Daf Ditty Yoma 73: “Inuy”

Daf Ditty Yoma 73: “inuy”

MISHNA: On Yom Kippur, the day on which there is a mitzva by Torah law to afflict oneself, it is prohibited to engage in eating and in drinking, and in bathing, and in smearing oil on one’s body, and in wearing shoes, and in conjugal relations. However, the king, in deference to his eminence, and a new bride within thirty days of her marriage, who wishes to look especially attractive at the beginning of her relationship with her husband, may wash their faces on Yom Kippur. A woman after childbirth, who is suffering, may wear shoes because going barefoot causes her pain. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. The Rabbis prohibit these activities for a king, a new bride, and a woman after childbirth.

The Mishna elaborates: One who eats a large date-bulk of food, equivalent to a date and its pit, or who drinks a cheekful of liquid on Yom Kippur is liable to receive the punishment of karet for failing to fulfill the mitzva to afflict oneself on Yom Kippur. All foods that one eats join together to constitute a date-bulk; and all liquids that one drinks join together to constitute a cheekful. However, if one eats and drinks, the food and beverage do not join together to constitute a measure that determines liability, as each is measured separately.

§ The Gemara’s initial assumption is that the mishna’s use of the word prohibited is referring to a transgression not punishable by karet. The Gemara asks: And anywhere that it teaches that

2 transgressing is punishable by karet, does it never teach using the word prohibited? Was it not taught in a baraita: Although they said the word prohibited with all of the five Yom Kippur afflictions, they said that the punishment of karet applies only to one who eats, or drinks, or performs prohibited labor. This means that the word prohibit is used with transgressions punishable by karet as well. The Gemara rejects this. This is what the baraita is saying: When they said that those five activities are prohibited, they said that only with regard to a half- measure; but a full measure is punishable by karet. And although a violation is punishable by karet, it is punishable by karet only if one eats, or drinks, or performs prohibited labor; these alone are the cases where karet is incurred.

And if you wish, say instead that when it is taught in the Mishna using the language of prohibited, it is referring to the other transgressions, which do not incur karet. As Rabba and Rav Yosef taught this in other books of Rav’s school, i.e., the Sifrei, the halakhic midrash on Numbers and Deuteronomy: From where is it derived that it is prohibited to engage in bathing, and in smearing oil on one’s body, and in wearing shoes, and in having relations on Yom Kippur? The verse states:

It is a sabbath of solemn rest unto you, and ye shall 31 אל תַבַּשׁ ןוֹתָבַּשׁ איִה כָל ,םֶ נִּﬠְ ו םֶתיִ תֶא - .afflict your souls; it is a statute forever ַנ םֶכיֵתֹשְׁפ -- ,תַקֻּח .םָלוֹע ,תַקֻּח Lev 16:31

“Shabbaton”, meaning resting and refraining from certain activities. Therefore, the word prohibit is used with these activities, but they are not punishable by karet.

§ After clarifying the wording of the Mishna, the Gemara brings a halakhic midrash to analyze the mishna’s laws. The Sages taught: The verse states:

And it shall be a statute forever unto you: in the seventh 29 טכ הָתְיָהְו ,םֶכָל תַקֻּחְל :םָלוֹע שֶׁדֹחַבּ שֶׁדֹחַבּ month, on the tenth day of the month, ye shall afflict your יִﬠיִבְשַּׁה רוֹשָׂﬠֶבּ שֶׁדֹחַל וּנַּﬠְתּ תֶא -

3 souls, and shall do no manner of work, the home-born, or ,םֶכיֵתֹשְׁפַנ לָכְו - הָכאָלְמ אֹל וּשֲׂﬠַת -- .the stranger that sojourneth among you ָה ,חָרְזֶא רֵגַּהְו רָגַּה .םֶכְכוֹתְבּ רָגַּה רֵגַּהְו ,חָרְזֶא Lev 16:29

“And this shall be a statute to you forever: In the seventh month on the tenth day of the month you shall afflict your souls” I might have thought that one should sit in the sun or in the cold to suffer and afflict his soul; therefore the continuation of the verse states:

and shall do no manner of work ,חָרְזֶאָה רֵגַּהְו רָגַּה .םֶכְכוֹתְבּ .… לָכְו - הָכאָלְמ אֹל וּשֲׂﬠַת אֹל הָכאָלְמ

“And you shall not do any labor, the home-born, or the stranger that lives among you”

This teaches that just as prohibited labor is a mitzva that requires one to sit and do nothing, as one is commanded to refrain from action, so too, affliction of one’s soul is also a mitzva requiring one to sit and do nothing. One is not commanded to be proactive in order to afflict his soul. Rather, one must refrain from specified actions such as eating and drinking.

It was taught in another baraita that as the verse states: “You shall afflict your souls” (Leviticus 16:29), I might have thought that one must sit in the sun or the cold and be uncomfortable; therefore, the continuation of the verse states: “And you shall not do any labor” (Leviticus 16:29). Just as prohibited labor is something that incurs karet in other circumstances, like Shabbat, so too, affliction relates to acts that in other circumstances incur karet. And what is that circumstance? That is referring to piggul and notar, which lead to karet if eaten, and which therefore may not be eaten on Yom Kippur.

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught the following concerning the nature of Yom Kippur: The word affliction is stated here with regard to Yom Kippur, and the word affliction is stated further on in a different place, concerning the Jews in the desert:

And He afflicted thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and 3 ג ,ְנַּﬠְיַו ,ֶבִﬠְרַיַּו ְלִכֲאַיַּו תֶא - ןָמַּה רֶשֲׁא רֶשֲׁא ןָמַּה fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did ֹל א - ,ָתְּﬠַדָי אֹלְו ןוּעְדָי :יֶתֹבֲא ַמְל ןַﬠ ןַﬠ

4 thy fathers know; that He might make thee know that man דוֹה ,ֲﬠיִ יִ כּ ֹל א לַ ﬠ - םֶחֶלַּה וֹדַּבְל הֶיְחִי הֶיְחִי וֹדַּבְל םֶחֶלַּה doth not live by bread only, but by everything that םָדָאָה -- יִכּ לַﬠ - לָכּ - צוֹמ ָ א ִ פ י - ,הָוהְי הֶיְחִי הֶיְחִי ,הָוהְי .proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live .םָדָאָה Deut 8:3

“And He afflicted you and caused you to hunger”

Just as further on the meaning of affliction is hunger, so too, here, the meaning of the word affliction is hunger.

Summary

A set of fascinating ideas today.

First, the rabbis explore the differences between a High Priest and the priest who is anointed for war. Both are subject to similar prohibitions and permissions. The rabbis note that a High Priest might be offended by a lower-level priest who is adorned like a High Priest.

Like the High Priest, the priest anointed for war is subject to laws regarding his hair, symbols of mourning, ritual impurity as a mourner, whom he can marry (a virgin - and his is prohibited from marrying a widow), and possibly that his death will allow the return of an accidental murderer from the city of refuge.

In addition to these, the High Priest is also subject to numerous other prohibitions and obligations, including the rites of the bull for all mitzvot, the bull of Yom Kippur, the daily offering of 1/10th of an ephah, sacrificing offerings even as an acute mourner - though not eating/taking a portion from them, the right to first sacrifice, wearing eight garments, exemption from certain offerings, validating all Yom Kippur rituals, and the right to continue using this privilege once retired as a High Priest.

When learning about this, Ravvi Ami and Rabbi Asi turned their faces away from their teacher. We learn from this that turning one's face away is a respectful sign of disagreement. Honour was given to all governmental leaders, even through secular and otherwise non-Jewish governments. It makes sense to me that the rabbis would wish to honour other codes of hierarchical rule. As they were establishing their own relevance and authority, similar displays of respect to other examples of hierarchical rule would only lend credence to their own supremacy.

I had never before learned of the ritual of Urim Vetummim. Apparently, certain leaders (kings, commanders of war, leaders of the Jewish people) could ask the High Priest to answer one or two questions using Urim Vetummim. This ritual involved both individuals facing each other in the

5 Temple by the Ark. Following the question being asked, the High Priest would look to the breastplate for letters to stand out, light up, or otherwise come together to answer the question(s). Rabbis wondered whether small pieces of paper were used behind the breast plate. They also go to great difficultly proving that all letters of the Hebrew aleph-bet were represented on the breast plate. And they agreed that a rabbi who did not have the 'Divine Spirit'; who could not see the answers, was fit to be removed from the High Priesthood.

Unless there was some kind of magic being used that I am unaware of, that means that any rabbi who was honest and reported that he did not see an answer in the breastplate was denied a very special status. Makes me think of the ritual facing the sota. Also makes me think of the Monty Python sketch where a woman is accused of being a witch through logic that includes comparing her to a duck and thinking of things that burn. Basically, the logic is faulty. And due to that erroneous thought, someone's life is lost or dramatically altered.

We move into Perek VII part way through amud (b). A new Mishna teaches some familiar rules. On Yom Kippur, we are prohibited from eating, drinking, wearing shoes, and conjugal relations. The king and new brides are allowed to wash their faces. And a woman after childbirth is allowed to wear shoes*. The Mishna qualifies its own statements: one who eats a large date bulk of food - all together or in pieces over the course of the day - or who drinks a cheekful of liquid - in whole or in part, combined - is liable. Food and liquid are measured separately in this regard.

The Gemara teaches us that the rabbis argued about what of this Mishna is based on Torah law and what is based on rabbinic law. Does it matter what a person eats? Can the food be treiefot? At what point did we make an oath that we would not eat such food - on Mount Sinai? or simply before Yom Kippur? Perhaps we are not supposed to eat at all; forget the date bulk and forget the half-measures.

These are fascinating questions. Did I actively agree to keep G-d's commandments at Mt. Sinai? If the Sages have reworked and reinterpreted Torah law to make halachic practice more stringent, did I agree to keep those laws at Mt. Sinai? Given that the rabbis chose interesting leniencies (a woman who has just given birth can wear shoes, but she cannot eat or drink, for example), why would I have promised to keep those laws?

* We learn in a note by Steinsaltz that people wore shoes in the cities by the time that the Mishnaot were written. Those shoes were leather sandals, usually, and they were more comfortable than walking barefoot. When people gave up their leather shoes for Yom Kippur, they walked in bare feet. Very different from us, who give up our leather shoes for canvas sneakers on Yom Kippur.

"TZADI" BEFORE "TES"

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:1

The Gemara asks how the letters on the stones of the Choshen combined to spell the answer to any question if they did not contain every letter of the alphabet. The names of the twelve sons of Yakov were inscribed on the stones of the Choshen, but none of those names contain the letter "Tzadi." The Gemara answers that the names of the Avos were also inscribed on the stones; the name "Yitzchak" contains the letter "Tzadi."

