MISHNAH: On the Day of Atonement eating, drinking, washing, anointing, wearing shoes¹, and sexual relations, are forbidden. The king and the bride² wash their heads, and the woman recovering after childbirth wears shoes, the words of Rebbi Eliezer, but the Sages forbid it.

footnotes: ¹ Leather shoes. ² The newlywed, who should appear beautiful in her husband’s eyes, just as the king always should look handsome in public.

HALAKHAH: “On the Day of Atonement eating, drinking, etc., are forbidden.” They are punishable by extirpation and you are saying so³? Rebbi Hila said, it was needed for less than the minimal quantities⁴.

footnotes: ³ In Mishnaic terminology, “forbidden” either means forbidden rabbinically or biblically with no specified punishment. The term for severe biblical prohibitions, subject to extirpation or execution is “liable” (for a purification sacrifice in the case of inadvertent transgression.) ⁴ If someone eats or drinks less than the quantities specified in Mishnah 2, the transgression is not liable for a purification sacrifice. Babli 73b.

⁵ 7(1–4).“You shall deprive yourselves⁶ 15:29.. I could think that one should sit in the sun or in the cold to make himself feel badly, the verse says, do not do any work. The work which I forbade you elsewhere⁷. And the deprivation of what I forbade you elsewhere. Since the work which I forbade you elsewhere is work for which one would be liable to extirpation, so also deprivation which I forbade you elsewhere is deprivation from which one would be liable to extirpation, and the following are those: piggul and leftovers⁸ cf. Chapter 5 Note 154. Eating sacrificial meat after the allotted time is sinful, Lev. 19:7.. From where to add ṭevel⁹? The verse says, you shall deprive yourselves; it added. [I am adding ṭevel which is a deadly sin, but would not add carcass meat which is not a deadly sin; the verse says, you shall deprive yourselves; it added.]¹⁰ I am adding carcass meat which is prohibited, but would not add profane meat which is not prohibited; the verse says, you shall deprive yourselves; it added. I am adding profane meat which is not under a commandment to be eaten, but would not add heave and Second Tithe which is under a commandment to be eaten¹¹; the verse says, you shall deprive yourselves; it added. I am adding heave and tithe of which leftovers are not prohibited, but would not add sacrificial meat for which leftovers are prohibited, the verse says, you shall deprive yourselves; it added. Another explanation: You shall deprive yourselves, something which is a deprivation (father house) {which diminishes}¹² the spirit/ What is this? Eating and drinking. In the name of Rebbi Ismael they said, it is said here you shall deprive yourselves, and it says there, He deprived you and made you hungry¹³ 8:3.. Since deprivation there is one of hunger, also deprivation here is one of hunger.”

footnotes: ⁵ Babli 74b, Sifra Aḥare Pereq ⁶ .Lev. ⁷ All Sabbath prohibitions apply to the Day of Atonement. ⁸ For piggul, ⁹ Produce from which heave and tithes have not been taken ¹⁰ Corrector’s addition, necessary by the context. ¹¹ Heave must be eaten by Cohanim in purity, and Second Tithe by the farmer’s family in Jerusalem in purity. It is sinful to let pure heave and tithes go to waste. One could have thought that food for which there is a biblical commandment that it be eaten would be exempt from the prohibition. ¹² The incomprehensible אב בית has been emended to עֲבֵידת (Qorban ha-Edah). ¹³ Deut.

And why six kinds? Corresponding to the six quotes of “deprivation” in the Chapter. But there are only five? Rebbi Tanḥuma said, one is with musaf¹⁴16:29, 31 and 23:27, 29, 32. In addition it is mentioned in the paragraph on musaf sacrifices for the Day of Atonement, Num.29:7..

footnotes: ¹⁴ Deprivation is mentioned in Lev.

¹⁵ 1:6 (64c line 37), ו. The Taaniot text is reproduced by Tosaphoti Taanit 13a, s. v. אמר.“Washing”. Rebbi Zeˋurah bar Ḥama, [Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina.] in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: On a public fast day¹⁶ one washes as usual his face, hands, and feet. On the Ninth of Av¹⁷ one washes his hands and moves them over his face. On the day of Atonement one washes his hands, dries them with a towel, and moves the towel over his face. Rebbi Jonah moistened a rag and put it under the water pitcher¹⁸. But did we not state that there is no difference between a public fast and the Ninth of Av except the prohibition of work at places where they were used to it¹⁹? If somebody was going²⁰ to his teacher or to his daughter and crossed a lake or a river he does not worry²¹. If his feet were dirtied he immerses them in water and does not worry. Rebbi Abba instructed following this Tanna. Rebbi Aḥa instructed that one who comes from the road and his feet are dulled, he may wash them in water. It was stated: A mourner and one in the ban²² 15b. on a trip are permitted leather shoes. When they come to the town they shall take them off. The same applies to a public fast and the Ninth of Av²³.

footnotes: ¹⁵ A parallel is in Taaniot ¹⁶ A fast day called to pray for rain in a year of drought. ¹⁷ The fast instituted to mourn the destruction of the Temple. ¹⁸ He soaked the rag before the start of the Day of Atonement, squeezed it and let it dry somewhat during the night so that the next morning it should be somewhat moist but not dripping. ¹⁹ There were places where the community had adopted the rule that one did not work on the Ninth of Av. Nowhere was this extended to fast days in years of drought. ²⁰ On a day where washing was rabbinically forbidden. Babli 77b; Tosephta 4:5, ²¹ No rabbinic prohibition was violated.. ²² Any weekday of the year, the mourner and the person in the ban are forbidden to wear leather shoes. The person in the ban has to follow these rules if he ever wants to have the ban lifted. Babli Moˋed qaṭan ²³ For everybody.

²⁴2:1 (Notes 28–35), Šabbat 9, Notes 122–127 and Taˋanit 1:6.“Anointing.” As it was stated: On the Sabbath both anointing for pleasure and anointing not for pleasure are permitted. On the Day of Atonement, both anointing for pleasure and anointing not for pleasure are forbidden. On the Ninth of Av and public fasts, anointing for pleasure is forbidden but anointing not for pleasure is permitted. But it was stated: Anointing is equal to drinking regarding prohibition and reparation but not punishment²⁵. On the Day of Atonement regarding prohibition but not punishment²⁶ But was it not stated, they shall not desecrate²⁷ 22:15. The verse refers to the non-Cohen who “eats” holy food in error. Babli Niddah 32a., to include him who anoints or drinks? Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no “anoints” there. Rebbi Abba Mari said, if there is no “anoints” there is no “drinks”. For if it were not so, do matters combine which come from two different prohibitions²⁸ is needed to subsume drinking under eating, it is incomprehensible that for inadvertently eating and drinking together on the Day of Atonement one should be responsible only for one sacrifice since in that case, one infringes on two separate biblical prohibitions and should be liable for two separate sacrifices. Similarly, if one illegitimately ate and drank heave he should be liable for two separate fifths. Since in both cases the Mishnah treats eating and drinking together, the verse cannot express a separate status for drinking; the addition of anointing and drinking is rabbinic interpretation but not biblical law and there is no reason to exclude anointing.?

footnotes: ²⁴ This text is shortened from Maˋaser Šeni ²⁵ Referring to illegal use of heave and dedicated food by non-Cohanim and its replacement by 5/4 of the value taken. ²⁶ The only biblical prohibitions on the Day of Atonement are eating, drinking, and working. The other two, anointing and sexual relations, are rabbinic and not subject to biblical punishment. ²⁷ Lev. ²⁸ If the verse in Lev.

