Yoma, Chapter 8 – Lesson 2

This transcript was produced automatically using artificial intelligence. There may be inaccuracies in the transcribed content and in speaker identification.

🔗 Link to the original lecture

🔗 Link to the transcript on Sofer.AI

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Can you hear? According to that, food for a small child. Fine, so his view is disregarded; that is, in general, since eating is forbidden, they didn’t permit it. That’s a different discussion about a small child. We’ll get to small children later too; we’ll deal with that quite a bit later on, here today and in later classes. By contrast, according to Nachmanides, the category of food preparation on a Jewish holiday was never prohibited in the first place. Right? So if Yom Kippur were like a Jewish holiday, then in principle food preparation ought to be permitted even if I don’t need it for eating, because it was never prohibited, not merely permitted afterward. According to Nachmanides, it seems necessary that if food preparation is prohibited on Yom Kippur, then either it’s because he doesn’t learn like Nachmanides—which of course Nachmanides does learn like Nachmanides—or because he understands Yom Kippur like the Sabbath. Meaning: on Yom Kippur even food preparation is prohibited, not only occupational labor. And it’s not that they simply didn’t grant a dispensation because on Yom Kippur we don’t eat; rather, it is prohibited like on the Sabbath. Essentially, not because there’s no need for it since we don’t eat, against what the medieval authorities I mentioned earlier say. According to this approach of Nachmanides—and I’m continuing with Nachmanides’s view—it seems to me that we can definitely understand that the term “a Sabbath of complete rest,” which is used regarding Yom Kippur just as it is regarding the Sabbath, stems from exactly the same reason: on Yom Kippur too, the obligation to cease is broader than on an ordinary Jewish holiday. Because what is prohibited is both occupational labor and food preparation. And then indeed the prohibition is an essential prohibition, not just because they didn’t allow it since we don’t eat.

The truth is that in light of what I said earlier, maybe these views can be reconciled somewhat, at least regarding Yom Kippur. On Yom Kippur we saw that eating is part of the obligation of cessation. The obligation of cessation on Yom Kippur includes cessation from labor and cessation from afflictions—from eating and drinking, and maybe also the other afflictions; we’ll still see. So in fact there is some very broad obligation of cessation here. If so, then maybe even if in principle we go with the conception—Nachmanides’s conception, right?—that on a Jewish holiday these labors were never prohibited at all, whereas on the Sabbath those labors were prohibited—meaning this is not a dispensation, they simply were never prohibited on a Jewish holiday—what happens on Yom Kippur according to that? On Yom Kippur, I said, according to that it is clear that food preparation was prohibited from the outset, not merely left unpermitted. It is prohibited because it is like the Sabbath. What happens according to the other medieval authorities? According to the other medieval authorities you could say that Yom Kippur is like a Jewish holiday, right? Except that here, since we don’t eat, there is no need to permit food preparation. But now we can say that according to the other medieval authorities, since on Yom Kippur cessation is broader—it is cessation both from labor and from afflictions—then maybe the cessation from labor is broader too, and specifically Yom Kippur is different from an ordinary Jewish holiday. It is like the Sabbath even according to the other medieval authorities, not only according to Nachmanides. Okay? And then indeed the term “a Sabbath of complete rest” is interpreted, according to everyone, regarding Yom Kippur as it is regarding the Sabbath: a concept of broad cessation, meaning that all labor was prohibited here. The afflictions too, because you have to reach cessation—complete cessation. And that in fact connects these two possibilities, in light of what I said earlier, that both the labors and the afflictions are part of cessation.

At the beginning of our chapter, if you’ve managed to get there—I’ll remind you again that I want you to move a bit through the chapter while we learn—at the beginning of our chapter, after the Talmud learns from the section of Acharei Mot, right after the phrase “a Sabbath of complete rest” appears the command regarding affliction. And our Talmud derives the other afflictions from the inclusion implied by the word “rest.” “A Sabbath of complete rest”—to include the other afflictions. True, there are medieval authorities who say this is only an asmachta, but Rashi says in a way that implies that it’s a real inclusion. And then once again we see that cessation includes within it cessation from afflictions as well. Meaning, what I said before—that cessation on Yom Kippur is broader—not only is it cessation from occupational labor, but also from food preparation. Not only from food preparation, but also from afflictions—from eating and drinking. Not only from eating and drinking, but also from the five afflictions. All this is included in the concept of cessation, and once again the concept of affliction and the concept of cessation become overlapping.

Now we’re ready to look at Maimonides. Maimonides—sorry, I disconnected this, I’m reconnecting it to the sources page. Every so often I want to see you, so I disconnect the shared file. Maimonides at the beginning of the laws of the cessation of the tenth day. First of all, notice the name of this halakhic section in Maimonides. What is “the laws of the cessation of the tenth day”? Just to remind you: Maimonides divides, for example, the laws of Passover into the laws of leaven and matzah, and the laws of prohibited labor. The laws of prohibited labor appear under the laws of the Jewish holiday. And the laws of leaven and matzah are a separate section. Meaning, the content of the day and the cessation on that day are split by Maimonides into two different halakhic sections. They do not appear within one section of laws. The same with Sukkot. There are the laws of the Jewish holiday, which include the laws of the prohibitions of the holiday also for Sukkot, and there are the laws of sukkah and the four species. But on Yom Kippur Maimonides joins them together and calls it “the cessation of the tenth day.” The cessation of Yom Kippur is joined with the prohibitions of affliction, which are ostensibly the specific content of Yom Kippur. More than that: in terms of the structure of the laws in the book—in Maimonides’s Book of Times—the sections there are the laws of the Sabbath, the laws of the Jewish holiday, the laws of the cessation of the tenth day. And only after that do you get to leaven and matzah, sukkah and the four species, Hanukkah and Megillah, and so on. Meaning that Maimonides sees the concept of “the cessation of the tenth day” as a third type of cessation. There is one kind of cessation, the cessation of the Sabbath—that’s the laws of the Sabbath, cessation from labor. There is another kind, the cessation of the Jewish holiday, which is cessation from occupational labor. And then there is the cessation of the tenth day. The cessation of the tenth day is a cessation that includes within it cessation from labor and cessation from pleasures. And therefore Maimonides calls this whole body—although most of it deals, of course, with afflictions; for labor he simply refers you to the laws of the Sabbath and the laws of the Jewish holiday, since he already laid all that out there, so there’s no point repeating it—but he relates to it here as well. He doesn’t spell it out because there’s no need to spell it out twice, but he does address it here, and he calls the whole thing “the cessation of the tenth day.” He doesn’t call it “the laws of the Yom Kippur fast,” but “the laws of the cessation of the tenth day.” Look also at his wording; it isn’t accidental.

“The laws of the cessation of the tenth day: they contain four commandments—two positive commandments and two prohibitions. And these are their details: to cease from labor on it”—that is the positive commandment regarding labor; “not to do labor on it”—that is the prohibition regarding labor; “to afflict oneself on it”—that is the positive commandment regarding affliction; “not to eat and drink on it”—that is the prohibition regarding affliction. Okay? There is a positive commandment and a prohibition regarding labor, and a positive commandment and a prohibition regarding affliction. Now let’s see his wording inside.