The Gemara asks further that the letter "Tes" appears neither in the names of the sons of Yakov nor in the names of the Avos. If the letter "Tes" was not inscribed on the stones, how could answers from the Urim v'Tumim include it? The Gemara answers that the words "Shivtei Yeshurun" were also inscribed on the stones.

Why does the Gemara first ask about the exclusion of the letter "Tzadi" from the Choshen, and afterwards about the exclusion of the letter "Tes"? The letter "Tes" precedes "Tzadi" in the alphabet, and thus the Gemara should first ask about the missing "Tes" and then about the missing "Tzadi."

Moreover, there are other letters that also are not included in the names of the sons of Yakov, such as the letters "Ches" and "Kuf." Since the letter "Ches" precedes both "Tes" and "Tzadi," the Gemara should have asked first about the missing letter "Ches." (The Yerushalmi (Yoma 7:3) indeed asks about "Ches," "Tes," and "Tzadi" together before it answers that those letters appear in the names of the Avos which were also inscribed on the stones.)

CHASAM SOFER (Parshas Tetzaveh) cites a brilliant answer in the name of the SHEV YAKOV. When the Gemara asks about the missing "Tzadi," it is uncertain about what exactly was written on the stones. The Gemara is in doubt whether the names of the tribes were written on the stones or whether the names of the stones were written on the stones. The Gemara specifically asks about the missing letter "Tzadi," because the "Tzadi" is the only letter missing from both the names of the tribes and the names of the stones!

Once the Gemara answers that the names of the Avos were written on the stones, the Gemara understands that the names of the tribes were written on the stones along with the names of the Avos, and not the names of the stones. (This is a logical conclusion. If the names of the stones would have been written on the stones, there would have been no purpose in adding the names of the Avos which are unrelated to the names of the stones.) Only at this point does the Gemara safely assume that the names of the tribes were written on the stones, and thus it now asks about the

1 https://www.dafyomi.co.il/yoma/insites/yo-dt-073.htm

7 missing letter "Tes," which appears neither in the names of the tribes nor in the names of the Avos (although it does appear in the names of the stones, in "Pitda").2

HOW THE KOHEN GADOL "ASSISTS" THE "URIM V'TUMIM"

The Gemara asks why the Kohen Gadol needs to have Ru'ach ha'Kodesh in order to receive an answer from the Urim v'Tumim if the letters themselves protrude or join together (see Rashi) to give him the answer. The Gemara answers that the Kohen Gadol must have Ru'ach ha'Kodesh because he "assists" the letters that protrude or join together. In what way does the Kohen Gadol assist the letters of the Urim v'Tumim, and why must he have Ru'ach ha'Kodesh for that purpose?

(a) RASHI implies that the Kohen Gadol concentrates on the letters of the Choshen and, as a result, his Ru'ach ha'Kodesh causes the letters to protrude or join together.

The RAMBAN (Shemos 28:30) and the RITVA here explain this process in more detail. They explain that Rebbi Yochanan, who maintains that the letters protrude, and Reish Lakish, who maintains that the letters join together, do not argue with each other. Rather, the letters both protrude and join together. The Kohen Gadol first concentrates on the Name of Hash-m known as the "Urim," which causes the letters to stand out by lighting up ("Urim"). The Kohen Gadol then concentrates on the Name of Hash-m known as the "Tumim," which enables him to see the correct order of the letters as they join together ("Tumim" refers to their feature of being "Metamem Divrehen" -- they make their message complete, as the Gemara says on 73b; see Rashi there).

(b) RABEINU ELYAKIM says that the Kohen Gadol first concentrates in order to perceive the answer by himself with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh. After he has thought of the answer, he then verifies his answer by using the Urim v'Tumim. Rabeinu Elyakim explains that this is the meaning of the Gemara's words, "it (the Urim v'Tumim) assists him (the Kohen Gadol)." The Gemara does not mean that the Kohen Gadol assists the Urim v'Tumim.

(c) The RITVA (end of 73a) writes that "the Urim v'Tumim did not work for the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah the same way it worked for the Kohen Gadol; rather, it merely helped him." The Ritva apparently has a different Girsa in the Gemara. According to his Girsa, the phrase "he assists them" does not address the question of why the Kohen Gadol needed Ru'ach ha'Kodesh. Rather, it addresses a different question.

The CHAFETZ CHAIM (in ZEVACH TODAH) explains that the Gemara asks why the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah was permitted to wear the eight Bigdei Kehunah in order for someone to ask a question of the Urim v'Tumim, when it was unlikely that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah had Ru'ach ha'Kodesh and thus the Urim v'Tumim would not work. The Gemara answers that, indeed, the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah's Urim v'Tumim was not entirely reliable; the answer it provided served only as a support for the petitioner's other reasons to act in that particular way.

2 See NITZOTZEI SHIMSHON, Parshas Tetzaveh, for an extensive and original mathematical-Kabbalistic approach of RAV SHIMSHON of OSTROPOLI.

8 An alternative understanding of the Ritva's intention is that in the text of his Gemara, the phrase "he assists them" appears at the very end of the chapter, and it is answering a different question. The Gemara at the end of the chapter says that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah was permitted to serve as the questioner when a question needed to be asked to the Urim v'Tumim (while the Kohen Gadol wore it). This implies that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah could not wear the Urim v'Tumim, but he had to ask the question to the Kohen Gadol who wore the Urim v'Tumim.

The Gemara answers that although it is true that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah is not permitted to wear the Urim v'Tumim himself while a question is asked of it, "the Urim v'Tumim assists him." This means that he has the authority to ask a question to the Urim v'Tumim while the Kohen Gadol wears it, and the Urim v'Tumim will give him an answer, even though it usually gives an answer only to the king or to the Sanhedrin. (M. Kornfeld)

3 Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:

The eighth perek of Masechet Yoma begins on today’s daf. In contrast to the rest of the masechet, this final chapter deals with the commandments of Yom Kippur that apply to every Jewish person, not specifically to the High Priest serving in the Temple.

There are two commandments that apply to all Jews on Yom Kippur: the prohibition of melachah, and the mitzvah of inuy – to create a sense of suffering or oppression, as defined by the Sages. We are familiar with the prohibition against work from our study of the rules and regulations of Shabbat, and, in fact, the Gemara learns that melacha is forbidden on Yom Kippur in a similar manner to the prohibition on Shabbat. Inuy, on the other hand, has no clear parallels in the realm of halakha, and the Torah does not make clear what exactly must be done to fulfill this mitzvah. Do we simply refrain from pleasurable activities, or are we obligated to perform specific acts that bring with them a certain level of suffering?

The first Mishnah in the perek enumerates five pleasurable activities that are forbidden as a result of this mitzvah. They are:

1. Eating and drinking 2. Washing 3. Anointing 4. Wearing shoes 5. Sexual relations

There is a difference of opinion between the commentaries regarding the level of these prohibitions. According to the Rambam, they are all Biblically forbidden, while the Rosh and the Tosafot Yeshanim understand that only eating and drinking are forbidden by the Torah, while the other inuyim are Rabbinic in origin.

Included in the Mishnah are some exceptions to the rule. For example, a Jewish king and a newly married bride are permitted to wash their faces. According to the reasoning of the Rosh and Tosafot

3 https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_yoma_7278/

9 Yeshanim, it is fairly easy to accept these exceptions. Given that the obligation is Rabbinic, the Rabbis apparently chose not to apply the prohibition in these particular cases when they established the law. It is more difficult to explain the Rambam’s position, however.

The Ran suggests that this is an example of a case where the Torah presents a commandment, but leaves it to the Sages to determine how exactly that mitzvah should be fulfilled. In our case, the Torah commanded that people reach a level of inuy, but left it to the Rabbinic leaders to decide how that state should be reached.

The Tikunei Zohar states that each of the nine vowels symbolizes a different sefirah, a different mode of Divine expression, but the sefirah of malchus is likened to a letter without a vowel.4

This is the unarticulated yearning to draw close to Hashem. These “vowel-less letters” of our innermost desires are inscribed on Rosh Hashanah, the first day of the year. During the remaining nine days of repentance, we focus on the greatness of our Creator and His love for us, and this helps us to breathe life into those letters and articulate our desire to return to Hashem. Yom Kippur represents the sefirah of Kesser, the “crown,” and embodies the inner nature of the vowel komatz— the awareness of how precious is it to be close to Hashem, and the deep pain of the sins that distance us from Him.

On that day, we are inspired to verbally express all of our longing for repentance, and this brings about the forgiveness of all sin. Since physical and spiritual pleasures are opposites, we arouse the inner state of spiritual longing by refraining from the five main categories of physical pleasure.

The five inuyim parallel the five areas that serve as the channels for speech—the tongue, the lips, the teeth, the palate, and the throat. What is clear is that all year long, these five zones are either devoted to the service of Hashem, or are drafted for the purpose of physical gratification.

Rav Chaim Cohen zt”l once asked the Chazon Ish, zt”l, “How can I overcome my ta’avas achilah so that I will not even feel the physical taste of the food that I eat?” The Chazon Ish answered, “I cannot offer you any advice about how to achieve this. However, I can tell you one thing. You are only preoccupied with something until you have an even greater thing to marvel over. As soon as the stronger emotional stimulus enters your being, the lesser one ceases. When a person feels genuine delight in Torah, he cannot really notice his food.”

The Chazon Ish concluded, “I don’t believe that the K’tzos HaChoshen zt”l even tasted his little piece of kugel!”

4 https://dafdigest.org/masechtos/Yoma%20073.pdf

10 Sue Parker Gerson writes:5

With the mishnah on today’s daf, we finally arrive at a subject you probably would have expected to encounter much earlier in Tractate Yoma: the basic rules for observing Yom Kippur.

The text states:

On Yom Kippur, the day on which there is a mitzvah by Torah law to afflict oneself, it is prohibited to engage in eating and in drinking, and in bathing, and in smearing oil on one’s body, and in wearing shoes, and in conjugal relations.

The rest of the mishnah, and the Gemara discussion that follows, goes on to address the punishments for violating these laws and the specific amounts of food and drink consumption that would trigger a harsher punishment of karet (spiritual excising from God) or a more lenient rabbinic punishment of lashes. There are also exceptions for new mothers, kings and brides.

One of these exceptions is curious:

A woman after childbirth, who is suffering, may wear shoes because going barefoot causes her pain. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. The rabbis prohibit these activities [wearing shoes or washing] for a king, a new bride, and a woman after childbirth.

Why would not wearing shoes be considered an affliction? Why would Rabbi Eliezer assume that going barefoot would cause pain for a new mother and allow her to wear them? Why would the rabbis disagree? And how is it that almost everyone wears footwear today on Yom Kippur?