One repeats up to “this holy body that he forgot”²⁹ 1:6; parts of it are also quoted in other tractates..

footnotes: ²⁹ The body of the following is copied by the corrector who prepared the text for the Venice printer from Taaniot

[From where that there is a clear commandment³⁰? Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Simai: I did not give from it to the dead³¹ 26:14.. Where do we hold? If not to bring a casket or shrouds for him, this is forbidden for the living, therefore certainly for the dead. What is permitted for the living but prohibited for the dead?³² 302. I am saying that this is anointing³³.

footnotes: ³⁰ While illegitimate use of heave oil for anointing is prohibited, it is mentioned in the framework of the farmer’s declaration in the Temple, which is a positive commandment. Overstepping the prohibition of anointing when it is forbidden legally is overstepping a positive commandment not under the scope of biblical penal law.This paragraph is copied from the parallels (Note 24); there is no connection to the rules of the Day of Atonement. ³¹ Deut. ³² Cf. Sifry Deut. ³³ Second Tithe must be consumed; no other use is authorized..

“Wearing shoes”. It was stated: In all cases where they said that one may not wear shoes, when he departs on a trip he puts them on, when he arrives at a walled city he takes them off; this includes the mourner and the person in the ban³⁴ 15b. The Yerushalmi version is quoted by Or zarua§277.. There are Tannaim who state, one goes in slippers³⁵ (pl/) “felt slippers”. on the day of Atonement; and there are Tannaim who state, one does not. Rav Ḥisda said, he who said one goes, in textile slippers, and he who said one does not go, in leather slippers³⁶ 12:1, Note 35, Babli Yebamot 102b.. Rebbi Isaac bar Nahman visited Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the night of the Great Fast³⁷; he came to him wearing laced shoes³⁸. He asked him, what is this? He answered, I am asthenic³⁹. Rebbi Samuel bar Nahman visited Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the night of a fast day⁴⁰; he came to him wearing laced shoes. He asked him, what is this? He answered, I am asthenic. They saw Rebbi Simai walking in the night of a fast day in laced shoes. A student of Rebbi Mana permitted to a relative of the Patriarch to wear laced shoes⁴¹. He asked him, from where this? He answered, from this of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. He said to him, in the case of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi it was an asthenic.

footnotes: ³⁴ Babli Moˋed qaṭan ³⁵ Latin impilia, -ium ³⁶ Yebamot ³⁷ The day of Atonement. ³⁸ A leather sole with a textile upper part held together by laces. ³⁹ Greek ἀσθενής. Since the rules of not wearing leather shoes are rabbinic, they are waved for health reasons. ⁴⁰ A rabbinic fast day. ⁴¹ Without a medical condition which would justify waving the rules.

“And sexual relations.” Come and see, he is forbidden to wash, not so much more to have sexual relations⁴² the prohibition of washing should imply the prohibition of sexual relations without the need to spell it out.? Explain it that it was a place where one does not immerse oneself, or before Ezra instituted immersion for people having had an emission. ⁴³ 3:4 (Notes 167–168) which is the original source. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Qeri is only from sexual intercourse. Rav Ḥuna said, even if he saw himself enjoying in his dream. They wanted to say, only from a woman. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both say, even from something else. But did we not state: On the Day of Atonement eating, drinking, washing, anointing, wearing shoes, and sexual relations, are forbidden?. And it was stated in that respect: Men with qeri immerse themselves secretly in their normal way on the day of Atonement⁴⁴ 4:5 and Babli 88a the reading is: “Men with qeri (emission of semen) immerse themselves normally on Yom Kippur”; one speaks of a full immersion and “in secret” is not mentioned. The Tosephta is Babylonian formulation.. Does this not contradict Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, since Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, qeri is only from sexual intercourse? Explain it if he had intercourse on the previous day and forgot and did not immerse himself. But it was stated: It happened that one saw Rebbi Yose bar Halaphta immersing himself secretly on Yom Kippur. Can you say about that holy body that he forgot⁴⁵?]

footnotes: ⁴² Since the Day of Atonement is a day of prayer and by an institution of Ezra prayer was forbidden after sexual relations before immersion in a miqweh, ⁴³ This text to the end of the paragraph is also from Berakhot ⁴⁴ In Tosephta Kippurim ⁴⁵ Hence, the interpretation of Rav Ḥuna is incorrect and that of rabbis Yose (the Amora) and Jonah is correct.

“The king,” because your eyes shall see the king in his beauty⁴⁶ 33:17. Babli 78b, bottom..

footnotes: ⁴⁶ Is.

“The bride,” because of bad feelings⁴⁷.

footnotes: ⁴⁷ That the husband should not feel bad about her. Babli 78b, bottom.

“And the woman recovering after childbirth wears shoes, the words of Rebbi Eliezer.” We were thinking to say that this refers to the last statement; it was found stated referring to all of them⁴⁸.

footnotes: ⁴⁸ The entire sentence is R. Eliezer’s.

MISHNAH: He who eats the volume of a big date with its pit or who drinks the volume of a full gulp⁴⁹ on the day of Atonement is liable⁵⁰. All foods combine for the volume of a date, and all drinks combine for the mouthful. What he ate and drank does not combine.

footnotes: ⁴⁹ Greek λυγμός, ὁ. ⁵⁰ Since these are biblical prohibitions, if the infraction was intentional it is a deadly sin punishable by extirpation, if in error it requires a purification sacrifice.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose said, this implies that (he) [one]⁵¹ has to squeeze its empty space⁵² since otherwise one should have stated, “it, its pit, and its empty space.” Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar stated, a date from Nimrin⁵³17:7), but in the Yerushalmi version and 2 Tosephta mss. he restricts the dates allowed as standards to just those of Nimrin and therefore reduces the permitted size. Nimrin is Bet Nimrah(Jos. 13:27) in the plain East of the Jordan..

footnotes: ⁵¹ The scribe wrote שו, which has to be read as שֶׁהוּא “that he”. The corrector, who did not understand the Yerushalmi spelling, replaced it by prefix ש. ⁵² If the pit is loose in the date, the space between pit and flesh of the fruit is not counted in determining the volume which triggers liability. ⁵³ In the printed version and one ms. of Tosephta 4:2 he disagrees with the anonymous Tanna there who restricts the dates considered to those growing West of the Jordan, and therefore increases the possible maximum volume of a date (Mishnah Kelim

It was stated, “a full gulp.” Does this disagree⁵⁴? A full gulp, what is possible as one gulp⁵⁵ also agrees with the Mishnah.. It was stated in the name of the House of Shammai, a full gulp is equivalent to a quartarius⁵⁶ about 133 cm³.. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada asked before Rebbi Mana, why was this not stated as one of the leniencies of the House of Shammai and restrictions of the House of Hillel⁵⁷ is the standard size of a cup whose contents normally are consumed in two gulps. Therefore the standard of the House of Shammai seems to be twice that of the House of Hillel.? He told him, because of the gulp of Ben Avatiah⁵⁸17:12 as largest Cohen on record. In contrast to the House of Shammai who determine the volume for the Day of Atonement as a standard measure, the House of Hillel insist that they vary from person to person (Mishnah Kelim 17:11). which contained more than a quartarius.