Law 1: “It is a positive commandment to cease from labor on the tenth day of the seventh month, as it says, ‘It shall be for you a Sabbath of complete rest.’ And anyone who does labor on it has nullified a positive commandment and violated a prohibition, as it says, ‘And on the tenth of this month,’ etc., ‘the tenth of the seventh month, you shall do no labor.’ And what is one liable for if he performs labor on this day? If he did so willingly and deliberately, he is liable to karet, and if he did so inadvertently, he is liable for a fixed sin-offering. Any labor for which one is liable to stoning on the Sabbath, one is liable to karet for it on the tenth day. And for anything for which one is liable for a sin-offering on the Sabbath, one is liable for a sin-offering on Yom Kippur. And anything forbidden to do on the Sabbath, even though it is not a labor; and anything forbidden to say or do ab initio on the Sabbath, so too it is forbidden on Yom Kippur. The general rule is: there is no difference between the Sabbath and Yom Kippur in these matters”—and “these matters” here means the prohibitions of labor—“except that deliberate labor on the Sabbath is punishable by stoning, whereas on Yom Kippur by karet.” The only difference between Yom Kippur and the Sabbath is that there is no stoning for performing labor on Yom Kippur. In that sense it is a bit similar to a Jewish holiday, because there is lashes. It is not similar to a Jewish holiday because there is karet. So it is not completely a Jewish holiday; it is a separate category. But in terms of what is forbidden and what is permitted, it is exactly like the Sabbath.

[Speaker B] In Maimonides it seems that he understood “a Sabbath of complete rest” as only a prohibition of labor. Why? No, because in Law 1 he writes that the source for the positive commandment not to do labor is “a Sabbath of complete rest.” Right? But the positive commandment to afflict oneself he doesn’t derive at all from “a Sabbath of complete rest”; he derives it from “and you shall afflict your souls.” And also the wording in the introduction to the laws is—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] “To cease on it”—look, look at Law 5. I’ve put it up now on the sheet. Law 5: “And likewise we learned by tradition that it is forbidden to wash on it, or to anoint, or to wear a sandal, or to have marital relations. And it is a commandment to cease from all these, just as one ceases from eating and drinking, as it says, ‘a Sabbath of complete rest’: ‘Sabbath’ regarding eating, and ‘complete rest’ regarding these matters.”

[Speaker B] Yes, but what is that—Torah law, or just an asmachta?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes, Torah law. One is not liable to a sacrifice—one is not liable to karet or a sacrifice—except for eating and drinking alone. But if he washed, or anointed, or wore footwear, or had relations, they administer disciplinary lashes.

[Speaker B] That sounds rabbinic, doesn’t it?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, it’s Torah law without a prescribed punishment. Disciplinary lashes are not only for rabbinic violations.

[Speaker B] But it’s also not a commandment.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] What do you mean, it’s not a commandment?

[Speaker B] He didn’t count it here in the introduction.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] All the matters of affliction are derived from “a Sabbath of complete rest.” If you include the five afflictions from the word “rest,” that means that the first “Sabbath,” before “complete rest,” includes within it the affliction of eating and drinking.

[Speaker B] Yes, but he didn’t bring the other afflictions.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] He didn’t bring this source from there—

[Speaker B] He has another source; that’s not the point.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] But after the Torah compares them, then everything enters into “a Sabbath of complete rest.” But in his introduction, where is that written?

[Speaker B] Here, in the introduction to the chapter, in the list of commandments, it’s not written at all.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] In the list there, sources appear, so each source on its own. But here he explicitly defines it as part of cessation.

[Speaker B] But there he didn’t say just “to cease”; he said “to cease from labor.”

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Right, and also to cease from eating and drinking.

[Speaker B] He didn’t say that. Eating and drinking, yes, but he didn’t say the other things.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] What do you mean? In the law—look at Law 4. Look, read it. Law 4: “There is another positive commandment on Yom Kippur, and that is to cease on it from eating and drinking.” What is that? To cease from eating and drinking. The verse is “and you shall afflict your souls.” There is such a verse, and he brings the verse that exists. But it is included within the concept of cessation. And the proof is what he writes in Law 5, because in Law 5 he includes the other afflictions from the word “complete rest,” implying that the “Sabbath” that appears before “complete rest” includes eating and drinking. The fact that there is a verse that imposes eating and drinking—a separate verse, “and you shall afflict your souls”—so he brings that verse; he doesn’t bring “a Sabbath of complete rest.” But clearly, once “a Sabbath of complete rest” is written, it is obvious that it includes eating and drinking as well. In Maimonides this is explicit.

[Speaker B] So why didn’t he include it among the commandments? He—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] He did include it among the commandments. Here he counts the prohibition of eating and drinking. What’s the problem?

[Speaker B] No, but the five afflictions.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] The five afflictions are not in the count of commandments; that’s something else. I said: the counting of commandments is not our issue. The count of commandments does not necessarily tell us whether something is Torah law or not Torah law. Maimonides’s method, for example—what?

[Speaker B] So the Rabbi is saying it’s Torah law and it’s not in the count of commandments?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] In the simple sense, it’s Torah law. It probably depends on Maimonides’s position in the second principle: whether things derived from exegesis have the status of Torah law or rabbinic law. The question is how to interpret Maimonides there. But in principle, in the simple sense, it is Torah law. Maimonides says this is by tradition.

[Speaker I] Maimonides says this is by tradition; it’s not that—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] “By tradition” means it’s an exegetical derivation. It’s not written explicitly; it’s derived, it is included from “complete rest.”

[Speaker J] But it seems to me that Maimonides in Law 5 completely distinguishes between them—he says there are other things similar to the prohibition of eating and drinking. The prohibition of eating and drinking really is what was prohibited in the verse.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] “Just as one ceases from eating and drinking, so too one must cease from them.” Yes. He writes that explicitly in the second line of Law 5: “just as one ceases from eating and drinking,” so too one ceases from these. “As it says, ‘a Sabbath of complete rest’: ‘Sabbath’ regarding eating, and ‘complete rest’ regarding these matters.” He writes it explicitly.

[Speaker J] “Sabbath” regarding labor, no?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, he says explicitly not regarding labor, but regarding affliction. “Sabbath” regarding eating, and “complete rest” regarding these matters. He distinguishes between—one second—in the version you’re sharing on the screen now it says “Sabbath regarding eating, and complete rest regarding these matters,” and in the version of—

[Speaker J] In the parallel Maimonides version it says “Sabbath regarding labor, complete rest regarding these matters.”

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] I don’t understand. In the version—

[Speaker J] The version you’re sharing on the screen now says “Sabbath regarding eating, and complete rest regarding these matters,” and in the parallel Maimonides version it says “Sabbath regarding labor, and complete rest regarding these matters.”

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Here it says regarding eating—but wow, that makes much more sense too. Because if “complete rest” is for these matters, then how do you include the afflictions from the word “complete rest” if the word “Sabbath” before it is talking entirely about labor? What’s the connection? You’d have to say something about that, at least. In the simple sense, it means “Sabbath” regarding eating, and “complete rest” regarding these matters.

[Speaker B] But I understood the version with labor. As if he says “Sabbath” regarding labor—which includes also rabbinic restrictions—and “complete rest” regarding these matters of eating, which includes the other afflictions too.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Fine, so he says that “a Sabbath of complete rest” applies to these matters of affliction too. What’s the hesitation? You can’t write it any more clearly than that.

