Tisha B’Av and Yom Kippur, 5774

Table of Contents

• Yom Kippur as a complete Sabbath and a broader form of cessation
• Nachmanides and the definition of Yom Tov labor as opposed to Sabbath
• The Talmud in Yoma: the five afflictions are derived from “shabbaton”
• Maimonides: the laws of resting on the tenth, and affliction as a commandment of cessation
• The portion of Acharei Mot: the Yom Kippur service as a procedure for entering the holy
• The reason for cessation: suspending worldly life in preparation for an encounter
• Comparing Tisha B’Av to Yom Kippur and the apparent gap between them
• The Talmud in Pesachim: the only difference between Tisha B’Av and Yom Kippur is uncertainty
• Tosafot in Ta’anit: the difficulty about labor and the tension between the definitions
• The tradition of the medieval Ashkenazic authorities: Tisha B’Av in terms of the thirty-nine primary categories of labor and their derivatives
• The Talmud in Ta’anit: the sin of the spies and the setting of Tisha B’Av
• “He proclaimed against me an appointed time”: Tisha B’Av as an appointed day and a day of encounter
• Tisha B’Av as an even more extreme cessation: a Torah prohibition and silence

Summary

General Overview

The Sages and the Talmud compare Tisha B’Av to Yom Kippur, and the claim here is that the similarity is not just incidental because of the five afflictions, but may be an essential similarity: on Yom Kippur, the affliction itself is part of the commandment of cessation and flows from the essence of the day as a “Sabbath of complete rest,” and that framework can also help us understand Tisha B’Av as a fixed day of encounter with the Holy One, blessed be He, one that can take on the character of joy or sorrow depending on the deeds of Israel. On that basis, it becomes clear why there are traditions among the medieval Ashkenazic authorities to view Tisha B’Av as involving a prohibition of labor in the sense of the thirty-nine categories of labor, and why the intensity of cessation on Tisha B’Av extends even to the prohibition of Torah study, as a form of silence and stripping away worldly life in preparation for a fundamental encounter.

Yom Kippur as a complete Sabbath and a broader form of cessation

The verses in the portions of Emor and Pinchas place “a Sabbath of complete rest” right next to the command “and you shall afflict yourselves,” and they seem to indicate that the cessation of Yom Kippur is expressed through self-affliction and not only through the prohibition of labor. Rashbam and other commentators explain that on Yom Kippur all labor is forbidden as on the Sabbath because it is a day of affliction, and therefore there is no point in permitting labor for food preparation, but the suggestion here is that this is not merely a technical consequence but an expression of an essential similarity to the Sabbath, in which cessation itself expands beyond labor alone.

Nachmanides and the definition of Yom Tov labor as opposed to Sabbath

Nachmanides defines the difference between the Sabbath and Yom Tov this way: on the Sabbath all forms of labor are forbidden, whereas on Yom Tov “laborious work” is forbidden, and food-preparation labor was never prohibited in the first place; it is not a secondary-level dispensation. On that basis it is emphasized that Yom Kippur is called “a Sabbath of complete rest,” and on it labor for food preparation was not permitted, just as on the Sabbath. The combination of “a Sabbath of complete rest” with affliction may teach that the cessation includes the affliction as part of the commandment of cessation.

The Talmud in Yoma: the five afflictions are derived from “shabbaton”

The Talmud in Yoma 74 derives the prohibitions of washing, anointing, wearing shoes, and marital relations from the verse “shabbaton shevut,” and from this it follows that the expansion of affliction beyond fasting is a law that stems from the very concept of cessation. What emerges is that on Yom Kippur there are not two separate axes as on the other festivals, but one single axis of broad cessation that includes both the prohibition of labor and affliction.

Maimonides: the laws of resting on the tenth, and affliction as a commandment of cessation

Maimonides calls the laws of Yom Kippur “The Laws of Resting on the Tenth,” and he formulates one positive commandment “to cease from labor” on the tenth day of the seventh month, and another positive commandment “to cease on it from eating and drinking,” presenting cessation and affliction as a single unit of the day’s rest. Maimonides writes that it is a commandment to cease also from washing, anointing, wearing shoes, and marital relations, and he defines it in his own words: “It is a commandment to cease from all of these just as one ceases from eating and drinking, as it is said: ‘a Sabbath of complete rest.’ ‘Sabbath’ with regard to eating, and ‘complete rest’ with regard to these.” He adds: “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.” From the structure of Maimonides’ laws, the argument is that on Yom Kippur the prohibition of labor and the affliction of the soul belong to one single essence of cessation, similar to the Sabbath but in a much broader form.

The portion of Acharei Mot: the Yom Kippur service as a procedure for entering the holy

The portion of Acharei Mot is framed by the words “after the death of Aaron’s two sons, when they drew near before the Lord and died,” and Aaron is instructed, “he shall not come at all times into the holy place,” but rather, “with this shall Aaron come into the holy place,” by means of a detailed procedure involving linen garments, washing, offerings, and the two goats. The claim is that the portion presents the Yom Kippur service as the proper way to enter the holy and encounter the Holy One, blessed be He, and atonement appears as the result of drawing near and entering: “for on this day He shall atone for you, to purify you.” At the end of the portion the date is fixed as “on the tenth day of the month,” together with the obligation “you shall afflict yourselves, and you shall do no labor… it is a Sabbath of complete rest for you,” and the suggestion is that the affliction itself is part of the preparation for that encounter, with the people supporting the service through affliction and cessation.

The reason for cessation: suspending worldly life in preparation for an encounter

The explanation offered is that when one encounters the Holy One, blessed be He, a suspension of ordinary life is required. That is why on Yom Kippur the cessation is broader than on the Sabbath: not only cessation from labor, but also cessation from pleasures. The claim is that on ordinary festivals there is cessation from laborious work alongside the special content of the day, whereas on Yom Kippur “the cessation and the content of the day are the same thing,” because its content is the encounter itself, and cessation is the proper mode of standing before it.

Comparing Tisha B’Av to Yom Kippur and the apparent gap between them

On Tisha B’Av there is fasting and affliction as part of mourning for the Temple, and on the face of it that seems far removed from the nature of Yom Kippur, so the comparison may appear accidental. The Sefer HaChinukh, in commandment 313, adds at the end of his discussion that Tisha B’Av is another day on which these afflictions are practiced, and the lecture describes an effort to show that there are approaches in which the resemblance between the two days is essential and not merely external.

The Talmud in Pesachim: the only difference between Tisha B’Av and Yom Kippur is uncertainty

The Talmud in Pesachim 54 says, “The only difference between Tisha B’Av and Yom Kippur is that in the case of this one uncertainty is forbidden, and in the case of that one uncertainty is permitted,” and it explains that the practical difference concerns “the fixing of the month,” when there is uncertainty about the date. The Ran on Megillah is cited to explain that we do not apply the rule of rabbinic-level doubt leniently in a way that cancels the law altogether, and therefore one observes one day rather than permitting both possibilities.

Tosafot in Ta’anit: the difficulty about labor and the tension between the definitions

Tosafot in Ta’anit 30 ask why another difference between the two days was not counted with respect to labor, since the Mishnah says, “In a place where the custom is to do labor on Tisha B’Av, one may do labor.” The usual understanding among the halakhic decisors is presented: the labor of Tisha B’Av is “labor that causes delay,” meaning labor that distracts from mourning, and not the prohibitions of the thirty-nine categories of labor. Based on the Talmudic wording, “Whoever does labor on Tisha B’Av will never see a sign of blessing from it,” it is explained that this refers to ordinary everyday work and not Sabbath-type categories of labor. The Shulchan Arukh and the Rema are cited to emphasize the criterion of distraction, and the Rema writes: “The custom of prohibiting labor was practiced only until midday… but something that does not involve delay, such as lighting candles or tying and the like, is permitted.”

