Yoma, Chapter 8 – Lesson 4

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] I think not, because there it’s in the object itself. The question is whether the object was disqualified. And the object is the same object, but here we’re talking about the person, right? Yes. On the Sabbath, on Yom Kippur, speech isn’t the issue here; it’s not that the Sabbath is set aside with respect to the person, rather the person is set aside from the commandments of the Sabbath. With the myrtle branch, the myrtle itself was not fit to be a myrtle.

[Speaker J] I understand. And could the Rabbi go over once more the distinction between the prohibition and the positive commandment, where you said there isn’t necessarily overlap between them?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] I’m saying that if Maimonides derives the positive commandment from “a Sabbath of complete rest,” that’s how we read it earlier, right? Yes. So that means that fundamentally the positive commandment is an obligation to cease. But in the prohibition, the ban is “you shall do no labor”; it’s a prohibition on performing labor, not an obligation of ceasing. So simply speaking, “you shall do no labor,” as it’s defined everywhere—on the Sabbath it’s obvious that if you did labor once and then did it again, there are explicit Talmudic passages and Mishnahs saying that if you did labor once and then again, you’re liable twice. Again, setting aside for the moment the issue of one lapse of awareness or two—let’s say it was in two separate lapses of awareness, okay? You’re liable twice. Why? If it’s an obligation to cease? Because as far as the prohibition is concerned, the sin-offering and karet are incurred for the prohibition. And from the standpoint of the prohibition, it’s obvious that it’s a prohibition on doing the labor. As for ceasing on the Sabbath, there’s room to discuss whether that fully overlaps with the prohibition, or whether on the Sabbath there really is an obligation to cease. So it could be that from the standpoint of the positive commandment, I won’t violate it if I violate the prohibition twice. I violate only the prohibition, not the positive commandment. Okay? And Maimonides says the same thing. The same thing regarding Yom Kippur. On Yom Kippur too he derives the positive commandment from “a Sabbath of complete rest,” and the prohibition is written in the same language as on the Sabbath: “you shall do no labor.” And then ostensibly, or at least it leaves open the possibility, that there will be a definitional difference between the positive commandment and the prohibition. Okay?

[Speaker D] Wouldn’t Maimonides need to make that distinction explicit and say that there are places where one violates only one of them?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] I don’t know, I don’t know what to tell you. I don’t know of any place where he says it, but I also don’t know of a place where he should have said it and didn’t, so I don’t know how strong an objection that is. I said, in the plain sense and in the anonymous wording of the medieval authorities (Rishonim), it doesn’t seem that way. It looks like there is overlap between the positive commandment and the prohibition, insofar as there is a positive commandment at all. We’ll soon see. Maimonides assumes there is a positive commandment and derives it from “a Sabbath of complete rest,” but that’s a problematic statement. We’ll see this in a moment—actually now. As I said, maybe from the words “a Sabbath of complete rest” Maimonides can derive it, but the Talmud doesn’t sound like it learned it that way. It isn’t clear what the source is for a positive commandment regarding performing labor. The Maggid Mishneh writes at the beginning of chapter 1, on this Maimonides we read, that this is explicit in Scripture and mentioned in the Talmud in several places. I don’t know where he found that; it’s not explicit in Scripture and not mentioned in the Talmud anywhere that I know of, at least. “Explicit in Scripture”—you can say that “a Sabbath of complete rest” is written twice regarding Yom Kippur, but Maimonides already said that, so what does “explicit in Scripture” add here? That’s what Maimonides himself brought.

[Speaker D] I saw in Torat Kohanim—in Torat Kohanim it does indeed derive it from “a Sabbath of complete rest” regarding prohibitions of labor, only it brings it with respect to rabbinic rest restrictions, so it’s not simple that this is from the Torah; maybe it’s only a support text. We’ll soon see.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] In Torat Kohanim such an exposition indeed appears in the Sifra, but he says “mentioned in the Talmud in several places.” I don’t know where it’s mentioned in the Talmud. If you look in Frankel’s sources and notes, he brings three places where it’s mentioned in the Talmud, all of them of course regarding a Jewish holiday. All of them regarding a Jewish holiday, where they say that on a Jewish holiday the word “rest” teaches—“a Sabbath of complete rest” speaks about the positive commandment—but that has nothing to do with Yom Kippur, and especially since with Yom Kippur, in our Talmud, the phrase “a Sabbath of complete rest”—I already mentioned this—includes the other afflictions. Meaning, the simple assumption that emerges from our Talmud is that the “a Sabbath of complete rest” of Yom Kippur speaks altogether about the afflictions, not about labor. And I said that from the fact that “rest” includes the other afflictions, it implies that “Sabbath” refers—sorry—to eating and drinking, not to labor. If “Sabbath” referred to labor, then how does “rest” include the other afflictions? You might tell me maybe it’s an ‘if it is not needed for this matter’ derivation. After all, “a Sabbath of complete rest” is written twice. So either it refers to ceasing and regarding labor we already know it, there’s nothing to derive from “rest,” we derive it from “Sabbath.” And what do we derive from “rest”? So if it is not needed for that, we derive from it the obligation of affliction—sorry, the positive commandment regarding labor.

[Speaker G] If it’s like the Rabbi said, ceasing—where the definition in eating and drinking is also ceasing, like the Rabbi was precise about in two classes—then it’s not such a contradiction to say “a Sabbath of complete rest.”