In considering these questions, we need to put ourselves in the shoes (or not) of a new mother living in the rabbinic period. While some might consider shoes to be prisons for the feet and take any opportunity to go barefoot, that would not have been the case throughout most of human history. Going barefoot might cause a woman in her delicate postpartum state to become ill from walking on cold ground (Rashi) or expose her to the danger of stepping on a scorpion (Maimonides). The Shulchan Aruch allows a new mother, anyone who is sick, or anyone who has a wound on their feet to wear sandals on Yom Kippur. Thus Rabbi Eliezer’s leniency, rather than the stringency of the rabbis, becomes the law.

And yet today, almost everyone wears shoes on Yom Kippur – just not leather ones. Why is this permitted?

For the answer, we need to jump ahead to Tractate Yevamot, which we will get to in our Daf Yomi cycle just about one year from now. There, the Gemara is discussing halitzah, the ceremony releasing a man from the biblical requirement, described in Deuteronomy 25:5-10, to marry his dead brother’s childless widow and raise their offspring in his brother’s name. In this process, the widow makes a declaration, removes her brother-in-law’s shoe from his foot, and spits on the floor. (You may not have learned about this in Hebrew school.) The Gemara then

5 Myjewishlearning.com

11 spends some time discussing the definition of a shoe. According to the rabbis, only footwear made of leather are considered actual shoes.

This is why, as we will see in a few days, even the rabbis of the Talmud wore cloth foot coverings on Yom Kippur. And it’s why many of us today wear canvas sneakers or rubber flip- flops on the holiest day of the year.

Circling back to today’s daf, why would new mothers then be permitted to wear leather shoes when we now know that cloth is perfectly acceptable? To understand that, all we need to do is imagine what it would be like to walk to shul on Yom Kippur in the rain, on a gravel road, with cold, wet feet because we were wearing flimsy shoes. Leather offers better protection, and for a postpartum mom recovering from childbirth, her comfort and safety outweigh even the laws of Yom Kippur.

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:6

Our daf (Yoma 73a) begins by exploring the relationship between the Kohen Gadol and the Kohen Mashuach Milchama (the Kohen anointed for battle) and the importance of avoiding enmity between the two, and it then proceeds to discuss the Urim V’Tumim – the divine communication tool that featured on the Choshen (breastplate) worn by the Kohen Gadol.

On first glance, these two topics are seemingly unrelated. However, the Midrash (Shemot Rabbah 3:17) teaches us that the reason why Aharon was ultimately privileged to wear the Choshen, with the Urim V’Tumim, ‘over his heart’ (Shemot 28:30) was because he ‘rejoiced in his heart’ (Shemot 4:14) when greeting his younger brother Moshe after he had been appointed by God as leader of Am Yisrael.

As Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz explains, “A heart that had the capacity to truly rejoice in the good fortune of another - that heart was the appropriate place for the Urim V’Tumim. Through the Urim V’Tumim, God revealed to Aharon the solutions to the most difficult problems in a manner all but incomprehensible and unfathomable - except to one whose heart could so totally identify with the problem of his supplicant as to feel that problem as his own.”

What we learn from here is that it is due to the sensitivity, positivity and generosity of spirit that we show others that God grants us wisdom, understanding and insight - which we are then tasked to use to assist, guide, help and inspire others.

6 www.rabbijohnnysolomon.com

Great Looking Food

Rabbi Jay Kelman7 writes:8

After seven chapters detailing the Temple service of Yom Kippur, the eighth and final chapter of Masechet Yoma discusses the laws of Yom Kippur that we know today. "Yom Kippur is forbidden in food, drink, washing oneself, anointing oneself, wearing of shoes and marital relations" (Mishna Yoma 73b). The Torah never actually uses the word tzom, a fast, regarding Yom Kippur. Rather, we are commanded to "afflict, te'anu, our souls" (Vayikra 23:27). While we must fast on Yom Kippur, it is not fasting that is the essence of the day. Rather, we must make ourselves uncomfortable so that we begin the process of teshuva. Raising a possibility any Canadian would readily understand, the Gemara suggests that maybe affliction means to sit in the extreme cold (or heat - something a bit harder for us Canadians to relate to). The Gemara then has a relatively long discussion proving

7 Thanks to Rabbi Jonathan Ziring for his help with this Daily Daf and with countless other divrei Torah.

8 https://torahinmotion.org/discussions-and-blogs/yoma-74-great-looking-food

13 that inui, at least in the context of Yom Kippur, means to deprive oneself from food (Yoma 74b). "Vaye'anacha vayare'evecha, He afflicted and He starved you, and He fed you the manna that you did not know" (Devarim 8:3). Being that food literally fell from the sky and could, according to the Sages, take on whatever taste one desired, the Gemara wonders why the manna was considered bread of affliction. To this, the Talmud provides two answers. "One cannot compare one who has food in his basket to one who does not have food in his basket". While mana came day in and day out, one could not save anything for the next day - leading to daily feeling of uncertainty as to where one's next meal might come from. That is a feeling which makes man very uncomfortable, even full of pain. Having to rely on G-d's miracles - even if they come every day - is a most difficult predicament, yet one G-d felt was necessary for our development as a people [1]. While this interpretation views the affliction of the manna as one of faith [2], the second interpretation views the affliction of the manna in a much more mundane fashion. "One cannot compare one who can see and eat to one who cannot see that which they eat" (Yoma 74b). The experience of eating involves much more than the taste of the food. As anyone who cares for fine dining can attest, presentation is more important than taste. The expectation that great food will follow makes the food taste that much better. In a similar vein, "Reish Lakish said, It is more enjoyable to look at a woman than to engage in the act of cohabitation." By eating manna every day, we may have had good food, but we did not have the experience of eating. Abaye went so far as to suggest that "one who has a meal should not eat it except in the day". No wonder our Sages insisted that we have a "candlelight" dinner on Friday night (Shabbat 25b). The joys of life are that much more enjoyable when one sees that from which we are partaking. It is this expectation of pleasure that often motivates sin. "Forbidden waters are sweet" (Mishlei 9:17). Teshuva is possible when we realize that the pleasure and joy of sin can be much greater before the sin than afterwards. With the anticipation of great things ahead no longer present, all we are left with is the experience of an improper act. Fortunate are those who can look both forward and backwards to the experience of carrying out the will of G-d.

[1] A similar interpretation is offered by the Kli Yakar (Shemot 22:24) (16th century, Prague), regarding the prohibition of charging interest on a loan. To earn money without doing any work would serve to weaken our faith that we are dependent on G-d for our sustenance. This is not an interpretation with great resonance in the modern-day economy. [2] Not surprisingly, our Sages equated faith with farming. A farmer is well aware that no matter how hard he works, his ultimate success is in the hands of heaven. The placing of so many mitzvoth in the context of farming is more than just a reflection of the agricultural-based economy of the ancient world.

Rav Chaim Navon writes:9

The Torah commands us to “afflict” ourselves on Yom Kippur.

And you shall have on the tenth day of this seventh month a holy gathering; and you shall afflict your souls: you shall not do any work. (Bamidbar 29:7)

Chazal teach us the meaning of this “affliction”:

There is another positive commandment relating to Yom Kippur, namely, to desist from eating and drinking, as the verse states: “You shall afflict your souls.” [The Sages] learned by tradition: What affliction is there to the soul? This refers to fasting. … They also learned by tradition that one is forbidden on this day to wash or anoint oneself, to wear shoes, or to engage in sexual relations. (Rambam, Hilkhot Shevitat he-Asor 1:3-4)

But what is the idea behind this affliction? Is the objective to cause us grief and suffering on Yom Kippur? The laws relating to affliction on Yom Kippur seem to teach us otherwise.

Eating on the Day before Yom Kippur

The Gemara records a puzzling law:

It is written: “And you shall afflict your souls on the ninth day of the month at evening” (Vayikra 23:32). But do we fast on the ninth? Surely we fast on the tenth! Rather, this teaches you [that] whoever eats and drinks on the ninth, Scripture regards him as if he has fasted on the ninth and the tenth. (Berakhot 8b)

9 https://etzion.org.il/en/holidays/yom-kippur/you-shall-afflict-your-souls

This is undoubtedly a peculiar law. What is the significance of eating on the day before Yom Kippur? Rabbenu Asher ben Yechiel (Rosh) proposes an interesting answer:

This is the meaning of the verse: “And you shall afflict your souls” – that is, prepare yourselves on the ninth of the month by strengthening yourselves through eating and drinking so that you will be able to fast on the next day. This demonstrates how much the Omnipresent, may He be blessed, loves Israel. It is like a person with a darling child, who decrees that [the child] must fast for a day, and [then] commands that he be fed and given to drink on the day before the fast so that he will be able to bear it. (Rosh, Yoma 2:22)

The Rosh explains that the Torah commands us to eat on the day before Yom Kippur in order to make it easier for us to fast the next day. This explanation is puzzling in and of itself: If God commanded us to fast on Yom Kippur, it is reasonable to assume that He wanted us to suffer affliction on that day. Why, then, did He bother commanding us to lighten the affliction by eating on the day before Yom Kippur?

The Rosh’s approach seems to lead us to a surprising conclusion: Fasting on Yom Kippur – unlike fasting on Tish’a be-Av and the other Rabbinic fasts – was never intended to increase our suffering, affliction, or anguish. Some Acharonim have relied on this conclusion in order to allow a person to take medications on the day before Yom Kippur that will make the fast easier for him. Nothing is gained if we increase our pain and suffering. It is enough that we refrain from eating on the day itself, and it makes no difference whether we find the fast easy or difficult (Rav Sternbuch, Mo’adim u-Zemanim, I, p. 108).

“On Account of Anguish”

The purpose of affliction on Yom Kippur may depend upon a controversy among the Rishonim. The Gemara states:

[When Yom Kippur falls on a weekday], we crack nuts and open pomegranates from the time of Mincha on, on account of anguish. (Shabbat 115a)

16 That is to say, when Yom Kippur falls out on a weekday, one is permitted (toward the end of the fast) to make certain preparations for the meal with which he will break the fast, “on account of anguish.” Rashi (ad loc.) explains:

Here it is permitted because of the anguish [caused him] when he prepares [food] but does not eat [it], this being close to affliction.

According to Rashi, the Rabbis set aside certain rabbinic prohibitions in order to increase a person’s mental anguish and thus allow him to better fulfill the mitzva of affliction on Yom Kippur. According to Rashi’s understanding, this talmudic passage contradicts our proposal, for it follows from what he says that the Yom Kippur prohibitions are intended to cause pain and anguish. Most Rishonim, however, understand the passage differently. Thus, for example, writes the Rashba (ad loc.):

The meaning of “anguish” is that [the Rabbis] were concerned about anguish [i.e., they wished to minimize anguish], and so they permitted a person to clean [vegetables] now, so that he would not have to prepare all [the food] after nightfall when he will be hungry and thus suffer anguish. Rashi did not explain [the passage] in this manner, but this is correct.

