewise soak a towel in water and use it on Tisha B’Av to wipe his eyes. The passage does not say that he dried the towel thoroughly before Tisha B’Av. On Yom Kippur, he needed to dry it completely because there is also a prohibition against wringing out liquid. On Tisha B’Av, there is no prohibition against wringing, so he could soak the towel, wring it out, and use it to clean his eyes without drying it completely.
The commentators point out that this version is somewhat difficult. On Tisha B’Av, the towel was apparently wetter than on Yom Kippur, yet the passage says that on Tisha B’Av he used it only for his eyes, while on Yom Kippur, when it was less wet, he used it for his face, hands, and feet. Therefore, some commentators reverse the text: on Yom Kippur, when the towel was less wet, it could be used only for the eyes, whereas on Tisha B’Av, when it was not dried as thoroughly, it could be used for the face, hands, and feet.
In any event, the point of the Gemara is that the towel was not considered wet enough to constitute bathing. In another version, when the sages came from the Land of Israel, they said that they would bring a towel to Rabbi Yehoshua. He would soak it in water and place it beneath his head, so that it would retain its moisture until the following day.
This version supports the explanation that on Tisha B’Av the towel was used to wash the face, hands, and feet. Similarly, they would bring a towel, soak it in water, and then dry it so that it became like a dry object. The following day, it could be passed over the eyes without creating a problem of wringing.
Rabbi Yaakov said that Rabbi Rumia had taught the opposite version. When he transmitted this halachah, he said that on Tisha B’Av the towel had to be made into a dry vessel, whereas on Yom Kippur he did not say that it had to be completely dry.
The Gemara challenges this version. Yom Kippur is the more serious case because of the prohibition against wringing. Therefore, it should be on Yom Kippur that the towel must be made completely dry, so that one will not come to wring it. The proper version is therefore the original one: on Yom Kippur, the towel had to be dried thoroughly, whereas on Tisha B’Av it could remain somewhat wetter.
In both cases, however, it was not moist enough to make a person wet and then transfer moisture to someone else. It was therefore permissible either to remove the crust from his eyes or to rub the towel against his body, depending on the version.
The Gemara now presents a question asked of Rabbi Elazar. Does a Torah scholar who sits on the Sanhedrin require authorization from the Nasi before issuing a ruling regarding a firstborn animal?
A firstborn animal is the firstborn of a kosher animal. The halachah is that it must be given to a kohen, who brings it as an offering, provided that the animal has no blemish. If the firstborn has a blemish, it becomes an ordinary animal, and the kohen may slaughter and eat it.
How does one determine whether the animal has a valid blemish? One brings it to a Torah scholar. The custom was that before issuing a ruling about a firstborn animal, the sage received authorization from the Nasi. This was an expression of honor: the sage went to the Nasi and received permission to issue the ruling.
The question is whether a member of the Sanhedrin, a distinguished Torah scholar, also needs authorization from the Nasi before ruling whether a firstborn animal has a valid blemish. Perhaps authorization was required in order to elevate the Nasi’s honor, in which case everyone would have to receive it, including a member of the Sanhedrin. Alternatively, perhaps a member of the Sanhedrin, because of his stature, would not need such authorization.
Rabbi Tzadok ben Hanukkah stood and said that he had seen a case involving Rabbi Yosef ben Zimra. Rabbi Yosef ben Zimra was an elderly and distinguished scholar who sat on the Sanhedrin, yet he stood before the grandfather of the current Nasi and asked for authorization to issue a ruling about whether a firstborn animal had a blemish.
This would indicate that even a member of the Sanhedrin must receive authorization. Rashi explains that the question is how far the honor of the Nasi extends: must even a member of the Sanhedrin ask him for permission to determine whether an animal has a blemish?
There is another version of the incident. Rabbi Abba says that this is not what happened. Rabbi Yosef ben Zimra was a kohen, and he went to the grandfather of the Nasi to ask a different question.
Rabbi Meir teaches that a person who is suspected regarding a matter may not judge that matter or testify concerning it. A kohen might be suspected of ruling that a firstborn animal has a blemish because he benefits from such a ruling. If the animal has no blemish, he cannot eat it; if it has a blemish, he may slaughter and eat it.
The question was whether the halachah follows Rabbi Meir, in which case Rabbi Yosef ben Zimra could not rule even regarding someone else’s animal because he was a kohen, or whether the halachah follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that a kohen cannot rule regarding his own animal, because he has an interest in declaring it blemished, but he may rule regarding someone else’s animal. In the latter case, he gains nothing, because the other person benefits from the ruling.
Rabbi Yosef ben Zimra was therefore asking the Nasi whether, as a kohen, he could rule regarding another person’s animal according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, or whether the halachah followed Rabbi Meir, who prohibited this in every case. The Nasi answered that the halachah follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and therefore Rabbi Yosef ben Zimra could issue a ruling regarding someone else’s animal.
According to this version, the incident does not answer our original question about whether a member of the Sanhedrin must receive authorization from the Nasi. Only according to the first version did Rabbi Yosef ben Zimra go to the Nasi specifically to obtain authorization.