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Correct, conceptually yes, but the question is where it comes from in the Torah, where did he get it from? The Talmud itself takes “a Sabbath of complete rest” for the matter of affliction. There’s already a baraita—there are several baraitot, there’s a dispute. But there is—

[Speaker D] —those who derive the affliction only from “and you shall afflict yourselves”; they don’t derive it from “rest.” There are various baraitot in the Talmud. There’s one baraita that derives it—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] —only from “and you shall afflict yourselves,”

[Speaker D] and “a Sabbath of complete rest” remains entirely superfluous.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] They derive it from “and you shall afflict yourselves,” but from “rest” they include the other afflictions.

[Speaker D] No, but there is a derivation that it’s only from “and you shall afflict yourselves”; there’s a derivation—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] —one that it’s only—

[Speaker I] —from “and you shall afflict yourselves” in the Talmud, even the other afflictions.

[Speaker D] Yes, because the Talmud wants to derive from that even—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Again, but those who derive the other afflictions from “a Sabbath of complete rest,” they understood “a Sabbath of complete rest” as referring to afflictions. Those who disagree with them don’t write anywhere that labor is derived from “a Sabbath of complete rest.” There is no place in the Talmud that there is a positive commandment regarding labor. I don’t know—so you decided that that’s how it is? Bring a source. But how does the Maggid Mishneh say that it appears in several places in the Talmud? Maimonides writes it as a simple matter. If he has some pilpul where he says, according to the views that disagree with the inclusion of the afflictions, say something, give some sentence. It’s a bit strange, this whole thing.

[Speaker H] Isn’t there an exposition that derives rabbinic rest restrictions from “rest”? Again? Isn’t there an exposition that derives rabbinic rest restrictions from “rest”? As I recall, not on Yom Kippur—on the Sabbath.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] On the Sabbath yes, but not on Yom Kippur. More than that, the rabbinic rest restrictions derived on the Sabbath are not the labor prohibitions. The labor prohibitions of “rest” are “observe” and “remember”; “observe” and “remember” are the positive commandment and the prohibition. “Rest”—rabbinic rest restrictions—that’s what Nachmanides famously says in Parashat Emor: “rest,” rabbinic rest restrictions, is about ceasing not from labor but about ceasing in terms of the character of the day, the well-known position of Nachmanides and Ritva. Okay, so therefore it’s not clear to me where exactly Maimonides gets this as something so simple. About Maimonides maybe you can say from the Sifra, because Maimonides’ way is to take not only from the Talmud but also from halakhic midrashim. But the Maggid Mishneh, who says that it appears several times in the Talmud—that’s really astonishing to me, I don’t know. I’ll tell you more than that: in several places in the Talmud it specifically implies not like that. The Lechem Mishneh at the beginning of the laws of Yom Kippur rest writes that it comes from the second “rest” stated regarding Yom Kippur. One is said about the afflictions, but we saw that “a Sabbath of complete rest” is written twice, so he says the second “rest” is about ceasing from labor. But again, that’s his own novelty; it doesn’t appear in the Talmud. In the Torah itself, by the way, it appears twice and directly modifies the affliction. “A Sabbath of complete rest” modifies the affliction, not the labor—twice.

[Speaker D] Maybe they don’t derive based on what it modifies, or it goes together with the affliction, if it is an explanation of ceasing from labor.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Here, I brought the two places.

[Speaker D] It doesn’t say—it’s not… it says, “It shall be for you a Sabbath of complete rest, and you shall afflict yourselves”; it could be that these are two separate things, one is labor, one is affliction.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Where? Of course it doesn’t say that—where is it?

[Speaker D] No, if the meaning of ceasing, the simple known concept of ceasing, is ceasing from labor, then that’s the familiar ceasing—from labor.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] “And you shall afflict yourselves”—so that adds something regarding affliction. That’s the novelty, right?

[Speaker D] I would have thought that this is—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] —labor; the novelty is about affliction.

[Speaker D] The simple reading, if we didn’t go with the novelty that there is ceasing from afflictions, would be ceasing from labor or from things—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] —similar to labor, or from rabbinic rest restrictions, or from labor. But on Yom Kippur we see that that’s not so. Maimonides, after all, learned ceasing with respect to affliction—that’s clear. The question is whether he learned it also with respect to labor. Here’s the exposition: “It shall be for you a Sabbath of complete rest, and you shall afflict yourselves.” Why? After all it says, “You shall do no labor”—look here for instance: “You shall do no labor,” and then “It shall be for you a Sabbath of complete rest, and you shall afflict yourselves.” So you’re telling me that labor is repeated twice and affliction only once?