The tradition of the medieval Ashkenazic authorities: Tisha B’Av in terms of the thirty-nine primary categories of labor and their derivatives

The claim is that Tosafot and other sources among Ashkenazic sages raise the possibility that in places where the custom was not to do labor on Tisha B’Av, the meaning was cessation from the kinds of labor forbidden on the Sabbath and Yom Tov. Terumat HaDeshen discusses the question of milking animals on Tisha B’Av and proposes an a fortiori argument from Chol HaMoed, which makes sense only if we are speaking in the language of prohibitions of labor as forms of cessation, and not merely in terms of being distracted from grief. He then cites, in the name of Mordechai and Raavyah, a formulation of the custom: “they practiced not doing labor… like Rabbi Akiva… as if one were doing it on Yom Kippur.” Terumat HaDeshen hesitates between the rationale of affliction and distraction on the one hand, and an ancient custom that sees this as a labor prohibition on the other, and concludes that it is good to be stringent, if possible through a non-Jew, and the Rema brings this as a matter of extra piety.

The Talmud in Ta’anit: the sin of the spies and the setting of Tisha B’Av

The Talmud in Ta’anit 29 calculates the timeline from the erection of the Tabernacle, Israel’s journeying, the craving of the complainers, Miriam’s quarantine, and the sending of the spies, and concludes that their return should have come out on the tenth of Av. Abaye says that “the Tammuz of that year was made full,” and cites the verse, “He proclaimed against me an appointed time to break my young men,” and Rabbah in the name of Rabbi Yochanan states that “that night was the night of Tisha B’Av,” and the Holy One, blessed be He, says, “You cried a baseless cry, and I will establish for you a cry for generations.” From this the argument is made that Tisha B’Av is understood as a day with a fixed quality, toward which events are steered from Heaven, and not merely a date that became bitter because of things that happened to occur on it.

“He proclaimed against me an appointed time”: Tisha B’Av as an appointed day and a day of encounter

The verse “He proclaimed against me an appointed time to break my young men” is understood in its plain sense as referring to Tisha B’Av, and it is noted that customs entered the Shulchan Arukh that treat Tisha B’Av as an “appointed day,” such as not reciting “Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness” and not reciting supplications on the eve of Tisha B’Av. The explanation is that an appointed day does not necessarily mean joy, but rather a fixed occasion of gathering and encounter. On that basis, the lecture suggests a conception of Tisha B’Av as a day of encounter with the Holy One, blessed be He, whose character depends on Israel: because of sins, the encounter is experienced as calamity and mourning, but in the future “these days are destined to become days of joy,” because the encounter itself remains fixed and only its tone changes.

Tisha B’Av as an even more extreme cessation: a Torah prohibition and silence

From the conception of Tisha B’Av as a day of encounter, it becomes understandable why there is room to see it as a cessation modeled on Yom Kippur and even beyond it, to the point of a prohibition on Torah study. A picture is described in which on Tisha B’Av “you are simply there” — without labor, without eating and drinking, without pleasures, and without Torah study. This cessation is understood as stripping away all the “noise” of life in order to allow for a “still, small voice,” and the image of sounding the shofar on Rosh Hashanah is brought as an illustration of reducing complexity until only a simple sound remains. The conclusion is that the resemblance between Tisha B’Av and Yom Kippur is an essential resemblance: a day of encounter that requires broad cessation, and therefore the comparison made by the Sages is not merely an incidental result of similar afflictions.

