From Parsha to Halakha Emor: The affliction of Yom Kippur

 

The Torah never explicitly prohibits eating and drinking on Yom Kippur. The communal Yom Kippur service is detailed in Parshat Acharei Mot; this is also the first time the Torah mentions the individual obligation of inui:

“This shall be a law for you for all time, in the seventh month, on the tenth of the month, ta’anu et nafshoteikhem (you shall afflict yourselves), and you shall not perform any work, the citizen and foreigner who lives amongst you. For on this day yi’khaper aleikhem (you shall be covered/atonement will be upon you) to purify you from all your sins, you shall be purified before God.”[1]

The lists of mitzvot don’t cite this source as the source of the mitzvah of inui on Yom Kippur, but rather the verse from Emor, possibly because the latter also includes the consequence of violating the mitzvah:

“Any person that does not afflict (te’uneh) themselves on this day shall be cut off (karet) from their people.”[2]

The mishna teaches: “On Yom Kippur it is prohibited to [engage in] eating and drinking and bathing and anointing and wearing shoes and conjugal relations.”[3] As we will see, these “five afflictions” are undisputed. Yet the Torah never explicitly mentions any of them, and the gemara even debates the source for the prohibition of eating and drinking on Yom Kippur.[4]

What constitutes eating and drinking?

The mishnah states that one is liable for karet if they consume certain amounts of food and drink on Yom Kippur:

“A person is liable if they eat the equivalent of a large date (kotevet) of food, including the pit, or drinks a mouthful (melo lugmav, lit. the fill of one’s cheek/s)…”[5]

The discussion in the mishnah and gemara presents a more complete picture – a person is only liable if they consume this amount of food or drink “bi’khdei akhilat pras” (in the amount of time it takes to eat half a loaf of bread, which is explained as anywhere between eight and two minutes). If one eats a kotevet of food in this time, even different types of food, they are liable. Different drinks also combine for the calculation of melo lugmav. Food and drink are not combined.[6]

These amounts may seem arbitrary.[7] Indeed, one tradition explains that such measures are halakha l’Moshe mi’Sinai – handed down from Moshe at Sinai. Such status means they are unequivocal – no one argues their validity, and there is also no need to explain their rational.

Nevertheless, Rabbi Zeira still questions: why is the amount of food measured objectively, while the drink is subjective – depending on the size of a person’s mouth?[8] Abaye answers that the sages had a tradition that this is the amount of food and amount of drink that settles a person’s mind. A person feels some measure of relief if they eat this objective amount of food, but when it comes to drinking, the relief depends on a subjective amount.

The gemara continues to question why the measures of Yom Kippur diverge from standard measurements associated with Torah laws (generally a kezayit for solids and revi’it for liquids). The gemara brings several different questions, but the answer is always the same – Abaye says the sages had a tradition that this is what settles a person’s mind.

It seems the sages understood that the Torah purposely omits a specific prohibition against eating and drinking on Yom Kippur to refocus our attentions. Yom Kippur is not focused on what we are not allowed to do, but rather what we are required to do – “v’initem et nafshoteikhem” – the general mitzvah of inui. Consequently, eating and drinking is not defined in regular terms, but rather in terms of what relieves the “inui.”

The status of the afflictions

As we saw, Parshat Emor states that anyone who does not fulfill this mitzvah of inui is liable for karet. The gemara asks: Why did the mishnah uses the relatively mild term “prohibited” when purposely violating these prohibitions incurs karet?

One possible answer is provided by Rabbi Illa or Rabbi Yirmiyah. He teaches that the language reflects the halakha that any amount of eating or drinking on Yom Kippur is prohibited, even if it’s less than the measures of k’kotevet and melo logmav mentioned in the following mishna. Those measures are not the minimum for transgression, they are the minimum for liability.

Shiurim: measures and half measures

This is related to a larger dispute throughout the Talmud – does the Torah also prohibit a “half-measure?”

Just as many mitzvot have minimum fulfillments (or maximums), so too many prohibitions involve minimums for liability. For example, to fulfill the Torah mitzvah of tzedakah one must give the equivalent of one peruta a year.[9] Similarly, one is only liable for stealing if they steal something equal to the value of a peruta.

There are generally minimums for food as well. One must eat a k’zayit of each to fulfill the mitzvah of eating the Paschal lamb, matzah, and maror on the first night of Pesach. Similarly, one who eats something prohibited is only liable (for punishment or to bring a sin-offering) if they eat a certain amount, generally a k’zayit (olive sized portion) bi’kdei akhilat pras.

According to Rabbi Yochanan even though one only incurs liability when they hit this minimum amount, even eating less than this amount is biblically prohibited. Reish Lakish disagrees and states that the Torah only prohibits this amount; the gemara explains he agrees that there’s a rabbinic prohibition against eating any amount of prohibited food. We rule according to Rabbi Yochanan – one may not eat any amount of prohibited food, but one is only liable (for korban or punishment) if they eat the minimum amount.[10]

This dispute directly relates to the question of eating or drinking “shiurim” on Yom Kippur. Fasting is life-threatening for some people. These people are not only permitted to eat and/or drink on Yom Kippur, they’re obligated to do so. Nevertheless, some halakhic authorities suggest that, when possible, a person who must eat on Yom Kippur should do so in “shiurim” – amounts less than the ones that incur liability.