[Speaker D] Earlier too they repeated labor, and repeated affliction before the punishments. Everything is said something like three times—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] —throughout all the passages, that’s not a difficulty. Fine, everything’s fine, but I’m saying that here you’re forcing it and turning it into repetition. The verse itself links it to affliction. And therefore Maimonides indeed learned ceasing regarding affliction—that’s clear. The question is whether he learned it also regarding labor; it seems that he did. But I’m asking why. Where does it come from? If he learns ceasing with respect to affliction on Yom Kippur, then who told him that these verses aren’t talking only about affliction? Labor appears separately. You could have said that, but there is no such Talmudic passage. And in the verses themselves there’s no reason to say that—certainly according to your own approach, Maimonides, where you learn ceasing regarding affliction, at least regarding affliction. Where would you get that it applies at all to labor? Now the point is—look here. Maybe one could understand—before that, just one remark about Lechem Mishneh. Again, you could say that it’s a kind of ‘if it is not needed for this matter.’ But that kind of ‘if it is not needed for this matter’—to make such a derivation, which doesn’t appear at all in the Talmud—until the Talmud itself convinces me that there is such a derivation, I’m willing to swallow that frog; it’s a strange derivation of ‘if it is not needed for this matter.’ But without the Talmud saying it at all, you do it on your own? A bit strange. Look at the Talmud on 81a. The Talmud brings here a kal va-chomer from affliction to labor. From affliction to labor. “But we have not learned the warning regarding the affliction of the day itself.” We talked about how the problem is the positive commandment regarding labor and the prohibition regarding affliction. The prohibition regarding affliction—the discussion is here in Yoma 81a. But from this, let’s see what follows regarding labor. It says like this: “But we have not learned the warning regarding the affliction of the day itself. From where? Let the punishment for labor not be stated, and derive it from affliction. Just as affliction, which does not apply on Sabbaths and festivals, is punishable by karet, labor, which does apply on Sabbaths and festivals, all the more so.” So ostensibly… so the punishment for labor is superfluous. Why then is it stated? Still, after all, the verse does state punishment for labor. Why? It is available in order to connect and derive a verbal analogy from it. Punishment is stated regarding affliction and punishment is stated regarding labor. Just as with labor He did not punish unless He first warned, so too regarding affliction He did not punish unless He first warned. Right, so they derive the punishment for labor from affliction via kal va-chomer. Okay, labor from affliction by kal va-chomer. The Talmud says: there is a refutation—what about affliction, which was never permitted in any case; will you say the same about labor, which was permitted in some cases? After all, you can’t derive via kal va-chomer, because affliction, true, doesn’t apply on festivals and Sabbaths but only on Yom Kippur, so in that sense it is lighter. But on the other hand, it was never permitted in any case, meaning it is forbidden to everyone. Labor is permitted to the priests who serve in the Temple, so it was permitted in some cases. It has a leniency. You can’t derive labor from affliction by kal va-chomer. Now I ask: why didn’t they say that labor has no positive commandment? Labor is lighter because it has no positive commandment—that’s a better refutation. It has only a prohibition. Ostensibly from the Talmud here it emerges that there is a positive commandment also regarding labor on Yom Kippur. That’s evidence for what Maimonides writes, right? It also says later: “There is a refutation: what about labor, which applies on Sabbaths and festivals; will you say that about affliction, which does not apply on Sabbaths and festivals?” Meaning labor is more severe than affliction. But on the other hand labor is also lighter because there is no positive commandment. Now here it’s not a proof, because for a refutation it’s enough that there be one side more stringent even if there is another side more lenient; it’s enough that there is one stringent side. But above it is a proof. Because from the fact that they bring the leniency in labor—that it was permitted in some cases—and did not bring the more natural leniency, that there is no positive commandment, you see that apparently with labor there is a positive commandment. This is indirect evidence that with labor there is a positive commandment. It doesn’t say where they derive it from, but it is indirect evidence that with labor there is a positive commandment. Later in the sugya, look, it says like this: Rav Acha bar Yaakov said: he derives “a Sabbath of complete rest” from the weekly Sabbath. Just as there He did not punish unless He first warned, so too here He did not punish unless He first warned. That there is a warning regarding affliction on Yom Kippur from the warning regarding labor on the Sabbath. And again, I would have refuted it: what about the Sabbath, where there is a positive commandment; will you say the same about Yom Kippur, where there is no positive commandment? Now here it’s not so simple, because this derivation is a verbal analogy, not a kal va-chomer. On a verbal analogy there are no refutations. On a verbal analogy there are no refutations. But still, there is room here to hesitate. Because if you derive the “a Sabbath of complete rest” of Yom Kippur concerning affliction from the “a Sabbath of complete rest” of the weekly Sabbath, which concerns labor, that is ostensibly an indication that the “a Sabbath of complete rest” of Yom Kippur really speaks about affliction and not about labor. Because if it spoke about labor, then how can you derive from “a Sabbath of complete rest” of the Sabbath to the affliction of Yom Kippur, or derive it to the labor of Yom Kippur and not to affliction? “A Sabbath of complete rest” speaks about labor, not about affliction. You see in the Talmud the opposite: the Talmud understands that the “a Sabbath of complete rest” written regarding Yom Kippur speaks about the affliction of Yom Kippur, not about labor. And that is contrary evidence. It is evidence, ostensibly, that “a Sabbath of complete rest” really speaks only about affliction and not about labor. More than that, Rav Pappa said: Yom Kippur itself is called “Sabbath,” as it is written, “you shall observe your Sabbath.” Yom Kippur is called Sabbath, as it is written, “you shall observe your Sabbath,” so it is called Sabbath. Fine, so you don’t need the verbal analogy. But what does it mean, “it is called Sabbath”? We are speaking here about affliction. So you see that the ceasing spoken of on Yom Kippur is stated regarding affliction, not regarding labor. And indeed, with regard to labor there is the prohibition of “you shall do no labor”; that has nothing to do with ceasing. From here there is ostensibly evidence for what I said earlier as a possibility: that in truth the “a Sabbath of complete rest” of Yom Kippur is said about affliction and not about labor. Only about affliction—not also about affliction, only about affliction. And labor is a regular labor prohibition: “you shall do no labor”; it is not an obligation of ceasing. And that is a bit the opposite of what I said regarding the Sabbath: on the Sabbath, regarding labor, the positive commandment is about ceasing and the prohibition is about labor. On Yom Kippur, my claim is that there is no positive commandment regarding labor at all; there is only an obligation not to do labor, not an obligation of ceasing—an obligation that no labor be done. The ceasing of Yom Kippur was said only about affliction, and not also about affliction. That’s what the Talmud here seems to indicate. In short, there is a serious question where Maimonides gets the positive commandment regarding labor on Yom Kippur from. There is another source that we’ll see later about carrying on Yom Kippur; maybe from there too one could derive it. The main sugya that is brought in this context is the sugya in Shabbat 114. I referred you to it. It goes like this: Rav Zeira said in the name of Rav Huna, and some say Rav Abba said in the name of Rav Huna: Yom Kippur that falls on the Sabbath—it is forbidden to trim vegetables. Trimming vegetables means preparing vegetables, removing leaves from them, and so on. Rav Mana said—sorry—there is a teaching: from where do we know that Yom Kippur that falls on the Sabbath is forbidden in trimming vegetables? Scripture says: “rest”—rabbinic rest. For what? If you say for labor—do you mean it’s talking about labor? But isn’t it written: “you shall do no labor”? Rather, doesn’t it mean trimming vegetables? Learn from this. What does “if you say for labor” mean here? What labor are we talking about? How did you understand it? The prohibition of labor on Yom Kippur?