According to the Rashba, the Rabbis permitted a rabbinic prohibition here, not in order to cause anguish, but on the contrary, in order to prevent the anguish that a person will feel at the end of the fast if he can only begin to prepare his meal at that time. Ramban, Ran (in his novellae), and Rabbi Zerachya ha-Levi understood the passage in the same way.

It should be noted that there is no proof that all the Rishonim who disagree with Rashi would accept the above suggestion that Yom Kippur is not meant to cause suffering. They might maintain that the pain that a person must feel on Yom Kippur is embodied in the afflictions set down by Halakha, to which additional afflictions should not be added. For the Gemara (Yoma 74b) states explicitly that a person is not required to sit in the sun or in the cold in order to cause himself suffering. But at the very least, according to these Rishonim, this talmudic passage does not contradict our position. [Rabbi Moshe Sternbuch, in his “Mo’adim u-Zemanim,” argues that even according to Rashi, the purpose of the Yom Kippur prohibitions is not to cause pain and suffering.]

Yom Kippur as a Festival

Chazal disagree about whether or not Yom Kippur should be regarded as a Festival:

No mention is made on Yom Kippur of [its being] a Festival, for there is no Festival on a day of fasting. (Tractate Soferim 19:4)

… Rosh ha-Shana is a Festival like Yom Kippur. (Sifra, Acharei Mot, parasha 5, chap. 8)

Sifra – a much earlier source than tractate Soferim – maintains that Yom Kippur is indeed a Festival. This certainly inclines toward our position that Yom Kippur is not a day of suffering and mourning. Relating to Yom Kippur as a Festival has halakhic ramifications. On Shabbat and the Festivals there is obligation to honor the day and indulge in pleasure. The Vilna Gaon (Orach Chayim, 529) explains the difference between honor and pleasure: Honor involves the preparations made in expectation of the day (clean clothing, bathing, etc.), and pleasure consists of the bodily delights that are enjoyed on the day itself (eating and drinking). On Yom Kippur, when eating and drinking are forbidden, there is obviously no obligation to indulge in pleasure. The Gemara states, however, that the laws of honoring the day apply even to Yom Kippur:

The Exilarch said to Rav Hamnuna: What is the meaning of “And call the holy day of the Lord honorable” (Yeshaya 58:13)? He said to him: This is Yom Kippur, on which there is no eating or drinking. The Torah said: Honor it with clean clothing. (Shabbat 119a)

Some authorities expanded the mitzva of honoring Yom Kippur, extending its application:

You asked about the Rosh’s ruling that in places where it is customary to light candles on the night of Yom Kippur, one lights with a blessing: But surely we maintain that one does not recite a blessing over a [mere] custom! … It seems to me that the Rosh’s reasoning is that [the Sages] instituted an obligation [to light candles] on account of domestic peace. For [even] on Friday nights there is no explicit mitzva [to light candles]. Rather it falls into the category of honoring Shabbat, and we were commanded to honor Shabbat. Regarding Yom Kippur as well it says, “And call the holy day of the Lord honorable,” and the Gemara says: This is Yom Kippur. And since we are enjoined to honor [Yom Kippur], lighting candles in included in the mitzva of honoring [the day], and [so] we may recite a blessing. (Responsa Radbaz, VI, 2209)

We saw earlier that there is an obligation to eat on the day before Yom Kippur, and we explained the Rosh’s understanding of this obligation. Rabbi Yosef Karo, in his Bet Yosef, proposes an alternative explanation:

As for the mitzva of eating and drinking on this day, it is intended to demonstrate that a person is at ease with and ready to receive Yom Kippur, and that he happily anticipates the day because Israel is being given [the opportunity for] atonement. On Yom Kippur itself, it is impossible to honor the day with food and drink in the way that we honor the other Festivals; one must, therefore, honor it on the preceding day. (Bet Yosef, OC 604)

According to Bet Yosef, the festive meal eaten on the day before Yom Kippur is in fact a fulfillment of the mitzva to show honor to and indulge in pleasure on Yom Kippur – a mitzva which cannot be fulfilled on Yom Kippur itself. The meal partaken on the day before Yom Kippur is actually the meal of Yom Kippur, which for “technical” reasons must be eaten ahead of its time.

Rabbenu Yona writes in a similar vein:

Owing to the fast that is observed on Yom Kippur [itself], we are obligated to partake of a festive meal on the day before Yom Kippur in celebration of the joy derived from the mitzva. (Sha’arei Teshuva 4, 9)

The mitzva of honoring the day clearly indicates that Yom Kippur is endowed with the sanctity of the Festivals, which would seem to negate the possibility of relating to Yom Kippur as a day of pain and suffering. There is, however, much stronger and more direct evidence proving this point. There are those who maintain that on Yom Kippur, in addition to the mitzva of honoring the day, there is also a mitzva of rejoicing, which certainly cannot coexist with grief and suffering. This is what follows from the words of Rav Achai Gaon, author of the She’iltot:

These days [Rosh ha-Shana and Yom Kippur], since rejoicing applies to them, they are considered like Festivals and [therefore] interrupt mourning. (She’iltot 15)

Rabbenu Yonatan, in his commentary on the Rif, writes about “the festive rejoicing of Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur” (10b in Alfasi to Eruvin). A precise reading of Rambam also leads us to the same conclusion:

On Rosh ha-Shana and Yom Kippur, however, there is no Hallel, because they are days of repentance, fear and dread, not days of excessive rejoicing. (Rambam, Hilkhot Chanuka 3:6)

Rambam explains that Hallel is not recited on Rosh ha-Shana and Yom Kippur because they are not days of “excessive rejoicing.” The implication is that on Rosh ha-Shana and Yom Kippur there is a small amount of rejoicing, modest and restrained rejoicing that expresses itself in serious- mindedness and solemnity. Clearly, however, this too according to Rambam is regarded as rejoicing.

On the other hand, Rabbi Eliezer of Metz, author of Sefer Yere’im, states explicitly that there is no mitzva of rejoicing on Yom Kippur:

Yom Kippur, even though it is included among the Festivals, is not included among [the days of] rejoicing, for regarding Yom Kippur it is written: “And you shall afflict your souls.” (Yere’im, 227)

The words of the Yere’im, however, do not necessarily contradict the idea that we have been developing here. Firstly, even if there is no rejoicing on Yom Kippur, it is not necessarily a day of sorrow and grief. Secondly, his formulation implies that Yom Kippur is excluded from rejoicing, not because it is not a Festival, or because the day demands suffering, but rather because, practically speaking, it is impossible to rejoice on Yom Kippur, because rejoicing requires meat and wine. This is stated explicitly in tractate Soferim:

No mention is made [on Yom Kippur] of it being a Festival or of rejoicing, for there is no rejoicing without eating. (Tractate Soferim 19:2)[1]

In addition to the laws of honor and rejoicing, there are additional halakhic expressions to Yom Kippur’s status as a Festival. This, for example, is how Maharam of Rothenburg explains his ruling that a person who is ill and therefore permitted to eat on Yom Kippur must recite the Ya’aleh Veyavo section in his Birkat ha-Mazon:

A dangerously ill person who eats on Yom Kippur recites the section pertaining to the day [Ya’aleh Veyavo] in his Birkat ha-Mazon. This is obvious, for he is permitted to eat. On the contrary, he performs a mitzva, because Yom Kippur for him is like the rest of the Festivals for us. (Responsa Maharam, ed. Prague, no. 71)

20 We have seen then that according to many of the most important halakhic authorities, Yom Kippur is a Festival. The rejoicing ordinarily associated with Festivals does not express itself on Yom Kippur only because technically it cannot be observed on a day of affliction. Let us return now to our original question: Why is affliction necessary, if its objective is not to increase distress and suffering?

Affliction on Yom Kippur as an Expression of Resting

The Avnei Nezer alludes to an answer to our question:

The prohibition of Yom Kippur stems from holiness … Because of a person’s holiness, he sets himself apart from material things, and there is a removal of sin that results from material things … On Yom Kippur, which is called “a holy day of God,” material things are forbidden. (Avnei Nezer, CM, 161)

According to Avnei Nezer, the prohibitions of Yom Kippur are not intended to prevent rejoicing or to cause suffering, but simply to separate a person from his daily material activities. On Yom Kippur we are all likened to angels, and so we abstain from our worldly occupations. For this reason it is customary to wear white clothing on Yom Kippur, so that we will be like the angels. The prohibition to eat on Yom Kippur is not intended to forbid enjoyment or cause suffering. Rather, it is essentially an obligation to abstain from corporeal occupations that are inappropriate on this holy and venerable day.

Rabbi Moshe Soloveitchik, father of Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik, formulated this idea in precise halakhic terms.[2] Rabbi Soloveitchik starts with an observation regarding Rambam’s wording in his Mishneh Torah. As is well known, Rambam calls the Yom Kippur laws: “Hilkhot Shevitat he-Asor” – “Laws Concerning the Rest on the Tenth [of Tishrei].” Rambam opens the section as follows:

There is a positive commandment to rest from work on the tenth day of the seventh month, as it says, “It shall be a sabbath of solemn rest to you.” (Hilkhot Shevitat he-Asor 1:1)

Several halakhot later, Rambam discusses the prohibition to eat and drink:

21 There is another positive commandment pertaining to Yom Kippur, namely, to rest from eating and drinking. (ibid., 1:4)

It should be noted that Rambam uses the very same expression, “shevita,” “resting,” with regard to the prohibition of eating on Yom Kippur! According to Rambam, this is not a mitzva of affliction, but rather a mitzva of resting, similar in essence to the mitzva of resting from forbidden labors. Resting on Yom Kippur includes resting from all human activity – from work, as well as from eating and drinking. This halakhic formulation fits well the conceptual idea regarding the nature of Yom Kippur. This point finds further expression in the continuation of the words of Rambam:

And so we have learned by tradition that one is forbidden to wash himself, or anoint himself, or wear shoes, or engage in marital relations. There is a mitzva to rest from all these just as one rests from eating and drinking, as it says, “A sabbath of solemn rest” – a sabbath regarding eating, and a solemn rest from these things. [Alternative reading: a sabbath regarding work, a solemn rest from these things.] (ibid., 1:5)

According to both readings, the term “shabaton” is understood as referring to the laws relating to affliction on Yom Kippur. According to the second reading, there is an explicit analogy between refraining from eating and refraining from work, both being called a “rest.” Rambam’s decisive wording in his Sefer ha-Mitzvot supports the second reading cited above:

“It shall be a sabbath of solemn rest to you, and you shall afflict your souls.” It is as if it said that there is a separate obligation to rest from labor and activity, and a separate obligation to rest from food that maintains the body. Therefore, it says, “It shall be a sabbath of solemn rest.” (Rambam, Sefer ha-Mitzvot, positive commandment 164)

Rabbi Moshe Soloveitchik cites additional proofs in support of this principle. We shall suffice with one more proof. Rambam rules that he who sends out the goat to Azazel is permitted to eat, if he feels weak, so that he may complete his sending of the goat. This is not merely an allowance based on piku’ach nefesh, the principle that all prohibitions are superseded by the obligation to save a life:

And afterwards, he would send the live goat with a person who had been prepared to lead it to the wilderness. All are fit to lead it, but the High Priests established that a non-Priest would not be allowed to lead it. Ten booths were set up between Jerusalem and the beginning of the wilderness. One or more people would spend Yom Kippur at each booth, in order to escort him [the man

22 leading the goat] from one booth to the next. At each booth they would say to him: “There is food here. There is water.” If his strength fails and he needs to eat, he can eat, but no one ever actually needed to. (Rambam, Hilkhot Avodat Yom ha-Kippurim 3:7)

Rabbi Moshe Soloveitchik asks: How do we know that one is permitted to desecrate Yom Kippur in order to perform the special tasks required by the day? We find a source for the law that the Temple service supersedes the prohibition of labor on Shabbat: “‘In its appointed time’ – even on Shabbat” (Pesachim 77a). But how do we know that the prohibition of eating on Yom Kippur is also superseded? Rabbi Soloveitchik answers that Rambam understood, as we have shown, that the prohibition against work on Yom Kippur and the prohibition against eating on that day together constitute a single system of “resting” on Yom Kippur. Thus, it follows that if the prohibition against forbidden labors is superseded, so is the prohibition against eating. The mandated “solemn rest” of Yom Kippur – including both of its elements – is set aside by the Temple service. The prohibition against working on Yom Kippur is also connected to the principle that we have put forward. In contrast to the prohibition against working on Shabbat, the prohibition against working on Yom Kippur joins with the prohibition against eating, and together they express a total withdrawal from worldly matters.

This serves as yet another proof of the principle mentioned above: affliction on Yom Kippur is not an expression of distress and suffering, but rather a law of resting, of temporary withdrawal from all worldly matters. This principle is similar to the idea that we saw regarding Shabbat: we are not dealing with dissociation from this world, but rather with a demand to withdraw temporarily from worldly matters for the sake of worshiping God. There are, however, two important differences: 1) The withdrawal on Yom Kippur is more decisive and comprehensive, extending to food, drink, and other pleasures. 2) Shabbat emphasizes man’s readiness to sacrifice and waive his normal activity; Yom Kippur focuses upon his seeking intimacy with God that requires a temporary waiving of worldly life. In any event, neither Shabbat nor Yom Kippur represents the normal situation of the Jew. Both represent unique and exceptional situations, the value of which stands out against the backdrop of our everyday life.

The significance of the twofold resting on Yom Kippur seems to be twofold as well: 1) Man’s very standing before God obligates withdrawal from material things. 2) Yom Kippur’s essence as a day of reckoning and atonement requires that we concentrate solely on holy matters, and avoid all of our mundane affairs, even though in and of themselves they may be perfectly legitimate.

FOOTNOTES

23 [1] Earlier, we cited a passage from tractate Soferim, which states that Yom Kippur is not a Festival. It is not clear, then, why it was necessary to say here that there is no rejoicing on Yom Kippur because “here is no rejoicing without eating.” If Yom Kippur is not a Festival, why would anybody think that there is a mitzva of rejoicing? This point needs to be clarified.

[2] Cited by Rav Aharon Lichtenstein shlit”a in “Alon Shevut,” 5, nos. 1-2 [reprinted in “Daf Kesher,” 201 (Tishrei, 5750)].

What’s the Truth About Fasting and Wearing Leather on Yom Kippur?

ARI Z. ZIVOTOFSKY WRITES:10

MISCONCEPTION: It is prohibited to wear leather items, such as a leather belt or yarmulke, on Yom Kippur and Tishah B’Av.

FACT: Only leather shoes are prohibited on Yom Kippur and Tishah B’Av. One is permitted to wear belts, yarmulkes, jackets, or other items made from leather. Some authorities prohibit all “protective footwear,” even if there is no leather component.

BACKGROUND: A cursory search of the Web reveals that several web sites feature this misconception (http://scheinerman.net/judaism/hhd/yomkippur.html, accessed May 29 2011; http://prime.peta.org/2008/10/yom-kippurs-prohibition-against-leather, accessed May 29, 2011). In fact, there are five inuyim (self-inflicted discomforts due to abstinence) that must be observed on Yom Kippur (see Vayikra 16:29, 31; 23:27, 29; Bamidbar 29:7) and on Tishah B’Av, as enumerated in the Mishnah (Yoma 73b and Taanit 30a) and Codes (SA, OC 554, 612-615). One of these inuyim is ne’ilat ha’sandal—the prohibition of wearing “shoes” (OC 554:16; 614:2).1

Certain individuals are exempt from this prohibition, such as postpartum women (Mishnah Yoma 8:1), those who are ill or have wounds on their feet (OC 614:3), and midwives (Ohr Someach, Hilchot Shevitat Asor 3:8), among others (OC 614:4, based on Yoma 78b). Parents should initiate children to this innu’i from a young age (Yoma 78b; OC 616:1; Rambam, Hilchot Shevitat Asor 3:7; Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky and Rabbi Shraya Duvlitzki, cited in Rabbi Moshe Harari’s Mikra’ei Kodesh, Chanukah, pp. 136-141; see the dissenting opinion of Rabbi Shalom Messas, ibid., p. 147).2

Three different halachic definitions of “shoes” are offered (cited by Ran in Yoma 78b) 3 with respect to this prohibition: The Ba’al Hama’or opines that any “protective footwear,” even those not made of leather, are regarded as “shoes”; Rashi limits the definition to footwear made of leather or wood. 4 The Rif and Rosh rule that footwear made of material other than leather are not considered “shoes.” These opinions are based in large part on the Talmudic discussion (Yevamot 101-102) of how to define a shoe for the purpose of chalitzah and on various Talmudic stories involving shoes (Yevamot 102b). The Gemara notes that several Amoraim wore non-leather shoes

10 https://jewishaction.com/religion/jewish-law/whats_the_truth_about-fasting_and_wearing_leather_on_yom_kippur/

24 on Yom Kippur (Yoma 78a-b), and rules per the Mishnah (Yevamot 101a) that cloth shoes are not halachically considered shoes.

Normative halachah maintains that “shoes” refer to footwear that includes leather, even a small amount.5 Accordingly, footwear made only of cloth (e.g., sneakers) or any other material may be worn on Yom Kippur.6 But, as noted, there is an opinion that any “protective” footwear is prohibited. According to the Rambam (Hilchot Shevitat Asor 3:7), innu’i implies that one must feel the ground and sense that he is barefoot.7 The Bach (OC 614) testifies that several of his teachers would walk completely barefoot on Yom Kippur, and he ruled accordingly. However, the Magen Avraham and Taz write that the generally accepted custom is to permit non-leather shoes. The opinion that prohibits any protective footwear is also cited by the Sha’arei Teshuvah (OC 554: 11) and the Kaf Hachaim (OC 554:72). The Sha’ar HaTziyun quotes the Chatam Sofer that when walking in the street on Yom Kippur one should wear thin shoes so as to feel the ground and sense that he is barefoot. The Mishnah Berurah (614:5) concludes that if possible, one should follow the strict opinion in this regard and not wear protective shoes.

Contemporary authorities such as Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky (Shoneh Halachot 614:3) and Rabbi Moshe Sternbuch (Moadim u’Zemanim 6:28), following the lead of the Gra (Moadim u’Zemanim, vol. 8, addendum to 6:28),8 recommend following the strict opinion when possible. 9 Rabbi Yaakov Ariel, the chief rabbi of Ramat Gan, similarly rules that one should not wear plastic shoes that resemble wood in their protective nature.10 He observes that permission to wear sneakers was due to the fact that they were not as comfortable as leather (a factor for the Rif) and that one can sense the ground when wearing them (a factor for the Rambam). However, Rabbi Ariel prohibits wearing on Yom Kippur a non-leather shoe that one wears all year long, which is as comfortable and protective as leather shoes (as evidenced by the fact that one chooses to wear it regularly). He recommends wearing non-leather slippers, or similar footwear, through which one feels the ground beneath his feet. Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Halichot Shlomo, Moadim, 5:17) disagrees, noting that our custom is to permit all non-leather shoes, even if they are comfortable, as today we are “istinisim” (fastidious).11

In the Torah, shoes often symbolize one’s material essence, his physical connection to the terrestrial. In striving for a purer state of spirituality on Yom Kippur, one removes his shoes similar to Moshe’s doing so at the burning bush (Shemot 3:5, see Kli Yakar), Yehoshua outside of Yericho, the kohanim in the Temple,12 and anyone ascending Har Habayit (Mishnah Berachot 9:5) today.

Clearly, there is no general prohibition against wearing leather on Yom Kippur. The five basic prohibitions do not even specify a prohibition against wearing leather shoes. They do include a proscription on wearing “shoes,” which according to the normative halachah is defined as leather shoes. Notes

1. The early authorities debate whether the inuyim other than eating and drinking are of Biblical or rabbinic origin (e.g., Ran; Smag [Aseh 32]; Rambam [on Mishnah; Shevitat Asor 1:4-5 and Maggid Mishnah]; Tosafot; Tur [OC 611]). The Talmud (Yoma 77a) derives from the statement about King David in II Samuel 15:30, and the meaning of yachaif in Jeremiah 2:25 that going barefoot is an innu’i .

2. Regarding these laws, Tishah B’Av is usually similar to Yom Kippur. However, see Iggerot Moshe, YD 1:224 that a child of chinuch age, i.e., one who understands the Churban, may not wear leather shoes, but younger children may. The Chachmat Adam 152:17 rules that even older children who understand the Churban may wear leather shoes. Many though take the stringent position and maintain that even very young children shouldn’t wear leather shoes (Sha’ar HaTziyun 551:91).

3. See also Aruch Hashulchan (OC 614:2-4) for an overview of the opinions.

4. Rashi elsewhere states that a na’al (shoe) is “something that protects” (Yevamot 101a).

5. Shulchan Aruch, OC 554:16 and 614:2 following the Rif, Rosh, and Tur. Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef (Yalkut Yosef, Moadim [5748] p. 90) permits wooden clogs with a leather strap.

Although in this regard the accepted halachah is that “shoe” is synonymous with “leather shoe,” that may not be true for all halachot. For example, the SA (OC 4:18) requires one to wash hands after removing one’s shoe, and Rabbi Yitzchak Nissim, a former Israeli chief rabbi (1896-1981; Yein Ha’tov 1:13), discusses whether washing is required also for merely touching one’s shoe and whether the halachah applies to all shoes.