[Speaker K] Does disciplinary lashes mean it’s rabbinic, or is it Torah law?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Disciplinary lashes are given for anything that has no Torah-prescribed punishment, whether for rabbinic prohibitions—for example, for anointing as well they administer disciplinary lashes. For less than the minimum measure they would also give disciplinary lashes, because there is no Torah punishment for that, even though less than the minimum measure is prohibited by Torah law according to the accepted ruling.

[Speaker K] Look—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] In Law 6: “Just as cessation from labor applies on it both by day and by night, so too cessation for affliction applies both by day and by night.” All along the way there is a complete comparison here between labor and affliction, and both are tied to the concept of cessation—this is cessation, “a Sabbath of complete rest.” The entire heading is “the laws of the cessation of the tenth day.” And what do the laws of the cessation of the tenth day deal with? Mainly afflictions. The prohibitions of labor are only mentioned here, but are detailed under the laws of the Jewish holiday and the laws of the Sabbath. These laws deal with affliction, and this is called “the laws of the cessation of the tenth day.” You can’t write it more clearly than that. So therefore the claim is that Maimonides is presenting here, I think very unequivocally, what emerges from the plain meaning of the verses. One second—before I forget, I’m taking attendance here. One moment. Okay, fine, I was just marking attendance while we were talking.

In any case, for our purposes, Maimonides here is basically summarizing what emerges from the plain meaning of the verses: there is some all-encompassing cessation here, with two subcategories—cessation from labor and cessation from pleasures—but all of it is really one large cessation. Now let’s try to see what this actually means. In order to show the significance of this—and later I’ll use it further on when we continue—I want us to try to understand what it means.

The Talmud in tractate Pesachim—I’ll share the sources again here—the Talmud in Pesachim says as follows, Pesachim 54: “There is no difference between the Ninth of Av and Yom Kippur except that regarding this one, its doubtful time is forbidden, and regarding that one, its doubtful time is permitted.” What is “its doubtful time is permitted”? Is that not twilight? No. As Rav Shisha son of Rav Idi said, regarding fixing the month, so too here regarding fixing the month. Meaning, the Ninth of Av is identical to Yom Kippur in every respect except one thing: that if we have a doubt about the day, we do not observe two Ninths of Av, but we do observe two Yom Kippurs. And again, we won’t get into all the disputes that arose, yes, in World War II—ostensibly against this Talmudic text. In any case, the Talmud compares the Ninth of Av to Yom Kippur entirely. And indeed the Sefer HaChinukh, in commandment 313, after finishing its discussion of Yom Kippur, goes on to discuss the Ninth of Av. It seems he understands the idea of the Ninth of Av and of Yom Kippur in a similar way.

Truthfully, of course they are not completely identical. First of all, the Ninth of Av is not Torah law; it’s not karet, it’s a prohibition—Tosafot adds, and there are medieval authorities here who note additional differences. Tosafot says there is the Ne’ilah prayer on Yom Kippur; on the Ninth of Av there isn’t. There are differences in—

[Speaker B] Wait, there is no prohibition of labor at all on the Ninth of Av. Wait, we’ll see that in a moment; we’re getting there.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] There are differences in the Temple service order, obviously, but you could say, fine, that’s not what they were discussing; what they were discussing here is only the obligations of affliction. But in Tosafot we see that he understood it not only as obligations of affliction—because he brings in the Temple service order, Ne’ilah prayer, and things of that sort. More than that, Tosafot also writes there in tractate Ta’anit—Tosafot says, besides that, there is also the permission to work in places where that is the custom. So even regarding labor there is a difference. He says, fine, we are discussing only affliction when we make the comparison. In Tosafot it seems that there is a broader comparison here than merely regarding affliction. There are differences regarding adding from the weekday onto the sacred time; there are other differences we may discuss later. In any case, on the face of it, the comparison between the Ninth of Av and Yom Kippur is accidental. Because overall, true, the laws are more or less identical, but the idea of these two days is ostensibly completely different. They are simply both severe fasts, and therefore the laws are the same. Both begin at night, both prohibit all the afflictions and the other things, unlike—

[Speaker L] the other—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] fasts. So therefore they compare the Ninth of Av to Yom Kippur. But in the Sefer HaChinukh I think there seems to be more than that. Because if this is only a halakhic similarity, why bring it here? There are many rabbinic laws you could bring in all kinds of places and you don’t. Incidentally, in a similar way the Sefer HaChinukh also brings the blessing over Torah into the commandment of Grace after Meals. And there too, it seems to me, one can learn from this certain conceptual positions. For example, that the blessing over Torah is Torah law—there is a dispute among the medieval authorities about that—and more. Meaning, from the fact that the Sefer HaChinukh brings something, I think maybe it’s not conclusive proof, but it definitely leans in the direction that he sees some essential similarity here.

Now, on the face of it there is no essential similarity. On Yom Kippur, maybe the fasting is part of the process of repentance, but there is some sort of detachment from the material, or something like that, or cessation as Maimonides says. On the Ninth of Av, this is part of the fasts—perhaps a more severe one, but still part of the fasts. There needs to be suffering, or repentance, or remembering what happened there, or things of that sort. Why does the Ninth of Av ostensibly belong more to the category of fasts than to the category of Yom Kippur? So I want to argue that the similarity between the Ninth of Av and Yom Kippur can be explained in light of what I said about Yom Kippur, and that really sheds somewhat different light on what we saw. And this is probably—or at least not necessarily—an accidental similarity.

Look, in the Mishnah in Pesachim there it says as follows: “In a place where the custom is to do labor on the Ninth of Av, they do labor; in a place where the custom is not to do labor, they do not. And everywhere Torah scholars abstain. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: a person should always present himself as a Torah scholar.” Meaning, there are different customs. In a place where the custom is not to do labor, then one may not deviate from the custom. In a place where the custom is to do labor, then do it. Truthfully this seems a bit redundant. Fine, obviously one should preserve customs, each place according to its own custom—what is being added here? Already here I would say that the Talmud is saying something that is not just an obligation to preserve customs. There is an idea of ceasing from labor on the Ninth of Av. But there are varying customs, so in a place where they did not practice it, don’t do it; but in a place where they did practice it, you do it not only because of the laws of custom—you do it because of the laws of the Ninth of Av. And on the Ninth of Av one needs to cease from labor.

Now look at Tosafot. Tosafot there asks on the second part of the Mishnah we saw: “There is no difference between the Ninth of Av and Yom Kippur”—what we saw above. Tosafot says: Why does it not count labor, which is permitted on the Ninth of Av in places where that is the custom? What’s his question? In places where that is the custom, labor is permitted on the Ninth of Av; on Yom Kippur there aren’t varying customs—it is forbidden to do labor. So here’s another difference between the Ninth of Av and Yom Kippur. I can’t hear. “The Ri appears to say that this is because later it discusses the permissibility of labor in the comparison between the Ninth of Av and a public fast.” There’s noise here.

[Speaker B] Maybe you can mute everyone again?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] I already did; I’m doing it again. Fine. So Tosafot says that in places where that is the custom one may do labor, and so here is another difference between the Ninth of Av and Yom Kippur—why doesn’t the Mishnah count it? So he says they didn’t count it because they already said it elsewhere, so there is no need to repeat it. Two comments. First comment: you see in Tosafot that the comparison between the Ninth of Av and Yom Kippur is not made only regarding the prohibitions of labor—only regarding the prohibitions of affliction, sorry. It is not just a comparison regarding affliction; it is a full comparison. Because otherwise Tosafot’s question would not arise at all; you wouldn’t need answers. What’s the difficulty? They were only talking here about the comparison regarding the prohibitions of affliction—what does labor have to do with it? Obviously on the Ninth of Av it’s also rabbinic, the Ninth of Av is also—obviously—what does that have to do with anything here? Rather, you see from Tosafot that he understands the comparison as a total comparison. And then anything not listed here requires explanation. But I’ll tell you more than that.