The reason this discussion is brought here is that the Gemara will eventually return to the question of wearing a sandal on Yom Kippur.
The Gemara then presents a second question asked of Rabbi Elazar: May one go out on Yom Kippur wearing a shoe made of rush? This is not leather but a type of grass or plant material. Is it considered a shoe?
Rabbi Yitzchak stood and said that he had seen Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi go out on Yom Kippur wearing a sandal made of rush. He asked him whether the same was permitted on a communal fast.
In earlier times, when there was a lack of rain, the sages would decree fast days. As those fast days progressed, their restrictions became more severe, and one of the restrictions was that people could not wear shoes. The question was whether one could wear a shoe made of rush on such a communal fast.
A communal fast may be stricter than Yom Kippur in certain respects because the sages wanted people not to treat rabbinic enactments lightly. Even though the prohibition against wearing shoes on Yom Kippur is rabbinic according to some opinions, it has a source in the Torah in one of the verses. Since it has a Torah source, people may take it more seriously even though the prohibition itself is rabbinic. A communal fast, by contrast, is entirely a rabbinic enactment, and perhaps the sages were more stringent.
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi answered that there is no difference. A shoe made of rush is prohibited on a communal fast just as it is prohibited on Yom Kippur. He himself had gone out on a communal fast wearing such a sandal. Rabbi Yitzchak then asked him the reverse question: What is the law on Yom Kippur? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi answered that it is prohibited there as well.
Rav Yehuda would go out on Yom Kippur wearing a sandal made of another type of rush. Abaye would go out wearing sandals made of palm leaves. Rav would go out wearing sandals made of ordinary grass. Rav Aha bar Rav Huna would wrap a cloth around his foot and go out.
These statements indicate that such items were not considered shoes. They were therefore permitted on Yom Kippur.
The Gemara, ten lines down on 78b, continues the discussion of wearing shoes on Yom Kippur. It is clear that leather shoes are prohibited. The Gemara has been discussing various rabbis who wore shoes made of rush, palm branches, grass, or similar materials on Yom Kippur. This implies that such items do not have the status of shoes.
Rami bar Hama raises an objection. What is the law regarding an amputee who has no legs? May he go out on Shabbat with a wooden foot? They would make a kind of prosthesis, a wooden leg, and place it beneath the area where the foot had been amputated so that the person could walk.
Rabbi Meir permits him to go out with the wooden foot on Shabbat. Rashi explains that we are initially assuming that the wooden foot is not considered a shoe. Since most people do not wear such an item, it is not considered a normal shoe. If so, carrying it on Shabbat might be prohibited, because it would be an unusual manner of carrying.
Everyone agrees, including Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei, that on Yom Kippur it is prohibited. Their dispute concerns only Shabbat: is the wooden foot considered an article of clothing, so that the person may go out with it, or is carrying it prohibited? On Yom Kippur, however, even if the person is in a place with an eruv and there is no issue of carrying, it remains prohibited.
This seems to indicate that the wooden foot is considered a shoe on Yom Kippur. If so, the other items—the palm branches, leaves, and grass—should also be considered shoes and should likewise be prohibited.
The Gemara responds by citing the statement that on Yom Kippur the wooden foot is prohibited. The reason is that the person places cushions or cloths between his stump and the wooden foot so that the wood will not irritate him. The Gemara suggests that because the wooden foot is comfortable in this way, it is considered a shoe and is prohibited on Yom Kippur.
Rava challenges this explanation. If the wooden foot is not inherently a shoe, how do the cushions transform a non-shoe into a shoe? Moreover, what does it mean to say that comfort is the reason for the prohibition? Would any object that gives a person comfort become prohibited on Yom Kippur? That cannot be the explanation.
Rav Aha bar Rav Huna used to wrap a cloth around his foot and go out. Presumably, this was comfortable because it protected his foot from the ground, yet we said that it was permitted because it was not a shoe. Therefore, the issue cannot simply be whether the object provides comfort.
The Gemara brings another difficulty from the end of the same teaching. It says that if the wooden foot has a receptacle—a hollowed-out area in which cushions can be placed—it is susceptible to ritual impurity. The fact that the teaching introduces the cushions only at the end indicates that until that point it was not discussing them.
Thus, the question remains: why is the wooden foot prohibited on Yom Kippur? The answer is that the wooden foot itself is considered a shoe even without the cushions. On Shabbat, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei disagree about whether there is a concern that it might fall off and the person might carry it into the public domain. One rabbi is concerned and the other is not. On Yom Kippur, however, it is prohibited because it is genuinely considered a shoe.
What about the other items made of rush, palm leaves, or grass? They are different. The wooden foot has more of the character of a shoe than those other items. Therefore, the wooden foot is prohibited on Yom Kippur, while the other materials are permitted.
The conclusion of the Gemara is that the wooden foot is considered a shoe, whereas the sandals made of rush or grass are not. As Rashi summarizes, the wooden item is a shoe and is therefore prohibited on Yom Kippur, while the other items do not have the status of shoes.
The Gemara now discusses children. A child may be involved in all the other forms of self-affliction that are prohibited on Yom Kippur, except for wearing leather shoes. Children may not wear leather shoes.
