Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

June 26, 2021 | 讟状讝 讘转诪讜讝 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Yoma is sponsored by Vicky Harari in commemoration of her father's Yahrzeit, Avraham Baruch Hacohen ben Zeev Eliyahu Eckstein z'l, a Holocaust survivor and a feminist before it was fashionable. And in gratitude to Michelle Cohen Farber for revolutionizing women's learning worldwide.

This month's shiurim are sponsored by Fredda Cohen and Eric Nussbaum in memory of her beloved father, Mitchell Cohen, Michael ben Shraga Faivel haLevi, whose 27th yahrzeit falls on 16 Tammuz. He was kind, sweet and funny, and had a big open heart for klal Yisrael v'chol yoshvei tevel.

And for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah.

Yoma 76

Today’s daf is sponsored by Danny and Sara Berelowitz “in honor of the bar-mitzva of our grandson Ariel Berelowitz on Shabbat Parashat Balak.”

After the gemara brings another way of understanding the verse, 鈥淪trong bread was eaten by a man鈥, the gemara continues with three more discussions dealing with manna. The first – why did the manna go down daily? The second deals with the height of the manna learned from a comparison with the height of the water in the flood. The third – that the manna was a miracle that the world saw and not only the children of Israel. The gemara goes on to discuss the sources of the five afflictions that are practiced on Yom Kippur. Sources are brought to explain how it is known that avoiding washing and putting on oils is considered an affliction.

讝讛 讬讛讜砖注 砖讬专讚 诇讜 诪谉 讻谞讙讚 讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讗讬砖 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 拽讞 诇讱 讗转 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 谞讜谉 讗讬砖 讗砖专 专讜讞 讘讜 讜讗讬诪讗 诪砖讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讗讬砖 诪砖讛 注谞讜 诪讗讚 讚谞讬谉 讗讬砖 诪讗讬砖 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讗讬砖 诪讜讛讗讬砖


the verse is referring to Joshua, for whom manna fell corresponding to all the rest of the Jewish people, when he waited for Moses at Mount Sinai during the forty days Moses was on the mountain. The verses allude to this: 鈥淢an鈥 is written here, and 鈥渕an鈥 is written there: 鈥淭ake to you Joshua, the son of Nun, a man in whom there is spirit, and lay your hand upon him鈥 (Numbers 27:18). From here, the Gemara learns that the 鈥渕an鈥 is Joshua. The Gemara asks: Say that the verse is referring to Moses, about whom it is written: 鈥淣ow the man Moses was very humble鈥 (Numbers 12:3). The Gemara answers: We can learn a verbal analogy to the word 鈥渕an鈥 from the word 鈥渕an,鈥 but we cannot learn a verbal analogy to the word 鈥渕an鈥 from the phrase 鈥渢he man,鈥 which is used to refer to Moses.


砖讗诇讜 转诇诪讬讚讬讜 讗转 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 诇讗 讬专讚 诇讛诐 诇讬砖专讗诇 诪谉 驻注诐 讗讞转 讘砖谞讛 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讗诪砖讜诇 诇讻诐 诪砖诇 诇诪讛 讛讚讘专 讚讜诪讛 诇诪诇讱 讘砖专 讜讚诐 砖讬砖 诇讜 讘谉 讗讞讚 驻住拽 诇讜 诪讝讜谞讜转讬讜 驻注诐 讗讞转 讘砖谞讛 讜诇讗 讛讬讛 诪拽讘讬诇 驻谞讬 讗讘讬讜 讗诇讗 驻注诐 讗讞转 讘砖谞讛 注诪讚 讜驻住拽 诪讝讜谞讜转讬讜 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讜讛讬讛 诪拽讘讬诇 驻谞讬 讗讘讬讜 讻诇 讬讜诐


Furthermore, with regard to the manna: The students of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i asked him: Why didn鈥檛 the manna fall for the Jewish people just once a year to take care of all their needs, instead of coming down every day? He said to them: I will give you a parable: To what does this matter compare? To a king of flesh and blood who has only one son. He granted him an allowance for food once a year and the son greeted his father only once a year, when it was time for him to receive his allowance. So he arose and granted him his food every day, and his son visited him every day.


讗祝 讬砖专讗诇 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 讘谞讬诐 讛讬讛 讚讜讗讙 讜讗讜诪专 砖诪讗 诇讗 讬专讚 诪谉 诇诪讞专 讜谞诪爪讗讜 讻讜诇谉 诪转讬诐 讘专注讘 谞诪爪讗讜 讻讜诇谉 诪讻讜讜谞讬诐 讗转 诇讘诐 诇讗讘讬讛谉 砖讘砖诪讬诐


So too, in the case of the Jewish people, someone who had four or five children would be worried and say: Perhaps the manna will not fall tomorrow and we will all die of starvation. Consequently, everyone directed their hearts to their Father in heaven every day. The manna that fell each day was sufficient only for that day, so that all of the Jewish people would pray to God for food for the next day.


讚讘专 讗讞专 砖讛讬讜 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讻砖讛讜讗 讞诐 讚讘专 讗讞专 诪驻谞讬 诪砖讗讜讬 讛讚专讱


Alternatively, they received manna daily so that they would be able to eat it while it was hot and fresh. Alternatively, they received manna daily due to the hardship of carrying on the journey. They did not stay in the same place all those years, and it would have been difficult for them to carry the manna from one place to another. Therefore, the manna fell wherever they went.


讜讻讘专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜讝拽谞讬诐 讬讜砖讘讬谉 讜注讜住拽讬谉 讘驻专砖转 讛诪谉 讜讛讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛诪讜讚注讬 讬讜砖讘 讘讬谞讬讛谉 谞注谞讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛诪讜讚注讬 讜讗诪专 诪谉 砖讬专讚 诇讛谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 讛讬讛 讙讘讜讛 砖砖讬诐 讗诪讛 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 诪讜讚注讬 注讚 诪转讬 讗转讛 诪讙讘讘 讚讘专讬诐 讜诪讘讬讗 注诇讬谞讜


搂 It is told: Rabbi Tarfon, and Rabbi Yishmael, and the Elders were sitting and discussing the passage about the manna and Rabbi Elazar HaModa鈥檌 was sitting among them. Rabbi Elazar HaModa鈥檌 responded and said: The manna that fell for the Jewish people was sixty cubits high. Rabbi Tarfon said to him: Moda鈥檌, how long will you collect words and bring upon us teachings that have no basis?


讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 诪拽专讗 讗谞讬 讚讜专砖 讞诪砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 诪诇诪注诇讛 讙讘专讜 讛诪讬诐 讜讬讻住讜 讛讛专讬诐 讜讻讬 讞诪砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 讘注诪拽 (讞诪砖 注砖专讛 讘砖驻诇讛) 讞诪砖 注砖专讛 讘讛专讬诐 讜讻讬 诪讬讗 砖讜专讬 砖讜专讬 拽讬讬诪讬 讜注讜讚 转讬讘讛 讛讬讻讬 住讙讬讗 讗诇讗 谞讘拽注讜 讻诇 诪注讬谞讜转 转讛讜诐 专讘讛 注讚 讚讗砖讜讜 诪讬讗 讘讛讚讬 讟讜专讬 讜讛讚专 讞诪砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 诪诇诪注诇讛 讙讘专讜 讛诪讬诐


He said to him: Rabbi, I am interpreting a verse. How so? It states about the Flood: 鈥淔ifteen cubits above did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered鈥 (Genesis 7:20). Is it possible that it would be fifteen cubits high from a valley, fifteen cubits from the plain, and fifteen cubits from the mountains? Did the water stand as though in layers, conforming to the height of the land below it? Furthermore, how could the Ark travel over water that was at different levels? Rather: 鈥淥n the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up鈥 (Genesis 7:11), until the water rose and was level with the mountains. Afterward, the verse states that 鈥渇ifteen cubits above did the waters prevail.鈥


讜讻讬 讗讬 讝讛 诪讚讛 诪专讜讘讛 诪讚讛 讟讜讘讛 讗讜 诪讚转 驻讜专注谞讜转 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 诪讚讛 讟讜讘讛 诪诪讚转 驻讜专注谞讜转 讘诪讚转 驻讜专注谞讜转 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讗专讜讘讜转 讛砖诪讬诐 谞驻转讞讜 讘诪讚讛 讟讜讘讛 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讬爪讜 砖讞拽讬诐 诪诪注诇 讜讚诇转讬 砖诪讬诐 驻转讞 讜讬诪讟专 注诇讬讛诐 诪谉 诇讗讻讜诇 讜讚讙谉 砖诪讬诐 谞转谉 诇诪讜


Rabbi Elazar HaModa鈥檌 continues: But which attribute is greater, the attribute of goodness or the attribute of retribution? One must say the attribute of goodness is greater than the attribute of retribution. With regard to the attribute of retribution, in the case of the Flood, the verse states: 鈥淎nd the windows of heaven were opened鈥 (Genesis 7:11), which indicates that there were only windows. Whereas, with regard to the attribute of goodness, in the case of the manna, the verse states: 鈥淗e commanded the skies above, and opened the doors of heaven, and rained down manna upon them to eat and gave them heavenly grain鈥 (Psalms 78:23鈥24).


讻诪讛 讗专讜讘讜转 讬砖 讘讚诇转 讗专讘注 讗专讘注 讛专讬 讻讗谉 砖诪讜谞讛 讜谞诪爪讗 诪谉 砖讬专讚 诇讛诐 诇讬砖专讗诇 讙讘讜讛 砖砖讬诐 讗诪讛


Based on this, the Gemara calculates: The area of how many windows are in a door? Four. A door is equivalent to four windows in size. One adds another four for the second door, as the verse uses the plural 鈥渄oors,鈥 which implies that there were two doors. This equals the area of eight windows. If the depth of water in the Flood is based on the phrase 鈥渨indows of heaven,鈥 implying two windows, then the manna fell at a rate four times that of the water of the Flood. Since the water of the Flood reached a depth of fifteen cubits, it turns out that the manna that fell for the Jewish people was sixty cubits high, i.e., four times as high.


转谞讬讗 讗讬住讬 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪谉 砖讬专讚 诇讛诐 诇讬砖专讗诇 讛讬讛 诪转讙讘专 讜注讜诇讛 注讚 砖专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 讻诇 诪诇讻讬 诪讝专讞 讜诪注专讘 砖谞讗诪专 转注专讜讱 诇驻谞讬 砖诇讞谉 谞讙讚 爪讜专专讬 [讜讙讜壮 讻讜住讬 专讜讬讛] 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻住讗 讚讚讜讚 诇注诇诪讗 讚讗转讬 诪讗转谉 讜注砖专讬谉 讜讞讚 诇讜讙讗 诪讞讝讬拽 砖谞讗诪专 讻讜住讬 专讜讬讛 专讜讬讛 讘讙讬诪讟专讬讗 讛讻讬 讛讜讬


Similarly, it was taught in a baraita that Isi ben Yehuda said: The manna that fell for the Jewish people would accumulate and ascend until all the kings of the East and West could see it, as it is stated: 鈥淵ou prepared a table before me in the presence of my enemies; you anointed my head with oil; my cup runs over鈥 (Psalms 23:5). God prepared food for the Jewish people, so that their enemies would see their greatness over the world. 鈥淢y cup runs over [revaya]鈥; Abaye said: We learn from this that the cup of David in the next world holds 221 log, since it is stated: 鈥淢y cup runs over,鈥 and the word revaya has that numerical value.


讛讗 诇讗 讚诪讬讗 讛转诐 讘讗专讘注讬谉 讬讜诪讬谉 讛讻讗 讞讚讗 砖注转讗 讛转诐 诇讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讛讻讗 诇讬砖专讗诇 诇讞讜讚讬讛 讜谞驻讬砖 诇讛讜 讟驻讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛诪讜讚注讬 驻转讬讞讛 驻转讬讞讛 讙诪专


The Gemara asks how Rabbi Elazar HaModa鈥檌 can compare the depth of the Flood waters with the amount of manna that fell in the desert: This is not similar, and the calculation is inaccurate. There, in the case of the Flood, the water rose fifteen cubits in forty days; but here, in the case of the manna, it took only one hour every day to fall. Conversely, there the Flood was for everyone and covered the whole world; whereas here the manna was for the Jewish people alone. And there would be much more manna for them than sixty cubits, which is the measurement put forth by Rabbi Elazar HaModa鈥檌. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Elazar HaModa鈥檌 derived 鈥渙pening鈥 in the verse: 鈥淗e commanded the skies above, and opened the doors of heaven鈥 (Psalms 78:23), from 鈥渙pening鈥 in the verse: 鈥淎nd the windows of heaven were opened鈥 (Genesis 7:11). He used a verbal analogy that teaches that the skies opened in both instances in the same way.


讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讛谞讬 讞诪砖讛 注谞讜讬讬谉 讻谞讙讚 诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讻谞讙讚 讞诪砖讛 注谞讜讬讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讜讘注砖讜专 讜讗讱 讘注砖讜专 砖讘转 砖讘转讜谉 讜砖讘转 砖讘转讜谉 讜讛讬转讛 诇讻诐


搂 The mishna taught that as per the five prohibited activities on Yom Kippur it is prohibited to engage in eating and in drinking, and in bathing, and in smearing the body with oil, and in wearing shoes, and in conjugal relations. The Gemara asks: These five afflictions of Yom Kippur, to what do they correspond? Where is the Torah source or allusion to them? Rav 岣sda said: They are based on the five times that the afflictions of Yom Kippur are mentioned in the Torah. It is stated: (1) 鈥淎nd on the tenth of this seventh month you shall have a holy convocation, and you shall afflict your souls鈥 (Numbers 29:7); (2) 鈥淏ut on the tenth of this seventh month is the day of atonement, it shall be a holy convocation for you and you shall afflict your souls鈥 (Leviticus 23:27); (3) 鈥淚t shall be for you a Shabbat of solemn rest, and you shall afflict your souls (Leviticus 23:32); (4) 鈥淚t is a Shabbat of solemn rest [shabbaton] for you, and you shall afflict your souls鈥 (Leviticus 16:31); (5) 鈥淎nd it shall be a statute for you forever, in the seventh month on the tenth of the month, you shall afflict your souls鈥 (Leviticus 16:29).