footnotes: ⁵⁴ In the Mishnah, the expression for solid food is “like (in the volume of) a date”, implying that pieces of food eaten at different times are added together to determine liability. The expression for fluids is “a gulp”, not “like (the volume of) a gulp”, but the statement of the Mishnah that different fluids combine show that “like (the volume of) a gulp” is understood. Is this also the position of the Tanna of the baraita or does he deny that different sips can add to a large gulp? ⁵⁵ The baraita ⁵⁶ A quarter of a log, ⁵⁷ A quartarius ⁵⁸ He is mentioned in Mishnah Kelim

MISHNAH: If one ate and drank in one forgetting he is liable only for one purification sacrifice⁵⁹. If he ate and drank, and worked, he is liable for two purification sacrifices⁶⁰23:27 but work is forbidden in 23:28, two distinct commandments were broken and two sacrifices are due.. If he ate foods which are not edible or drank drinks which are not drinkable, drank fish sauce⁶¹ or muries⁶²*,* he is not liable. One does not let children fast but one educates them one year of two in advance⁶³ so they should be used to commandments.

footnotes: ⁵⁹ Since not eating and drinking are subsumed under fasting, only one biblical commandment was broken. ⁶⁰ Since fasting is commanded in Lev, ⁶¹ Fluid squeezed out of raw fish. ⁶² A Latin word denoting fish sauce treated with salt, water, and sometimes wine, used to dip one’s bread in but never used as a drink. ⁶³ One lets girls aged 10 and boys aged 11 fast part of the day and at ages 11, respectively 12, a whole day, as education, not as biblical requirement.

HALAKHAH: Why? ⁶⁴ 2:1 (Notes 7–35), also partially reproduced in Ševuot 3:2 (Notes 26–36). It is clear that the original is in Maˋuser Šeni since the last paragraph has no connection with the rules of the Day of Atonement. Drinking is subsumed under eating but eating is not subsumed under drinking. From where that drinking is subsumed under eating? Rebbi Jonah understood if from the following: Therefore, I told the Children of Israel, none of you shall eat blood⁶⁵ 17:12.. Where do we hold? If about congealed blood, was it not stated that congealed blood is neither food nor drink? But we hold, as it is. And the Torah called it eating. And was it not stated: If one liquefied fat and drank it, or congealed blood and ate it, [if there is the volume of an olive] he is liable. What does Rebbi Jonah do with this? It is not food to become impure in the impurity of food, or fluid to become impure in the impurity of fluids. Rebbi Jonah changed and understood if from the following:: You shall spend the money for anything you desire⁶⁶ 14:26.. Where do we hold? If about one who gives the taste of wine into a cooked dish, is that not spoiling the taste of the wine? [But we hold as it is and the Torah called it “eating.”] The rabbis of Caesarea said, explain if about orzaraya and gomnany⁶⁷ 2:1, Note 16. The first word may denote cedar resin (J. Levy) or a derivative of אוֹרֶז “rice”. The readings for the second word, גמרייה, גמזוזיניה, גומננייא show that the scribe did not know what to do with it; it may be a derivative of “gum” (gummi, κόμμι) (E. G.) used in the preparation of liquors., since anything that is ancillary to food is like food.

footnotes: ⁶⁴ This is a partial copy, in places completed by the corrector for the Venice edition and indicated by brackets, of a text in Maˋaser Šeni ⁶⁵ Lev. ⁶⁶ Deut. ⁶⁷ Maˋaser Šeni

Rebbi Yose understood all this from the following: “An oath that I shall not eat; when he ate and drank he is liable only once.⁶⁸ 3:1.” The colleagues said before Rebbi Yose, but it is said following this, “an oath that I shall not eat nor drink, when he ate and drank he is liable for two”! Rebbi Yose told them, if somebody had two loaves in front of him said, an oath that I shall not eat this loaf⁶⁹, when he ate [both of them] together would he not be guilty on two counts?

footnotes: ⁶⁸ Mishnah Ševuot ⁶⁹ Here a piece of text is missing, found in the other two sources: “and then he said, an oath that I shall not eat that one.”

Rebbi Ḥanania in the name of Rebbi Phineas understood it from the following: “An oath that I shall not eat; when he ate inedible food and drank undrinkable fluids, he is not liable.⁷⁰ 3: 5.” Because he ate inedible food and drank undrinkable fluids. Therefore if [he ate edible food,]⁷¹ drank drinkable fluids he is liable. Did he not say, an oath that I shall not eat? That is understandable following our Mishnah, where we are saying, “an oath that I shall not eat.” But for Rebbi⁷² one has to read: “those rabbis who say, an oath that I shall not eat and I shall not drink.” These rabbis are quoted in the Babli, Ševuot 23a. who said, an oath that I shall not eat and shall not drink?

footnotes: ⁷⁰ Mishnah Ševuot ⁷¹ Corrector’s addition, added in error. ⁷² Obviously since Rebbi is the editor of the Mishnah, he cannot contradict his own text. With the text in Ševuot

Rebbi Ḥinena understood it from the following⁷³: [“If he ate and drank in one forgetting he is liable only once.”

footnotes: ⁷³ Mishnah 3.

Rebbi Abba Mari understood it from the following:] *I did not eat from it in my mourning,*⁷⁴ 26:14. but I drank?

footnotes: ⁷⁴ Deut.

It is understandable for him who said, “{I swear} an oath that I shall not eat”, and he drank. Drinking is subsumed under eating. But for him who said, “an oath that I shall not drink”, and he ate? Is eating subsumed under drinking? Eating is not subsumed under drinking⁷⁵ 23a..

footnotes: ⁷⁵ The preceding arguments show that drinking is subsumed under eating. Nobody holds that a mention of drink includes solid food. Babli Ševuot

Some want to understand it from this: You may not eat in your gates⁷⁶ 12:17. etc. Your cider’, that is the wine. And your shining oil’ refers to anointing and the Torah called it ‘eating’. But this is not clear. If you could say that it is clear one should be whipped because of it outside the walls⁷⁷! Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, one is whipped outside the walls only for pure Second Tithe which entered Jerusalem and left. From where that it is not clear? From what was stated: “On the Sabbath, both anointing for pleasure”, one reads this in Halakhah One⁷⁸.

footnotes: ⁷⁶ Deut. ⁷⁷ If the verse were a formal identification of anointing and eating as far as Second Tithe is concerned, the use of impure heave oil for anointing should be a criminal offense. ⁷⁸ Notes 24 ff.

From where that it is clear as a positive commandment⁷⁹? Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Simai: Nor did I give from it to the dead⁷⁴ 26:14.. Where do we hold? If it were to bring a casket and shrouds for him, that were also forbidden for a living person⁸⁰! If something is forbidden for the living, not so much more for the dead? What is something which is permitted for the living but prohibited for the dead? That is anointing!

footnotes: ⁷⁹ While illegitimate use of Second Tithe oil for anointing is prohibited, it is mentioned in the context of the farmer’s declaration in the Temple, which is a positive commandment. Therefore overstepping the prohibition is violating a positive commandment not under the scope of criminal law. ⁷⁴ Deut. ⁸⁰ Since only consuming Second Tithe is permitted.