[Speaker B] No, or maybe it’s related to what you said, that it’s from the law of “complete rest.”

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Wait, wait, I’ll get there; I didn’t introduce this for nothing. There is another thing in Tosafot that is really strange. Tell me: what about a place where they did not have the custom? A place where the custom was not to do labor—there, is it similar to Yom Kippur? Of course not. What labor did they have the custom not to do in a place where the custom was not to do labor? Not selecting? Not trapping? All thirty-nine primary categories of labor and their derivatives? No. In the simple sense it means occupational work, or work that distracts one from the fast. So why does Tosafot ask this only about a place where they had the custom to do labor? What about a place where they had the custom not to do labor? There too the Ninth of Av is not like Yom Kippur. I’ll bring you a few sources where you’ll see that in the simple sense this is indeed puzzling. In the simple sense, the labor that was prohibited is really labor—occupational labor, labor that only means—not the thirty-nine primary categories of labor and their derivatives.

Look at Maimonides. Maimonides here brings it simply in the language of the Talmud: “In a place where the custom is to do labor they do labor, and everywhere Torah scholars abstain from it.” What does “abstain from it” mean? In the simple sense, they don’t go out to work. “Abstain” does not mean they refrain from the thirty-nine categories of labor; “abstain” means it’s a day of idleness, they don’t go out to work. And that is what is written here. “And the sages said that anyone who does labor on it will never see a sign of blessing from it.” The meaning here is not labor in the sense of selecting, but rather not going to work—that is the plain meaning in Maimonides. And in his Commentary on the Mishnah: “What you need to know is that all the practices observed by a mourner are observed on the Ninth of Av, and the laws of mourning have been explained in their place; and the law of its fast is like the law of the fast of Yom Kippur. That is, washing, anointing, marital relations, and wearing footwear are forbidden; one adds from the weekday onto the sacred; and doing labor on it is very reprehensible.” What is “doing labor on it is very reprehensible”? In the simple sense, that means going out to work, not the thirty-nine primary categories of labor. And indeed, when Maimonides compares the Ninth of Av to Yom Kippur, he says: “the law of its fast is like the law of the fast of Yom Kippur.” According to Maimonides there is no room at all to ask Tosafot’s question—wait, what about the prohibition of labor? Why don’t you mention the prohibition of labor between the Ninth of Av and Yom Kippur? According to Maimonides that is not relevant; the comparison is only regarding the laws of the fast. So according to Maimonides this whole issue doesn’t arise at all. The same with the Shulchan Arukh—I didn’t bring it here—but in the Shulchan Arukh too you can see quite clearly, and the Magen Avraham sharpens it further: the labor prohibitions are prohibitions of occupational work, labor that distracts one from the fast; they are not day-based prohibitions of labor like on a holiday—yes, the thirty-nine primary categories of labor and their derivatives. But from Tosafot it sounds otherwise. Tosafot says that only in a place where the custom is to do labor should one have listed an additional difference between the Ninth of Av and Yom Kippur, but in a place where the custom is not to do labor, then even regarding labor the Ninth of Av and Yom Kippur are the same. From here you can see that the labor they had the custom not to do on the Ninth of Av is the thirty-nine primary categories of labor and their derivatives. And the comparison between the Ninth of Av and Yom Kippur is a complete comparison, both regarding the prohibition of labor and regarding the fast. There is an obligation to cease on the Ninth of Av just as there is an obligation to cease on Yom Kippur—to cease from labor and to cease from eating and drinking and the other afflictions. And therefore the Sefer HaChinukh’s comparison between Yom Kippur and the Ninth of Av is not accidental, not just that the laws happen to come out similar. There is an essential similarity. We still have to understand what it is, but there is an essential similarity.

I’ll bring you more proofs of this. In Terumat HaDeshen 153 he expands on this issue. He brings in the name of Rashi, although in our sugya we don’t have this Rashi, that the prohibition of labor on the Ninth of Av is part of the commandment of affliction. And therefore even ordinary nonprofessional labor was prohibited. And he turns this prohibition into a full prohibition, more severe than intermediate festival days. Yes—on intermediate festival days ordinary labor is permitted. But on the Ninth of Av even ordinary labor was also prohibited. And of course, if he compares it to intermediate festival days, then he means labor in the same sense as on festivals and Sabbaths. Okay? That is Rashi’s view there. And Terumat HaDeshen asks on Rashi’s view: refraining from labor is actually pleasurable; what does that have to do with affliction? That’s Terumat HaDeshen’s question on Rashi. There I’m not sure that we—or at least I—identify with him. My feeling on the Sabbath is that it’s bothersome that you can’t do labor. But that’s how he understands it. It may be that Terumat HaDeshen simply didn’t understand what Rashi meant. Rashi speaks of doing labor in the sense of the thirty-nine primary categories of labor and their derivatives. And Terumat HaDeshen understands refraining from labor in the sense of not going to work. So he says: what’s the problem with not going to work? That’s nice. Why is that part of affliction? But Rashi learns like the Tosafot we saw above, like the Sefer HaChinukh we saw above: Rashi learns that refraining from labor on the Ninth of Av means doing so as on the Sabbath, not merely not going out to work. And then he says: that is a kind of affliction—you are forbidden to do things you want to do. That is indeed some kind of affliction. Fine, then why did they obligate this thing?

In any case, in Rashi too it appears that he learns this way. Terumat HaDeshen brings in the name of Mordechai, citing the Raavyah, that there is another version in the Talmud, where he reads: “Anyone who does labor on the Ninth of Av is as though he did so on Yom Kippur.” Terumat HaDeshen says that there his version was stated regarding someone who eats, not regarding performing labor: one who eats on the Ninth of Av is like one who eats on Yom Kippur. But the version of Mordechai in the name of the Raavyah is: one who does labor is like one who does labor on Yom Kippur. And Terumat HaDeshen is indeed astonished by this. And again, because Terumat HaDeshen constantly understands performing labor to mean occupational work, not going to work, so as not to distract oneself from the fast. But Mordechai in the name of the Raavyah apparently learns like Rashi, like the Sefer HaChinukh, like Tosafot, all of whom understand that both on the Ninth of Av and on Yom Kippur there is a prohibition, an obligation of cessation from labor, from the thirty-nine primary categories of labor and their derivatives. What is the meaning of this? I’m bringing this only to show that through the Ninth of Av—the similarity to the Ninth of Av—I also want to learn about Yom Kippur. What is the significance of this matter, really?

Before that, let me add one more comment. Rashi in tractate Shabbat—we’ll see this Rashi in the next class on 114b—holds that there is no positive commandment for cessation from labor on Yom Kippur, only a prohibition. That is his claim. Okay? That itself could be some hint that cessation from labor on Yom Kippur is not like cessation from labor on the Sabbath and on a Jewish holiday, but rather part of the category of affliction. Which is exactly what Terumat HaDeshen brings in his name: that cessation from labor is part of the affliction of Yom Kippur. And then that basically says, as we saw above, that there is some blurring of boundaries between cessation and affliction. Affliction includes both ceasing from labor and ceasing from work, ceasing from the thirty-nine primary categories of labor. And we saw that in any case this is Rashi’s view. Okay? And that of course also includes the five afflictions, affliction through refraining from pleasures. And cessation too includes both cessation from labor and cessation from pleasures. And once again we see that there is a different concept of cessation on Yom Kippur, one that includes occupational labor, food preparation, and pleasures. And surprisingly, it exists on the Ninth of Av too.