讛谞讬 讞诪砖讛 讛讜讜 讜讗谞谉 砖讬转讗 转谞谉 砖转讬讛 讘讻诇诇 讗讻讬诇讛 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪谞讬谉 诇砖转讬讛 砖讛讬讗 讘讻诇诇 讗讻讬诇讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗讻诇转 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 诪注砖专 讚讙谞讱 转讬专讜砖讱 讜讬爪讛专讱 转讬专讜砖 讞诪专讗 讛讜讗 讜拽专讬 诇讬讛 讜讗讻诇转


The Gemara asks: Are these five the only afflictions? We learn in the mishna that there are six: Eating, drinking, bathing, smearing oil, conjugal relations, and wearing shoes. The Gemara answers: Drinking is included in the prohibition of eating; both together are considered a single affliction. As Reish Lakish said: From where do we derive that drinking is included in the concept of eating? As it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall eat before the Lord your God, in the place where He shall choose to cause His name to dwell there, the tithe of your grain, of your wine [tirosh], and of your oil鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:23). Tirosh is wine, yet the verse calls the drinking of wine eating with the phrase 鈥渁nd you shall eat,鈥 meaning that eating also refers to drinking.


诪诪讗讬 讜讚讬诇诪讗 讚讗讻诇讬讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讗谞讬讙专讜谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗谞讬讙专讜谉 诪讬讗 讚住讬诇拽讗 讗讻住讬讙专讜谉 诪讬讗 讚讻讜诇讛讜 砖诇拽讬


The Gemara rejects this answer: From where do you draw this conclusion? Perhaps the wine was eaten as anigron, a sauce made of oil, beet juice, and garum mixed with wine. As Rabba bar Shmuel said: Anigron is beet juice and wine mixed together. Akhsigron is water that comes from boiled vegetables that have wine mixed into them. The vegetables are mixed with the wine and eaten. It is possible for wine to literally be eaten. Therefore, the verse does not prove that drinking is included in eating.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 诪讛讻讗 讜谞转转讛 讛讻住祝 讘讻诇 讗砖专 转讗讜讛 谞驻砖讱 讘讘拽专 讜讘爪讗谉 讘讬讬谉 讜讘砖讻专 砖讻专 砖转讬讛 讛讜讗 讜拽专讬讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讜讗讻诇转


Rather, Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said: From here there is a proof as the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall spend that money on all that your soul desires, on oxen, or on sheep, or on wine, or on strong drink [sheikhar] or whatever your soul desires, and you shall eat鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:26). Strong drink is a drink, but the Merciful One calls its consumption eating, in the phrase 鈥渁nd you shall eat.鈥


诪诪讗讬 讜讚讬诇诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚讗讻诇讬讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讗谞讬讙专讜谉 砖讻专 讻转讘 诪讬讚讬 讚诪砖讻专 讜讚讬诇诪讗 讚讘讬诇讛 拽注讬诇讬转 讚转谞讬讗 讗讻诇 讚讘讬诇讛 拽注讬诇讬转 讜砖转讛 讚讘砖 讜讞诇讘 讜谞讻谞住 诇诪拽讚砖


The Gemara rejects this proof: From where do you draw this conclusion? Perhaps here too it was eaten as anigron? The Gemara rejects this: Here that answer is insufficient because the verse writes 鈥渟trong drink [sheikhar],鈥 meaning something that intoxicates. Beverages that generally intoxicate do not do so when they are in a mixture. The Gemara asks: Perhaps sheikhar does not refer to wine but to a food that causes intoxication, such as a sweet dried fig from Keilah. As it was taught in a baraita: A priest who ate a sweet dried fig from Keilah or drank honey or milk, thereby becoming intoxicated, and entered the Temple to serve


(讞讬讬讘)


is liable for violating the prohibition: 鈥淒rink no wine nor strong drink [sheikhar]鈥 (Leviticus 10:9). Consequently, the term sheikhar in the text can be understood here as the sweet dried fig.


讗诇讗 讬诇讬祝 砖讻专 砖讻专 诪谞讝讬专 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讬讬谉 讗祝 讻讗谉 讬讬谉


Rather, the Gemara rejects this and states: It is derived through a verbal analogy of sheikhar and sheikhar stated in the verses of the nazirite (Numbers 6:3). Just as there, in the case of the nazirite, sheikhar means strong wine, so too, here, it means strong wine and not sweet dried figs.


讜转讬专讜砖 讞诪专讗 讛讜讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛谞讜讚专 诪谉 讛转讬专讜砖 讗住讜专 讘讻诇 诪讬谞讬 诪转讬拽讛 讜诪讜转专 讘讬讬谉 讜诇讗讜 讞诪专讗 讛讜讗 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜转讬专讜砖 讬谞讜讘讘 讘转讜诇讜转 讚讘专 讛讘讗 诪谉 讛转讬专讜砖 讬谞讜讘讘 讘转讜诇讜转


The Gemara returns to the meaning of the word tirosh: Is tirosh wine? Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: One who vows not to benefit from tirosh is not allowed sweet foods, e.g., sweet fruits, but is allowed wine. Therefore, tirosh is not wine but sweet food. The Gemara rejects this: And is tirosh not wine? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥Tirosh shall make the young women flourish [yenovev]鈥 (Zechariah 9:17). The word yenovev comes from the word niv, speech. Consequently, tirosh is a food that tempts the heart and mouth of the drinker, even of virgins, who are modest and reticent. Since sweet foods do not have this effect, tirosh must be wine. The Gemara replies: This is not a proof, since we could explain it otherwise: Something that comes from tirosh, such as wine, causes virgins to come forth; tirosh itself means sweet grapes. Perhaps wine is called tirosh only by extension because it is made from tirosh.


讜讛讻转讬讘 讜转讬专讜砖 讬拽讘讬讱 讬驻专讜爪讜 讚讘专 讛讘讗 诪谉 讛转讬专讜砖 讬拽讘讬讱 讬驻专讜爪讜


The Gemara challenges this: But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd your vats shall overflow with tirosh (Proverbs 3:10). This description implies that tirosh is wine rather than sweet grapes. The Gemara answers: This too is not a proof that tirosh means wine. We could say that the vats shall overflow with something that comes from tirosh, i.e., wine; yet tirosh itself means sweet fruits.


讜讛讗 讻转讬讘 讝谞讜转 讜讬讬谉 讜转讬专讜砖 讬拽讞 诇讘 讗诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 转讬专讜砖 讞诪专讗 讛讜讗 讜讘谞讚专讬诐 讛诇讱 讗讞专 诇砖讜谉 讘谞讬 讗讚诐


The Gemara objects: But it is written: 鈥淗arlotry, and wine, and tirosh take away the heart鈥 (Hosea 4:11). Since tirosh leads the heart astray, it is clear that it is wine. Therefore, the Gemara accepts that tirosh means wine. Rather, according to everyone, the word tirosh in the Bible refers to wine, but vows follow colloquial language. During the time of the Mishna, tirosh meant sweet fruits; the term included grapes but not wine. When dealing with vows, the intention of the speaker is what must be determined, but no inference can be drawn from colloquial language to the biblical definition of the word.


讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讬讛 讬讬谉 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讬讛 转讬专讜砖 讬讬谉 砖诪讘讬讗 讬诇诇讛 诇注讜诇诐 转讬专讜砖 砖讻诇 讛诪转讙专讛 讘讜 谞注砖讛 专砖


The Gemara asks: And if so, why does the Bible call it wine and why does it call it tirosh? The Gemara explains: 鈥淲ine鈥 suggests that it brings lament to the world because drunkenness causes most sins. There is a phonetic resemblance between the yayin, wine, and ta鈥檃niya va鈥檃niya, sorrow and howling, which Rashi (on Job 2:5) explains as lament. Tirosh shows that those who indulge in it become poor [rash].