[Speaker D] That’s what it sounds like.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] So what does “but isn’t it written ‘you shall do no labor’” in Exodus 20 mean? That was said about the Sabbath. More than that: if there is already a prohibition on labor, does that mean the positive commandment regarding labor is superfluous? Against Maimonides. Since when does the existence of a prohibition make the positive commandment redundant? If you tell me maybe “rest” is for labor, but after all a prohibition is already written, then why should “rest” refer to labor? Meaning “rest” comes to say that also—

[Speaker D] —also on Yom Kippur that falls on the Sabbath, so on Yom Kippur itself it isn’t forbidden, apparently?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Right. Therefore it’s fairly clear that the Talmud here is speaking about the Sabbath, not about Yom Kippur, right? That what it says, “Scripture says”—Exodus 16, right, that citation there—“rest,” rabbinic rest. Exodus 16 is about the Sabbath, not about Yom Kippur. The whole discussion here is about the Sabbath. Therefore the whole discussion here is really only about Yom Kippur that falls on the Sabbath; on an ordinary Yom Kippur this is permitted. On Yom Kippur that falls on the Sabbath it is forbidden because of the Sabbath element in it. The question is what the novelty is at all. After all, fine, let it follow from the Sabbath component in it; obviously it’s forbidden. Why do I care that it’s also Yom Kippur? In the end it’s the Sabbath. And there seems to be some side to permit it because it’s Yom Kippur, even though from the standpoint of the Sabbath it would be forbidden. A little strange, but that’s apparently what emerges from the Talmud. Okay? But beyond that, there’s another question here: why do you say that the positive commandment regarding labor is superfluous if “you shall do no labor” is already written as a prohibition? What does that mean? The fact that there is a prohibition means it makes redundant my bringing a positive commandment as well? What connection is there? A positive commandment and a prohibition each have their own place. Therefore Rashi here indeed explains differently. And Rashi here claims that the question is what kind of trimming vegetables is being discussed: trimming vegetables that is rabbinically forbidden, or trimming vegetables that is forbidden by Torah law. So now I read the Talmud according to Rashi. He says like this: Rav Mana said, there is a teaching: from where do we know that Yom Kippur that falls on the Sabbath is forbidden in trimming vegetables? What does “trimming vegetables” mean? So he says: Scripture says “rest”—rabbinic rest; yes, from “rest” we learn that it is forbidden. The Talmud asks: for what? If you say for labor—what does that mean? If you say for a kind of trimming vegetables that is a Torah prohibition, meaning a labor prohibition, namely the vegetable is still attached to the ground and you pull off the leaves, then you are really violating the Torah prohibition of reaping—“but isn’t it written, ‘you shall do no labor’”? It’s obvious. Why would I need a verse to prohibit a Torah-level prohibition of— not because of a redundant positive commandment, but not that we derive it from the positive commandment; rather, there is also a prohibition. So it’s not the duplication between the prohibition and the positive commandment. Therefore it cannot be speaking about trimming that is Torah-level labor; rather, doesn’t it mean trimming vegetables? What do you mean? Rather, it speaks about trimming detached vegetables, where the prohibition is rabbinic. And about that it was not said, “you shall do no labor.” The rabbinic prohibition we prohibit under “rest”—rabbinic rest. And all of this is about the Sabbath, not about Yom Kippur. Not about Yom Kippur; all of this is about the Sabbath. So then what? On Yom Kippur that falls on the Sabbath it is forbidden to trim vegetables. What about Yom Kippur itself? Yom Kippur that does not fall on the Sabbath—what about it? That is permitted. Why is it permitted? After all there is a regular rabbinic rest restriction here, like on any ordinary Sabbath. Ostensibly from here it emerges that “rest”—rabbinic rest—