[Speaker B] I didn’t understand the explanation. You’re saying it’s obvious that all of this comes from the law of affliction. Right. Not that there is a law of cessation and a law of—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] I’m claiming that affliction and cessation are the same thing.

[Speaker B] Even according to that Rashi?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes. That’s exactly why I’m bringing it. I want to argue that affliction and cessation are interchangeable concepts in the context of Yom Kippur. I’ll explain. Because the affliction through labor that Rashi speaks about is not not going to work. That is what Terumat HaDeshen asked about—how is not going to work an affliction? That’s nice. When Rashi speaks about affliction, he is speaking about ceasing from the thirty-nine primary categories of labor. Why? Because you have to afflict yourself by refraining from those labors. That is the concept of cessation. I’ll explain the significance of it. At least, I’ll propose an explanation. Incidentally, they also connect this to the question whether it applies at night too or only by day. Terumat HaDeshen there brings that the prohibition of labor on the Ninth of Av applies only by day. Why only by day? Because it is intended so that we will go to the synagogue, say dirges, and mourn the destruction. And that is done only by day, not by night. So they didn’t go to the synagogue at night on the Ninth of Av. But according to the view that this is cessation—an obligation of cessation—and he himself brings this in the name of Rashi, then it would apply at night too. Because it is not about freeing myself for mourning. There is an obligation of cessation on the Ninth of Av.

Now let’s try to understand this through the Ninth of Av, and then we’ll return to Yom Kippur. The Talmud in Pesachim 77 learns that the New Moon is called a festival from the verse in Lamentations. It says, “He called an appointed time against me to crush my young men.” They make some calculation there as to why the New Moon is called a festival for that purpose, but of course the plain meaning of the verse is that the appointed time being referred to is the Ninth of Av: “He called an appointed time against me to crush my young men.” And therefore indeed several medieval authorities wrote that there are festival-like customs on the Ninth of Av. We do not say Tachanun on the eve of the Ninth of Av because it is like a festival—Shulchan Arukh 552. If it falls on the Sabbath, we do not say “Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness”—that is the Rema there and also in 559. If someone dies on the Ninth of Av, we do not say the justification of judgment—also in 559:4, and others. Among the medieval authorities there crop up various festival customs in relation to the Ninth of Av even though there is no source for this in the Talmudic law itself. And they themselves write the explanation: this verse, “He called an appointed time against me to crush my young men.” The plain meaning of the verse, despite what the Talmud in Pesachim says—the plain meaning is that the appointed time referred to is the Ninth of Av, not the New Moon. So this means that the Ninth of Av is called a festival. Since it is called a festival, there is something festive about that day. There is something festive about that day, so we don’t say “Your righteousness,” we don’t do Nefilat Apayim, and things like that, on the eve of the Ninth of Av of course.

So what is the meaning of this? What is the concept of a festival? Why are festivals called “appointed times”? The literal meaning is to meet—it comes from the root “to meet,” to encounter, right? “Mo’ed” means a meeting. A meeting with the Holy One, blessed be He. We meet at a certain place. What is “the house appointed for all the living”? The cemetery. What is “the house appointed for all the living”? It’s the place where in the end we will all meet. It’s an appointment fixed in advance. We all have an appointment fixed in advance—yes, it’s the appointment in Samarra, if you know that image—with that fatalism that says that in the end we all reach the same place. So “mo’ed” is some kind of meeting fixed in advance. We know that on the fifteenth of Nisan we have an appointment with the Holy One, blessed be He. We have an encounter with Him on Passover, or on the fifteenth of Tishrei, or on the sixth of Sivan. Every such appointed time is some sort of meeting we arranged in advance with the Holy One, blessed be He. Why is the Ninth of Av called an appointed time? I think that if there is any date that can be defined as an appointment fixed in advance with the Holy One, blessed be He, more than all the other festivals, it is the Ninth of Av. On all the other festivals, our meeting with the Holy One, blessed be He, belongs to the realm of ethical or spiritual teaching. Basically, there was a historical event: on the fifteenth of Nisan we left Egypt. And afterward, in the ethical and spiritual books, they explain to us that every year on the fifteenth of Nisan there is a glimmer of the light of those events that happened then, and we have some kind of meeting with the Holy One, blessed be He, with those same spiritual qualities that were present historically on the fifteenth of Nisan. Fine—those are nice teachings about meetings. But on the Ninth of Av we meet with the Holy One, blessed be He, throughout history in a practical way. You don’t need ethical literature for that. Five things happened to our ancestors on the Ninth of Av. We meet with the Holy One, blessed be He, on the Ninth of Av all the time; we have a fixed meeting with Him in many things, and most of them are unpleasant things that happen to us in that meeting.

The root of all of them—let’s return for a moment to the shared screen, right? I didn’t share, so I’ll share the source again. Look at the Talmud in tractate Ta’anit. “On the Ninth of Av it was decreed upon our ancestors that they would not enter the Land. From where do we know? For it is written: ‘And it came to pass in the first month in the second year, on the first day of the month, the Tabernacle was erected.’ And the master said: in the first year Moses made the Tabernacle; in the second year Moses erected the Tabernacle and sent the spies. And it is written: ‘And it came to pass in the second year, in the second month, on the twentieth of the month’”—the twentieth of Iyar—“the cloud rose from above the Tabernacle of Testimony. And it is written: ‘And they journeyed from the mountain of the Lord a three days’ journey.’” So that’s three days—the twenty-third of Sivan. Rav Chama bar Chanina said: on that day they turned away from the Lord. And it is written: “And the rabble that was among them desired a desire, and the children of Israel also turned and wept,” etc.—“and they turned and wept.” And it is written: “until a month of days”—another month; we’ve reached the twenty-second of Sivan. And it is written: “And Miriam was shut out seven days”—that brings us to the twenty-ninth of Sivan. And then “Send for yourself men,” and it is written: “Send for yourself men.” And it was taught: on the twenty-ninth of Sivan Moses sent the spies. “And they returned from scouting the Land at the end of forty days.” Those forty days—subtract one, and there are only thirty-nine. Why? Because we know it happened on the Ninth of Av. So between the twenty-ninth of Sivan and the Ninth of Av there are only thirty-nine days. Abaye said: no, the Tammuz of that year was made full. As it is written: ‘He called an appointed time against me to crush my young men.’ And it is written: ‘And the entire congregation lifted up and gave forth their voice, and the people wept that night.’ Rabbi Yochanan said: that night was the night of the Ninth of Av. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to them: ‘You wept a gratuitous weeping, and I will establish for you weeping for generations.’”