Today we’ll talk a bit about Tisha B’Av. The Talmud in a number of places—and the Sages generally, but also the Talmud in a number of places—draw a comparison between Tisha B’Av and Yom Kippur. “There is no difference between Tisha B’Av and Yom Kippur except…” we’ll see that in a moment. But at first glance it seems that this comparison is accidental. Meaning, here too you have to observe the five afflictions, and here too you have to observe the five afflictions, but the reasons are completely different. The prohibition of labor is not exactly the same thing, so it’s not really the same idea, and if there is any similarity at all, on the face of it it looks like a coincidental similarity. What I want to show today is that at least according to certain approaches—and this is not the common approach—at least according to certain approaches one can see an essential similarity as well, and I’ll also try to explain the matter a little. To see this, maybe we should start with Yom Kippur. So the Torah in Parashat Emor writes as follows: “And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: But on the tenth day of this seventh month it is the Day of Atonement; it shall be a holy convocation for you, and you shall afflict your souls, and you shall offer a fire-offering to the Lord.” Meaning, it is forbidden to do labor, and the reason is that this is a day that comes to atone for our souls. “For any soul that is not afflicted on this very day shall be cut off from its people.” So beyond the prohibition of labor, now there is also the affliction. “And any soul that does any labor on this very day, I will destroy that soul from among its people. You shall do no manner of labor; it is an everlasting statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings. It shall be a Sabbath of solemn rest for you, and you shall afflict your souls; on the ninth of the month in the evening, from evening to evening you shall rest your Sabbath.” So there is this juxtaposition here of “a Sabbath of solemn rest.” First of all, regarding the Sabbath itself too it says once, “a Sabbath of solemn rest.” Yom Kippur too is called “a Sabbath of solemn rest,” unlike the other festivals. And in addition, the verse ties the matter of “a Sabbath of solemn rest” to the command “you shall afflict your souls.” Usually cessation, rest, is associated for us with the prohibition of labor. But the verse says: “It shall be a Sabbath of solemn rest for you, and you shall afflict your souls.” Meaning, the rest here is expressed in the affliction of the soul and not in labor—at least that’s how it appears from the verse. The same thing in Parashat Pinchas: “On the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a holy convocation for you, and you shall afflict your souls; you shall do no labor.” Meaning, afterward there is labor too, but “you shall afflict your souls”—that is the holy convocation. And Nachmanides says: “Behold, it says, ‘These are the appointed times of the Lord which you shall proclaim as holy convocations; these are My appointed times’ with regard to occupational labor. But the Sabbath you shall keep, to make it a Sabbath of solemn rest from all labor in the world, for He warned concerning the Sabbath many times. And He further hints here that even when one of the festivals arrives, the prohibition is not pushed aside in order to prepare food.” This Nachmanides is famous. He explains here the difference between Sabbath and a Jewish holiday. Sabbath is a prohibition of labor, and on a Jewish holiday it is “occupational labor,” as distinct from labor for food preparation, which is permitted. Usually the accepted view is that the permission on a Jewish holiday is some sort of second-level dispensation. Meaning, first of all it should be like Sabbath: all thirty-nine categories of labor are prohibited. On a second level, since we eat, there is a dispensation for labor involved in food preparation. Nachmanides’ position is not like that. Nachmanides’ position is that from the outset, food-preparation labor was never prohibited on a Jewish holiday at all; it’s not that there is a dispensation. A practical difference follows regarding the principle of “since,” right? Do I need a special dispensation of “since” for this, or was it never prohibited in the first place, in which case there is nothing to discuss regarding “since”? So Nachmanides is really saying that it was never prohibited at all. What was prohibited on a Jewish holiday is “occupational labor.” Occupational labor is not labor for food preparation, so it is something else entirely. In that context, if we return to Yom Kippur: Yom Kippur is called “a Sabbath of solemn rest.” In that sense it resembles Sabbath, and on Sabbath—on Yom Kippur too—labor for food preparation was not permitted. In that sense it resembles Sabbath, only on Yom Kippur labor for food preparation was not permitted, again, accidentally. Fine, because the obligation is to fast. It’s not because of the rest-character of the day, its festival-character, but because the very essence of the day is fasting, so why permit labor for food preparation? But conceptually it ought to be part of the festivals, not part of Sabbath. It only technically resembles Sabbath, but seemingly that is accidental. The expression in the Torah, “a Sabbath of solemn rest,” already suggests that perhaps there is something here beyond accident. Yes, among the medieval commentators on the Torah, Rashbam for example writes: “On the other festivals, labor for food preparation was permitted and occupational labor was prohibited. But on Yom Kippur, which is a day of affliction, all labor is prohibited as on Sabbath.” What does that mean? Since it is a day on which one fasts, does not eat, there is no point in permitting labor for food preparation, therefore it is prohibited like Sabbath. Again, this looks accidental. But this sentence itself can also be explained differently—we’ll see that later. The Hizkuni says this, and other commentators say similar things, and that is indeed how it appears. But really, as I read earlier in the verse, there is room to understand differently. There is room to understand that Yom Kippur is called “a Sabbath of solemn rest” because it has some essential similarity to Sabbath. It doesn’t just happen to resemble Sabbath by chance. And that is what I read in the verse at the beginning: “a Sabbath of solemn rest… and you shall afflict your souls.” Meaning, it seems that the essence of Yom Kippur, including the affliction, is part of the commandment of rest. Meaning, on Yom Kippur there is a broader concept of rest than what we have on an ordinary Sabbath. If on an ordinary Sabbath we rest only from labor, on Yom Kippur we rest also through affliction. Now if we really see it this way, then it turns out that on Yom Kippur the prohibition of labor is by virtue of rest, like on Sabbath. Meaning, not only the affliction of course, but also labor for food preparation. Meaning, everything prohibited on Yom Kippur is because what we have here is some far broader kind of rest. What distinguishes this from an ordinary Jewish holiday? First, labor for food preparation is prohibited, like on an ordinary Sabbath—that is the “Sabbath.” And the “solemn rest” is what goes beyond that: the affliction. All right? So Yom Kippur, if one really reads the verses this way, then the similarity between Yom Kippur and Sabbath is what the verse itself is saying, and it’s not some accident because the day happens to be about fasting. We’ll see this a little more in a moment. More than that, it’s even more than Sabbath, because on Sabbath there is no obligation of affliction; on the contrary, of course, one may not fast. But on Yom Kippur the rest expands further: beyond the obligation to refrain from labor, including labor for food preparation, the rest also includes affliction. Meaning, one must refrain not only from labor but also from pleasures. And in fact the Talmud derives the afflictions from the word “solemn rest.” The Talmud in Yoma 74 says: “Rabba bar Rav Yosef taught in the other books of the school of Rav: From where do we know that on Yom Kippur it is forbidden to wash, to anoint, to wear shoes, and to have marital relations? The verse says: ‘solemn rest’—a cessation.” So you see that the cessation—the prohibition of eating and drinking, of course, is explicit in the Torah—but the expansion of the obligation of affliction to the additional five afflictions actually comes from the word “solemn rest.” What does that have to do with “solemn rest”? “Solemn rest” would seem to be talking about the prohibition of labor. Affliction is a different matter. You know, every festival has an obligation of rest—Passover, Sukkot, there is an obligation of rest—and besides that there is the unique content of the day. On Passover one must eat matzah, not eat leavened food, remember the Exodus from Egypt, and so on. On Sukkot one sits in the sukkah, takes the four species, etc. On Yom Kippur, one fasts. So ostensibly it seems like an ordinary festival, except that the special theme of Yom Kippur is fasting. But here we see in the Talmud that it’s not like that. Meaning, the affliction on Yom Kippur is part of the commandment of rest; it is not parallel to the commandment of rest. This raises a real question: why, in all the festivals, beyond their specific content, is there also an obligation to rest? What is the idea of resting on festivals? On ordinary Sabbath I understand: it is a remembrance of Creation; the Holy One ceased from creating the world, and we too cease. But on festivals, why is there an obligation of rest at all? Why not suffice with leavened food and matzah, the Exodus, dwelling in the sukkah, and so forth? Why does every festival also come with some obligation to rest? That’s one question. A second question—or not a question, but a second remark: on Yom Kippur itself, it seems that the obligation to rest includes the affliction within it. Meaning, on Yom Kippur there aren’t