专讘 讻讛谞讗 专诪讬 讻转讬讘 转讬专砖 讜拽专讬谞谉 转讬专讜砖 讝讻讛 谞注砖讛 专讗砖 诇讗 讝讻讛 谞注砖讛 专砖 (讜讛讬讬谞讜 讚专讘讗 讚专讘讗) 专诪讬 讻转讬讘 讬砖诪讞 讜拽专讬谞谉 讬砖诪讞 讝讻讛 诪砖诪讞讜 诇讗 讝讻讛 诪砖诪诪讜 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讞诪专讗 讜专讬讞谞讬 驻拽讞讬谉


Rav Kahana raised a contradiction: It is written as tirash but we read it tirosh. This should be understood as follows: If one merits and drinks appropriately, he is made a head [rosh]; if one does not merit and does not drink appropriately, he is made poor [rash]. The Gemara comments: This is the same as what Rava said, as Rava raised a contradiction: It is written: 鈥淎nd wine that makes glad [yishama岣] the heart of man鈥 (Psalms 104:15) with a shin, but we read it yisama岣 with a sin. This teaches: If one merits, wine makes him happy [same鈥檃岣]; if one does not merit, it makes him confounded [shamem]. This is the same as what Rava said: Wine and good scents make me wise, meaning that wine benefits one who deserves it.


专讞讬爪讛 讜住讬讻讛 诪谞讗 诇谉 讚讗讬拽专讬 注讬谞讜讬 讚讻转讬讘 诇讞诐 讞诪讜讚讜转 诇讗 讗讻诇转讬 讜讘砖专 讜讬讬谉 诇讗 讘讗 讗诇 驻讬 讜住讜讱 诇讗 住讻转讬 诪讗讬 诇讞诐 讞诪讜讚讜转 诇讗 讗讻诇转讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 砖讬诇转 讗驻讬诇讜 谞讛诪讗 讚讞讬讟讬 讚讻讬讬转讗 诇讗 讗讻诇


搂 The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that abstaining from bathing and smearing oil on oneself is called affliction? The Gemara answers: As it is written 鈥淚 ate no pleasant bread, neither did meat nor wine enter my mouth, neither did I anoint myself at all鈥 (Daniel 10:3). The Gemara explains the verse: What is the meaning of 鈥淚 ate no pleasant bread鈥? Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, said: He did not eat even bread made from refined wheat; he ate only wheat mixed with bran.


讜诪谞讗 诇谉 讚讞砖讬讘 讻注讬谞讜讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讗诪专 讗诇讬 讗诇 转讬专讗 讚谞讬讗诇 讻讬 诪谉 讛讬讜诐 讛专讗砖讜谉 讗砖专 谞转转 讗转 诇讘讱 诇讛讘讬谉 讜诇讛转注谞讜转 诇驻谞讬 讗诇讛讬讱 谞砖诪注讜 讚讘专讬讱 讜讗谞讬 讘讗转讬 讘讚讘专讬讱 (讻讬 讞诪讜讚讜转 讗转讛)


The Gemara continues to show that abstaining from smearing oil on oneself is considered an affliction: And from where do we derive that abstaining from the activities that Daniel describes is considered affliction? As it is written: 鈥淭hen he said to me: Fear not, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart to understand and to afflict yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come due to your words鈥 (Daniel 10:12). 鈥淔or you are greatly loved鈥 (Daniel 9:23).


讗砖讻讞谉 住讬讻讛 专讞讬爪讛 诪谞讗 诇谉 讗诪专 专讘 讝讜讟专讗 讘专讘讬 讟讜讘讬讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜转讘讗 讻诪讬诐 讘拽专讘讜 讜讻砖诪谉 讘注爪诪讜转讬讜 讜讗讬诪讗 讻砖转讬讛 讚讜诪讬讗 讚砖诪谉 诪讛 砖诪谉 诪讗讘专讗讬 讗祝 诪讬诐 诪讗讘专讗讬


We have found proof that abstaining from smearing oil on oneself is considered affliction; from where do we derive that abstaining from bathing is also called affliction? Rav Zutra, son of Rabbi Toviya, said: The verse states: 鈥淎nd it came into his innards like water, and like oil into his bones鈥 (Psalms 109:18). This means that the water with which one bathes and the oil with which one smears himself are absorbed into the body. Just as abstaining from smearing oil is considered an affliction, so too, abstaining from bathing is considered an affliction. The Gemara objects: But say that 鈥渃ame into his innards like water鈥 is referring to drinking rather than smearing oil. The Gemara rejects this: It is similar to oil. Just as the oil described in the verse is smeared from outside the body and not drunk, so too, the water mentioned in the verse is used for bathing from the outside. It is not drunk.


讜讛讗 转谞讗 讗讬驻讻讗 拽讗 谞住讬讘 诇讛 讚转谞谉 诪谞讬谉 诇住讬讻讛 砖讛讬讗 讻砖转讬讛 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 专讗讬讛 诇讚讘专 讝讻专 诇讚讘专 砖谞讗诪专 讜转讘讗 讻诪讬诐 讘拽专讘讜 讜讻砖诪谉 讘注爪诪讜转讬讜 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 专讞讬爪讛 诪讙讜驻讬讛 讚拽专讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜住讜讱 诇讗 住讻转讬


The Gemara asks: But the tanna took the opposite meaning, as we learned in a mishna: From where do we derive that smearing oil is like drinking on Yom Kippur? Although there is no explicit proof of the matter from the Bible, there is an allusion to the matter from the verse, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd it came into his innards like water, and like oil into his bones鈥 (Psalms 109:18), meaning that oil on the body is like water within it. Therefore, the phrase 鈥渁nd it came into his innards like water鈥 is referring to the act of drinking water. Rather, Rav Ashi said: Bathing is derived from the same verse cited above, as it is written: 鈥淣either did I anoint myself at all鈥 (Daniel 10:3). This teaches that Daniel did not do any anointing, including bathing. Consequently, the same source prohibits both of these activities.


诪讗讬 讜讗谞讬 讘讗转讬 讘讚讘专讬讱 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜砖讘注讬诐 讗讬砖 诪讝拽谞讬 [讘讬转] 讬砖专讗诇 讜讬讗讝谞讬讛讜 讘谉 砖驻谉 注讜诪讚 讘转讜讻诐 注讜诪讚讬诐 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讜讗讬砖 诪拽讟专转讜 讘讬讚讜 讜注转专 注谞谉 讛拽讟讜专转 注诇讛 讜讬砖诇讞 转讘谞讬转 讬讚 讜讬拽讞谞讬 讘爪讬爪转 专讗砖讬 讜转砖讗 讗讜转讬 专讜讞 讘讬谉 讛讗专抓 讜讘讬谉 讛砖诪讬诐 讜转讘讗 讗讜转讬 讬专讜砖诇讬诪讛 讘诪专讗讜转 讗诇讛讬诐 讗诇 驻转讞 砖注专 讛驻谞讬诪讬转 讛驻讜谞讛 爪驻讜谞讛 讗砖专


Apropos the verses from Daniel, the Gemara asks: What did the angel mean when he said to Daniel: 鈥淎nd I have come due to your words鈥 (Daniel 10:12)? From this, it seems that the angel was able to come only because of Daniel. The Gemara answers: This is as it is written: 鈥淎nd there stood before them seventy men of the Elders of the house of Israel, and Jaazaniah, son of Shaphan, standing in the midst of them, each man with his censer in his hand, and a thick cloud of incense went up鈥 (Ezekiel 8:11). Ezekiel saw the Elders of the house of Israel worshipping foreign gods. 鈥淎nd the form of a hand was put forth, and I was taken by a lock of my head; and a spirit lifted me up between the earth and the heaven, and brought me in the visions of God to Jerusalem, to the door of the gate of the inner court that faces northward where


Masechet Yoma is sponsored by Vicky Harari in commemoration of her father's Yahrzeit, Avraham Baruch Hacohen ben Zeev Eliyahu Eckstein z'l, a Holocaust survivor and a feminist before it was fashionable. And in gratitude to Michelle Cohen Farber for revolutionizing women's learning worldwide.