[Speaker A] —was not—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] —was not said on Yom Kippur regarding labor. Right? That’s what comes out. Only because this Yom Kippur falls on the Sabbath do we forbid it. There is still room for the question what the novelty is: let it follow from the Sabbath element in it that it will be forbidden. I understand that on an ordinary Yom Kippur it is permitted because on Yom Kippur there are no rabbinic rest restrictions. The “a Sabbath of complete rest” of Yom Kippur does not speak about labor prohibitions, and therefore rabbinic rest restrictions are not derived from it. Right? That’s what it says here. Rabbinic rest restrictions are not derived from it. Fine, but Yom Kippur that falls on the Sabbath—from the Sabbath side of it this should be forbidden. What’s the novelty that it is forbidden? So here the medieval authorities (Rishonim) explain it in two ways. One possibility is to say that there was room to permit it on Yom Kippur because… wait, because on Yom… there was room to permit it on Yom Kippur because on Yom Kippur we suffer greatly from the fast, and they are lenient with us at least to prepare the food for the meal after the fast, so from the afternoon onward they permit us to trim vegetables. Okay? So the question arose: what happens on Yom Kippur that falls on the Sabbath? On Yom Kippur that falls on the Sabbath, do they also permit it? And to that they say no. Why? Because there is a rabbinic rest restriction, so they do not permit it. What about the rabbinic rest restrictions of Yom Kippur? There aren’t any; there are no rabbinic rest restrictions of Yom Kippur. Therefore on an ordinary Yom Kippur they really do permit it. On Yom Kippur that falls on the Sabbath they do not permit it. The novelty is that they do not permit it. There was room to say that we permit it because of the suffering of Yom Kippur; therefore it teaches us that we do not. The suffering of Yom Kippur does not permit prohibitions. What happens according to this on an ordinary Yom Kippur? On an ordinary Yom Kippur it is permitted not because of suffering; you don’t need a special permission—it is completely permitted, because there are no rabbinic prohibitions of rest on an ordinary Yom Kippur, because there are only prohibitions. “Rest,” rabbinic rest, on Yom Kippur does not exist.

[Speaker D] Is it permitted to betroth a woman on Yom Kippur? Is it permitted to ride a horse? Yes? Well, there’s some Talmudic passage—Yom Kippur that falls on the Sabbath—where a certain sage was riding a horse. What did they say? That he was riding a horse.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] As if all the prohibitions whose basis is in rabbinic rest… whether all rabbinic prohibitions on the Sabbath are based in rabbinic rest—that’s a big question; it’s not clear at all. For example, Nachmanides and Ritva, who speak about rabbinic rest in terms of the character of the Sabbath, may have held that rabbinic prohibitions are not necessarily all derived from rabbinic rest, or at least not all of them. For them, rabbinic prohibitions come because of Torah labor prohibitions—they come from the prohibition, not from the positive commandment. They are rabbinic decrees because of the Torah prohibition, and then that is not connected to rabbinic rest. But if you say that it is derived from rabbinic rest, then indeed on Yom Kippur it would not be forbidden. That is what emerges according to this line of thought.

[Speaker D] In any case, in Torat Kohanim they bring that trimming vegetables is permitted, but there is rabbinic rest on Yom Kippur. Both things together.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Torat Kohanim derives rabbinic rest also on the positive commandment regarding labor.

[Speaker D] Yes, but there is still a permission for trimming vegetables in any case. That’s explicit there, so you see that trimming vegetables is not even rabbinic rest—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] —when they learn that on Yom Kippur—

[Speaker D] —there is also.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] So he permits it, right, so what?

[Speaker D] No, so he permits trimming vegetables and he forbids rabbinic rest, so you see that one does not contradict the other. It could be that there is rabbinic rest on a Jewish holiday, and “a Sabbath of complete rest” is about rabbinic rest on Yom Kippur, and on the other hand trimming vegetables is permitted.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] I didn’t understand. Here it says it is forbidden.

[Speaker D] I agree, but here what is said to be forbidden? Trimming vegetables is forbidden. Trimming vegetables on the Sabbath—I don’t know whether that is by virtue of “you shall rest,” because here Torat Kohanim says that on Yom Kippur trimming vegetables is permitted.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Our Talmud is speaking about Yom Kippur that falls on the Sabbath; it says that trimming vegetables is forbidden, and it is forbidden as a matter of rabbinic rest.

[Speaker D] I don’t know what Torat Kohanim would say about that, maybe—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] —there is a different rabbinic rest prohibition on the Sabbath—

[Speaker D] —I don’t know what—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] —Torat Kohanim would say, but the Talmud does say this.

[Speaker D] Yes, but Torat Kohanim could say that what is permitted on Yom Kippur alone is not because it isn’t forbidden as rabbinic rest, because it itself says that it forbids rabbinic rest on Yom Kippur, and yet it still permits trimming vegetables.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Torat Kohanim follows its own approach, and the Babylonian Talmud follows a different approach.

[Speaker D] Where do you see that the Babylonian Talmud disagrees with it?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Because the Babylonian Talmud places the whole thing under the Sabbath, not Yom Kippur. On Yom Kippur there is no rabbinic rest.

[Speaker D] Maybe they are different kinds of rabbinic rest, no?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] What do you mean, different kinds of rabbinic rest? “A Sabbath of complete rest,” the same expression is said about Yom Kippur and about the Sabbath. What difference is there? Everything forbidden on the Sabbath is forbidden on Yom Kippur, and Maimonides writes that too, and the Talmud says so. So what?