6. One must be careful not to mistakenly wear sneakers with leather sides.

7. Yalkut Yosef (ibid.) permits non-leather shoes because the ground can be felt through them.

8. There are divergent opinions with regard to the Morning Blessing “She’asah li kol tzarki” as it relates to thanking God for shoes (Tur, OC 46). Many Ashkenazim have the custom to recite the berachah on Yom Kippur (MB 554:31 and Sha’ar haTziyun 554:39), while many Sephardim (Kaf Hachaim 554:78; 613:10; Kaf Hachaim Pilagi 46:17) and the Gra (Ma’aseh Rav) maintain that the berachah should not be said on Tishah B’av or Yom Kippur. Among those Ashkenazim who do not say the berachah, many say it Motzaei Yom Kippur and Motzaei Tishah B’Av when they put on leather shoes.

9. See Torah Lodaas, vol. 3, pp. 50-53. For those who argue that non-leather shoes are not halachically considered shoes, there is the possibility of violating the prohibition of carrying on Shabbat. The Ramban (commenting on Shabbat 66a) raises this question. The Ran (Yoma 2b, s.v. u’mihu) justifies the standard practice of wearing non-leather shoes publicly on Yom Kippur by asserting that since they are standard attire on Yom Kippur, they are not a “burden” and may be “carried” on one’s feet.

10. Shu”t B’ohala Shel Torah 2 (5760), 291-293.

11. He does say (ibid. 5:16) that non-leather shoes that look like leather shoes should be avoided because of marit ayin.

12. Kohanim not wearing shoes during Birkat Kohanim is an unrelated matter (see Aruch Hashulchan, OC 128:11-12).

MISCONCEPTION: It is preferable to eat a little and then spend Yom Kippur day in shul davening rather than stay at home in bed fasting.1

FACT: Fasting is unquestionably the preferred option.

BACKGROUND: Fasting on Yom Kippur is a Biblical requirement, while praying the entire day is, at most, a long-standing custom, albeit one with a lot of significance. 2

26 Yom Kippur is mentioned several times in the Torah (Leviticus 16:29, 31; 23:27, 29, 32; Numbers 29:7) and the central theme each time is “innu’i,” affliction of one’s soul. Chazal explain that on the most fundamental level this refers to a complete abstention from eating and drinking (see Yoma 73b-74b; SA, OC 612). Thus, when the Torah (Leviticus 23:29) states: “For whatever person shall not be afflicted on that day, he shall be cut off from his people” it is prescribing the punishment of karet to one who eats or drinks on Yom Kippur.

Chazal explain that there is a total of five inuyim, afflictions, that apply on Yom Kippur. In addition to abstaining from food and drink (which count as one type of affliction), one must also avoid washing, anointing, wearing shoes, and engaging in marital relations. However, these other prohibitions do not entail the punishment of karet if they are violated, and the early commentators are divided as to whether they are of Biblical (e.g., Ran) or rabbinic origin (e.g., Tosafot).

In contemporary society, Yom Kippur is equated in many people’s minds with an all-day (or a nearly all-day) synagogue service. However, it was not always that way. In ancient times, the central Yom Kippur rite was the service performed in the Temple by the high priest. This is described in detail in the Torah and in even greater detail in the Talmud. Indeed, the vast majority of Tractate Yoma deals not with fasting or atonement, but with the Temple service. It was only post-Churban that the prayer service took on greater significance.

Throughout the ages and the changing methods of worship on Yom Kippur, the one thing that has always remained constant is the Biblical injunction “to afflict oneself” by abstaining from the five specific sources of comfort, including the most significant, not eating or drinking. This hierarchy of priorities is reflected in an observation by Rabbi Avigdor Nebenzahl,3 former chief rabbi of the Old City in Jerusalem, that despite the importance of the final climactic prayer service of Neilah, one should not exert oneself (to stand, for example) to the degree that he will then have to break the fast early, or worse, have to go to the hospital. There is no point in expending extra effort during Neilah if it undermines the Biblical fast.

Similarly, Rabbi Yehoshua Neuwirth (Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata 39:28, cited in Nishmat Avraham, vol. 1, p. 306) states that someone who is weak, such that the fast will be difficult for him if he goes to shul, is obligated to fast and should stay in bed and not eat or drink even small amounts that are less than the punishable quantities (the size of a large date for food and a cheekful of liquid). In a footnote, he cites this in the name of the Chatam Sofer (Shu”t 6:23), who notes that even a small amount of food or drink, termed chatzi shiur, is a Biblical prohibition (for a healthy person). Rabbi Neuwirth also quotes what he heard from Rabbi Auerbach regarding one who is already permitted to drink small quantities throughout Yom Kippur because of illness: If remaining in bed will reduce the number of instances of drinking, even by one, then it is preferable to stay in bed rather than daven with a minyan. This was reprinted in the subsequently published Halichot Shlomo (Moadim: Tishrei-Adar, 4:6), where it is stressed (ibid., note tet) that this is true according to all opinions because fasting is the “mitzvah of the day,” and in comparison, the mitzvah of communal prayer is relatively insignificant. Furthermore, (ibid., note 23, cited from Nishmat Avraham, vol. 5, p. 50) in practice Rabbi Auerbach instructed pregnant women to remain at home if the effort of attending shul would cause them to eat or drink, or even increase the amount they would drink if they were already drinking.

27 Rabbi Auerbach (ibid., note 24, cited from Nishmat Avraham, ibid.) expanded this idea and stated that if caring for the children would cause a woman to eat, then her husband is obligated to remain at home and assist with the children. He explained that this is because the husband shares his wife’s obligations. This would apparently not apply to others. Thus, if a single mother (or a woman whose husband is out of town4) will have to break her fast because of the effort involved in caring for her children, a neighbor would not be obligated to forgo shul attendance to help with the children so that she does not break her fast (although it would probably not be prohibited for him or her to do so).

Developments in contemporary medicine give rise to a new question: What actually constitutes breaking a fast? Is intravenous feeding considered breaking one’s fast? Regarding Yom Kippur, the prohibition is not one of eating but an obligation to afflict oneself, a condition that may be somewhat relieved by IV feeding. Nonetheless, it is nearly universally agreed that fasting means avoiding taking in food and drink orally (see Shu”t Chatam Sofer, OC 127; Achiezer 3:61; Chelkat Ya’akov, OC 215; Tzitz Eliezer 10:22:21; Teshuvot Vehanhagot 2:290, and Rabbi Yitzchak Zilberstein, Shabbat Shabbaton, chap. 96). Thus, an IV on Yom Kippur may actually not violate the restrictions of the day. If indeed artificial nourishment is less of a prohibition, should a person who needs to eat opt instead for an IV? Most authorities say that one is not required to do so, and some actively discourage it. Some of the reasons advanced are: 1. It might be prohibited to insert an IV (Iggerot Moshe, OC 4:101:3); 2. food may be healthier (Iggerot Moshe, OC 3:90, 92); 3. other aspects of IV may be harmful (Maharsham 1:123); 4. There is no halachic obligation to search for a way to avoid having a sick person eat on Yom Kippur (Rabbi Levi Yitzchak Halperin, Ma’aseh Choshev 3 [5757], 21, 265-274).

The above pertains to a sick person for whom the choice is either eating or using an IV, and the halachic preference seems to be to allow normal eating and drinking. But what about if the choice is between staying in bed and fasting or going to shul but taking IV nourishment? It would seem that the halachah in such a case is to remain in bed.

None of this is meant to minimize the all-day communal prayer service in shul. The praying in shul, the service in the Beit Hamikdash, and the fasting, all have one goal –to bring one closer to God and lead one to teshuvah. It is not just about abstaining from food; it is about repentance (I Samuel 7:6) and experiencing a spiritual awakening (Yoel 2:12). This message is included in the haftarah of Yom Kippur itself (Isaiah 58:5-6; cf. Mishnah Ta’anit 2:1, based on Yonah 3:6). Thus, while the fast must be observed in all its technical details, we must bear in mind that the fast is the means, not the goal. It is a tool that serves the ultimate purpose of repentance. May we all have a healthy fast and may our prayers be answered, whether they are recited in the synagogue or at home. Notes

1. Rabbi Yaakov Wehl, z”l, my rebbe at the Hebrew Academy of Nassau County (HANC), would regularly use this misconception as a springboard for discussions about Yom Kippur.

2. There is no halachic authority who rules otherwise, but it is worth noting that it is not as simple as I have presented it. Dr. Avraham Avraham (Nishmat Avraham, vol. 4, pp. 81-83), for example, questions this halachah based on the ruling regarding setting sail on erev Shabbat for the purpose of a mitzvah (OC 248:1; MB, ibid:2).

3. Quoted in Rabbi Moshe Harari’s Mikra’ei Kodesh, Hilchot Yom HaKippurim, p. 283, note 24.

4. It is clear from Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach that if the wife cannot handle the children alone without breaking her fast, her husband should not make plans to leave for Yom Kippur.

Rav David Brofsky writes:11

The Mishna (Yoma 73b) mentions five afflictions observed on Yom Kippur: the prohibitions of eating, washing, anointing, wearing leather shoes, and engaging in marital relations. In our previous discussion of the afflictions (inuyim), we noted the discrepancy between eating and drinking, for which one incurs the punishment of "karet," and the other inuyim, for which one does not. We also noted that the gemara implies in numerous passages that these other afflictions are more lenient than the prohibition of eating and drinking; under certain circumstances, they may be lifted (for a king, bride, or new mother, according to R. Eliezer, or for dirty hands). We also discussed whether these other afflictions are mi-derabbanan, of rabbinic origin, as the above exceptions might imply, or mi-deoraita, of biblical origin. In this shiur, we shall study the practical details of these afflictions.

Eating and Drinking on Yom Kippur

The Mishna (Yoma 73b) discusses the amount that one must eat or drink in order to be culpable on Yom Kippur.

One who eats the equivalent of a large date (ka-kotevet ha-gasa), i.e. the equivalent of it and its pit, or drinks a quantity of liquid equal to the fill of his cheeks (melo lugmav), is liable. All foods combine for the [volume] equivalent of a large date, and all beverages combine for the [volume] equivalent of the fill of his cheeks. But eating and drinking do not combine.

While generally one defines eating or drinking by the volume of an olive (ke-zayit) or a revi'it of liquid, the measurements of Yom Kippur differ. The gemara (79a) explains: Rava said in the name of R. Yehuda: The "large date" of which the Sages spoke is larger than an egg. [This unusual measurement has been accepted] as the Rabbis are sure that with this amount one's mind is put to ease, and with less than that one's might is not at ease.

11 https://www.etzion.org.il/en/holidays/yom-kippur/afflictions-yom-kippur-what-forbidden-and-whom

29 A ka-kotevet, an ordinary date, is slightly smaller than the volume of an egg. Modern authorities (see Shemirat Shabbat Ke-Hilkhata 39:18; see also here) estimate the volumetric measurement of a kotevet gasa at about 1.5 fl. oz. (44 ml).

Similarly, regarding drinking, the gemara explains:

R. Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: The Mishna does not mean the actual fill of his cheeks, but rather any amount that were he to remove it to one side [of his mouth], it would appear as if his cheeks were full.