This month's shiurim are sponsored by Fredda Cohen and Eric Nussbaum in memory of her beloved father, Mitchell Cohen, Michael ben Shraga Faivel haLevi, whose 27th yahrzeit falls on 16 Tammuz. He was kind, sweet and funny, and had a big open heart for klal Yisrael v'chol yoshvei tevel.

And for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

talking talmud_square

Yoma 76: The 5 Afflictions

More on the manna. Why did the manna come every day, instead of getting the full dole once a year,...

Yoma 76

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yoma 76

讝讛 讬讛讜砖注 砖讬专讚 诇讜 诪谉 讻谞讙讚 讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讗讬砖 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 拽讞 诇讱 讗转 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 谞讜谉 讗讬砖 讗砖专 专讜讞 讘讜 讜讗讬诪讗 诪砖讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讗讬砖 诪砖讛 注谞讜 诪讗讚 讚谞讬谉 讗讬砖 诪讗讬砖 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讗讬砖 诪讜讛讗讬砖


the verse is referring to Joshua, for whom manna fell corresponding to all the rest of the Jewish people, when he waited for Moses at Mount Sinai during the forty days Moses was on the mountain. The verses allude to this: 鈥淢an鈥 is written here, and 鈥渕an鈥 is written there: 鈥淭ake to you Joshua, the son of Nun, a man in whom there is spirit, and lay your hand upon him鈥 (Numbers 27:18). From here, the Gemara learns that the 鈥渕an鈥 is Joshua. The Gemara asks: Say that the verse is referring to Moses, about whom it is written: 鈥淣ow the man Moses was very humble鈥 (Numbers 12:3). The Gemara answers: We can learn a verbal analogy to the word 鈥渕an鈥 from the word 鈥渕an,鈥 but we cannot learn a verbal analogy to the word 鈥渕an鈥 from the phrase 鈥渢he man,鈥 which is used to refer to Moses.


砖讗诇讜 转诇诪讬讚讬讜 讗转 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 诇讗 讬专讚 诇讛诐 诇讬砖专讗诇 诪谉 驻注诐 讗讞转 讘砖谞讛 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讗诪砖讜诇 诇讻诐 诪砖诇 诇诪讛 讛讚讘专 讚讜诪讛 诇诪诇讱 讘砖专 讜讚诐 砖讬砖 诇讜 讘谉 讗讞讚 驻住拽 诇讜 诪讝讜谞讜转讬讜 驻注诐 讗讞转 讘砖谞讛 讜诇讗 讛讬讛 诪拽讘讬诇 驻谞讬 讗讘讬讜 讗诇讗 驻注诐 讗讞转 讘砖谞讛 注诪讚 讜驻住拽 诪讝讜谞讜转讬讜 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讜讛讬讛 诪拽讘讬诇 驻谞讬 讗讘讬讜 讻诇 讬讜诐


Furthermore, with regard to the manna: The students of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i asked him: Why didn鈥檛 the manna fall for the Jewish people just once a year to take care of all their needs, instead of coming down every day? He said to them: I will give you a parable: To what does this matter compare? To a king of flesh and blood who has only one son. He granted him an allowance for food once a year and the son greeted his father only once a year, when it was time for him to receive his allowance. So he arose and granted him his food every day, and his son visited him every day.


讗祝 讬砖专讗诇 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 讘谞讬诐 讛讬讛 讚讜讗讙 讜讗讜诪专 砖诪讗 诇讗 讬专讚 诪谉 诇诪讞专 讜谞诪爪讗讜 讻讜诇谉 诪转讬诐 讘专注讘 谞诪爪讗讜 讻讜诇谉 诪讻讜讜谞讬诐 讗转 诇讘诐 诇讗讘讬讛谉 砖讘砖诪讬诐


So too, in the case of the Jewish people, someone who had four or five children would be worried and say: Perhaps the manna will not fall tomorrow and we will all die of starvation. Consequently, everyone directed their hearts to their Father in heaven every day. The manna that fell each day was sufficient only for that day, so that all of the Jewish people would pray to God for food for the next day.


讚讘专 讗讞专 砖讛讬讜 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讻砖讛讜讗 讞诐 讚讘专 讗讞专 诪驻谞讬 诪砖讗讜讬 讛讚专讱


Alternatively, they received manna daily so that they would be able to eat it while it was hot and fresh. Alternatively, they received manna daily due to the hardship of carrying on the journey. They did not stay in the same place all those years, and it would have been difficult for them to carry the manna from one place to another. Therefore, the manna fell wherever they went.


讜讻讘专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜讝拽谞讬诐 讬讜砖讘讬谉 讜注讜住拽讬谉 讘驻专砖转 讛诪谉 讜讛讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛诪讜讚注讬 讬讜砖讘 讘讬谞讬讛谉 谞注谞讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛诪讜讚注讬 讜讗诪专 诪谉 砖讬专讚 诇讛谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 讛讬讛 讙讘讜讛 砖砖讬诐 讗诪讛 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 诪讜讚注讬 注讚 诪转讬 讗转讛 诪讙讘讘 讚讘专讬诐 讜诪讘讬讗 注诇讬谞讜


搂 It is told: Rabbi Tarfon, and Rabbi Yishmael, and the Elders were sitting and discussing the passage about the manna and Rabbi Elazar HaModa鈥檌 was sitting among them. Rabbi Elazar HaModa鈥檌 responded and said: The manna that fell for the Jewish people was sixty cubits high. Rabbi Tarfon said to him: Moda鈥檌, how long will you collect words and bring upon us teachings that have no basis?


讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 诪拽专讗 讗谞讬 讚讜专砖 讞诪砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 诪诇诪注诇讛 讙讘专讜 讛诪讬诐 讜讬讻住讜 讛讛专讬诐 讜讻讬 讞诪砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 讘注诪拽 (讞诪砖 注砖专讛 讘砖驻诇讛) 讞诪砖 注砖专讛 讘讛专讬诐 讜讻讬 诪讬讗 砖讜专讬 砖讜专讬 拽讬讬诪讬 讜注讜讚 转讬讘讛 讛讬讻讬 住讙讬讗 讗诇讗 谞讘拽注讜 讻诇 诪注讬谞讜转 转讛讜诐 专讘讛 注讚 讚讗砖讜讜 诪讬讗 讘讛讚讬 讟讜专讬 讜讛讚专 讞诪砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 诪诇诪注诇讛 讙讘专讜 讛诪讬诐


He said to him: Rabbi, I am interpreting a verse. How so? It states about the Flood: 鈥淔ifteen cubits above did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered鈥 (Genesis 7:20). Is it possible that it would be fifteen cubits high from a valley, fifteen cubits from the plain, and fifteen cubits from the mountains? Did the water stand as though in layers, conforming to the height of the land below it? Furthermore, how could the Ark travel over water that was at different levels? Rather: 鈥淥n the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up鈥 (Genesis 7:11), until the water rose and was level with the mountains. Afterward, the verse states that 鈥渇ifteen cubits above did the waters prevail.鈥