two things as there are on the other festivals. On the other festivals there is the obligation to refrain from labors that are not food preparation, and there is the special content of that festival, each according to its nature. On Yom Kippur there are not two things, there is only one: rest. Only this rest includes more than Sabbath and an ordinary Jewish holiday. It includes the afflictions and not only the labors. So I’ll try in a moment to explain this. But first I want to read several formulations in Maimonides. In Maimonides it is very clear that this is how he understood it. Maimonides writes as follows. First of all, Maimonides calls the laws of Yom Kippur “The Laws of Resting on the Tenth.” That itself is already interesting. You know that in Maimonides every festival has its own separate collection of laws. That collection of laws deals only with the thing unique to that festival, not with what is common to all of them in the laws of rest. The laws of rest are discussed in the Laws of a Jewish Holiday. There are Laws of a Jewish Holiday in Maimonides, and there he discusses the laws of rest for the festivals. Besides that there are the Laws of Leavened Food and Matzah, the Laws of the Lulav, the Laws of the Sukkah, and so on. On Yom Kippur there are the Laws of the Yom Kippur Service—that is the Temple service, and for the other festivals too there are separate laws dealing with the offerings—and there are the Laws of Resting on the Tenth. Now the Laws of Resting on the Tenth ostensibly deal with resting on Yom Kippur, but anyone who looks will see that most of those laws—in fact all of them, not most, all of them—deal only with affliction. The rest itself is not discussed there except mentioned at the beginning. Why? Because the laws of rest were already discussed either in Sabbath or in the Laws of a Jewish Holiday. Meaning, there is nothing new to discuss there. But it is clear from Maimonides, even in his enumeration of the commandments that he places within this collection of laws, that in fact “resting on the tenth” is a rest that includes both refraining from labor and affliction. He doesn’t spell out the refraining from labor because that has already been spelled out, but really it should have been spelled out here. And then he says—look, I’ll read to you the beginning of his laws. In law 1: “It is a positive commandment to rest from labor on the tenth day of the seventh month, as it says, ‘It shall be a Sabbath of solemn rest for you.’ And anyone who does labor on it has nullified a positive commandment and transgressed a prohibition, as it says, ‘And on the tenth… you shall do no labor.’ And what is one liable for doing labor on this day? If he did it intentionally and deliberately, he is liable to excision; and if he did it unintentionally, he is liable to bring a fixed sin-offering.” So there is a prohibition of labor. Afterward—yes—“to rest.” “A Sabbath of solemn rest”—from here he learns a positive commandment to rest from labor. Law 2: “Every labor for which one is liable to stoning for doing it deliberately on Sabbath, one is liable to excision for doing it deliberately on the tenth,” and so on. And everything that is prohibited there is prohibited here. “It is permitted to trim vegetables on Yom Kippur from the afternoon on”—that is the difference between Yom Kippur and Sabbath, a separate issue; they gave a special allowance in order to prepare the meal after the day ends. Law 4: “There is another positive commandment on Yom Kippur, namely to rest on it from eating and drinking.” Notice the language. So there is rest from labor, and there is another commandment to rest on it from eating and drinking, as it says, “You shall afflict your souls.” By the oral tradition they learned that the affliction of the soul means fasting. And whoever fasts on it has fulfilled a positive commandment, and whoever eats or drinks on it has nullified a positive commandment. Wait—that’s not what you said before. What? That’s different. Before you said that the other afflictions come from “solemn rest,” and “you shall afflict your souls” is not part of resting—it means fasting. No—the opposite. The rest includes everything, both labors and eating and drinking. “Solemn rest” adds the other five afflictions, but the whole package together is rest. But before you said that “you shall afflict your souls” means eating and drinking, and “solemn rest” means the additional afflictions. Right, that’s what he says. No—here he says that eating and drinking are also part of the rest. No, no—“the affliction of the soul means fasting, and whoever fasts on it has fulfilled a positive commandment, and whoever eats and drinks on it has nullified a positive commandment.” No, that is what he says. Only this affliction explains—according to what I read in the verse—the concept of “solemn rest.” The Torah explains what “solemn rest” means, what the solemn rest of Yom Kippur is, and that is: “you shall afflict your souls.” Yes—after all, that’s the verse I read at the beginning. The verse says there: “It shall be a Sabbath of solemn rest for you, and you shall afflict your souls.” Meaning, that is the meaning of the fact that this is “a Sabbath of solemn rest.” On the contrary, regarding the five afflictions—we’ll read the five afflictions in a moment. “And so we have learned by the oral tradition that it is forbidden to wash, or to anoint, or to wear shoes, or to have intercourse, and it is a commandment to rest from all of these just as one rests from eating and drinking, as it says, ‘a Sabbath of solemn rest.’ ‘Sabbath’ with regard to eating, and ‘solemn rest’ with regard to these.” You see? “Sabbath” with regard to eating—not with regard to labor, not only with regard to labor, but “Sabbath” with regard to eating, and “solemn rest” with regard to these. Meaning, Maimonides is very clearly reading the verse here as saying that the words “Sabbath of solemn rest” are only then detailed when the Torah says “you shall afflict your souls.” That only explains what the “solemn rest” means—why is this such a great Sabbath? Because it includes affliction too. So from “solemn rest” he derives the additional five afflictions. Maimonides calls this “by oral tradition.” There is a dispute among the medieval authorities (Rishonim) whether this is rabbinic or Torah-level; in Maimonides it seems Torah-level. The phrase “by oral tradition” is a somewhat tricky concept in Maimonides. And the word “Sabbath” includes within it the prohibitions of labor and eating and drinking, meaning what is explicit in the Torah. Then he continues: “It is a commandment to rest from all these just as one rests from eating and drinking, as it says, ‘a Sabbath of solemn rest.’ ‘Sabbath’ with regard to eating, and ‘solemn rest’ with regard to these.” Law 6: “Just as labor is ceased on it both by day and by night, so too affliction is ceased from both by day and by night.” Again, the “cessation” includes both labor and affliction. “And one must add from the weekday onto holiness,” and so on. Also in Sefer Ha-Chinukh, commandment 313, he too essentially speaks of this as an expansion of the concept of rest—affliction. Not only labor is rest, but affliction too. So what are we really learning here? We are learning that unlike ordinary festivals, where there is a kind of duality in the laws—which in Maimonides even appears in two separate collections of laws—there is the prohibition of labor, which is in the Laws of a Jewish Holiday, and there are the laws concerning the essence of the day: leavened food and matzah, sukkah, lulav, and so on. On Yom Kippur it is all one thing. On Yom Kippur the prohibition of labor is part of the very essence of the day itself, only it expands into the prohibitions, into the obligations, of affliction. Right? Meaning, labor and affliction together make up the rest of Yom Kippur. Yom Kippur is some kind of Sabbath on a much greater level. It is parallel to Sabbath in the sense that on Sabbath, for example, there is no special content other than rest. Unlike the festivals, on Sabbath its whole content is rest. That is what is called Sabbath. On a Jewish holiday something else is added. Now we understand why Yom Kippur is called “a Sabbath of solemn rest.” On Yom Kippur too there is nothing besides rest, except that the rest of Yom Kippur is a “Sabbath of solemn rest,” something broader: “you shall afflict your souls.” Meaning, it includes affliction. But the affliction on Yom Kippur is part of the rest. Therefore Yom Kippur perhaps really is essentially similar to Sabbath. It’s not that by accident food-preparation labor is prohibited here. On the contrary: it is prohibited here because this resembles Sabbath. So the fact that one must fast is a further expansion of rest, not that because there is an obligation to fast there is no point in permitting labor for food preparation, as some of the medieval authorities (Rishonim) explain. What is the meaning of all this? Why on Yom Kippur is it structured this way? It seems to me that this can be understood if we look at the Torah portions about Yom Kippur in Parashat Acharei Mot. Parashat Acharei Mot begins: “And the Lord spoke to Moses after the death of Aaron’s two sons, when they drew near before the Lord and died.” First of all, the context. Meaning, when does the Torah begin the section on the Yom Kippur service? After the death of Aaron’s two sons—what happened? They drew near before the Holy One and died. Why? Because they drew near improperly. They did something there that was not right. That is not how one draws near. “And the Lord said to Moses: Speak to Aaron your brother, that he not come at all times into the holy place”—not like his sons did—“within the veil, before the cover that is upon the ark, lest he die,” so that what happened to his sons should not happen to him. “For in the cloud I will appear upon the cover. With this shall Aaron come into the holy place.” So they tell him: then how should he come? And now the Torah