⁸¹ 14(3). Babli 81 a.“Warning about work on the day: Any work you shall not do⁸² 16:29.. Punishment, and I shall destroy this person⁸³ 23:30.. Warning about deprivation on the day, for any person who will not be deprived⁸⁴ 23:29.; punishment, and this person will be extirpated⁸⁴ 23:29..” There is no warning about work in the night, there is no punishment. There is no warning nor punishment written for deprivation in the night⁸⁵ 23 it is stressed בְּעֶ֖צֶם הַיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֑ה which in general in interpreted “in full daylight” (Mekhilta dR. Ismael Bo 9.) Since the night is forbidden as is the day (Lev. 23:32), there is an obvious contradiction to be resolved..

footnotes: ⁸¹ Sifra Emor Pereq ⁸² Lev. ⁸³ .Lev. ⁸⁴ Lev. ⁸⁴ Lev. ⁸⁵ In both verses quoted from Lev.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, what could He have said instead of will not be deprived? “Shall not eat”? All eating in the Torah is by the volume of an olive, but here by the volume of a date⁸⁶. Rav Hoshaia said, “watch yourself, lest, not be deprived,” would be three warnings⁸⁷. Rebbi Ḥuna said, watch yourself regarding the saying which I said to you, watch yourself in matters of skin disease to be very careful and act⁸⁸ 24:8. This is a side remark noting that הִשָּׁמֵר is used only in reference to rules spelled out on other occasions. In this particular case it is noted that the rules of the impurity of skin disease (Lev. 13–14) do not include prohibitions; the prohibition implied by Deut. 24:8 is interpreted (cf. Pseudo-Jonathan ad loc.) to mean that it is forbidden to eliminate the impurity of skin disease by surgically eliminating the diseased tissue., etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Punishment could [not]⁸⁹ have been said about work since it is unnecessary. I could have inferred it from deprivation. [Since for deprivation]⁹⁰ which is minor one is liable to extirpation, for work which is major⁹¹ it should be logical that one should be liable for extirpation. Therefore punishment was spelled out for work only to imply a warning preceding it⁹². Since the punishment indicated for work is preceded by a warning, also the punishment indicated for deprivation is preceded by a warning. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that one may infer about an “equal cut” even if it is free only on one side⁹³ but as “equal cut” meaning that the expression בְּעֶ֖צֶם הַיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֑ה appearing in Lev. 23:29,30 implies that the rules indicated in both verses are the same. In general one requires that an expression used for “equal cut” not be used for any other inference; but here the entire v. 29 is needed both for warning and punishment (Note 84). There remains the problem that since now it is shown that בְּעֶ֖צֶם הַיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֑ה does not mean “during daylight only”, the expression is not used for any other deduction and therefore the “equal cut” is between two identical expressions not otherwise needed and therefore valid according to everybody, even R. Ismael. One has to say that since the day is defined in Lev. 23:32 as from evening to evening, בְּעֶ֖צֶם הַיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֑ה means that while one has to start fasting and refraining from work somewhat earlier and finish sometime after nightfall the next day, the biblical penalties do not apply to these additional periods and therefore one mention of “on this very day” is needed for this legal implication. Noted as opinion in dispute, Babli Šabbat 64a, Niddah 22b.. Rebbi Yudan said, Is that not Rebbi Aqiba’s? And Rebbi Aqiba said, one infers about an “equal cut” even if it is not free⁹⁴.

footnotes: ⁸⁶ Since it was established earlier that of the six kinds of deprivation required on the Day of Atonement only not fasting is biblically punishable, the question arises why instead of the generic expression “be deprived” the verse does not directly prescribe “do not eat.” The answer is that in the latter case already eating the volume of an olive would be punishable. ⁸⁷ This now addresses the problem from where could one infer that all prohibitions of the Day of Atonement also apply to the preceding night. He suggests that since there are several expressions biblically used to indicate prohibitions, there could have been different expressions used for the warnings which would have been interpreted as applying to different times. ⁸⁸ Deut. ⁸⁹ Necessary addition by the corrector. ⁹⁰ Corrector’s addition which seems to be unnecessary. ⁹¹ “Major” means that prohibitions of work are frequent, applying to the Sabbath as capital crimes and to holidays as misdemeanors; deprivation is “minor” since it applies only to the day of Atonement. ⁹² The argument of Rav Hoshaia is essentially correct but has to be realized differently. Since the warning spelled out for work on the Day of Atonement is shown to be unnecessary, it has to be applied as if it were written twice; supplying the desired additional warning to be read as referring to the preceding night. ⁹³ He reads the argument of R. Ḥiyya not as a conclusion de minore ad majus ⁹⁴ The Babli would reject the entire argument of R. Zeˋira since it permits the use of “equal cut” only based on an oral tradition. It still would recognize R. Ḥiyya’s argument but it categorically rejects extending the scope of punishments by hermeneutical arguments.

It was stated: Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, it is said on this very day about work and it is said on this very day about deprivation. Since in regard of on this very day said about work you did not differentiate between day and night⁹⁵, between punishment and warning⁹⁶, so in regard of on this very day said about deprivation we shall not differentiate between day and night, between punishment and warning. So far following Rebbi Aqiba.

footnotes: ⁹⁵ As argued by R. Ḥiyya. ⁹⁶ Which are written in one and the same verse.

Following Rebbi Ismael? It shall be for you an eternal law, in the Seventh Month⁹⁷ 16:29. He joined work and deprivation. Since the work which I forbade to you is work for which one is liable to extirpation, also deprivation which I forbade to you is deprivation for which one is liable to extirpation⁹⁸.

footnotes: ⁹⁷ Lev. ⁹⁸ As required by Rav Hoshaia.

¹⁰⁰ 6:1, Notes 16–19, Šabbat 14, Notes 83–89.. Babli Yoma 80b/81a. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, he who eats of kilaim in a vineyard¹⁰¹ is whipped¹⁰². Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, he who chews wheat grain¹⁰³ of heave is whipped. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, he who sips vinegar of heave is whipped; he who sips vinegar of heave pays the principal but he does not pay the fifth¹⁰⁴; he who chews wheat grain of heave pays the principal but he does not pay the fifth. Rebbi says, I am saying that he pays principal and fifth. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Immi: The rabbis agree with Rebbi about one who sips heave vinegar from his dipping that he pays principal and fifth since vinegar refreshes¹⁰⁵.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁰ The main source of this paragraph are Terumot ¹⁰¹ Any non-vine produce in a vineyard is prohibited for usufruct. ¹⁰² If there are witnesses to the act, since he broke a biblical commandment. This corresponds to the term “is liable” used for Sabbath violations. ¹⁰³ A pure Cohen who is entitled to eat heave may not spit out the grain after chewing. ¹⁰⁴ The fifth computed from the top which is a quarter from the bottom, due for use of heave by people not entitled to its use. ¹⁰⁵ Even though vinegar in itself is neither food nor drink, when it was absorbed by bread it becomes food and stays food. For heave it remains subject to the fine, on the Day of Atonement it remains forbidden drink, but on the Šabbath it may be used for a toothache.

“One does not let children fast on the Day of Atonement.” Rav Ḥuna explained the Mishnah: One does not let children fast on the Day of Atonement, and does not train them¹⁰⁶, but one or two years before one trains them¹⁰⁷. Rebbi Joḥanan explained the Mishnah: One does not let children fast on the Day of Atonement, but one does train them¹⁰⁸, and one or two years before they complete the fast. Until when? Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena, Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Halaphta: At age nine or age ten¹⁰⁹.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁶ One tells them to fast part of the day. ¹⁰⁷ One does not let minor children fast the entire day. ¹⁰⁸ Younger than 10 for girls and 11 for boys. ¹⁰⁹ According to the Babli 82a age nine refers to healthy children and age ten to sickly ones. Since the Yerushalmi gives no indication of this one might read this as 9 for girls, 10 for boys, in each case 3 years before they become obligated to fast as adults

MISHNAH: A pregnant woman who smelled [food]¹¹⁰ one feeds until she is well again. A sick person one feeds according to experts¹¹¹; if there are no experts one feeds him on his own judgment until he says, enough¹¹² 18:5).

footnotes: ¹¹⁰ She gets an urgent desire for the food and if she continues to fast there would be a danger of a miscarriage. ¹¹¹ Medical personnel. ¹¹² Even though fasting is a biblical commandment and breaking the fast is a deadly sin, biblical obligations never should endanger one’s life (Lev.