[Speaker D] Because according to Torat Kohanim, on the Sabbath too trimming vegetables would be permitted according to Torat Kohanim? I didn’t understand. According to Torat Kohanim, on the Sabbath too trimming vegetables would be permitted.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yom Kippur that falls on the Sabbath.

[Speaker D] Also on the Sabbath alone?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, on the Sabbath alone it’s a rabbinic rest restriction. And because of Yom Kippur they permitted it.

[Speaker D] But according to Torat Kohanim—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] —it also has rabbinic rest, so what? Then on Yom Kippur too they would forbid it? Or permit it?

[Speaker D] But Torat Kohanim permits it, both on Yom Kippur and on Yom Kippur that falls on the Sabbath—it permits it even though it is a rabbinic rest restriction. But in the Babylonian Talmud they don’t permit it where there is rabbinic rest.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] It permits it even though it’s a rabbinic rest restriction—why should it permit it even though it’s a rabbinic rest restriction? Why not? Because of the suffering of Yom Kippur they permitted the rabbinic rest restriction. The medieval authorities (Rishonim) say that also in the Babylonian Talmud.

[Speaker D] I’ll tell the Rabbi the language. It says: “And you shall do no labor”—one might think he may not trim vegetables, or make the beds, or wash the cups. It brings three things that are not even rabbinic rest; it doesn’t bring that they are rabbinic rest at all. I didn’t understand—it brings three—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] —things; why do you need the permission? Why do you need the permission?

[Speaker D] No, it’s as if he says: what, maybe that too is included? So he said no, it’s like the labor of the Tabernacle, and therefore this would be permitted. And therefore what? No, so you see that trimming vegetables is nothing according to Torat Kohanim; it isn’t even rabbinic rest, at the very least not.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Then why, again, this mixing of the Sifra and the Babylonian Talmud? What’s the connection?

[Speaker D] So it could be that on the Sabbath there is some added stringency over Yom Kippur regarding rabbinic rest restrictions, so trimming vegetables is forbidden on the Sabbath.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Where does that come from? No—where does that come from? Either there is “rest”—rabbinic rest—or there isn’t. If there is “rest”—rabbinic rest—then it exists on Yom Kippur and on the Sabbath. What’s the difference?

[Speaker D] Why am I saying this? Then it would be permitted on the Sabbath.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] What? Yes, if there is no rabbinic rest, then it would be permitted on the Sabbath. If there is rabbinic rest, then it would be forbidden on the Sabbath and permitted both on Yom Kippur and on Yom Kippur that falls on the Sabbath. But that is all Sifra; it has nothing to do with the Babylonian Talmud. Look here, there is a second view: Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: Yom Kippur that falls on the Sabbath is permitted in trimming vegetables. He disagrees; he says it is permitted in trimming vegetables. Fine, but note: Yom Kippur that falls on the Sabbath—apparently not on the Sabbath itself. And then it says: an objection was raised—From where do we know that Yom Kippur that falls on the Sabbath is forbidden in trimming vegetables? Scripture says: “rest”—rabbinic rest. Rabbinic rest for what? What, for labor? But isn’t it written: “you shall do no labor”? Rather, doesn’t it mean trimming vegetables? Yes, so the baraita brought above says: no, actually it is for labor, and it is speaking about trimming vegetables that is Torah-level, and to violate it through both a positive commandment and a prohibition. And in order to violate it, it is talking about trimming vegetables that is Torah-level, and “rest” comes to teach you that it is both a positive commandment and a prohibition, and then trimming vegetables that is Torah-level is forbidden, but rabbinic trimming vegetables is permitted. Fine, that is his claim, okay. Good, the continuation is less important for our purposes. Maimonides also brings this as practical Jewish law and says: it is permitted to trim vegetables on Yom Kippur from the afternoon onward. And what is trimming? That he removes the spoiled leaves—here certainly we are talking about something detached, not attached, okay?

[Speaker H] So what does the Rabbi want to show from here? I didn’t understand—what is this sugya? What does the Rabbi want to show?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Wait, one second. So Maimonides writes: on Yom Kippur, from the afternoon onward, it is permitted to trim vegetables, and on Yom Kippur that falls on the Sabbath—note this—it is forbidden to trim vegetables. So what does that mean? Either there is no prohibition at all from Yom Kippur regarding rabbinic rest, only on the Sabbath, but within Maimonides himself that does not seem reasonable. For Maimonides learns that Sabbath and Yom Kippur are exactly the same, also regarding the positive commandment and the rabbinic rest restrictions. So it turns out indeed that there is a permission on Yom Kippur and a prohibition on Yom Kippur that falls on the Sabbath.

[Speaker D] Does Maimonides say that there is a law of rabbinic rest restrictions on Yom Kippur?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes. If he says “a Sabbath of complete rest” is a positive commandment of Yom Kippur, then why wouldn’t he say that? He already says that there is no difference between Yom Kippur and the Sabbath except for trimming vegetables.

[Speaker D] He says there is no difference between Yom Kippur and the Sabbath in these matters except that intentional labor… he sounds like he’s talking about Torah-level law.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, no, look—“and they permitted trimming vegetables,” you see? Come on.