begins to detail how Aaron is to come into the holy place: “with a young bull for a sin-offering and a ram for a burnt-offering. He shall put on a holy linen tunic, and linen breeches shall be on his flesh, and he shall gird himself with a linen sash, and wear the linen turban; they are holy garments. He shall wash his flesh in water and put them on. And from the congregation of the children of Israel he shall take two male goats for a sin-offering and one ram for a burnt-offering. Aaron shall offer the bull of the sin-offering that is for himself and atone for himself and for his household. And he shall take the two goats…” The whole section of Yom Kippur is presented in the Torah as an alternative to the entry of Aaron’s two sons. Aaron’s two sons entered without this procedure, and therefore they died. This is how one is to enter. And then the Holy One teaches Moses and Aaron how one should enter—with the procedure of Yom Kippur. No one mentions a date here. The date of the tenth of Tishrei is not mentioned here. But why do we in fact understand this as specifically Yom Kippur? Wait, I’ll say it. No, here the entire Yom Kippur service is spelled out. That comes later. But the first time it tells him he must wear white garments and all these things—is that for every service, every day? No, no, no—the whole procedure. No. The High Priest’s service is always there, but when is there a High Priest’s service? Only on Yom Kippur. Only on Yom Kippur does the High Priest serve. But if we go back—his sons were not performing the High Priest’s service when they died, right? Right—okay, because they entered the holy place. Exactly. The Yom Kippur service is not the goal. It is the way one enters the holy place. They entered the holy place without this service, therefore they died. So what must Aaron do? Perform the entire procedure of what we call today the Yom Kippur service. But really this is not “the Yom Kippur service.” This is the service of entering the holy place. This is the proper way to do it; this way one does not die. If one does it this way, one does not die. Then it gets spelled out in great detail: bull and goat, the two goats, and so on. And afterward, at the end of the section, what does it say? “And this shall be for you an everlasting statute: in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall afflict your souls and do no labor, the native and the stranger who dwells among you. For on this day atonement shall be made for you, to purify you; from all your sins before the Lord you shall be purified. It is a Sabbath of solemn rest for you, and you shall afflict your souls; it is an everlasting statute. And the priest who shall be anointed and who shall be consecrated to minister in his father’s stead shall make atonement, and he shall put on the linen garments, the holy garments…” and so on. Yes, then it continues: “And this shall be for you an everlasting statute, to atone for the children of Israel from all their sins once a year.” So the whole section, at first glance, isn’t even about Yom Kippur. It is the proper way to enter the holy place. This is how one enters. And the Vilna Gaon in fact writes that at least in the wilderness one could have done this procedure on any other day of the year. If you wanted to enter the holy place, you had to do this whole procedure and enter. In the end the Torah says that uniquely, on Yom Kippur, you must do this—once a year. Yes, you are obligated to do this once a year. The Vilna Gaon says yes—but on the other days you can also do it. There is an obligation once a year to do it, at least in the wilderness, he says; afterward it is a different question. What does “enter” mean? What does it mean, “if you want to enter the holy place”? It means some sort of drawing close to the Holy One; the peak of worship is really to be as close as possible to the Holy One, to enter the Holy of Holies. How is that done? Aaron’s sons did it incorrectly. This is the correct way. Okay? Then afterward the Torah indeed says: once a year, on the tenth of Tishrei, do this. Meaning, enter the holy place. But then indeed the whole fast comes in. The fast is also mentioned here, by the way, even before the phrase “once a year.” Meaning, the fast too is part of the procedure of entering the holy place. The atonement is the result. After one enters the holy place, in the end one is atoned through closeness to the Holy One. Once a year this must be done. That’s all. But really what we have here is some sort of procedure of drawing near, or meeting, an encounter with the Holy One. Entering the holy place means meeting very closely with the Holy One, and that has consequences—atonement and so on. The affliction is altogether part of the work of drawing near. The High Priest has to perform the whole sacrificial procedure, and the people, as it were, support him by means of affliction. All right? And repentance too, maybe even repentance—it is not a day for repentance; repentance is part of the procedure of entering the holy place. Atonement is the result. Fine, that is what seems to emerge from what is written here in Parashat Acharei Mot. Now if that is so, then it seems to me we should continue what we saw earlier and say that the broad obligation to rest on Yom Kippur is simply because that is how one meets the Holy One. When one meets the Holy One, it requires us to suspend our ongoing life. A suspension of labor—what we do—and a suspension of pleasures. This world has to fall silent when one meets the Holy One. And therefore, because the encounter on Yom Kippur is a more intimate or closer encounter, it requires a broader suspension from us. A Sabbath of solemn rest. An ordinary Sabbath is a less close encounter, so we suspend labor but not pleasures. On Yom Kippur the encounter is the closest, entering the innermost sanctum, so the suspension is even greater. Not only suspension from labor, but also suspension from pleasures. All right? But that is really the idea. Therefore on Yom Kippur I think there aren’t two sides. The rest and the content of the day are the same thing. Meaning, the content of the day is simply the encounter itself with the Holy One, not things through which we meet the Holy One. Up to here was the introduction. Now the question is: what happens on Tisha B’Av? The Talmud compares Yom Kippur to Tisha B’Av. I said that in the straightforward reading this looks like an accidental comparison. On Tisha B’Av too there is an idea of fasting, but this time it is a fast as mourning. What does that have to do with Yom Kippur? We mourn for the Temple. So the obligation to fast, to repent, also afflictions because it is more severe—it doesn’t matter—but that is to mortify ourselves as part of the process of mourning, of repentance. There are different nuances here too, but mourning does not seem related to the essence of Yom Kippur. And the similarity, on the face of it, really is accidental. Sefer Ha-Chinukh in 313, which I mentioned earlier, really says at the end, after finishing the laws of Yom Kippur, that there is another day on which all these matters must be done, and that is Tisha B’Av. Yes: “And I shall also mention here what our Sages of blessed memory said regarding the well-known fast of Tisha B’Av, which is rabbinic.” But as I said before, I want to show that at least according to certain approaches there is an essential similarity between these two days as well, and that is why I gave the introduction about Yom Kippur. Even regarding Yom Kippur itself it is not entirely agreed that this is the essence of the day, but in Maimonides it certainly is. The Talmud in Pesachim 54 says as follows: “There is no difference between Tisha B’Av and Yom Kippur except that in the one its doubt is forbidden and in the other its doubt is permitted.” What does “its doubt is permitted” mean? Meaning, Tisha B’Av is rabbinic, so in a case of doubt it is permitted. What does “its doubt is permitted” mean? Isn’t that twilight? Meaning, twilight is really permitted on it. The discussion there is about adding from the weekday onto the holy day. Does Tisha B’Av have a law of adding time onto it? So if twilight is permitted, then certainly there is no law of adding. So if the Talmud says—we see here that “its doubt is permitted,” then that means there is no addition to Tisha B’Av. So the Talmud says no—just as Rav Shisha son of Rav Idi said: this refers to uncertainty in fixing the month, so here too it refers to uncertainty in fixing the month. Meaning, the practical difference in a case of doubt between Tisha B’Av and Yom Kippur is when you do not know the date. You are uncertain when Tisha B’Av falls, so do not fast two days; fast only one day. Yom Kippur, in principle, you would need to fast two days—the debates during the Holocaust about people wandering in eastern Siberia are known. In any case, that is what the Talmud says: the difference between Tisha B’Av and Yom Kippur is only with regard to fixing the month, what to do in doubt, and simply because this is rabbinic and that is Torah-level, so in a case of doubt one may be lenient. Why not be lenient on both days? So on each of the days I won’t observe Tisha B’Av, because after all each one is only a rabbinic doubt. There is a Ran. The Ran writes in tractate Megillah, regarding Purim in walled cities. In a city whose status as walled is doubtful, ostensibly one should not read on either the fourteenth or the fifteenth. Because if the city’s status is doubtful, then each day is in doubt, and a rabbinic doubt is treated leniently. So the Ran says: in a place where the doubt would lead you to total cancellation of the rabbinic law, we do not say “doubt leniently,” but rather we do it one day; in unwalled cities they read on the fourteenth. So here too one does one day and fasts on the first one. In any event, there is a comparison here that the Talmud draws between Tisha B’Av and Yom Kippur. The medieval authorities (Rishonim) already note that there are several other details that differ. On Yom Kippur there is excision; on Tisha B’Av it is rabbinic law. Fine. But Tosafot already says that this comparison is only regarding the content, the prohibitions observed on them. But Tosafot in Ta’anit 30 asks about what I just read, about the Talmud I just read—it asks a question. The Mishnah there says: “In a place where the custom is to do labor on Tisha B’Av, they do labor; in a place where the custom is not to do labor, they do not. And everywhere Torah scholars refrain.” This is the source for the idea that Torah scholars are careful to refrain everywhere. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: “A person should always make himself like a Torah scholar.” There are those who are even stricter—everyone refrains, not only Torah scholars. So the Mishnah says that in a place where the custom is to do labor, they do labor; in a place where the custom is not to do labor, they do not. Torah scholars ought not do labor anywhere, and it is even proper that everyone conduct themselves like Torah scholars in this respect, and not be more lenient than Tisha B’Av on Tisha B’Av itself. So Tosafot there asks as follows: “There is no difference between Tisha B’Av and Yom Kippur”—why does it not count labor, which is permitted on Tisha B’Av in places where the custom permits it? Why don’t they mention labor? Why mention only doubt in fixing the month? They should mention another difference: in places where the custom permits, one does labor on Tisha B’Av; on Yom Kippur it is forbidden to do labor. What do you say about that question? It’s really astonishing. In a place where the custom is not to do labor, is that then similar to Yom Kippur? Since when? What? Since when? It’s not talking about that kind of labor? Obviously. Tosafot says that in a place where the custom is to do labor, they do labor, so at least in those places there is a difference between Tisha B’Av and Yom Kippur. And in a place where the custom is not to do labor—there it is similar to Yom Kippur? What are you talking about? What labor is forbidden on Tisha B’Av? On Tisha B’Av what is forbidden is what the Shulchan Arukh says: prolonged work, work that distracts one from the sorrow. This has nothing to do with the thirty-nine primary categories of labor. So even in a place where the custom is not to do labor, there is still a difference between Tisha B’Av and Yom Kippur. Why does Tosafot ask only about a place where the custom does permit labor? What does this have to do with the whole issue of labor at all? And in fact, that is the plain meaning of the Talmud. That’s what I began reading earlier. The Talmud there in Ta’anit says: “Anyone who does labor on Tisha B’Av will never see a sign of blessing from it.” So Tosafot there says: meaning, from that labor which he usually does on Tisha B’Av he will never see a sign of blessing. Not that anyone who does labor on Tisha B’Av will be poor his whole life, but from that specific labor he did he will not see blessing. Fine? From this, how do you understand what type of labor is being discussed? If I separated food from refuse, am I not going to see blessing from that? Obviously if I went to work—meaning I occupied myself with the affairs of the day instead of engaging in the fast—then I will not see blessing from that. Meaning, the simple assumption is that the labor spoken of in that Mishnah—whether the custom permitted it or not—is labor not in the sense of Sabbath and Jewish holiday labor. So what does this have to do with the issue at all? Also in the Talmud there as well. The opposite—that’s the answer, apparently. What? Because there are minor labors and major labors, and he wants to say that “in a place where the custom is to do labor” means specifically the kind of labor like going to work, as you say, and there the difference is very obvious. It’s not excluding anything else. Certainly there is a difference regarding the other labors too. Even according to one who says labor is forbidden, there is still a difference regarding the minor labors, but that difference is tiny. Here it is big—going to work. Tiny? Going to work is tiny? The thirty-nine categories of labor? What do you mean? All the laws of Sabbath apply there too… They do not apply on Tisha B’Av. If a person goes to plow the field, then there’s a very large difference. Whether you are allowed to select or not is a small difference by comparison. If that were so, Tosafot should have asked: “and say also there is a difference regarding labor,” and especially in a place where the custom permits it, where one can even go to work. But Tosafot ties the whole question only to a place where the custom permits and asks only there. It doesn’t say that in a place where the custom permits it’s all the more difficult. Otherwise it should have said that. It says that he asks because in a place where the custom permits it is allowed. He should not have asked only that here it is permitted; he should have said: in a place where the custom permits, one can even go to work, so it is very different. Perhaps Tosafot really understood that one of the distinctive things about Yom Kippur is prohibitions of labor like those of Sabbath. It’s not the special thing about Yom Kippur, but from the comparison we learn the point. But still, what difference does it make? It’s still a difference. There is a difference: here labor is permitted and there it is forbidden. What difference does it make whether that is the special feature or not? It is still a difference. So if Tosafot is looking for additional differences beyond what the Talmud itself brings—which is a necessary one—then it should have brought this too. The Talmud itself also implies this, because the Talmud says: Rabbi Akiva says, “Anyone who does labor on Tisha B’Av will never see a sign of blessing from it,” and the Rabbis say: “Anyone who does labor on Tisha B’Av and does not mourn for Jerusalem will not see its rejoicing.” Again, from the context it is fairly clear that doing labor is relevant because of mourning; this is not a question of the thirty-nine categories of labor. And indeed in the Shulchan Arukh all the authorities agree that this is what is meant. Shulchan Arukh: “In a place where the custom is to do labor on Tisha B’Av, they do labor; in a place where the custom is not to do labor, they do not. And everywhere Torah scholars refrain, and anyone who wants to make himself like a Torah scholar in this matter may do so. And even in a place where the custom is not to do labor, it is permitted through a non-Jew,” and so on. Then the Rema writes: “The custom of forbidding labor applies only until midday, and the custom is to be strict until midday regarding any labor that involves some duration.” So it is clear that the labor in question is labor that distracts the mind. Even ordinary handiwork. “But a matter that involves no duration, such as lighting candles or tying,” which are exactly Sabbath labors, yes? “and the like, is permitted. And milking cows, it is best to do through a non-Jew if possible.” But the criterion—the Rema says it explicitly—is that Sabbath-type labors, like tying or things that are among the thirty-nine categories of labor but are not prolonged work—you tie and that’s it—there is no problem doing that on Tisha B’Av. The whole problem is only prolonged labor. So all the commentaries there—the Magen Avraham writes that the reason is so that one not be distracted from mourning. That is the accepted approach. But in Tosafot you see otherwise. In my humble opinion, what Tosafot says—and you see this also in other sources among the Ashkenazic sages, which is why I say it with more confidence—is that Tosafot probably understood it differently. Tosafot claimed that in a place where the custom was not to do labor on Tisha B’Av, this means not to do the thirty-nine primary categories of labor and their derivatives. That is what “not to do labor” means. That is probably also the reason that the Rema felt the need specifically to point it out. Exactly. And the Rema, as an Ashkenazi, knows that the early Ashkenazic authorities had different views, and therefore the Rema takes the trouble to state that labors that are not prolonged work but are Sabbath labors—we rule in practice that these are permitted. But Tosafot’s view is not like that. Tosafot, in its question… what? When you say ordinary handiwork… yes, exactly. So Tosafot is really saying that the labor in a place where the custom is not to do labor on Tisha B’Av means, as on a Jewish holiday and Sabbath, the thirty-nine primary categories of labor and their derivatives. We do in fact find several such sources among early Ashkenazic authorities, and therefore it is no wonder that Tosafot assumed this. The best-known source is Terumat Ha-Deshen, but he himself cites earlier Ashkenazic sources—Ravyah and others, even Rashi according to one version. And he says: “On Tisha B’Av, is it permitted to milk cows and other animals, or must it be done by non-Jews?” That is the question. You know, Terumat Ha-Deshen is full of questions he asked himself; he made up the question in order to write the answer. But just from the context, remember the Rema I read earlier. The Rema I read earlier—I’ll read it again: “But a matter that involves no duration, such as lighting candles or tying and the like, is permitted. And milking cows, it is best to do through a non-Jew if possible.” It is clear that the Rema is responding here to this Terumat Ha-Deshen, and in this Terumat Ha-Deshen you also see the view that tying is forbidden, and his discussion is about milking animals. Clearly the Rema writes what he writes as a response to what Terumat Ha-Deshen says. So he says: “Answer: It seems to me at first glance that it is permitted. For on the intermediate days of a festival, where there is a prohibition of labor according to Rabbeinu Tam and Rabbi Isaac on the rabbinic level, and according to some of the Geonim on the Torah level, nevertheless it is plainly permitted to