Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 6, scan section 46

" Before Elazar the priest shall he stand, and he shall ask of him after the judgment of the Urim before the Lord ... he and all the children of Israel with him." " He " means the king, and all Israel " with him " means, the priest anointed for war ; and all the congregation means, the Sanhedrin. CHAPTER VIII. REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE FASTING ON THE DAY OF ATONE^ MENT, WHAT MAY BE DONE THEREON, AND WHAT MAY NOT BE DONE. MISHNA : On the Day of Atonement it is forbidden to eat and to drink, to wash, to anoint, to lace on shoes, and to hold sexual intercourse, A king and a bride may wash their faces ; and a lying-in woman may lace on shoes. Such is the decree of R. Eleazar. But the sages forbid it. Whosoever eats food to the size of a large date — that is, the date with the kernel — or drinks a mouthful, is guilty. All kinds of food are reckoned together to the size of the date, and all liquids to the mouthful ; but food and beverages are not reckoned together. GEMARA : In the Torah it is written, Karoth is the penalty ; and you say, merely, it is forbidden ? [Lev. xxiii. 29]. Said R. Ila, according to others R. Jeremiah : What is said in the Mishna, " forbidden," applies to half of the prescribed quantity. This would be right according to him who says that half of the prescribed quantity is biblically forbidden, but of him who says that it is biblically allowed, what can you say? Then it was taught : A half of the prescribed quantity, R. Johanan says, is prohibited biblically; and Resh Lakish says: It is allowed bibli- cally. Then the Mishna would be according to R. Johanan. But of Resh Lakish what can be said ? Resh Lakish avows, that rab- binically it is prohibited. When it is said in the Mishna " for- bidden," it is meant, forbidden rabbinically. When Karoth is the penalty, is not the term ** prohibited " employed ? We have learned in the following Boraitha : Al- though the sages have said that it is prohibited in all regards, Karoth is due only for eating, drinking, and work. We see, then, that even when Karoth is the penalty, the term "pro- hibited " is employed ? The Boraitha meant to say as follows : When the Mishna says " prohibited," it is meant for the half of the prescribed quantity ; but if he has eaten the prescribed quantity, Karoth is due for eating and drinking, and work ; but TRACT YOMAH (DAY OF ATONEMENT). 113 not for the other actions. If you wish, I can say, when it is stated in the Mishna " prohibited," the other actions only are meant (hence Karoth is not due). Rabba and R. Joseph taught from the books of the Pentateuch other than Leviticus, as fol- lows: Whence do we deduce that on the Day of Atonement one must not wash, anoint, lace on the shoes, and have sexual intercourse? Because it is written [Lev. xvi. 31] : "A Sabbath of rest, and ye shall afflict yourselves." What is meant by rest? Desisting from washing, anointing, etc. The text above states : Half of the prescribed quantity is biblically forbidden, according to R. Johanan ? Why ? Because if he will eat twice the other half, he will have eaten the whole. Resh Lakish says : The Mer- ciful One has said " eat," and this is not called " eating." The rabbis taught : It is written [ibid. 29] : " Ye shall afflict yourselves." Shall we assume that he should go and sit in the sunshine or in the cold, to cause himself suffering? Therefore it is written : " No work shall ye do." As about the work the prohibition is negative, so the affliction is meant to be only neg- ative ; i.e., abstinence. But perhaps it is meant thereby, if he sits in sunshine or in shade, and feels too hot or too cold, they should not say to him : " Remove from this place," that he might suffer? The affliction is compared to the work: as in case of the work it matters not in which place it is, so in case of the affliction. The disciples of R. Ishmael have taught : It is written here, " affliction," and it is written further, " affliction " [Deut. viii. 3] : (" He afflicted thee and suffered thee to hunger " ). As there by affliction hunger is meant, so here. If he deduces it from an analogy of expression, let him deduce it from the expression [Gen. xxxi. 50] : ** If thou shouldst afflict my daughters." It is deduced from an affliction suffered spontaneously (as hun- ger), but not from affliction inflicted by men. It is written [Deut. viii. 16] : " Who hath fed thee in the wil- derness with manna, which thy fathers knew not, in order to afflict thee." What was the affliction ? R. Ami and R. Assi said — the one, that not to have bread ready in one's basket is an affliction, whereas the manna had to be hoped for every day ; and the other says, not to see what one eats (the manna) is an affliction. (The manna had all flavors at will, but not the appearance of all foods whose flavors it had.) Said R. Joseph : Infer from this, that the blind are never satiated. Says Abayi : He who has to eat, therefore, should eat only by day, and not 114 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. by night. Said R. Zera : How can it be inferred from Script- ure? From Ecc. vi. 9: "Better is what one seeth with the eyes than the wandering of desire." It is written [Prov. xxiii. 31]: " When he glances into the cup, it goes down smoothly." R. Ami and R. Assi said — the one, that then (when he is drunk) all blood-relations are forgotten by him ; and the other says, that the whole world seems to him alike (he does not dis- tinguish between his own and others' property). It is written [Prov. xii. 26] : " If there is care in the heart of a man, he shall suppress it." Said R. Ami and R. Assi — the one, he should suppress it, by driving it out of his thoughts ; and the other, by relating about it to another person. It is written [Is. Ixv. 25]: "The serpent dust shall be his food." R. Ami and R. Assi said — the one, that whatever he eats, he tastes the flavor of earth ; and the other, that whatso- ever he should eat, he is not filled, unless he eats earth after it. We have learned in a Boraitha : R. Jose said : Come and see. The visage of the Holy One, blessed be He, is not like that of a human being. When a human being incenses another, the latter tries to embitter his life ; the Lord, when He cursed the serpent to eat earth, the serpent finds his food wheresoever he goes. He cursed Canaan, that it should be subjected : so it eats what its master eats, and drinks what its master drinks. He has cursed woman, and all run after her. He has cursed the earth, and the world is nourished by it. It is written [Num. xi. 3] : "We remember the fish which we ate in Egypt." Said Rabh and Samuel — one, that simply fish is meant ; and the other, licentiousness (since forbidden by the commandments). He who says "fish," says it is plainly men-