[Speaker D] Yes, it is permitted to trim vegetables, fine, but what is that?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Only that! Everything else is forbidden. The rabbinic rest restrictions are the same on Yom Kippur and on the Sabbath. This is a special permission for trimming vegetables. A special permission for trimming vegetables because they apparently wanted to make the fast easier for you. But according to Rashi in the Talmud here it’s not like that. According to Rashi, what they permitted regarding trimming vegetables—and again, this connects to what you said earlier about why—what they permitted regarding trimming vegetables according to Rashi is that they permitted it in order to afflict oneself. Because engaging in trimming vegetables constitutes affliction. The opposite! It is an active obligation to cause myself affliction. Therefore they permitted trimming vegetables according to Rashi. And then Rashi indeed says: all this is on Yom Kippur. Because on Yom Kippur the point of the day is that I should afflict myself. But if Yom Kippur falls on the Sabbath, then from the Sabbath side of it I do not have permission to violate the rabbinic rest restriction of the Sabbath in order to afflict myself on Yom Kippur. The rabbinic rest restriction of Yom Kippur they permitted; the rabbinic rest restriction of the Sabbath they did not permit. That is how Rashi explains it.

[Speaker D] According to Rashi too there is rabbinic rest, so according to everyone there is rabbinic rest on a Jewish holiday; so according to everyone it comes out that according to everyone there would be a law of rabbinic rest on a Jewish holiday, both according to Maimonides and according to Rashi.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Not on a Jewish holiday—on Yom—

[Speaker D] —Kippur, sorry.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Right. Now look—do you understand what I’m saying? According to Rashi it comes out that there is rabbinic rest on Yom Kippur. Right? Now look at the Avnei Nezer. I referred you to the Avnei Nezer in the previous class. I’m skipping here because I need to finish the class and I don’t want to linger on it too much; look at it afterward in the summary. “And parenthetically I will write to you what troubles me regarding Maimonides and the other enumerators of the commandments, who counted a positive commandment to cease from labor on Yom Kippur. For at the end of chapter 5 of tractate Shabbat, ‘These are the knots,’ it is explicit that there is no positive commandment regarding labor on Yom Kippur unless it falls on the Sabbath, for the Gemara answers that Yom Kippur that falls on the Sabbath is forbidden in trimming vegetables, and from ‘rest’—rabbinic rest—one violates a positive commandment and a prohibition. And from the fact that it says ‘that falls on the Sabbath,’ it implies that on Yom Kippur alone there is no positive commandment. And as Rashi explained in the view of the questioner, that trimming vegetables is not labor but rabbinic rest, and on Yom Kippur it is not by Torah law, because ‘rest’ does not refer to labor but to affliction.” I asked you on the sheet after the previous class whether you agree with what he says—think about whether you agree with what he says. And whether the Talmud here really proves that there is no positive commandment regarding labor on Yom Kippur.

[Speaker D] It proves there is no rabbinic rest, but it could be that there is a positive commandment.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] I claim more than that. According to Rashi it proves that there is also rabbinic rest. How do I know that? Because Rashi says that the only reason they permitted trimming vegetables is because trimming vegetables constitutes self-affliction. Which implies that otherwise it would be forbidden. But we are talking about rabbinic trimming. On what basis is it forbidden? Not because of “you shall do no labor.” On the basis of rabbinic rest. So you see that there is rabbinic rest regarding labor on Yom Kippur. Exactly the opposite of what the Avnei Nezer says. He is mistaken. On the contrary, from Rashi himself there is proof against him. And maybe Maimonides understood it that way too. Although in Maimonides the wording is “they permitted trimming vegetables.” That is interesting: “they permitted trimming vegetables” on Yom Kippur—that’s not “they permitted,” ostensibly, maybe they even require trimming vegetables. So here one can say that in Rashi too that is difficult. One can say they permitted you to trim vegetables if you want, even though it is rabbinic rest, because in the end you pay for it in that you afflict yourself, but still it’s not that there is an obligation on everyone to trim vegetables. If I don’t want to eat vegetables after the Sabbath, after Yom Kippur, am I still obligated to trim vegetables in order to afflict myself? That is not plausible even according to Rashi. In any case, in Rashi it is clear that there is rabbinic rest on Yom Kippur. Clearly there is. The Talmud here does not prove that there isn’t; on the contrary, they permitted it because the act itself constitutes affliction. That is probably also how Maimonides understands it.

[Speaker G] Maybe only rabbinic rest at the rabbinic level? Rabbinic rest at the rabbinic level.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes, but where does that come from?

[Speaker G] The Avnei Nezer says—he agrees there is rabbinic rest, but he says: what is the source? That’s his question.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, he is not asking what the source is. He says the Talmud here proves that there is no rabbinic rest.

[Speaker G] He asks what the source is. They said by Torah law. He says explicitly that there is no positive commandment.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Let me read it to you, I’ll emphasize it. “It is explicit that there is no positive commandment regarding labor on Yom Kippur unless it falls on the Sabbath.” So that’s Torah law. He says explicitly there is no positive commandment. What does “there is no positive commandment” mean? Of course there is a positive commandment. Avnei Nezer. There is a positive commandment of rabbinic rest, from which the rabbinic laws are derived, for that is “rest.” And that is an extension.

[Speaker D] But doesn’t the Avnei Nezer go with the answer later in the Talmud, that it is to violate both a positive commandment and a prohibition?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, that’s Rabbi Yochanan. It doesn’t matter.