讜讻讬 讗讬 讝讛 诪讚讛 诪专讜讘讛 诪讚讛 讟讜讘讛 讗讜 诪讚转 驻讜专注谞讜转 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 诪讚讛 讟讜讘讛 诪诪讚转 驻讜专注谞讜转 讘诪讚转 驻讜专注谞讜转 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讗专讜讘讜转 讛砖诪讬诐 谞驻转讞讜 讘诪讚讛 讟讜讘讛 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讬爪讜 砖讞拽讬诐 诪诪注诇 讜讚诇转讬 砖诪讬诐 驻转讞 讜讬诪讟专 注诇讬讛诐 诪谉 诇讗讻讜诇 讜讚讙谉 砖诪讬诐 谞转谉 诇诪讜


Rabbi Elazar HaModa鈥檌 continues: But which attribute is greater, the attribute of goodness or the attribute of retribution? One must say the attribute of goodness is greater than the attribute of retribution. With regard to the attribute of retribution, in the case of the Flood, the verse states: 鈥淎nd the windows of heaven were opened鈥 (Genesis 7:11), which indicates that there were only windows. Whereas, with regard to the attribute of goodness, in the case of the manna, the verse states: 鈥淗e commanded the skies above, and opened the doors of heaven, and rained down manna upon them to eat and gave them heavenly grain鈥 (Psalms 78:23鈥24).


讻诪讛 讗专讜讘讜转 讬砖 讘讚诇转 讗专讘注 讗专讘注 讛专讬 讻讗谉 砖诪讜谞讛 讜谞诪爪讗 诪谉 砖讬专讚 诇讛诐 诇讬砖专讗诇 讙讘讜讛 砖砖讬诐 讗诪讛


Based on this, the Gemara calculates: The area of how many windows are in a door? Four. A door is equivalent to four windows in size. One adds another four for the second door, as the verse uses the plural 鈥渄oors,鈥 which implies that there were two doors. This equals the area of eight windows. If the depth of water in the Flood is based on the phrase 鈥渨indows of heaven,鈥 implying two windows, then the manna fell at a rate four times that of the water of the Flood. Since the water of the Flood reached a depth of fifteen cubits, it turns out that the manna that fell for the Jewish people was sixty cubits high, i.e., four times as high.


转谞讬讗 讗讬住讬 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪谉 砖讬专讚 诇讛诐 诇讬砖专讗诇 讛讬讛 诪转讙讘专 讜注讜诇讛 注讚 砖专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 讻诇 诪诇讻讬 诪讝专讞 讜诪注专讘 砖谞讗诪专 转注专讜讱 诇驻谞讬 砖诇讞谉 谞讙讚 爪讜专专讬 [讜讙讜壮 讻讜住讬 专讜讬讛] 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻住讗 讚讚讜讚 诇注诇诪讗 讚讗转讬 诪讗转谉 讜注砖专讬谉 讜讞讚 诇讜讙讗 诪讞讝讬拽 砖谞讗诪专 讻讜住讬 专讜讬讛 专讜讬讛 讘讙讬诪讟专讬讗 讛讻讬 讛讜讬


Similarly, it was taught in a baraita that Isi ben Yehuda said: The manna that fell for the Jewish people would accumulate and ascend until all the kings of the East and West could see it, as it is stated: 鈥淵ou prepared a table before me in the presence of my enemies; you anointed my head with oil; my cup runs over鈥 (Psalms 23:5). God prepared food for the Jewish people, so that their enemies would see their greatness over the world. 鈥淢y cup runs over [revaya]鈥; Abaye said: We learn from this that the cup of David in the next world holds 221 log, since it is stated: 鈥淢y cup runs over,鈥 and the word revaya has that numerical value.


讛讗 诇讗 讚诪讬讗 讛转诐 讘讗专讘注讬谉 讬讜诪讬谉 讛讻讗 讞讚讗 砖注转讗 讛转诐 诇讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讛讻讗 诇讬砖专讗诇 诇讞讜讚讬讛 讜谞驻讬砖 诇讛讜 讟驻讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛诪讜讚注讬 驻转讬讞讛 驻转讬讞讛 讙诪专


The Gemara asks how Rabbi Elazar HaModa鈥檌 can compare the depth of the Flood waters with the amount of manna that fell in the desert: This is not similar, and the calculation is inaccurate. There, in the case of the Flood, the water rose fifteen cubits in forty days; but here, in the case of the manna, it took only one hour every day to fall. Conversely, there the Flood was for everyone and covered the whole world; whereas here the manna was for the Jewish people alone. And there would be much more manna for them than sixty cubits, which is the measurement put forth by Rabbi Elazar HaModa鈥檌. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Elazar HaModa鈥檌 derived 鈥渙pening鈥 in the verse: 鈥淗e commanded the skies above, and opened the doors of heaven鈥 (Psalms 78:23), from 鈥渙pening鈥 in the verse: 鈥淎nd the windows of heaven were opened鈥 (Genesis 7:11). He used a verbal analogy that teaches that the skies opened in both instances in the same way.


讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讛谞讬 讞诪砖讛 注谞讜讬讬谉 讻谞讙讚 诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讻谞讙讚 讞诪砖讛 注谞讜讬讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讜讘注砖讜专 讜讗讱 讘注砖讜专 砖讘转 砖讘转讜谉 讜砖讘转 砖讘转讜谉 讜讛讬转讛 诇讻诐


搂 The mishna taught that as per the five prohibited activities on Yom Kippur it is prohibited to engage in eating and in drinking, and in bathing, and in smearing the body with oil, and in wearing shoes, and in conjugal relations. The Gemara asks: These five afflictions of Yom Kippur, to what do they correspond? Where is the Torah source or allusion to them? Rav 岣sda said: They are based on the five times that the afflictions of Yom Kippur are mentioned in the Torah. It is stated: (1) 鈥淎nd on the tenth of this seventh month you shall have a holy convocation, and you shall afflict your souls鈥 (Numbers 29:7); (2) 鈥淏ut on the tenth of this seventh month is the day of atonement, it shall be a holy convocation for you and you shall afflict your souls鈥 (Leviticus 23:27); (3) 鈥淚t shall be for you a Shabbat of solemn rest, and you shall afflict your souls (Leviticus 23:32); (4) 鈥淚t is a Shabbat of solemn rest [shabbaton] for you, and you shall afflict your souls鈥 (Leviticus 16:31); (5) 鈥淎nd it shall be a statute for you forever, in the seventh month on the tenth of the month, you shall afflict your souls鈥 (Leviticus 16:29).


讛谞讬 讞诪砖讛 讛讜讜 讜讗谞谉 砖讬转讗 转谞谉 砖转讬讛 讘讻诇诇 讗讻讬诇讛 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪谞讬谉 诇砖转讬讛 砖讛讬讗 讘讻诇诇 讗讻讬诇讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗讻诇转 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 诪注砖专 讚讙谞讱 转讬专讜砖讱 讜讬爪讛专讱 转讬专讜砖 讞诪专讗 讛讜讗 讜拽专讬 诇讬讛 讜讗讻诇转


The Gemara asks: Are these five the only afflictions? We learn in the mishna that there are six: Eating, drinking, bathing, smearing oil, conjugal relations, and wearing shoes. The Gemara answers: Drinking is included in the prohibition of eating; both together are considered a single affliction. As Reish Lakish said: From where do we derive that drinking is included in the concept of eating? As it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall eat before the Lord your God, in the place where He shall choose to cause His name to dwell there, the tithe of your grain, of your wine [tirosh], and of your oil鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:23). Tirosh is wine, yet the verse calls the drinking of wine eating with the phrase 鈥渁nd you shall eat,鈥 meaning that eating also refers to drinking.