The Gemara asks why leather shoes are treated differently. People will see the child wearing shoes and assume that the parents put them on him. Although a child is not obligated to observe the laws in the same manner as an adult, the parents are not permitted to place a prohibition in front of him. If a child eats non-kosher food on his own, that is one matter; the parents, however, may not feed him the prohibited food.
Similarly, if a child appears on Yom Kippur wearing shoes, people will say that the parents dressed him in shoes. Why, then, are bathing, anointing, and other forms of self-affliction permitted for children? Perhaps people will also assume that the parents bathed or anointed the child.
The Gemara answers that with regard to bathing and anointing, people can say that these were done before Yom Kippur. The child may have remained clean from the day before, and the ointment may have been applied before Yom Kippur. Likewise, perhaps he put on the shoes before Yom Kippur.
The Gemara rejects that possibility. Shmuel teaches that a person who wants to experience a taste of death should put on his shoes and go to sleep. It is therefore abnormal to sleep while wearing shoes. If people see a child wearing shoes on Yom Kippur, they will not assume that he put them on the day before and slept in them. Since the parents would not have allowed him to sleep with his shoes on, they will assume that the parents put the shoes on him on Yom Kippur.
The Gemara then challenges the distinction. We learned that the father may ask a rabbi whether he may bathe or anoint his child on Yom Kippur, and the rabbi will tell him that he may do so. This seems to indicate that even when the parents themselves perform these actions on Yom Kippur, they are permitted. Why, then, are shoes different?
The Gemara answers that the forms of self-affliction that affect a child’s growth and development are permitted. Bathing, anointing, and certainly eating are necessary for the child’s development. The rabbis did not prohibit parents from providing these things on Yom Kippur.
Leather shoes, however, do not contribute to the child’s growth or development. Therefore, the rabbis prohibited the child from wearing them, even though the other forms of self-affliction are permitted.
Abaye said that his mother—or, according to another version, his nurse—taught him the following regimen for a child’s development: bathe the child in hot water and apply oil. When he becomes a little older, feed him an egg with kutah, a type of yogurt mixture. When he becomes still older, allow him to break vessels.
Rabbah would buy inexpensive, broken pottery vessels for his son and allow him to break them. A young child has a certain amount of aggression and needs to play. Giving him objects that he may throw and break is part of his development and growth, while the objects themselves need not be expensive.
In conclusion, children may engage in the other forms of self-affliction on Yom Kippur, but they may not wear leather shoes.
The Gemara returns to the Mishnah, which says that a king and a bride may wash their faces normally on Yom Kippur. The Gemara asks who is the author of the Mishnah, since one teaching says that there is no special dispensation for a king or a bride.
Rabbi Hananiah ben Teradion says that a king and a bride may wash their faces. It would therefore seem that according to him, the king, the bride, and the woman who has recently given birth may all wear shoes or wash as needed. According to the first teaching, however, all three are prohibited.
When we studied the Mishnah, we asked what the sages prohibit. Do they prohibit only a woman who has recently given birth, or do they prohibit all three cases—the king, the bride, and the woman who has recently given birth? The Gemara now makes clear that the first view prohibits all three. The first part of the teaching prohibits the king and the bride, and the second part prohibits the woman who has recently given birth.
Rabbi Hananiah ben Teradion, the author of our Mishnah, permits all three. The reason for the king is that the verse says that a king must be seen in a beautiful and dignified manner. He must always be presentable, and therefore he may wash his face.
The reason for a bride is that she should not become unattractive or repulsive to her husband. How long does a woman retain the status of a bride? We learned that she may not be prevented from using jewelry or cosmetics during the first thirty days.
The context of that teaching concerns a wedding at which the meal had already been prepared and the wine had already been poured. Just before the wedding, the father of the groom or the mother of the bride died. The deceased was brought into a room, while the groom and bride were brought into another room and married. The groom then consummated the marriage, and afterward they separated. Only later was the deceased buried.
If the bride’s father had died, she would ordinarily be in mourning for thirty days and would not be permitted to use cosmetics, bathe, or otherwise beautify herself. Because she is a bride, however, she is permitted during the first thirty days to wash and adorn herself so that she will not become unattractive to her new husband.
This demonstrates that the status of a bride lasts thirty days, and the same applies on Yom Kippur: for the first thirty days, she may wash and beautify herself.
The Gemara clarifies that this is precisely the point. Even though the bride is in mourning, she may marry because the wedding meal has already been prepared. Once everything is ready, the wedding should proceed and should not be postponed. If the death occurred before the preparations for the meal, that would be a different case. Here, however, the food was already on the table and everything was prepared, so the Gemara says that the wedding should continue.
Why may a woman who has recently given birth wear shoes? The Gemara says that it is because of the cold floor. A woman after childbirth is considered ill, and if she cannot wear ordinary leather shoes, the cold floor may make her more ill.
Shmuel says that if a person lives in a place where there are scorpions that may bite his feet, everyone may wear leather shoes. The prohibition against shoes does not apply in a situation where wearing shoes is necessary for protection from danger.