The gemara is aware of the subjective nature of these measurements, and concludes:

What is the difference between eating, [in the context of which] the measure for everyone is a ka-kotevet (the volume of a date), and for drinking everyone [measures according to] his own [cheek-full]? Abaye said: It has been accepted by the Rabbis that with such [a volume of food] one's mind is put at ease, and with less than that one's mind is not put at ease. But with regards to drinking, with one's own cheek-full his mind is put at ease, but with the cheek-full of his friend, his mind is not put at ease.

Finally, the gemara (80b) concludes that just as regarding prohibited foods one must consume a ke-zayit (an olive's volume) within the amount of time it takes to eat half of a loaf of bread (be- kedei akhilat peras), one must similarly eat the date's volume of food in this time span in order to incur karet, as "it has been accepted by the Rabbis that when a date's volume is eaten in such a time span, one's mind is put at ease." The Rishonim debate whether this refers to the time it takes to eat the volume of three eggs (Rambam) or four (Rashi).

The Acharonim attempt to define this time period.

The Chatam Sofer (Teshuvot Chatam Sofer 6:16), for example, rules that "kedei akhilat peras" is the equivalent of nine minutes. The Mishna Berura (618:21) cites this ruling. R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi, author of the Shulchan Arukh Ha-Rav, reportedly estimated this time at eight minutes. The Arukh Ha-Shulchan (Orach Chaim 618:14) suggests that this period may be between six to seven minutes. Others even accept shorter periods, from four (R. Yitzchak Elchanan Spektor, as cited by R. Moshe Sternbuch in Teshuvot Ve-Hanhagot 2:289), three (Marcheshet 14), or even two minutes (see Chatam Sofer 6:23).

Regarding drinking, the Shulchan Arukh (612:10) cites two opinions. While some say that the time frame for drinking is identical to that of eating, i.e. kedei akhilat peras, some say that it is much shorter, kedei shetiyat revi'it, the amount of time it takes to drink a revi'it (roughly 4 ounces) of liquid. These details are not on the whole practically relevant, as these measurements determine when one is worthy of Divine punishment. Optimally, however, one may not eat even a smaller amount of food, or the same amount eaten over a longer time span.

Indeed, the Talmud (Yoma 73b–74a) cites a debate whether "chatzi shi'ur," that is, eating less that the proscribed amount, is prohibited mi-deoraita or mi-derabbanan.

Regarding "chatzi shi'ur" – R. Yochanan said that it is Biblically prohibited. Reish Lakish said that it is Biblically permitted. R. Yochanan said that it is Biblically prohibited, for since the half measure is fit to combine with more of the same forbidden food, he is considered to have eaten prohibited food. Reish Lakish said it is Biblically permitted, as the Torah referred to "eating," and there is no eating.

The gemara (ibid.) concludes, however, that even Reish Lakish agrees that there is a Rabbinic prohibition. Interestingly, the Yerushalmi (Terumot 6:1) suggests that Reish Lakish, who generally rejects the concept of chatzi shiur, would concede that it is forbidden on Yom Kippur. Apparently, the Yerushalmi believes that on Yom Kippur, any experience which prevents inui is forbidden, even less than a shiur.

As we shall see, this discussion may be significant for one who must eat on Yom Kippur due to illness.

The Sick, Infirm, and Pregnant on Yom Kippur

The Tosefta (Shabbat 9:22) teaches, "Nothing stands in the way of saving one's life (pikuach nefesh)." While the Talmud does discuss limitations to this principle, as a general rule, pikuach nefesh takes precedence over other mitzvot and prohibitions.

The gemara (Yoma 85a) searches for a source for this principle:

It once happened that R. Yishmael, R. Akiva, and R. Elazar b. Azarya were traveling on the road with Levi the organizer and R. Yishmael, the son of R. Elazar ben Azarya, following behind them, when the following question was asked before them: From where do we know that saving a life overrides the law of Shabbat?"

After citing numerous possibilities, the gemara cites a final opinion:

R. Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: Had I been there I would have said that mine [source] is better than theirs. [It is written] "[You shall guard My decrees and My laws that man shall carry out] and he shall live by them (Vayikra 18:5)" – but he should not die on their account.

Regarding Yom Kippur, the Talmud (Yoma 82a) explicitly permits one who is dangerously ill to eat and drink. Just as one violates the Sabbath or any other commandment in order to preserve one's life (except for the three cardinal sins of murder, illicit sexual relations, and idolatry), one may, and is even required to, eat or drink on Yom Kippur in order to preserve one's life.

The Ran (Yoma 3b in dapei ha-Rif, s.v. chutz) writes:

A sick person who has been instructed by experts to violate the Shabbat, it is not an act of piety to refrain, but rather this person sheds blood. The Talmud Yerushalmi says, "[When it comes

31 to life-saving] the hasty is praiseworthy, the one who is asked a question [about life-saving] is a disgrace, and the one who asks a question is a murderer."

How much may one eat on Yom Kippur in order to preserve one's health? The gemara (Keritut 13a) states, "The Rabbis permitted a pregnant woman to eat less than a shiur due to the danger." In other words, she may consume less than the volume of a date (ka- kotevet) in the time it takes to consume half of a loaf of bread.

Many Rishonim (Behag; Ramban, Torat HaAdam; Rosh, Yoma 8:13) apply the above gemara to all sick individuals. They rule that a person should preferably try to limit his eating, when possible, to less than a kotevet gasa be-kedei akhilat pras, or less than a melo lugmav in that period, or according to some, in less than be-kedei shtiyat revi'it. The Rosh explains that if a doctor insists that the choleh must eat more than that amount, than he should eat normally.

The Shulchan Arukh (218:7) rules accordingly, writing that one should eat two thirds of the size of an egg, slightly less than the volume of ka-kotevet. Based on the above, one who is ill and must eat on Yom Kippur should eat approximately 1.5 fl. oz. of food every nine minutes. R. Moshe Feinstein (Iggerot Moshe, Orach Chaim 4:41) recommends, when necessary, waiting four and a half minutes between each portion.

Interestingly, the Netziv (Ha’Emek She'eila 167:17) insists that the Rif and Rambam do not accept the ruling of the Behag, Ramban, Rosh, and Ran. The Netziv argues that the gemara (Keritut 13a) only instructed a pregnant women to eat small amounts, as the concern is to reduce her hunger cravings and ensure the safety of her fetus. However, the gemara never meant to limit the eating of a dangerously ill person.

R. Chaim Soloveitchik (see his son's Chiddushei Ha-Griz, Hilkhot Shevitat Ha-Asor 2:8, as well as R. Moshe Shternbuch's Moa'dim U-Zemanim 1:60 and Teshuvot Ve-Hanhagot 2:288) also rules leniently. He explains that one who must eat in order to avoid become seriously ill should eat in small amounts. However, one who is already dangerously ill should eat normally. He bases this ruling upon the Maggid Mishna's comments on the Rambam (Hilkhot Shabbat 2:14) that one may violate the Sabbath even in order to care for the non-critical needs of a personal who is dangerously ill (choleh she-yesh bo sakana). Indeed, he ruled accordingly in Brisk. When challenged, he would often respond, "I am ruling leniently regarding Yom Kippur, but rather strictly regarding pikuach nefesh (saving one's life)" (R. Shlomo Yosef Zevin, Ha-Mo'adim Ba- Halakha).

While R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik (see R. Chaim Jachter, Gray Matter, p. 43), as well as R. Yechezkel Abramsky (see Nishmat Avraham I, p. 310), rule like R. Chaim Soloveitchik (see also R. Moshe Shternuch, Teshuvot Ve-Hanhagot 2:288), the Arukh Ha-Shulchan (Orach Chaim 618:15), Shemirat Shabbat Ke-Hilkhata (39:6), and Rav Ovadia Yosef (Teshuvot Yechave Da'at 6:39) do not.

One should consult with one's doctor and a halakhic authority, when possible, before eating or drinking on Yom Kippur to avoid being unnecessarily lenient or stringent.

32 A "choleh sh-ein bo sakana," a sick person whose life is not in danger, who must continue to take medications, such as antibiotics, or one who suffers from a chronic condition but is not presently sick and therefore must fast, should try to swallow his medicines without water. Some suggest that one who is unable to swallow medicines without water should mix a bit of water with a bitter substance and take the medicine with that water (Shemirat Shabbat Ke-Hilkhata 39:8). Swallowing a pill with a bit of mouthwash should also suffice. Some suggest wrapping pills, especially pleasant tasting pills, in thin paper and then swallowing them (ibid.).

R. Moshe Feinstein (Iggerot Moshe, Orach Chaim 3:91) permits one who must take medicine in order to prevent the development of a serious medical condition, and certainly one who suffers from a potentially life-threatening situation, to swallow his pills with a bit of water.

Anointing on Yom Kippur

As mentioned previously, the Torah never explicitly specifies the afflictions of Yom Kippur. In fact, the Rishonim debate whether the other four afflictions that appear in the Mishna (Yoma 73b), washing, anointing, wearing leather shoes, and engaging in marital relations, are of biblical or rabbinic origin.

The gemara offers two sources from the prohibition of anointing. In one place (Yoma 76b), the gemara asks:

From where do we know that [abstaining from] washing and anointing are considered acts of affliction? For it is written, "I ate no desirable bread, and meat and wine did not enter my mouth, and I did not anoint myself with an anointing" (Daniel 10:3). And from where do we know that this is considered an affliction? For it is written, "And he said to me, 'Do not fear, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart to understand and to afflict yourselves before God your words have been heard; and I have come because of your words'" (ibid. 12).

Elsewhere, the Mishna (Shabbat 86a) provides another source prohibiting anointing on Yom Kippur, comparing it to drinking.

How do we know that anointing is the same as drinking on the Day of Atonement? Though there is no proof of this, yet there is a "remez" (suggestion) thereof, for it is said, "And it came into his inward parts like water, and like oil into his bones" (Tehillim 109:18).

Tosafot (Shabbat 86a, s.v. af al pi) question the necessity for two sources prohibiting anointing on Yom Kippur, especially since the gemara admits that one of them is not more than a "remez." The Gra (Shenot Eliyahu, Shabbat 9:4) suggests that the Mishna in Shabbat comes to prevent a mistaken conclusion that anointing is literally akin to drinking; anointing is similar, but not identical, and therefore on Yom Kippur one who anoints does not incur "karet."

R. Soloveitchik, as cited in Sefer Harerei Kedem (50), offers a different approach. He suggests that there may be two type of "anointing" prohibited on Yom Kippur – anointing which is akin to drinking (sikha ke-shetiya), and anointing done for pleasure (sikha shel ta'anug). If so, it would seem that even sikha done not for the purpose of pleasure should be prohibited on Yom Kippur!