Why? After all, we rule that even this smaller amount is biblically prohibited, and there’s no reason to worry about liability either. It seems the reasoning is that the prohibition against eating and drinking can be separated from the mitzvah of inui. When necessary one is required to eat and drink on Yom Kippur, but under some circumstances they can do so and still fulfill the mitzvah of “v’initem et nafshoteichem,” by eating and/or drinking amounts that don’t alleviate the inui.

The significance of inui

The gemara offers another explanation for the mishna’s use of the word “prohibited.” Eating, drinking, and doing work on Yom Kippur are punishable by death, but the other afflictions – bathing, anointing, wearing shoes, and conjugal relations – are not. They are merely prohibited.

The Torah doesn’t explicitly mention any of the “five afflictions” in this mishnah. It suffices with the statement “v’initem et nafshoteikhem.” The midrash explains that this inui is mentioned five times to teach us the five afflictions. The gemara also explains that we learn the meaning of “affliction” from the word “shabbaton” cessation or break, used to describe Yom Kippur.

“The rabbis taught in a beraita: ‘Ta’anu et nafshoteikhem,’ could it be that one should sit in the sun or in the cold so they suffer? The Torah teaches, ‘and do not do any work,’ just as one [fulfills the commandment to desist from] work by sitting and not doing, ‘inui nefesh’ (afflicting oneself) is also [accomplished by] sitting and doing nothing.”[11]

Inui in this case is not an active state, it’s passive. One should not make themselves uncomfortable to fulfill the mitzvah of inui, but rather cease activities that provide physical comfort. Why?

The key to this question seems to be a proper understanding of the phrase “v’initem et nafshoteichem.” Both the terms inui and nefesh are often mistranslated. Nefesh, along with its frequent translation “soul,” has many definitions, some better than others. Unlike the soul, the nefesh can’t be understood as a purely spiritual concept. When the Torah prohibits us from consuming animal blood we’re told the blood is the nefesh. Nefesh is better understood as the self, the spirit-mind-body connection, the lifeforce, or even the life itself.

The BDB biblical dictionary brings a long list of definitions for the root ina (ayin – nun – hey) – answer, respond, humble, humiliate, submissive, docile, subjugate… It’s the word the Torah uses for rape. These words all seem to have a common denominator – they are all a response to another, submission to the will of another – by force or by choice.

In this case inui means to impose the will of another – the spiritual over the physical, God’s will over ourselves. Our nefesh, our being, is both physical and spiritual. We cannot live without food and drink. We have physical senses, needs, and desires. Every day we must balance our physical needs and obligations with spiritual needs and obligations. Sometimes we can elevate the physical by infusing it with spirituality. On Yom Kippur we are told to take a total break from these physical aspects of ourselves to impose the will of God, or even of our own spirituality, over our physical side.

This also explains how someone who must eat and drink on Yom Kippur can still fulfill the mitzvah of inui, even if they don’t limit themselves to “shiurim.” Accepting God’s will that we may not fast because we must ensure our safety is also a form of inui. Interestingly, the mitzvah of safeguarding our own lives uses similar wording to the mitzvah of inui, but adds the word “me’od” – exceedingly: “v’nishmartem me’od l’nafshoteikhem,” “you shall be exceedingly careful with your lives.”[12] One day a year we are commanded to completely submit ourselves to our spiritual side and to God, but every day, including that one day, we are commanded to be exceedingly careful with ourselves – our health and safety.

[1] Vayikra 16:29. The root k.p.r. is generally translated as atone, and Yom Kippur as Day of Atonement. The original use of the root k.p.r. is a cover or protection, meaning it’s possible kapara doesn’t erase the sin, but either protects the person from the impurity of the sin, or protects them from the punishment or negative repercussions of their sins.

[2] Vayikra 23:29. Although the mitzvah of inui is mentioned twice in this week’s parsha, Rambam mentions Vayikra 23, Parshat Emor, as the source of the mitzvah.

Karet literally means cutting off and is often interpreted as an early or unnatural death.

[3] Mishnah Yoma 8:1

[4] TB Yoma 74b, 76a

[5] ibid Mishnah 2. Melo lugmav is most often interpreted as “a cheekful” which is about a revi’it. The gemara (TB Yoma 80a; TY Yoma 39b or 8:2) brings a dispute as to how much this is, the explanations are disputed – a mouthful that puffs up both cheeks, one cheekful, the amount that can be swallowed in one gulp…

[6] Meaning, if one eats half a kotevet of bread and half a kotevet of cheese b’kdei akhilat pras they are liable, but if they eat half a kotevet of bread and a bit less than half a kotevet of cheese, and also drink a bit less than melo logmav of water they are not liable.

[7] One could argue that most minimum and maximum limits are at least somewhat arbitrary, there’s rarely a difference between a bit more or a bit less. Nevertheless, laws need definitions and delineations. The story of the amora Rabbi Yirmiya, who was expelled from the Beit Midrash for some time for asking questions about such measurements seems to relate to this issue.

[8] TB Yoma 80b

[9] A peruta is the amount of silver equal to half a grain of barley, which is now equal to only a few cents. In the time of Chazal it seems that any amount less than this was insignificant.

[10] TB Yoma 74a

[11] ibid 74b

[12] Devarim 4:15; TB Brakhot 32b; Mishneh Torah Hilkhot Rotzeakh u’Shmirat HaNefesh 11:4.