[Speaker D] He brings it here, doesn’t he?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] He brings all of them. Likewise according to the answerer, where it refers to labor according to both of them. That’s the last line I read. Fine, but there is another point here. Two more points I just want to get through. Two more points. One point is that in this Rashi, and in the medieval authorities (Rishonim) who follow him—by the way, Rashba and Ritva disagree with him, but that’s what Rashi implies—in Rashi it implies that this is a special permission because trimming is affliction. In Rashba and Ritva it says that this is not a permission because it is affliction. It is a permission because they permitted rabbinic rest because you suffer if they don’t permit it to you on Yom Kippur. Fine? But either way it doesn’t matter. So they permitted it to you even on an ordinary Yom Kippur because you are suffering. Why was a permission needed? Because without that there would be a rabbinic rest prohibition. That’s one point. A second point—wait. Yes, a second point—no, sorry, so in Rashi, I haven’t finished the first point yet. The first point basically says that according to Rashi it comes out that there is an active obligation to afflict oneself. To sit in the sun—what was that Talmudic passage you mentioned earlier. In Rashi here it seems that there is apparently an active obligation to afflict oneself. You need to trim vegetables because that causes me affliction.

[Speaker D] The Talmud doesn’t say there is an obligation. They permitted this rabbinic-rest act because people who want to prepare will prepare and will also suffer. So they permitted such a rabbinic-rest act, one that will cause suffering.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Exactly. And that is what I noted earlier, if you remember. What I said was: it doesn’t sound as though one is obligated to trim vegetables. They permitted trimming vegetables. Rashi too will have to explain that wording. Rashi will explain: they permitted this rabbinic-rest act if a person wants to engage in it. Why did they permit the rabbinic-rest act? Not because of the suffering, but the opposite—because he pays for it with added affliction, and that is the reason to permit the rabbinic-rest act. But it’s not that one really has an obligation to afflict oneself actively. “Could one sit in the sun?” remains, in the conclusion, that one need not. There is no obligation to afflict oneself. But still, note that this is qualified. There is some kind of balancing here which says that where you cause yourself additional affliction, there is some value in that. Maybe it’s not obligatory, but there is some value in it. So if you do something that involves rabbinic rest, if it causes you additional affliction, that is a reason to permit it for you. And that is a novelty. Again, I say, only according to Rashi. Rashba and Ritva do not speak that way.

[Speaker D] It could also be that here the affliction is that it intensifies the suffering of hunger.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] That too could be—

[Speaker D] —the suffering of hunger, it intensifies the suffering of hunger. So it could be that he is doing an active act, but really it intensifies the suffering of passive abstention.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] But there is no value in intensifying the state of hunger. On the contrary.

[Speaker D] No, no, not at all. But it’s not really against—it’s not exactly like sitting in the sun.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] He says there is some value in doing something active as long as the type of affliction is from the five afflictions under discussion, and not adding other afflictions. According to that, there would have been value in not eating on the ninth so as to be even hungrier on the tenth. By the way, that comes up.

[Speaker D] Yes, some say that in fact the extra eating on the ninth day is because when you eat a lot, afterward you suffer more from the fast.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes, but the simple intuition is the opposite. You eat there so that it will make things easier for you. We’ll still talk about this when we discuss the fast on the ninth. One last note—I just want to add one more thing: how the Avnei Nezer understood it. It could be that what the Avnei Nezer understood is that the expression “Shabbaton, shevut” is not talking about the positive commandment regarding labor. It’s talking about the positive commandment of cessation in the sense of Nachmanides and the Ritva, about the character of the day. And then the Avnei Nezer is basically saying: it doesn’t say here in the Talmud that there is a positive commandment regarding labor on Yom Kippur. What it says is that there is a positive commandment of cessation on Yom Kippur; that is not a positive commandment about labor. It’s a positive commandment about opening stores, about the Sabbath-like character of the day, about other things—not about actually performing labor. For actually performing labor there is only a prohibition. And therefore he challenges Maimonides; that’s why he challenges Maimonides—where does Maimonides derive labor from? Of course, as a challenge to Maimonides, it’s not really a challenge, because Maimonides can say that it’s referring to the positive commandment about labor—not only can he say it, he actually does say it. After all, Maimonides says: where do we learn the positive commandment regarding labor from? From “Remember” and “Observe,” from “Shabbaton, shevut,” right? “A Sabbath of complete rest.” Meaning, Maimonides understands the words “a Sabbath of complete rest” as a prohibition on labor on Yom Kippur, not as a shevut-type prohibition of Yom Kippur. Maybe also shevut—“Sabbath” refers to labor, and “a Sabbath of complete rest” comes to include shevut. Everything we say about the Sabbath itself also applies to Yom Kippur. So Maimonides certainly learned it that way. The Avnei Nezer, who challenges him, apparently understood that what is written here, “Shabbaton, shevut,” means the prohibitions connected to the character of the day. And that perhaps does exist on Yom Kippur, but not the prohibitions of labor. But I wouldn’t raise a challenge on that basis. Okay, I’ll stop here. If you want a few more pilpul-style analyses to look at in this Talmudic passage, I’ll send them in the summary and you can see them there. But we’ll stop here, unless someone wants to comment or ask something.

[Speaker L] Where can we see the summary, Rabbi? Can’t hear? Where can we see the summary?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] It’s on the institute’s website, it’s on the institute’s website. Under the schedule tables at the bottom, there are folders for the lecturers. Go into my folder—my classes are there, I upload them. Happy New Year. Yes.

[Speaker A] Okay

[Speaker D] Thank you very much.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Thank you, goodbye.