What does the Talmud say here? What the Talmud says here is the ethical-teaching version of the Ninth of Av. The Talmud says, “He called an appointed time against me to crush my young men.” What happened? Essentially, the crying over the spies was supposed to come out on the tenth of Av, and the month was intercalated so that it would come out on the Ninth of Av. Why? Because that is the appointed time that the Holy One, blessed be He, fixed in advance “to crush my young men.” Meaning, it was really supposed to fall on the tenth of Av, and the Holy One, blessed be He, said to make the month full so that it would fall on the Ninth of Av, because that is the appointed time designated for all these disasters. Now that is strange, because we usually understand the opposite. We usually understand—look also at the continuation of the Talmud here: “And regarding the second Temple, from where do we know? As it was taught: merit is rolled to a meritorious day and guilt to a guilty day. They said: when the First Temple was destroyed, that day was the eve of the Ninth of Av, and it was the conclusion of the Sabbath, and it was the conclusion of the Sabbatical year,” etc. In short, merit is rolled to a meritorious day and guilt to a guilty day; the Holy One, blessed be He, rolled the destruction of the Second Temple too onto the Ninth of Av because it is a guilty day. Why is it a guilty day? Simply because of the sin of the spies. The sin of the spies was on the Ninth of Av, right? But in the Talmud in Ta’anit that we saw, something very strange happens. It appears that the Ninth of Av was already a guilty day even before the sin of the spies, because even the sin of the spies itself was rolled onto the Ninth of Av because that is the day prepared in advance, the appointed time that “He called against me to crush my young men.” So why is it a day appointed for calamity? On the contrary—surely the sin of the spies ostensibly made it into a day designated for calamity. In the Talmud in Ta’anit we see otherwise. This day is appointed for calamity from the outset, and even the first calamity that happened on it, the sin of the spies, is itself already included in that category of rolling guilt onto a guilty day, rolling calamity onto a guilty day. This means that the Ninth of Av is the father of all the appointed times. All the other appointed times are the result of some historical event, and we continue it—at least in the ethical-literature sense—we continue it in the years that follow. But on the Ninth of Av the appointed time is built in; it is there from the outset. On the contrary, all the events roll into it in practice, not in ethical literature. Every year we—or not every year, but throughout history many times—we return again and again to that same encounter, usually a grim one, with the Holy One, blessed be He, that was fixed in advance for the Ninth of Av. Therefore the Ninth of Av is what is called, simply, an appointed time. It is called an appointed time because it is the day on which the encounter with the Holy One was scheduled.

[Speaker M] What the Ramchal says—that each day is spiritually suited to what happened then, what the Rabbi is calling “ethical-literature style”—you could also say that about Passover, that the fifteenth of Nisan too was, from the beginning of creation, a day prepared and designated.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] I said that there you can say it in an ethical-literature sense, but here it is written in the Talmud and we see it throughout history.

[Speaker M] But why? Even if we take Rosh Hashanah, the Ran at the beginning of tractate Rosh Hashanah says that it was a day prepared from the beginning of the six days of creation.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Rosh Hashanah isn’t about events—that’s not the point. Rosh Hashanah was established as a day of judgment; never mind. But it’s not a day on which events happened that were prepared in advance.

[Speaker M] So the Ran says that because Adam was acquitted on that day, something really happened there.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Fine, fine, there are all kinds of midrashim one can bring. Here I’m saying that in essence, the day of the Ninth of Av is inherently a day of encounter. Maybe the most essential one. About the others, you can debate, bring midrashim, ethical works, everything is fine. Here these are things that are written.

[Speaker I] According to this thesis, why the spies?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] And the people actually in history. I can’t hear.

[Speaker I] Also actually in history,

[Speaker M] On Passover too, something historical happened, I’m not…

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] But here, the first historical thing was already appointed for this day. I explained. On Passover, simply speaking, if you don’t go into all the other pilpulim with Noah’s matzot and all the other things, then Passover—the day was established because that was when we left Egypt. That’s all.

[Speaker M] Without referring to the fact that the Patriarchs also put… Isaac offered a Passover sacrifice and all kinds of things like that.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] So I said—I say, there are midrashim and such things and others, but here I’m saying the Talmud says explicit things, and we see it throughout history. I know those midrashim; I mentioned them. I’m just saying that this is the clearest place where it happens. But why is it called a mo’ed, an appointed time? Wait—all the festivals are called mo’ed, all the holidays are called mo’ed. Because of these kinds of things. But Tisha B’Av is the father of all mo’adim. Tisha B’Av is what’s called a mo’ed, period. The real mo’ed in its purest form is Tisha B’Av.

[Speaker B] Wait, but is all this from the Torah? Because there really isn’t any Torah-level Jewish law here.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] I said—that’s why the medieval authorities (Rishonim) add all kinds of festival laws even though there’s no source for it in Talmudic law.

[Speaker B] But these aren’t laws in… I mean, all this could have remained completely outside Judaism.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] It could have remained outside, but it didn’t. And once it didn’t—after all, all of Tisha B’Av is rabbinic anyway. So why are you asking me from these laws? All of Tisha B’Av is rabbinic to begin with. But still, I’m saying that on the metaphysical level you can see that in its essence Tisha B’Av is a mo’ed. And that comes out throughout history, and halakhically too, in a very late and very strange way, in a very winding way, but in the end it comes out. Meaning, there’s something hidden somewhere in the folds of Tisha B’Av, but once you uncover it, you see that actually that’s where it appears perhaps in the most essential form.

[Speaker I] But in the midrash it doesn’t sound like that, in the midrash it doesn’t sound like that. First of all, what do they want from the spies? If so, they did something good—I mean, something that was forced on them.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] They didn’t do something good; they did something bad.

[Speaker I] But it was forced on them from the six days of creation.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Let me answer, David. It wasn’t forced on them. The time was forced, not the act.

[Speaker I] The time—well, okay, fine.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Fine, so what? And if it had happened on the tenth of Av, then it would have been okay? The Holy One, blessed be He, arranged for it to happen on the ninth of Av, but the sin is the spies’ sin.

[Speaker I] And it says, it says that because you cried, so there will be crying for generations. So that means they didn’t begin this story, so to speak.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Were you listening to what I answered? No. I answered that. Even if they had cried on the tenth of Av, would they have been okay? No. Did the Holy One, blessed be He, cause that sin?

[Speaker I] No. They wouldn’t have been okay because they started this story. But what difference does it make?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] The timing was set for Tisha B’Av, but what they did was their sin. What difference does the timing make? The Holy One, blessed be He, didn’t force them to sin; rather, once there was a sin here, the Holy One, blessed be He, caused it to unfold on Tisha B’Av.