milk animals directly. If so, then all the more so on Tisha B’Av, where it is only custom, as we learned in the chapter ‘In a Place Where They Practiced’: in a place where the custom is to do labor on Tisha B’Av…” and we also learned regarding the fourteenth of Adar, implying somewhat that the law of labor on Tisha B’Av is one law together with that on the intermediate days of a festival, and in fact lighter than the intermediate days of a festival, as stated there. Here he says it explicitly, right? What is he saying? He makes an a fortiori argument from the intermediate days of a festival. Now, on the intermediate days of a festival it is clear that, in principle, the prohibited labors are festival-related labors. There are permissions there and disputes as to exactly how—whether Scripture left it to the Sages, whether there is a dispute between Maimonides and Nachmanides. But the whole section dealing with labor on the intermediate days of a festival is a section about prohibited labor of rest. So he says: since on the intermediate days of a festival it is rabbinic law—this is his view; some say Torah-level—and on Tisha B’Av the prohibition of labor is merely customary, then all the more so if milking is permitted on the intermediate days of a festival, it is permitted on Tisha B’Av. But what is the connection? On Tisha B’Av we are talking about prolonged labor. This is not about severity of prohibition; it’s a different type. Milking is not at issue because of the severe prohibition of extracting—one who milks violates extracting, a derivative of threshing—but because one who milks is engaged in prolonged labor, and it distracts him from the fast. So what does that have to do with the severity of the prohibition? That a fortiori argument itself shows it. So he himself feels this. He feels the difficulty in this argument, and what does he say? He says: “It implies somewhat that the law of labor on Tisha B’Av and on the intermediate days of a festival is one law.” Meaning, he himself understands that the labor prohibited on Tisha B’Av comes from the festival passage. It is not just prolonged labor. Therefore there is room for this a fortiori argument. Afterward he really starts discussing it and says: “However, it seems there is a distinction. For on the intermediate days of a festival the prohibition of labor is because of rest, and the Rabbis permitted all ordinary labor and labor that is not strenuous, and similarly whatever is needed for the joy of the festival. But refraining from labor on Tisha B’Av is because of affliction.” According to the plain meaning, “because of affliction” means because it distracts from the affliction, as stated in the last chapter of tractate Ta’anit, what we read just now: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says, “A person should always make himself like a Torah scholar in order that he may afflict himself.” And Rashi explains there: “in order that he may afflict himself”—meaning, it is an affliction for them that they are idle from labor. According to this reason one could say that any labor, whether strenuous or not, and even ordinary labor, if it involves some duration, should not be done on Tisha B’Av, because by doing so one is distracted from the affliction. So this has nothing at all to do with the whole a fortiori argument we brought earlier. The whole question is whether it is prolonged or not prolonged. And milking an animal certainly involves duration, so it is forbidden. Then he says: “And in Mordechai at the end of tractate Ta’anit it is written in the name of Ravyah that nowadays they adopted the custom not to do labor on Tisha B’Av, in accordance with Rabbi Akiva, who said: anyone who does so on Tisha B’Av is as though he did so on Yom Kippur.” However, I was greatly astonished by these words of Ravyah, for in all the books that have come into our hands Rabbi Akiva is not discussing labor at all, but rather says: anyone who eats and drinks on Tisha B’Av is treated by Scripture as though he ate and drank on Yom Kippur. Who was talking about labor? In the Talmud as we have it—I read it earlier—that does not appear. Rather, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says there: “Anyone who does labor on Tisha B’Av will never see a sign of blessing from it.” And in that wording Rif and the Rosh wrote in their works. And I was further astonished at what was said above: “A person should make himself like a Torah scholar in order that he may afflict himself”—meaning, it is an affliction for them that they are idle from labor. For that reason we distinguished between labor on the intermediate days of a festival and labor on Tisha B’Av. Meaning, he wants to say that labor—this is an interesting question—which labor is it an affliction to refrain from? Sabbath labors, or the sort of labor of going to work? It depends whom you ask, I suppose. In any event, then he says that this means prolonged work. What? And the whole act. Duration. You hear? The idleness is like prolonged work. So that is what he says here: he rejects that a fortiori argument he himself brought at the beginning, says he doesn’t understand it, and also regarding Ravyah? But Ravyah did understand it that way. Ravyah says that labor on Yom Kippur and labor on Tisha B’Av are the same thing. Then he says: what connection is there? Here it is prolonged labor. Again, so Ravyah is the source for those who make that a fortiori argument. What? It’s all a textual error, based on Rabbi Akiva, in some version… Not an error—it seems he had another textual version regarding Rabbi Akiva, I suppose. In any case, that was certainly his conception. And until they wrote at the end that one should not slaughter and prepare until after midday, it seems that the reason is not the prohibition of labor per se—this is apparently like Ravyah—but because just as by engaging in the work of preparation one nullifies the affliction. And you say: the slaughtering itself is not a problem—you slaughter for a moment and it’s over; there’s no duration in that. No, the point is slaughtering and preparing the whole thing—that is the prolonged work. For us that is exactly the practical difference. And specifically after midday, when the day is drawing toward evening and he yearns to eat, and this is emotional anguish, and so on—this is how Rashi explained in the chapter “These are the Knots.” However, I found in another commentary in tractate Ta’anit that Rashi explained differently that statement, “A person should always make himself like a Torah scholar in order that he may afflict himself.” However, I found a responsum in the name of Ravyah, and this is its wording: “On Tisha B’Av, in a place where the custom is not to do labor, therefore our holy forefathers equated Tisha B’Av with Yom Kippur.” Here he writes it explicitly in that responsum of Ravyah: Tisha B’Av and Yom Kippur are the same thing. “Therefore one should not slaughter and prepare the evening meal until after midday, and from here it appears that this is because of the prohibition of labor they practiced in it,” and not because of prolonged work, which he himself had said. Meaning, Ravyah really is the source for this idea. “And so too it seems from Mordechai above in the words of Ravyah, and therefore my heart hesitates to permit it, because he wrote, ‘our holy forefathers equated them.’ And it is good to be stringent if possible through a non-Jew.” And by the way, this is brought as practical law in the Rema: that it is good to be stringent and have the milking done by a non-Jew. This is the conclusion of Terumat Ha-Deshen. Meaning—one moment—that even Terumat Ha-Deshen is concerned about the ancient Ashkenazic custom that the prohibitions were apparently prohibitions of labor and not prohibitions of prolonged work, although he seems in fact to rule otherwise. But in the end he brings this concern of Terumat Ha-Deshen. There was a very clear Ashkenazic tradition like this. And if so, then there is certainly room to connect this also to the Tosafot we saw, which asks: what is the difference between Tisha B’Av and Yom Kippur regarding places where the custom permits labor, as against places where the custom is not to do labor? Then he says there is no difficulty. Why is there no difficulty? Because “a place where the custom is not to do labor” really means, according to Ravyah and Mordechai, not to do labor in the sense of Sabbath and Yom Kippur labor. Why here is it tied to labor, and what is this business of midday? What? What is this business of midday? No—that is what I’m asking. If it is a matter of labor, why half a day? What’s the issue? Until midday there is a prohibition of labor, because until midday this is the period in which one must refrain, like on Sabbath and Yom Kippur. The question of how long the day lasts is not connected to the question of content. It doesn’t have to be. Otherwise, regarding affliction too—what is the difference? The other fasts too involve affliction all day. Why stop at midday? Nowhere else do we find that the laws suddenly change at midday, at least not in Torah law. But if we understand the idea that this is the same thing—what? Wait, I’m getting there. So here you see that there really is a source, at least an Ashkenazic tradition, that Tisha B’Av is like Yom Kippur: there is an obligation to refrain from labor, from all thirty-nine primary categories of labor and their derivatives. What really is the idea behind this? It seems that the idea behind it brings us back to what I said by way of introduction regarding Yom Kippur. There is… but it is still rabbinic. What? But it is still rabbinic. The Talmud in Ta’anit 29 says as follows: “On Tisha B’Av it was decreed upon our ancestors that they would not enter the Land. From where do we know this?” How do we know that this was on Tisha B’Av? “For it is written: ‘And it came to pass in the first month of the second year, on the first of the month, that the Tabernacle was erected’”—that is the first of Nisan. 