诪诪讗讬 讜讚讬诇诪讗 讚讗讻诇讬讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讗谞讬讙专讜谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗谞讬讙专讜谉 诪讬讗 讚住讬诇拽讗 讗讻住讬讙专讜谉 诪讬讗 讚讻讜诇讛讜 砖诇拽讬


The Gemara rejects this answer: From where do you draw this conclusion? Perhaps the wine was eaten as anigron, a sauce made of oil, beet juice, and garum mixed with wine. As Rabba bar Shmuel said: Anigron is beet juice and wine mixed together. Akhsigron is water that comes from boiled vegetables that have wine mixed into them. The vegetables are mixed with the wine and eaten. It is possible for wine to literally be eaten. Therefore, the verse does not prove that drinking is included in eating.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 诪讛讻讗 讜谞转转讛 讛讻住祝 讘讻诇 讗砖专 转讗讜讛 谞驻砖讱 讘讘拽专 讜讘爪讗谉 讘讬讬谉 讜讘砖讻专 砖讻专 砖转讬讛 讛讜讗 讜拽专讬讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讜讗讻诇转


Rather, Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said: From here there is a proof as the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall spend that money on all that your soul desires, on oxen, or on sheep, or on wine, or on strong drink [sheikhar] or whatever your soul desires, and you shall eat鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:26). Strong drink is a drink, but the Merciful One calls its consumption eating, in the phrase 鈥渁nd you shall eat.鈥


诪诪讗讬 讜讚讬诇诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚讗讻诇讬讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讗谞讬讙专讜谉 砖讻专 讻转讘 诪讬讚讬 讚诪砖讻专 讜讚讬诇诪讗 讚讘讬诇讛 拽注讬诇讬转 讚转谞讬讗 讗讻诇 讚讘讬诇讛 拽注讬诇讬转 讜砖转讛 讚讘砖 讜讞诇讘 讜谞讻谞住 诇诪拽讚砖


The Gemara rejects this proof: From where do you draw this conclusion? Perhaps here too it was eaten as anigron? The Gemara rejects this: Here that answer is insufficient because the verse writes 鈥渟trong drink [sheikhar],鈥 meaning something that intoxicates. Beverages that generally intoxicate do not do so when they are in a mixture. The Gemara asks: Perhaps sheikhar does not refer to wine but to a food that causes intoxication, such as a sweet dried fig from Keilah. As it was taught in a baraita: A priest who ate a sweet dried fig from Keilah or drank honey or milk, thereby becoming intoxicated, and entered the Temple to serve


(讞讬讬讘)


is liable for violating the prohibition: 鈥淒rink no wine nor strong drink [sheikhar]鈥 (Leviticus 10:9). Consequently, the term sheikhar in the text can be understood here as the sweet dried fig.


讗诇讗 讬诇讬祝 砖讻专 砖讻专 诪谞讝讬专 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讬讬谉 讗祝 讻讗谉 讬讬谉


Rather, the Gemara rejects this and states: It is derived through a verbal analogy of sheikhar and sheikhar stated in the verses of the nazirite (Numbers 6:3). Just as there, in the case of the nazirite, sheikhar means strong wine, so too, here, it means strong wine and not sweet dried figs.


讜转讬专讜砖 讞诪专讗 讛讜讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛谞讜讚专 诪谉 讛转讬专讜砖 讗住讜专 讘讻诇 诪讬谞讬 诪转讬拽讛 讜诪讜转专 讘讬讬谉 讜诇讗讜 讞诪专讗 讛讜讗 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜转讬专讜砖 讬谞讜讘讘 讘转讜诇讜转 讚讘专 讛讘讗 诪谉 讛转讬专讜砖 讬谞讜讘讘 讘转讜诇讜转


The Gemara returns to the meaning of the word tirosh: Is tirosh wine? Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: One who vows not to benefit from tirosh is not allowed sweet foods, e.g., sweet fruits, but is allowed wine. Therefore, tirosh is not wine but sweet food. The Gemara rejects this: And is tirosh not wine? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥Tirosh shall make the young women flourish [yenovev]鈥 (Zechariah 9:17). The word yenovev comes from the word niv, speech. Consequently, tirosh is a food that tempts the heart and mouth of the drinker, even of virgins, who are modest and reticent. Since sweet foods do not have this effect, tirosh must be wine. The Gemara replies: This is not a proof, since we could explain it otherwise: Something that comes from tirosh, such as wine, causes virgins to come forth; tirosh itself means sweet grapes. Perhaps wine is called tirosh only by extension because it is made from tirosh.


讜讛讻转讬讘 讜转讬专讜砖 讬拽讘讬讱 讬驻专讜爪讜 讚讘专 讛讘讗 诪谉 讛转讬专讜砖 讬拽讘讬讱 讬驻专讜爪讜


The Gemara challenges this: But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd your vats shall overflow with tirosh (Proverbs 3:10). This description implies that tirosh is wine rather than sweet grapes. The Gemara answers: This too is not a proof that tirosh means wine. We could say that the vats shall overflow with something that comes from tirosh, i.e., wine; yet tirosh itself means sweet fruits.


讜讛讗 讻转讬讘 讝谞讜转 讜讬讬谉 讜转讬专讜砖 讬拽讞 诇讘 讗诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 转讬专讜砖 讞诪专讗 讛讜讗 讜讘谞讚专讬诐 讛诇讱 讗讞专 诇砖讜谉 讘谞讬 讗讚诐


The Gemara objects: But it is written: 鈥淗arlotry, and wine, and tirosh take away the heart鈥 (Hosea 4:11). Since tirosh leads the heart astray, it is clear that it is wine. Therefore, the Gemara accepts that tirosh means wine. Rather, according to everyone, the word tirosh in the Bible refers to wine, but vows follow colloquial language. During the time of the Mishna, tirosh meant sweet fruits; the term included grapes but not wine. When dealing with vows, the intention of the speaker is what must be determined, but no inference can be drawn from colloquial language to the biblical definition of the word.


讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讬讛 讬讬谉 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讬讛 转讬专讜砖 讬讬谉 砖诪讘讬讗 讬诇诇讛 诇注讜诇诐 转讬专讜砖 砖讻诇 讛诪转讙专讛 讘讜 谞注砖讛 专砖


The Gemara asks: And if so, why does the Bible call it wine and why does it call it tirosh? The Gemara explains: 鈥淲ine鈥 suggests that it brings lament to the world because drunkenness causes most sins. There is a phonetic resemblance between the yayin, wine, and ta鈥檃niya va鈥檃niya, sorrow and howling, which Rashi (on Job 2:5) explains as lament. Tirosh shows that those who indulge in it become poor [rash].