[Speaker L] The issue of the Holy One, blessed be He—whether in the future as well…

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] On that I have a lot to say, but this is what the Talmud says here. Okay. Fine? So what am I really trying to claim? What I really want to claim is that the concept of encounter, or mo’ed, is not necessarily a festive concept. The concept of mo’ed means a meeting. That’s what mo’ed means. And therefore Tisha B’Av is a mo’ed. Except what? Maybe the… let’s use Meshekh Chokhmah—actually, maybe one second before Meshekh Chokhmah. My claim is that this is an appointed time, prearranged, for an encounter with the Holy One, blessed be He. Now the character of this mo’ed—and this continues the answer to David from before—the character of this encounter depends on us. If we choose for it to have a good character; if we don’t choose, if we choose evil, it will have a bad character—but that’s where we meet the Holy One, blessed be He. That’s why it says that in the future Tisha B’Av will turn into a holiday. Why? Because it will remain an encounter; only its character will change. Meaning, its essence as an encounter was established by the Holy One, blessed be He—that doesn’t depend on our actions. The character of the encounter depends on our actions. That’s the essence of Tisha B’Av as a mo’ed. Now I want to explain, in light of this, everything we’ve seen until now. The claim is that yes, the Messiah was born on Tisha B’Av; there are all kinds of midrashim that speak about this. In any case, the Sefat Emet writes in the portion of Devarim—he says in the portion of Vayelekh, sorry. He says, it is written, “He made us and not we,” and there there’s a textual variant: “not” with an aleph, or “His” with a vav. So he says: if “not we,” then “His we are.” Meaning, in order to meet the Holy One, blessed be He, one has to nullify oneself or suspend oneself. I’m using this as an illustration, of course—Hasidic wordplays aren’t my field—but the claim is that this suspension is required of us on Tisha B’Av, and I will want to claim also on Yom Kippur. It is required of us because it is a condition for encounter with the Holy One, blessed be He. Because this is a mo’ed. And the deeper the encounter, the deeper the suspension required of us. The deeper, more basic the encounter, the broader the suspension required of us. And if Tisha B’Av is an encounter with the Holy One, blessed be He, then complete suspension is required of us. Yom Kippur—we spoke in the previous lecture—this is an encounter with the Holy One, blessed be He; it is entering the innermost sanctum and seeing that outside there is nothing. That when we are, in essence, in an intimate encounter with the Holy One, blessed be He, entering the innermost sanctum and understanding that besides this there is nothing—there is none besides Him. Therefore a complete Sabbath-rest is required of us, complete suspension, because the encounter is a deep encounter. The encounter on the Sabbath is a less fundamental encounter with the Holy One, blessed be He, than on Yom Kippur and on Tisha B’Av, because on the Sabbath the priest does not enter the innermost sanctum. It’s with history—with the Holy One, blessed be He having created the world on the Sabbath and rested from all His work. Wait, wait—but today, from our point of view, this is not an encounter with the Holy One, blessed be He, now; it is an encounter with the Holy One, blessed be He, in light of what happened. But it is still some broad kind of encounter—though less than Yom Kippur and less than Tisha B’Av. So the suspension is a more limited suspension. And on a festival it is altogether the result of historical events; then indeed the suspension is less limited—or the same, depending on Nachmanides and the other medieval authorities (Rishonim) that we mentioned. No, no—I want, one second, just let me finish the picture. What I basically want to say is this: there are different levels of encounter, and from them the level of suspension is dictated. And the ranking is: holiday, Sabbath, Yom Kippur, Tisha B’Av. The deeper the meeting, the deeper the suspension—as they said about Ariel Sharon. Basically, the claim is that the more we meet the Holy One, blessed be He, the more we are required to suspend the world in which we live. When we climb into the spiritual world, we need to suspend the material world in which we live. What does it mean to suspend this world? On a holiday we suspend only work-labor; food preparation is allowed, because that belongs to the material—it is eating. Right, but it’s allowed; it’s the enjoyment of the holiday, everything is fine. On the Sabbath the suspension is broader: even food preparation labor is forbidden, but eating itself is permitted; only food preparation labor was forbidden. On Yom Kippur we are obligated to suspend ourselves even from pleasures. This is an expansion of the concept of suspension; it is not a prohibition of pleasure as in the fasts, in the four fasts. It is an expansion of the concept of suspension. We suspend ourselves not only from doing labor but also from material activities. This is detachment from matter. But all this is required so that the High Priest can enter the innermost sanctum and meet the Holy One, blessed be He. The suspension is the condition that enables the encounter with the Holy One, blessed be He. On Tisha B’Av this is the father of all encounters, and there the suspension is the broadest. Again, not Torah-level, and it developed over the generations, but in the final analysis this is the broadest suspension. On Tisha B’Av even Torah study is forbidden. Nothing. Tisha B’Av is a day on which you can lose your mind. There’s nothing to do there. And you really can’t do anything. You can’t do labor of business activity, you can’t do Sabbath labor—not work-labor and not food preparation labor. You can’t enjoy yourself, eat and drink, you can’t study Torah. You can’t do anything. You’re simply in a kind of state of emptiness.

[Speaker N] Torah study doesn’t belong to our material world; it’s spiritual.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Torah study—I want to claim, in light of this whole approach, that Torah study still belongs to our world. If you take the midrash of Moses and the angels, where the Holy One, blessed be He, brings the Torah down to our world and the angels complain—what does that mean? When you study Torah, you’re really learning how to conduct yourself in this world. But when you detach completely from this world, you want to meet the Holy One, blessed be He, and on one day a year you detach completely, including from Torah. From that aspect of the world too, you detach, and now you are completely suspended, and then you can really be in a mo’ed, in an essential communion with the Holy One, blessed be He. In other words, basically there is here a kind of hierarchy of suspensions derived from a hierarchy of meetings. Now, beyond the nice idea about Tisha B’Av—I think these things are true, by the way; it’s not just a nice idea—but I want to stop at the third level, not the fourth; leave Yom Kippur aside. This sheds different light on what we saw regarding Yom Kippur. Why on Yom Kippur does the concept of suspension get mixed together with the concept of affliction? And together they basically mean suspension from labor and from pleasure. Because the labor from which one suspends oneself there is clear—it isn’t like on Tisha B’Av where you can argue about it; it is the labors of the Sabbath. We are supposed to suspend ourselves from everything we do: eatings, drinkings, labors, everything. To suspend our entire world. Let’s not talk about Torah study right now, but to suspend all our ordinary occupations in the world. And why? Because this is some kind of encounter with the Holy One, blessed be He that requires complete suspension. That’s what’s called a complete Sabbath-rest. Therefore the afflictions there—what are called afflictions—are not afflictions in order to suffer, as in the fasts. They are afflictions in order to detach from matter, in order to suspend. They are part of the concept of suspension. And therefore the prohibition of labor too is called affliction. In Rashi we saw that the prohibition of labor is called affliction, and prohibitions of pleasure are called suspension. Why? Because suspension and affliction are the same thing. The affliction spoken of here is not affliction in order to suffer. It is affliction in order to detach from matter. To detach from matter means suspension. Affliction and suspension are synonymous words if you look at it this way. Not affliction in the sense of tormenting myself so that I’ll suffer—that’s in the regular fasts. On Yom Kippur affliction means to suspend myself, to suspend the material. So therefore it is basically synonymous with suspension; it’s the same thing. And that, I think, is the plain meaning in the Talmud—the plain meaning, it seems to me, is even the plain meaning in the Talmud and in Maimonides, that they really connect the labor prohibitions with the pleasure prohibitions and call both of them affliction and both of them suspension. Again, certain views among the medieval authorities (Rishonim), at least—I’m blending together a few views here—but I’m trying to show this principal direction. Okay, after that, in the next lecture, we’ll go into the foundations of the labor prohibitions and the pleasure prohibitions, meaning the sources from which these are learned, what the significance is of the prohibition versus the positive commandment, what the relationship is between them, and then we’ll really begin dealing with… I finished the introductions, in short. These introductions are the framework within which we basically begin to work. Starting next lecture, we begin learning.