HALAKHAH: At first one dips it in sauce¹¹³. If she feels well again it is good. Otherwise one gives her of the body of forbidden food¹¹⁴. Two pregnant women came before Rebbi Tarphon. He sent two students to them and told them, go and tell them, it is the Great Fast-day. They said it to the first one and she quieted down. They said about him¹¹⁵, from my mother’s**womb You are my God¹¹⁶. 22:11.. They said it to the second, who did not quiet down. They said about him, The wicked are perverts from the womb; they err from the belly, the speakers of lies¹¹⁷58:4!

footnotes: ¹¹³ One dips kosher bread in the non-kosher sauce which may be forbidden only rabbinically. ¹¹⁴ If the woman smells cooking on the day of Atonement, probably it is Gentile non-kosher food. But see the paragraph after the next. ¹¹⁵ Since it is the baby who carves the food, not his mother who simply is the provider. For similar stories Babli 82b/83a. ¹¹⁶ Ps ¹¹⁷ Ps.

¹¹⁹ The sick person says, I can¹²⁰, but the physician says, he cannot; one listens to the physician. The physician says, he can, but the sick person says, he cannot; one listens to the sick person¹²⁰. The only question is if the sick person says, I can, and the physician says, I do not know. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is treated as an uncertainty of a danger to life, and any uncertainty of a danger to life pushes the Sabbath aside¹²¹.

footnotes: ¹¹⁹ Babli 83a. ¹²⁰ He can fast the entire day. ¹²⁰ He can fast the entire day. ¹²¹ Since the principle is established for the Sabbath, the violation of which is a capital crime, it certainly holds for the day of Atonement, whose violation is a deadly sin.

MISHNAH: A person suffering from boulimy¹³² one feeds even impure food until his eyes light up. One does not feed the cover of a rabid dog’s liver to a person bitten by a rabid dog¹³³, but Rebbi Matthew ben Ḥarash permits it¹³⁴. In addition, Rebbi Matthew ben Ḥarash said, if somebody suffers from throat ache, one pours him medicine into it since it is an uncertainty of a danger to life, since any uncertainty of a danger to life pushes the Šabbath aside. If a wall collapsed over somebody¹³⁵, it is uncertain whether he is there or not, whether he is alive or dead, whether he is a Gentile or a Jew, one digs him out¹³⁶. If one finds him alive, one digs him out, if dead one shall leave him¹³⁷.

footnotes: ¹³² Greek βουλιμία. ἡ. “ravenous hunger”. It is presumed that the attack is life threatening. ¹³³ Since this is not a recognized medical procedure. ¹³⁴ For him it is proven medical practice ¹³⁵ On the Sabbath or the day of Atonement. ¹³⁶ Even though this involves a Sabbath desecration. ¹³⁷ Until after the end of Sabbath or holiday

HALAKHAH: ¹²² From where that one may feed him fig cake and raisins of heave? From this: They gave him a slice of fig cake and two raisins¹²³ 30:12. Since the verse reports that the Egyptian recovered from having been without food for 72 hours, this sugary food is proven antidote to boulimy and may be given even from prohibited food.. Rebbi Ḥuna said, the twenty-four esronot which David ate, he ate in hunger¹²⁴ 21:7) and he ate all of them. There are 12 breads, each of them 2 esronot(*Lev.*24:5). 24 esronot are 2.4 epha, or 7.2 seah, a volume of about 92 liter of flour. (Cf. S. Abramson, Sinai 63(1968), pp. 193–197.). This happened to Rebbi Joḥanan¹²⁵ and he ate everything which happened to be before him. They quoted about him, wisdom revives its possessor¹²⁶. 7:12.. It was stated: “One feeds him the least forbidden¹²⁷. Carcass meat or heave, one feeds him heave. Ṭevel and sabbatical produce¹²⁸, one feeds him Šabbatical produce.” Ḥallah and ˋorlah is problematic¹²⁹ as heave is a sanctum, forbidden to non-Cohanim. Its improper ingestion is a deadly sin. Usufruct of ˋorlah is forbidden to everybody as a simple prohibition.. Rebbi Yose said, I questioned before Rebbi Ba: Heave is a deadly sin, carcass meat a prohibition¹³⁰, and you are saying so? Following him who said, they accepted the tithes voluntarily¹³¹ 6:1, Notes 11–13. But non-kosher food is biblically forbidden...

footnotes: ¹²² This paragraph should belong to the next Halakhah, discussion of Mishnah 5. ¹²³ 1Sam. ¹²⁴ He implies that Ahimelekh gave to David all shew breads of the Tabernacle (1Sam. ¹²⁵ An attack of boulimy. ¹²⁶ Eccl ¹²⁷ If no kosher food is available at the moment. Babli 83a, Tosephta 4:4. ¹²⁸ While illegitimate use of heave oil for anointing is prohibited, it is mentioned in the framework of the farmer’s declaration in the Temple, which is a positive commandment. Overstepping the prohibition of anointing when it is forbidden legally is overstepping a positive commandment not under the scope of biblical penal law. ¹²⁹ Ḥallah ¹³⁰ Eating non-kosher meat is a simple prohibition punishable by 39 lashes. ¹³¹ In this opinion, tithes, heave, and Sabbatical produce are biblical obligations only if all 12 tribes are on their ancestral lands; today all these obligations were voluntarily accepted by the returnees from Babylon and have only rabbinic status.; Ševiˋit

The characteristics¹³⁸ of a rabid dog: His mouth is (closed) [open]¹³⁹, his spittle drips, his ears are badly smelling, he tail is between his hips, he walks at an angle¹⁴⁰, the dogs bark at him, and some are saying, also he barks but his voice is not (carried) [heard]¹³⁹.

footnotes: ¹³⁸ Greek σημεῖον, τό. ¹³⁹ The text is brackets is the corrector’s, corresponding to the text in the Babli, 83b. ¹⁴⁰ His body makes a non-zero angle with the direction of his movement. ¹³⁹ The text is brackets is the corrector’s, corresponding to the text in the Babli, 83b.

What is the cause of a dog being rabid? Rav and Samuel. One is saying, a spirit of madness came over him. But the other one said, a woman uses him to try out witchcraft. German, the slave of Rebbi Yudan the Patriarch, was bitten by a rabid dog and he fed him the cover of its liver, but he never recovered. A person could never tell you that he was bitten by a rabid dog and survived, that he was stung by a brightly colored snake¹⁴¹ and survived, that he was kicked by a mule and survived, but only by a white mule¹⁴²7b; Yerushalmi Berakhot8:6, Notes 124–125.

footnotes: ¹⁴¹ A sign of a poisonous reptile. ¹⁴² Babli Ḥulin

From where that any uncertainty of a danger to life pushes the Sabbath aside? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Only you shall keep My Sabbaths;¹⁴³. 31:12. a diminution. Some want to say, the Torah said,¹⁴⁴ desecrate the Sabbath for him, so he will dwell and keep many Sabbaths.

footnotes: ¹⁴³ Ex ¹⁴⁴ Since אַךְ everywhere is taken as sign of a diminution, but there is no indication of what is excluded from the observation of the Sabbath, the rabbinic authorities are empowered to determine the exclusion by an argument. Babli 85b, Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Ki Tlssa.

Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a wall collapsed in a dead-end street populated by Gentiles, but where one Jew lived, one digs there because of the Jew¹⁴⁵ 1:10, Note 269.. How far¹⁴⁶? Two Amoraim. One said, up to his nose; the other said, up to his navel. He who said, up to his nose, about one who was healthy; he who said up to his navel, about one who was intoxicated¹⁴⁷.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁵ Also quoted in Ketubot ¹⁴⁶ Since in the Mishnah it is stated that a live person has to be dug out completely, the question is how much of a person has to be uncovered in order to determine his death. ¹⁴⁷ Reading רוי for רבי.

It was stated: (The one who decided is praiseworthy, one who is asked has to be ready,)¹⁴⁸ [the one who is quick is praiseworthy, the one who is asked is blameworthy,]¹⁴⁹15:11). The second clause is difficult to understand; what can a person do if he is asked? He is blameworthy if he does not cut the interrogator short and sends him to help others. and the one who asks is a spiller of blood.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁸ The text in parentheses is the scribe’s. It was not understood by the corrector who partially substituted the Babli text.The original text states that the rabbi who decided in advance to instruct his congregation to act immediately in cases of danger to life is praiseworthy, the one who is asked anyhow has to have his instructions ready without hesitation, and the one who wastes time to ask is a murderer. ¹⁴⁹ Corrector’s text. The first statement is from the Babli, 84b (Tosephta Šabbat

¹⁵⁰ 4:9 Notes 104–113. Šabbat 16, Notes 123–132; partially Tosephta Šabbat 15:15, Babli, Yoma 84b. It was stated: In any case of danger to life one does not say that the work be done by Gentiles or minors, but even by adult Jewish persons. “It happened that there was a fire in the courtyard of Yose ben Simai in Shihin, and the garrison of the barracks¹⁵¹, -orum, n. “military camp, barracks, fortress.” of Sepphoris came to fight it but he did not let them fight it; he said, let the collector collect his due¹⁵². Immediately there formed a cloud which extinguished it. After the Sabbath he sent to each of them a tetradrachma and to their commander¹⁵³ Tosephta Šabbat13:9 (ed. Liebermann). 50 denarii.” The Sages¹³⁴ said, there was no need for him to do that. A Nabatean was a neighbor of Rebbi Jonah. There was a fire in Rebbi Jonah’s neighborhood; the Nabatean wanted to fight it but Rebbi Jonah did not let him. He said to him, because of my property! He said, yes¹³⁵. And everything was saved. Rebbi Jonah from Kefar-Immi spread his garment over the burning grain stack and the fire retreated from it.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁰ This text also is in Nedarim ¹⁵¹ Latin castra ¹⁵² Since the fire was on a Sabbath, he took it as divine punishment. ¹⁵³ Greek ἔπαρχος, ὁ, equivalent of Latin praefectus (castrorum). ¹³⁴ For him it is proven medical practice ¹³⁵ On the Sabbath or the day of Atonement.

MISHNAH: A purification sacrifice and a definitive reparation sacrifice¹⁵⁶ 5:17–19. atone¹⁵⁷. Death or the Day of Atonement atone if accompanied by repentance. Repentance atones for minor infractions, positive commandments, and prohibitions¹⁵⁸. But for severe ones¹⁵⁹ it suspends until the next Day of Atonement arrives and atones.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁶ Any reparation sacrifice (אָשָׁם) except the one for the suspicion of a sin which, if proven, would require a purification sacrifice; Lev. ¹⁵⁷ Since it is presumed that an impurity which requires a reparation sacrifice is divine punishment for some infraction, atonement applies also to these sacrifices. ¹⁵⁸ Biblical prohibitions for which no punishment is indicated in the text. ¹⁵⁹ Sins punishable by extirpation or the death penalty.

HALAKHAH: There we stated: ¹⁶⁰ 1:9. Intentional [impurity]¹⁶¹ of the Sanctuary and its sancta is atoned by the he-goat whose blood is brought inside¹⁶² and the Day of Atonement. The remainder of the transgressions mentioned in the Torah, minor or severe ones, intentional and unintentional, [known and unknown, positive commandments and prohibitions, extirpations and capital crimes, the scapegoat atones.]¹⁶³

footnotes: ¹⁶⁰ Mishnah Ševuot ¹⁶¹ Word missing in the quote. ¹⁶² On the Day of Atonement. ¹⁶³ Corrector’s completion from the Mishnah.

¹⁶⁴ 1:9, Notes 183–210. The present paragraph also in the Babli Ševuot 12b. Are not minor sins positive commandments and prohibitions; are not serious ones extirpations and capital crimes? Rebbi¹⁶⁵ text, read “Rav”. Jehudah said, so is the Mishnah: “Minor or serious ones. Those minor ones, whether he committed them intentionally or did not commit them intentionally¹⁶⁶. Those severe ones, whether he obtained knowledge of them or did not obtain knowledge of them¹⁶⁷. The following are minor sins: positive commandments and prohibitions¹⁵⁸. Severe ones, extirpations and capital crimes. Just as the he-goat whose blood is brought inside atones for intentional infractions and suspends for the unintentional ones in cases where a sacrifice is required, also the scapegoat atones in the same way¹⁶⁸ 16:22). This last statement is missing in the Babli Ševuot; it is discussed in Keritut 25b..”

footnotes: ¹⁶⁴ The text of the Halakhah is from Ševuot ¹⁶⁵ With the Ševuot ¹⁶⁶ This must refer either to infractions for which the penalty is not spelled out (Note 158) or to cases where guilt cannot be ascertained. The standard example is that of a person who ate one of two pieces of meat, one of which was kosher, the other one severely forbidden either as forbidden fat or as sacrificial meat· which became impure (Rashi). If it is not possible to ascertain which of the two he ate. then a suspended reparation sacrifice is due; but the obligation to bring a suspended reparation sacrifice is cancelled by the Day of Atonement, as determined in the next paragraph (and Ševuot Halakhah 1:2, Note 69, Horaiot 1:1 Note 18). ¹⁶⁷ This refers to the situation described in the previous Note. If he intended to eat one of the two, knowing that one was severely forbidden, he either committed no sin or he committed a serious crime for which no personal sacrifice can atone. ¹⁵⁸ Biblical prohibitions for which no punishment is indicated in the text. ¹⁶⁸ Which carries away “all their iniquities”, Lev.