专讘 讻讛谞讗 专诪讬 讻转讬讘 转讬专砖 讜拽专讬谞谉 转讬专讜砖 讝讻讛 谞注砖讛 专讗砖 诇讗 讝讻讛 谞注砖讛 专砖 (讜讛讬讬谞讜 讚专讘讗 讚专讘讗) 专诪讬 讻转讬讘 讬砖诪讞 讜拽专讬谞谉 讬砖诪讞 讝讻讛 诪砖诪讞讜 诇讗 讝讻讛 诪砖诪诪讜 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讞诪专讗 讜专讬讞谞讬 驻拽讞讬谉


Rav Kahana raised a contradiction: It is written as tirash but we read it tirosh. This should be understood as follows: If one merits and drinks appropriately, he is made a head [rosh]; if one does not merit and does not drink appropriately, he is made poor [rash]. The Gemara comments: This is the same as what Rava said, as Rava raised a contradiction: It is written: 鈥淎nd wine that makes glad [yishama岣] the heart of man鈥 (Psalms 104:15) with a shin, but we read it yisama岣 with a sin. This teaches: If one merits, wine makes him happy [same鈥檃岣]; if one does not merit, it makes him confounded [shamem]. This is the same as what Rava said: Wine and good scents make me wise, meaning that wine benefits one who deserves it.


专讞讬爪讛 讜住讬讻讛 诪谞讗 诇谉 讚讗讬拽专讬 注讬谞讜讬 讚讻转讬讘 诇讞诐 讞诪讜讚讜转 诇讗 讗讻诇转讬 讜讘砖专 讜讬讬谉 诇讗 讘讗 讗诇 驻讬 讜住讜讱 诇讗 住讻转讬 诪讗讬 诇讞诐 讞诪讜讚讜转 诇讗 讗讻诇转讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 砖讬诇转 讗驻讬诇讜 谞讛诪讗 讚讞讬讟讬 讚讻讬讬转讗 诇讗 讗讻诇


搂 The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that abstaining from bathing and smearing oil on oneself is called affliction? The Gemara answers: As it is written 鈥淚 ate no pleasant bread, neither did meat nor wine enter my mouth, neither did I anoint myself at all鈥 (Daniel 10:3). The Gemara explains the verse: What is the meaning of 鈥淚 ate no pleasant bread鈥? Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, said: He did not eat even bread made from refined wheat; he ate only wheat mixed with bran.


讜诪谞讗 诇谉 讚讞砖讬讘 讻注讬谞讜讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讗诪专 讗诇讬 讗诇 转讬专讗 讚谞讬讗诇 讻讬 诪谉 讛讬讜诐 讛专讗砖讜谉 讗砖专 谞转转 讗转 诇讘讱 诇讛讘讬谉 讜诇讛转注谞讜转 诇驻谞讬 讗诇讛讬讱 谞砖诪注讜 讚讘专讬讱 讜讗谞讬 讘讗转讬 讘讚讘专讬讱 (讻讬 讞诪讜讚讜转 讗转讛)


The Gemara continues to show that abstaining from smearing oil on oneself is considered an affliction: And from where do we derive that abstaining from the activities that Daniel describes is considered affliction? As it is written: 鈥淭hen he said to me: Fear not, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart to understand and to afflict yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come due to your words鈥 (Daniel 10:12). 鈥淔or you are greatly loved鈥 (Daniel 9:23).


讗砖讻讞谉 住讬讻讛 专讞讬爪讛 诪谞讗 诇谉 讗诪专 专讘 讝讜讟专讗 讘专讘讬 讟讜讘讬讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜转讘讗 讻诪讬诐 讘拽专讘讜 讜讻砖诪谉 讘注爪诪讜转讬讜 讜讗讬诪讗 讻砖转讬讛 讚讜诪讬讗 讚砖诪谉 诪讛 砖诪谉 诪讗讘专讗讬 讗祝 诪讬诐 诪讗讘专讗讬


We have found proof that abstaining from smearing oil on oneself is considered affliction; from where do we derive that abstaining from bathing is also called affliction? Rav Zutra, son of Rabbi Toviya, said: The verse states: 鈥淎nd it came into his innards like water, and like oil into his bones鈥 (Psalms 109:18). This means that the water with which one bathes and the oil with which one smears himself are absorbed into the body. Just as abstaining from smearing oil is considered an affliction, so too, abstaining from bathing is considered an affliction. The Gemara objects: But say that 鈥渃ame into his innards like water鈥 is referring to drinking rather than smearing oil. The Gemara rejects this: It is similar to oil. Just as the oil described in the verse is smeared from outside the body and not drunk, so too, the water mentioned in the verse is used for bathing from the outside. It is not drunk.


讜讛讗 转谞讗 讗讬驻讻讗 拽讗 谞住讬讘 诇讛 讚转谞谉 诪谞讬谉 诇住讬讻讛 砖讛讬讗 讻砖转讬讛 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 专讗讬讛 诇讚讘专 讝讻专 诇讚讘专 砖谞讗诪专 讜转讘讗 讻诪讬诐 讘拽专讘讜 讜讻砖诪谉 讘注爪诪讜转讬讜 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 专讞讬爪讛 诪讙讜驻讬讛 讚拽专讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜住讜讱 诇讗 住讻转讬


The Gemara asks: But the tanna took the opposite meaning, as we learned in a mishna: From where do we derive that smearing oil is like drinking on Yom Kippur? Although there is no explicit proof of the matter from the Bible, there is an allusion to the matter from the verse, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd it came into his innards like water, and like oil into his bones鈥 (Psalms 109:18), meaning that oil on the body is like water within it. Therefore, the phrase 鈥渁nd it came into his innards like water鈥 is referring to the act of drinking water. Rather, Rav Ashi said: Bathing is derived from the same verse cited above, as it is written: 鈥淣either did I anoint myself at all鈥 (Daniel 10:3). This teaches that Daniel did not do any anointing, including bathing. Consequently, the same source prohibits both of these activities.


诪讗讬 讜讗谞讬 讘讗转讬 讘讚讘专讬讱 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜砖讘注讬诐 讗讬砖 诪讝拽谞讬 [讘讬转] 讬砖专讗诇 讜讬讗讝谞讬讛讜 讘谉 砖驻谉 注讜诪讚 讘转讜讻诐 注讜诪讚讬诐 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讜讗讬砖 诪拽讟专转讜 讘讬讚讜 讜注转专 注谞谉 讛拽讟讜专转 注诇讛 讜讬砖诇讞 转讘谞讬转 讬讚 讜讬拽讞谞讬 讘爪讬爪转 专讗砖讬 讜转砖讗 讗讜转讬 专讜讞 讘讬谉 讛讗专抓 讜讘讬谉 讛砖诪讬诐 讜转讘讗 讗讜转讬 讬专讜砖诇讬诪讛 讘诪专讗讜转 讗诇讛讬诐 讗诇 驻转讞 砖注专 讛驻谞讬诪讬转 讛驻讜谞讛 爪驻讜谞讛 讗砖专


Apropos the verses from Daniel, the Gemara asks: What did the angel mean when he said to Daniel: 鈥淎nd I have come due to your words鈥 (Daniel 10:12)? From this, it seems that the angel was able to come only because of Daniel. The Gemara answers: This is as it is written: 鈥淎nd there stood before them seventy men of the Elders of the house of Israel, and Jaazaniah, son of Shaphan, standing in the midst of them, each man with his censer in his hand, and a thick cloud of incense went up鈥 (Ezekiel 8:11). Ezekiel saw the Elders of the house of Israel worshipping foreign gods. 鈥淎nd the form of a hand was put forth, and I was taken by a lock of my head; and a spirit lifted me up between the earth and the heaven, and brought me in the visions of God to Jerusalem, to the door of the gate of the inner court that faces northward where


Scroll To Top