[Speaker I] According to what you’re saying, then how is it that in the Torah, given the depth of separation from physicality, not a single word is mentioned in the Torah about this whole issue?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] I said there are various considerations, which I probably don’t know, for which the Holy One, blessed be He, decided to leave this encounter to us. This encounter emerges on its own; it is not dictated to us from above. That’s why the Talmud interprets “He called an appointed time against me.” Meaning, this mo’ed basically exists—it wasn’t given to us, it exists, fixed as a time for communion, and the Holy One, blessed be He plants it in us through history. And this appears both on the halakhic plane and on the historical plane. On the halakhic plane, all kinds of festival laws suddenly emerge on Tisha B’Av even though there’s no clear halakhic source for them. It wasn’t given to us from above. It is understood from below—when people understand the significance, they bring in this halakhic element. And historically, various encounters with the Holy One, blessed be He are created throughout history, and little by little the potential of this day as a day of mo’ed is somehow revealed. It is usually revealed in a negative way, and toward the future it will apparently become a positive encounter. And this is the way the Holy One, blessed be He chose to conduct this type of encounter. It is not an encounter dictated from above; it is an encounter that gradually emerges from below.

[Speaker B] Wow, according to this idea, on Tisha B’Av when the Temple is rebuilt they would also have to keep fasting, and it doesn’t seem that way. And it doesn’t seem that’s how it is, it seems to me

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] from the words of the Sages.

[Speaker B] It seems to me that when the Temple is rebuilt… what, when the First Temple was built, the Second, did they fast on Tisha B’Av? The opposite—it says it’s a holiday and a day of joy.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] A holiday—so what?

[Speaker M] The Magen Avraham says it’s called a mo’ed, the Magen Avraham says it’s called a mo’ed, and because of that one really ought to eat on it.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] The Magen Avraham also doesn’t follow this whole line you said here. After all, I said I’m connecting different approaches here. The Magen Avraham also doesn’t say that one has to refrain from the labors of the thirty-nine primary categories of labor and their derivatives; he explicitly brings not that way. Right, I’m taking a certain line here that is clearly built on certain views of the medieval authorities (Rishonim), all of which are disputed. But when you look at it from a bird’s-eye view, an overall perspective, you see that there is some such line. In the details, you can argue about many details. You can also argue that maybe an encounter doesn’t require refraining from food. Maybe some of the medieval authorities (Rishonim) assume that; other medieval authorities (Rishonim) maybe don’t argue that it is an encounter—they only claim that an encounter doesn’t require

[Speaker B] refraining from food or refraining from labor or I don’t know exactly what. But that doesn’t mean they disagree with the very characterization of this day as a day of encounter. I’m only bringing, according to the other medieval authorities (Rishonim), that it’s an encounter,

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] and those medieval authorities (Rishonim) who say it’s an encounter

[Speaker B] just won’t say that an encounter requires these things. Where do you really infer from that an encounter requires some kind of suspension? Is that only from the Sefat Emet? Surely not only from the Sefat Emet. The Sefat Emet is an illustration. Yes, exactly—so where do you really get that from? Do you derive it from the Sages?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] I see it from here. I see that this is the interpretation I am offering for the broad concept of suspension, which you definitely see regarding Yom Kippur. Right? The concept of suspension on Yom Kippur is a very broad concept of suspension that includes many things in it: holiday, and Sabbath, and pleasures. I’m asking where that comes from, why it is that way. So if I connect this to the previous lecture, where the previous lecture told me that the High Priest enters to meet the Holy One, blessed be He in the innermost sanctum, then the claim is that apparently the concept of suspension is the condition that enables the encounter.

[Speaker B] But when there was no Temple—so then, when there was no Temple and there was no service, seemingly they shouldn’t have been obligated in all this.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Right, that’s always the question: what remains for us after the Temple? What do we preserve? I think the encounter on Yom Kippur takes place even without the Temple; the fact is that sins are atoned for. And if atonement for sins is a result of the encounter—”Hope of Israel is the Lord”—as Rabbi Soloveitchik shows at the beginning of On Repentance, that the atonement of Yom Kippur is atonement in terms of a mikveh. Meaning, the encounter with the Holy One, blessed be He purifies us. That encounter happens today too; otherwise today too Yom Kippur would not atone. So that means that even when the Temple is destroyed, it happens in some other way. Maybe more partially, maybe not fully, but it still happens. Many things remain after the Temple, even though seemingly after the Temple they no longer belong. I think the idea remains afterward as well.

[Speaker I] It organizes this whole flowchart in a very interesting way, this array of considerations is very interesting. Is this on your website?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] I’ll upload the—

[Speaker E] It’s really in a file with me, remind me about it. Actually, from that perspective it also maybe gives what we mentioned last lecture, that part of the service of the day was really done through suffering. The goat sent to Azazel, which is outside the boundary where he also eats and drinks, or at least has the possibility—because basically the goal is all about drawing close and the encounter. And really in the Jerusalem Talmud too it says—for it says that they would prepare another wife for the High Priest in case his wife died.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] In the Jerusalem Talmud? That’s a Mishnah in tractate Yoma.

[Speaker E] No, but the Talmud asks how he can have two wives—that’s also a problem. So the Talmud has a whole page there about how it could be that he would have a wife. In the Babylonian Talmud, 13. In the Babylonian Talmud, 13. And the Jerusalem Talmud says that if his wife died, he could take her on Yom Kippur itself even though he is violating one of the afflictions.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Betroth a second wife. Okay.

[Speaker E] And on Yom Kippur itself. Meaning, you see from this that the service of

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] the day—the betrothal on Yom Kippur is only a rabbinic prohibition.

[Speaker E] And the betrothal is fine, but the Talmud says that as long as he hasn’t consummated it, she isn’t his household. So the Jerusalem Talmud says that the High Priest has relations on Yom Kippur, and everything is for the sake of enabling the service.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Relations, not the betrothal.

[Speaker E] Yes, and that’s not enough—the Talmud says on 13. Okay. Meaning, you see that the drawing close really—to the extent that it intersects with affliction, it overrides the affliction because it’s really one goal. It doesn’t override it.

[Speaker B] And regarding Tisha B’Av turning into a holiday, that is seemingly learned from the verse, “The fast of the fourth, the fast of the fifth”—so it’s not only Tisha B’Av. And it also says there joy and holiday, and seemingly joy means eating—that’s what it seems to me.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] So I said—it may be that this encounter can take place, at least under certain circumstances, also with eating. Some of the medieval authorities (Rishonim) already say that in our context; you don’t need to get all the way there. The question of what this encounter requires is something one can debate.

[Speaker B] Yes, but regarding the… I understood that the main novelty is that according to the level of the encounter, more suspension is required. The level of suspension.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] The level of suspension—that level of suspension can change. So in the future there will be a different suspension, I don’t know, for other reasons, other considerations.

[Speaker B] But that’s no longer written, you no longer see that in your words.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, no, it’s not written; I’m offering a suggestion that explains. Nothing is written. Anything I would say here wouldn’t be written. But I claim that this organizes enough things for us to treat this route as a reasonable proposal. I said: at every point in this route one can argue. But even if you argue, it’s not clear that you’re arguing about the route itself, or about the question whether the required suspension is this kind of suspension or another kind, or whether the meeting requires suspension. But still, on the basic path, you can continue.

[Speaker B] Yes, but it also comes out

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] of this that… this is my guidance of thoughts; you can argue about anything. There’s no—I can’t bring clear proofs, and even if I brought clear proofs, you could argue with the one who said them. If I brought you a proof from Maimonides, would that be okay? How does Maimonides know? Okay, fine, so now I’ll write it, so it will be in my book. Good, anyone else? Okay, so we’ll see each other on Thursday, God willing.