It is understandable if it did not come to his knowledge¹⁶⁹. If it did come to his knowledge¹⁷⁰? Was it not stated:¹⁷¹ 6:4. Purification sacrifices must be brought even after the Day of Atonement but obligations of suspended reparation sacrifices are eliminated. “From where that those liable for purification sacrifices and certain reparation sacrifices for whom the Day of Atonement had passed, remain liable, but those liable for suspended reparation offerings are no longer liable?” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, whether it was known to him on it, or not known to him on it¹⁷² is copied here very incompletely, only partially completed by the corrector’s addition [in brackets]. By the omission the text has become unintelligible; cf. Ševuot 1:9, Notes 194–196.. [Why did he not say, if it was not known to him]. His words imply that even if it was not known to him on the Day of Atonement, the Day of Atonement atones.

footnotes: ¹⁶⁹ Then no private sacrifice is due and the public sacrifice must atone for the damage done to the sanctuary. ¹⁷⁰ Did we not imply that the public offering does not relieve the individual of his obligation to bring a sacrifice? ¹⁷¹ Parts of Mishnah Keritut ¹⁷² The text from Ševuot

There¹⁷³ 1:2., we have stated: “For these¹⁷⁴1:1. one is liable for extirpation in case of intentional transgression, or a purification sacrifice for unintentional transgression, and for what was not certainly known in their cases a suspended sacrifice.” But did not the day of Atonement already atone¹⁷⁵? Rebbi Simeon in the name of Rebbi Levi from Sokho: The Mishnah refers to one who rebels on the Day of Atonement.

footnotes: ¹⁷³ Mishnah Keritut ¹⁷⁴ The transgressions punishable by extirpation enumerated in Mishnah Keritut ¹⁷⁵ Does the Day of Atonement not eliminate the possibility of a suspended reparation offering for the possibility of a sin committed before this day?

A positive commandment, even if he did not repent. A prohibition? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira, only if he repented¹⁷⁶. If one said, “the elevation offering does not atone,¹⁷⁷ 1:4 indicates that it atones. The next paragraph will investigate for which sins it is atoning.” does the elevation offering not atone? It atones even against his will. But if he said, “it is impossible that the elevation offering atone for me,” it does not atone against his will¹⁷⁸. If one said, “the Day of Atonement does not atone,” It atones. “I cannot accept¹⁷⁹ that it atone for me,” it atones against his will¹⁸⁰ 7a.. Rebbi Ḥanina ben Rebbi Hillel said, it is not up to a person to tell the King, “you are no king.”

footnotes: ¹⁷⁶ While the Mishnah in Rav Jehudah’s interpretation treats positive commandments and simple prohibitions in parallel, there is a difference between the two kinds of sins. The non-performance of a positive commandment is atoned for even without repentance while the atoning for breaching simple prohibitions requires repentance. ¹⁷⁷ The biblical text does not indicate for which kind of sin an elevation offering does atone but Lev. ¹⁷⁸ In the prior formulation, it was simply a false statement. But if somebody said, I am opting out, the atoning power of sacrifices shall not be valid for me, what he offers would be profane. If there is no offering, there cannot be atonement. ¹⁷⁹ The scribe wrote איפשי, “it is impossible for me”, which Galilean form the corrector did not recognize (and which the scribe himself in the preceding sentence exchanged for the Babylonian form), and added אי, for Babylonian אִי אֶפְשִׁי, meaning the same. ¹⁸⁰ Since he brings the offering on his own initiative, if it is not brought for atoning it does not atone. But the Day of Atonement is given by God; it is not up to man to say what it can or cannot do. Babli, Keritut

MISHNAH: If somebody say, “I shall sin and repent, I shall sin and repent,¹⁹⁰” one¹⁹¹ does not let him achieve to repent. “I shall sin and the day of Atonement will atone,” the Day of Atonement does not atone. Transgressions between a person and the Omnipresent the Day of Atonement atones; but those between him and his neighbor the Day of Atonement does not atone unless he placated his neighbor. The following did Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah explain: Of all your unintentional sins before the Eternal you shall be cleansed¹⁹⁹ 16:30. The sentence is not parsed as from all your iniquities, before the Eternal you will be cleansed, but as from all your iniquities before the Eternal, you will be cleansed. Sifra Aḥare Pereq 8:1.. Transgressions between a person and the Omnipresent the Day of Atonement atones; but those between him and his neighbor the Day of Atonement does not atone unless he placated his neighbor. Rebbi Aqiba said, blessed are you, Israel. Before whom do you cleanse yourselves, and who cleanses you? Your Father Who is in Heaven, as it is said²⁰⁰ 36:25., I shall sprinkle on you pure water, so you shall be pure. And it is said²⁰¹ 17:13. Israel’s hope is the Eternal, since a miqweh purifies the impure people²⁰², so the Holy One, praise to Him, cleanses Israel.

footnotes: ¹⁹⁰ Repeatedly ¹⁹¹ Heaven ¹⁹⁹ Lev. ²⁰⁰ Ez ²⁰¹ Jer. ²⁰² Identifying מקוה “hope” or “ritual bath; pond”.

HALAKHAH: ¹⁸¹ 7(3) the paragraph is reproduced and the doctrine is attributed to R. Simeon ben Iohai. The elevation offering atones for thoughts. What is the reason? What rises in your spirits will not be¹⁸²*.* Rebbi Levi said, What rises in your spirits will not be¹⁸³ 1:9 Note 205.. And so Job says, *he got up early in the morning and brought elevation offerings in the number of all of them, etc.*¹⁸⁴ 1:5. Job offered elevation offerings since he was afraid that his children might have had impious thoughts. [This implies that the elevation offering atones for thoughts.¹⁸⁵]

footnotes: ¹⁸¹ In Lev. rabba ¹⁸² Ez. 20:32. ¹⁸³ This quote is incorrect and makes no sense. The original is in Ševuot ¹⁸⁴ Job ¹⁸⁵ Corrector’s addition from Ševuot.

¹⁸⁶ Halakhah 1:2, Note 69, Horaiot 1:1 Note 18). Rebbi says, the Day of Atonement atones for all sins against the Torah except for him who tears away the yoke, or who breaks the Covenant, or who finds aspects in the Torah¹⁸⁷ 1:1 Notes 199–213; cf. also Sanhedrin 10:1, Note 8. One who tears away the yoke is he who recognizes the authority of the Torah but decides to break its laws; one who breaks the covenant is he who tries to reconstruct a prepuce and does not circumcise his sons; one who finds aspects in the Torah is he who denies the divine origin of the Torah., where it atones if he repented but does not atone otherwise. Rebbi Zevida said that Rebbi Yasa asked: Does Rebbi think that the Day of Atonement atones without repentance? Rebbi Ashian, Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi agrees that the Day of Atonement only atones with repentance; therefore death cleanses without repentance¹⁸⁸ which has to be considered as the original. The Babli supports the statement there about the Day of Atonement; it has no statement of Rebbi about the power of Death.. We have stated thus: The day of death equals the day of repentance. Who stated this? Rebbi! Then what we stated, “death and the Day of Atonement atone with repentance,” does not follow Rebbi¹⁸⁹.

footnotes: ¹⁸⁶ This must refer either to infractions for which the penalty is not spelled out (Note 158) or to cases where guilt cannot be ascertained. The standard example is that of a person who ate one of two pieces of meat, one of which was kosher, the other one severely forbidden either as forbidden fat or as sacrificial meat which became impure (Rashi). If it is not possible to ascertain which of the two he ate, then a suspended reparation sacrifice is due; but the obligation to bring a suspended reparation sacrifice is cancelled by the Day of Atonement, as determined in the next paragraph (and Ševuot ¹⁸⁷ This was explained in Peah ¹⁸⁸ This is a non-sequitur, but it fits well with the text in Ševuot ¹⁸⁹ Since the Mishnah requires repentance also on the Day of Atonement. Rebbi formulated an anonymous Mishnah, i. e., authoritative doctrine, following the majority against his own opinion.