33 Indeed, the Rambam (Hilkhot Shevitat Asor 3:9) rules:

One may not anoint even part of one's body on Yom Kippur, regardless of whether the anointing is done for pleasure or not, although one who is sick, even though he is not in danger, or a person with scabs on his head may anoint normally.

The Rambam delineates three types of anointing: anointing for pleasure, anointing not for pleasure, and anointing for a sick person. He prohibits the first two types and permits the third. Interestingly, Tosafot (Yoma 77b, s.v. minayin) disagrees and prohibits only anointing for pleasure.

This distinction may yield a practical ramification. The Shulchan Arukh (618:1) writes:

It is prohibited to anoint even part of one's body, even if he only intends to remove filth. However, one who is sick, even if he doesn't face any danger, or one who has scabs on his head, may [anoint].

The Bi'ur Halakha (554:15) notes that while on Tisha Be-av the Shulchan Arukh only prohibits anointing for the purpose of pleasure, on Yom Kippur all anointing is prohibited. Some Acharonim thus deduce that one may apply deodorant, whose purpose is to "remove filth," on Tisha Be-Av, but not on Yom Kippur.

Washing on Yom Kippur

The gemara (Yoma 76b) continues by searching for a source to prohibit washing on Yom Kippur. We have found anointing, from where do we know washing?… R. Ashi said: Washing is derived from the verse itself, as it says, "And I did not anoint myself with anointing."

This passage, as well as the gemara elsewhere (Mo'ed Katan 15a), views washing as a form of anointing. However, unlike anointing, the gemara (77b) seemingly only prohibits washing for the purpose of pleasure.

The rabbis taught: It is forbidden to wash part of one's body just as it is forbidden to wash all of one's body. But if he was soiled with mud or excrement, he need not be concerned.

The Rishonim debate the extent of this prohibition and the definition of "washing for the purpose of pleasure." As we saw regarding anointing, there may be three types of washing: washing for pleasure, not for pleasure, and to remove dirt or for medicinal purposes. May one wash not for the purpose of pleasure, but not necessarily to remove dirt? The Rishonim, for example, discuss whether one may wash one's hands in the morning upon rising, as one does every morning. The Rambam (Hilkhot Tefilla 7:8) rules that since washing is prohibited on Yom Kippur, one does not recite the blessing of "al netilat yadayim" in the morning. The Ran (Yoma 2a, s.v. va-hevi) disagrees, and rules that for the sake of a mitzva (see Yoma 88), such as washing one's hands upon rising, one may wash and recite the berakha. Rabbeinu Tam (Tosafot, Yoma 77b, s.v. mishum) and others concur. The Shulchan Arukh (613:3) rules that one should wash his hands in the morning up to the knuckles and recite the blessing.

Similarly, the Shulchan Arukh (613:4) rules than an "instinis," one who is extra sensitive, may wash his face. The Rema records that it is customary to be stringent.

Finally, the Rema (613:4) writes that it is customary not to rinse one's mouth on Yom Kippur. Some Acharonim (Mishna Berura 11, for example) express concern that one might accidentally swallow some of the water. This might lead us to the conclusion that a liquid not fit for consumption may be used for rinsing one's mouth on Yom Kippur.

In a previous shiur regarding Tisha Be-Av, we noted that R. Moshe Feinstein (see R. Shimon Eider's Halachos of the Three Weeks, p. 19) suggested that washing out one's mouth on Tisha Be- Av may be prohibited because of "rechitza" (bathing). The Minchat Yitzchak (4:109), who prohibited rinsing one's mouth on Tisha Be-av, permitted brushing teeth with "powder" in order to reduce discomfort. What about rinsing one's mouth with a liquid unfit for consumption, like vinegar, or even mouthwash, on Yom Kippur?

R. Efraim Zalman Margolis (1762-1828), in his Matteh Efraim, a sefer devoted to the ritual laws to be observed from the beginning of the month of Elul until after Sukkot, writes that one should not even rinse one's mouth with a liquid unfit for consumption on Yom Kippur. Brushing one's teeth with a dry toothbrush, however, is permitted.

Wearing Shoes on Yom Kippur

The Mishna (Yoma 73b) lists "ne'ilat ha-sandal," wearing shoes, as one of the five inuyim of Yom Kippur. What type of shoes does the Mishna prohibit? Does the Mishna prohibit shoes of certain materials specifically or a certain level of comfort? The Talmud (78b) reports that many Amoraim would wear non-leather footwear on Yom Kippur.

And they inquired further: What is the law regarding going out with a sandal made of cork on Yom Kippur? R. Yitzchak ben Nachmani rose to his feet and said: I once observed R. Yehoshua ben Levi going out with a sandal made of cork on Yom Kippur… R. Yehuda went out with [sandals made from] hitni. Abaye went out with [sandals made from] palm leaves. Rava went out with [sandals made from] grass. Rabba bar R. Huna would wrap a kerchief around his foot and go out. The gemara then questions:

Rami bar Chama retorted: An amputee may go out [on Shabbat] with his wooden foot;" these are the words of R. Meir. R. Yosi prohibited. And a baraita taught in reference to this: But they both agree that it is forbidden to go out [with a wooden foot] on Yom Kippur! In other words, the Mishna prohibits an amputee to wear his wooden prosthetic on Yom Kippur, despite the fact that it is not made from leather. The gemara cites Rava, who refutes an answers offered by Abaye, and concludes: "In truth, all agree that a [wooden foot] is considered a 'shoe.'" The Rishonim debate how to understand Rava's conclusion, especially in light of another Talmudic passage (Yevamot 102a). R. Zerachya Ha-levi Gerondi (1125-1185), the Ba'al Ha- Ma'or (Yoma 2a), explains that all footwear that provides protection, including those worn by the Amoraim mentioned above, except for the kerchief worn around one's foot, is prohibited.

35 Rashi disagrees, explaining that the gemara prohibits shoes made from leather and wood, similar to the amputee's prosthetic, but permits footwear fashioned from other materials, in accordance with the Amoraim noted above.

The Rif (Yoma 2a) and the Rosh (8:7) rule that only wearing leather shoes constitutes "ne'ilat ha- sandal." Therefore, one may wear all other types of footwear, even shoes made from other comfortable materials.

Interestingly, the Rambam (Hilkhot Shevitat Ha-Asor 3:7) writes:

It is permitted to wear on Yom Kippur shoes made from cork or from rubber, and a person may even wrap a cloth around his feet and go out to a public area, as the firmness of the ground reaches his feet and he feels as if he is barefooted.

The Rambam seems to permit shoes made from other materials only if one can still feel the hardness of the ground.

The Shulchan Arukh (614:4) rules in accordance with the Rif and Rosh, permitting all shoes that are not made of leather. R. Moshe Shternbuch, in his Moa'dim U-Zemanim (6:28), suggests a distinction between leather and other materials. He argues that in the olden days, when people walked on dirt, and not asphalt, it was customary to wear leather shoes all year round. Therefore, he argues, leather shoes represent the standard shoes that people wear outside. Nowadays, many wear comfortable sneakers (or even crocks!), and one should therefore refrain from wearing these shoes on Yom Kippur.

Similarly, some Acharonim discourage wearing comfortable shoes through which cannot feel the ground. R. Meir Eisenstadt (1670-1744), for example, writes in his Panim Me'irot (2:28) that a God-fearing person should not even wear non-leather shoes that are both protective and comfortable. The Chatam Sofer (Hagahot to Shulchan Arukh 614) concurs.

The Bach even writes that one should refrain, when possible, from wearing a cloth around one's feet, and he reports that his teachers were accustomed to walk barefoot on Yom Kippur. The Mishna Berura (5) cites those Acharonim, such as the Eliya Rabba, who rule stringently, and concludes that it is proper for one to be stringent and to wear a soft cloth slipper, and not a comfortable shoe (see also Arukh Ha-Shulchan 614:5).

R. Ovadia Yosef (Chazon Ovadia, Yamim Noraim, p. 315 and R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Shalmei Mo'ed, p. 77) permit wearing all shoes not made of leather, in accordance with the popular custom. Similarly, R. Shimon Gruenfeld (1860-1930), known as the Maharshag, writes (Sefer She'elot U-Teshuvot Maharshag 2:110):

In my opinion, it seems that even from the strictest point of view there is no reason to be stringent … There is no great level of piety and one who is stringent in order that it should be more of an "affliction" and so that he should suffer more is a "foolish pious man," and he has no capability of understanding the depth of our holy Torah… It is clear to me that one who walks on Yom Kippur while suffering due to not wearing shoes, [such as one] who walks in a cold area in

36 order to suffer more through walking barefoot, does not receive additional rewards and is only considered a fool and simpleminded… In addition, it seems to me that one who does an action in order to suffer on Yom Kippur, even involving one of the five afflictions, in a way that the Torah would permit, and he would to be more stringent in order to increase his discomfort, will be punished because for denigrating the festival…

This position stands in sharp contrast to the Mishna Berura cited above.

Some Acharonim (Mateh Efraim 614, Maharam Shik 316) point out that many shoes are made of many materials; even if the leather is used only for the soles or for other parts of the shoe, they are still prohibited. The Kaf Ha-Chayyim (614:10), however, permits wearing shoes which are merely laced with leather shoelaces.

At times, one is permitted to wear leather shoes. For example, the gemara (Yoma 78b), explaining the Mishna (73b), teaches that "a new mother may wear shoes because of the cold." Similarly, the gemara continues: "Shmuel said: Because of the danger of a scorpion, it is permitted [to wear leather shoes]." The Sefat Emet (78b) points out that Shmuel's leniency does not refer to a life threatening situation, in which case this would certainly be permitted. Rather, Shmuel allows one to walk in an area where they may potentially be scorpions and wear leather shoes; he does not require one to remain at home.

The Rema (614:4) writes that if it is raining and one wishes to walk to synagogue, or to return home, and he is an "istinis" (an extremely sensitive person), he may wear shoes until he reaches his destination. The Mishna Berura (12) writes that one who knows that his feet will become soiled may walk out in shoes, but he should remove them immediately upon arriving.

Marital Relations on Yom Kippur

The Mishna (Yoma 74b) prohibits engaging in marital relations on Yom Kippur. Some Rishonim write that one should observe the precautionary prohibitions of the laws of nidda (harkhakot) as well. For example, the Beit Yosef (614) cites the Mordekhai (Mo'ed Katan 934), who writes that on Tisha Be-Av and Yom Kippur it is prohibited for a husband and wife to sleep in the same bed. Similarly, the Sefer Agudda writes that spouses should avoid all physical contact on the night of Yom Kippur.

The Shulchan Arukh (615) concurs. The Taz (1) says the harkhakot, aside from sleeping in the same bed, do not apply during the day, while the Mishna Berura (1), citing the Maharil, writes that one should observe all of the harkhakot of the laws of nidda (see Yoreh De'ah 195) for the duration of Yom Kippur.