¹⁹² but also inSanhedrin 10:1, Notes 23–37, 14–22 (and in the Babli Yoma 86b). For part of the text there exists a Geniza fragment (G) edited by L. Ginzberg in his Yerushalmi Fragments (1909) p. 267. Rebbi Matthew ben Ḥarash asked Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah in the Academy¹⁹³. He said to him, did you hear the four types of Atonement which Rebbi Ismael explained? He answered him, there are three in addition to repentance. One verse says, return, naughty children¹⁹⁴ 3:22.. But another verse says, for on that day He shall atone for you¹⁹⁵ 16:20.. And another verse says, I shall visit their crime with the rod¹⁹⁶ 89:33*,* etc. And another verse says, the iniquity of this people shall not be atoned for until you die¹⁹⁷ 22:14.. How is this? If somebody violates a positive commandment and repents, before he moves from there it will be forgiven to him. About this one it says, return, naughty children. If one transgresses a prohibition and immediately repents, repentance suspends judgment, and the Day of Atonement atones. About this one it says, for on that day, He shall atone for you. If one intentionally transgressed {sins punishable by} extirpations or death penalties, repentance and the Day of Atonement atone half, and sufferings during the other days of the year atone half. About this one it says, I shall visit their crime with the rod, and their iniquities with plagues. But by whom the Name of Heaven was desecrated, there is no power in repentance to suspend judgment, nor in the Day of Atonement to pardon, nor in sufferings to scour; but repentance and the Day of Atonement atone one third, sufferings atone a third, and death scours with sufferings. About this one it says, the iniquity of this people shall not be atoned for until you die. From this we learn that death scours.

footnotes: ¹⁹² From here to the end of the Halakhah, the text is not only in Ševuot ¹⁹³ He asks for an answer on the record. ¹⁹⁴ Jer. ¹⁹⁵ Lev. ¹⁹⁶ Ps. ¹⁹⁷ Is.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, Rebbi Ismael, and Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say that the scapegoat atones. How does it atone? Rebbi Zeˋira said, in small pieces. Rebbi Ḥanania said, at the end. What is the difference between them? If somebody died in-between. In the opinion of Rebbi Zeˋira, he already was pardoned. In the opinion of Rebbi Ḥanina, he was not pardoned. Rebbi Zeˋira said, a baraita supports Rebbi Ḥanina: “There is strength in the ram which is not in the Day of Atonement, and in the Day of Atonement which is not in the ram: The Day of Atonement pardons without a ram, but the ram does not atone without the Day of Atonement. There is strength in the ram since the ram atones immediately but the Day of Atonement only atones at nightfall.¹⁹⁸” Rebbi Ḥuna said, the question was raised before Rebbi Jeremiah and he said, explain it if they intended to bring another he-goat but they did not bring it. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun asked, does the Holy One, praise to Him, not see into the future? Then He should pardon immediately

footnotes: ¹⁹⁸ Tosephta 4:16.

²⁰³ Samuel said, a person who sinned against his neighbor has to tell him, I offended you. If he accepts it, it is good. Otherwise he brings people and appeases him in their presence. That is what is written²⁰⁴33:27, being straight with men, he shall form a row of men, and say, I sinned, and straightforward I acted criminally, and I was careless. If he acts in this manner, the verse says about him²⁰⁵33:28, He delivered his soul from perdition, and his life enjoys light. If he died, one has to appease him on his grave and say, I offended you.

footnotes: ²⁰³ Cf. Babli 87a ²⁰⁴ Job ²⁰⁵ Job

²⁰⁶ It was stated: “Sins which he confessed the past Day of Atonement he does not have to confess the next day of Atonement; if he would do this, the verse says about him, like a dog returning to his vomit, so is the silly repeating his foolishness²⁰⁷ 26:11.. It was stated, Rebbi Eliezer²⁰⁸ says, he would be clever and be rewarded. What is Rebbi Eliezer’s reason? But my sin is always before me²⁰⁹. 51:5..” How does Rebbi Eliezer interpret the rabbis’ reason, like a dog returning to his vomit, so is the silly repeating his foolishness? If he repeats the same sin. How do the rabbis interpret Rebbi Eliezer’s reason, but my sin is always before me? It should not be in his eyes as if he never did it, but that he did it and he was forgiven.

footnotes: ²⁰⁶ Babli 86b; Tosephta 4:15. ²⁰⁷ Prov. ²⁰⁸ In Babli and Tosephta: R. Eliezer ben Jacob. ²⁰⁹ Ps

²¹⁰“It is an obligation to confess on the eve of the Day of Atonement when it gets dark, before he immerses himself in eating and drinking²¹¹. Even though he confessed in the evening, he has to confess in the morning; though he confessed in the morning, he has to confess at musaf²¹²*;* though he confessed at musaf, he has to confess in the afternoon; though he confessed in the afternoon, he has to confess at neˋilah²¹³ 4:1), shortly before the end of the fast., for the entire day is qualified for confession.” How does he confess? ²¹⁴ 3(3), ascribed to another author. Rebbi Berekhiah in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Binah: My Master, I sinned and did evil, and I was involved in bad thoughts, and acting in aberrant ways. But as I acted I shall not act. May it please You, Eternal, my God, [that You will atone for all my crimes]²¹⁵, forgive me for all my sins, and pardon (and forgive)²¹⁶ all my transgressions.

footnotes: ²¹⁰ Tosephta 4:14, Babli 87b. ²¹¹ The text is elliptic; it is understandable only in the Babylonian sources. Since confession is one of the obligations of the day of Atonement, one has to confess immediately after nightfall in the evening prayers (as presupposed in the following sentence.) But as a precaution there is a rabbinic obligation to confess in the preceding afternoon, during afternoon prayers, before taking the big meal before the fast, in case one would be incapacitated during the fast-day because of overeating. ²¹² The additional holiday prayers, parallel to the additional sacrifices required on such days. It is spelled out in the Babylonian sources that all confessions are appended to the prayers of the day. ²¹³ The additional prayers on fast days (Mishnah Taˋaniot ²¹⁴ Lev. rabba ²¹⁵ Corrector’s addition from Lev. rabba. ²¹⁶ Text of the scribe, deleted by the corrector. Since with this word and with the prior addition by the corrector one also has three requests for forgiveness, the original text of the scribe looks genuine.

It was stated²¹⁷ 5:4, Note 60.: It is necessary to detail one’s actions, the words of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra. Rebbi Aqiba says, one does not have to detail his actions. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? Please, this people committed a grave sin, they made themselves golden idols²¹⁸. 32:31.. How does Rebbi Aqiba treat this? Who caused it to them? I, for I gave them much silver and gold. Why? For a donkey is not braying²¹⁹ 6:5, 30:7), but the scribe’s spelling נקק may be the Aramaic form of Accadic nagāgum.. While in Job the verb describes the shout of the hungry, here it is used for the noise of the overbearing; cf. *Sifry Deut.*308 out of a basket of carob fruit²²⁰ 32a, the argument is that a lion will shout eating a box of meat..

footnotes: ²¹⁷ Tosephta 4:14, Babli 86b, Yerushalmi Nedarim ²¹⁸ Ex ²¹⁹ The corrector’s spelling נהק is biblical (Job ²²⁰ In the Babli, Berakhot

It is written, Israel’s miqweh is the Eternal. Just as a miqweh²⁰² purifies the impure, so the Holy One, praise to Him, purifies Israel. And so He says, I shall sprinkle on you pure water and you will be pure; from all your impurities and your abominations I shall purify you²²¹ 36:25*.*

footnotes: ²⁰² Identifying מקוה “hope” or “ritual bath; pond”. ²²¹ Ez.