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 day of the month, that the cloud was lifted from over the Tabernacle of Testimony.’ So now we are at the twentieth of Iyar. And it is written: ‘And they journeyed from the mountain of the Lord a three-day journey’—we have reached the twenty-third. Rav Hama bar Hanina said: on that day they turned away from following the Lord. And it is written: ‘And the mixed multitude among them craved with craving, and the children of Israel also turned and wept…’ And it is written: ‘for a month of days’—which brings us to the twenty-second of Sivan. That is, the twenty-third of Iyar plus a month is the twenty-third of Sivan. And it is written: ‘And Miriam was shut up seven days’—which brings us to the twenty-ninth of Sivan. And it is written: ‘Send for yourself men’”—and then the men, the spies, are sent. And it was taught: on the twenty-ninth of Sivan Moses sent the spies. And it is written: ‘And they returned from spying out the land at the end of forty days.’” Now if that is forty days, that should come out to the tenth of Av, not the ninth of Av. “Were those forty days one day short?” Abaye said: “The month of Tammuz that year was made full,” as it is written: “He proclaimed an appointed time against me to break my young men.” And it is written: “And all the congregation lifted up their voice and cried, and the people wept that night.” Rabba said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: “That night was the night of Tisha B’Av. The Holy One said to them: You wept a gratuitous weeping, and I will establish for you a weeping for generations.” So what is the Talmud saying? Basically, the spies should have fallen on the tenth of Av, but the Holy One decided that this had to fall on Tisha B’Av. So what was done? A directive was given to intercalate Tammuz, to make Tammuz full, so that it would fall on the ninth of the month and not the tenth. Notice that this is a very interesting point, because we usually understand, “You wept a gratuitous weeping, and I will establish for you a weeping for generations”—we have this “weeping for generations” on Tisha B’Av, and many times throughout history it is known as a difficult day. A large part of those stories, in my opinion, are not true, but still the very fact that people tell them specifically about Tisha B’Av and not another day also says something. And the question is: why really is that so? Usually we understand that it is because of the sin of the spies. Now we see that the picture is the reverse. Tisha B’Av was already the day planned in advance to be a weeping for generations, and the Holy One arranged the intercalation of Tammuz so that the sin of the spies would fall on Tisha B’Av. It’s the opposite. Meaning, something here was really set in advance. There is some date here that is not accidental. There is some date on which calamities needed to fall—on Tisha B’Av. If you are going to commit this sin, we will make sure it falls on Tisha B’Av, and then from there there will also be a weeping for generations. That is very strange. Why? What is there about Tisha B’Av? What difference would it make if it were on the tenth of Av? What happened? Nothing had yet happened—this is the first event in which this Tisha B’Av was fixed as a day of infamy. Let it be fixed on the tenth of Av. No. You see in the Talmud that not so. Tisha B’Av has something, some such quality, that it had to be assigned specifically there. Furthermore, the Talmud learns this from “He proclaimed an appointed time against me to break my young men.” We have gone backwards. Meaning, there are historical facts about Tisha B’Av that later reflected… but the Holy One went forward. We learn this through indications, obviously. But what are the Sages saying? The Sages say that the Holy One planned this in advance. How do I know? Because in fact throughout history Tisha B’Av really was… fine. Now, the verse in Lamentations indeed says: “He proclaimed an appointed time against me to break my young men.” What does that mean in the plain sense? Tisha B’Av. The Talmud says it means the New Moon, not Tisha B’Av. “He proclaimed an appointed time” means that the New Moon was adjusted so that the sin of the spies would fall on Tisha B’Av, so the “appointed time” is the New Moon. But clearly, the plain meaning of the verse is that “He proclaimed an appointed time” refers to Tisha B’Av. And indeed Tisha B’Av is an appointed time. What is an appointed time? Usually we understand it to mean a time of joy, some sort of festival. And in fact we know that somehow, not entirely clear from where, all kinds of laws entered the Shulchan Arukh that treat Tisha B’Av as an appointed time. Right? I’ll just give examples. I didn’t bring them here, never mind. We do not say Tzidkatcha Tzedek, we do not say supplication prayer on the eve of Tisha B’Av, all kinds of things of that sort, all matters associated with an appointed time. Why? Because it says, “He proclaimed an appointed time against me to break my young men,” so Tisha B’Av is called an appointed time. And what kind of joy does that create? What is this “appointed time”? Have you turned it into a festival now? What is the connection? “He proclaimed an appointed time”—the Talmud says this is about the New Moon. But let’s say in the plain sense of the text, of the scroll, that it refers to Tisha B’Av. Even if it refers to Tisha B’Av, “appointed time” is a word that one may not interpret simplistically. “Appointed time” means, okay, so let’s dance on Tisha B’Av? No. “Appointed time” means that this too is some day in the year. Maybe it also has to do with designation? As for the future, that is another interpretation—I’ll get to that in a moment, maybe one step further. But wait until that happens. I think it is connected to the matter. Look: what is an appointed time? A fixed meeting. Right? “Appointed time” means to meet, to assemble. “A house appointed for all living”—God forbid—is the place where in the end everyone meets, everyone arrives there. “Can two walk together unless they have agreed to meet?” So an appointment is a meeting. It seems to me that what the Talmud is saying here, and that is why the scroll calls it an appointed time, is that Tisha B’Av really is an appointed time. “He proclaimed an appointed time against me to break my young men” because it really is an appointed time—it is our meeting with the Holy One. It was a day designated from the outset, even before everything that happened. It is a day on which one meets the Holy One. Now the character of the encounter depends on us. The sin of the spies and all the other things caused the encounter not to be so pleasant from our point of view. In the future, as you mentioned, these days are destined to become days of joy. Why? Because the character of this day as a day of encounter does not change; it is rooted from the outset, it was that way from the beginning. What character this encounter will bear—positive or negative—that already depends. In the future it will be a joyful encounter. So it turns out that Tisha B’Av is the most “appointed time” of all, more an appointed time than all the festivals and than Sabbath and Yom Kippur and everything, because nothing needed to happen on Tisha B’Av. On Tisha B’Av, time itself is designated for encounter with the Holy One. On the contrary, if we are going to meet the Holy One, for good or for ill, the Holy One arranges for it to fall on Tisha B’Av. It is not even a contingent meeting like Passover or Sukkot, where something happened then and therefore it was set on that date. Here the date was designated in advance. Therefore the appointed time in which the encounter takes place is perhaps the most fundamental one there is. The only thing really called an appointed time without any further qualification is Tisha B’Av. Also Yom Kippur? Also Yom Kippur—nothing happened on Yom Kippur either. Yom Kippur is not a festival—right, Yom Kippur too. I was thinking of Passover and Sukkot. Absolutely, Yom Kippur too. There too one may have to discuss it. In any case, what you see is that Tisha B’Av, in its essence—it’s true, it bears the coloring of mourning because of what happened on it—but there is something in the very day itself that comes before the question whether it is mourning or not mourning or joy. First of all, there is here an encounter with the Holy One. And therefore it really is an appointed time, and that is why one does not say supplication prayer, does not say Tzidkatcha Tzedek, and so on. This entered Jewish law in the Shulchan Arukh. If that is really so, then perhaps now we can understand why the rest on Tisha B’Av is like the rest on Yom Kippur. Since we saw that the whole section of rest on a Jewish holiday, on Sabbath, on Yom Kippur, consists of forms of rest meant to freeze this world—our everyday life—in order to meet the Holy One, then on Tisha B’Av certainly there should be a great rest, because it is an appointed time to meet the Holy One. And the more intimate this appointed time is, the broader the rest should be. Therefore Tosafot and Ravyah and Mordechai say that when one rests on Tisha B’Av one should not do labor—the thirty-nine primary categories of labor and their derivatives—because this is an appointed time; by the laws of appointed times one does not do labor. And the rest on Tisha B’Av also includes not eating and not drinking, not only because of mourning, but also because there is an encounter here, like on Yom Kippur. More than that: when you look at it this way, Tisha B’Av is even broader than Yom Kippur, because on Tisha B’Av you can climb the walls—you are not even allowed to study Torah. Nothing is allowed. What are we supposed to do on this day? After all, it is the most mind-numbing day of the year. You can’t work—certainly according to that Ashkenazic view you are forbidden even to do the thirty-nine primary categories of labor, not merely to go to work. You can’t eat or drink. Not only the five afflictions—all pleasures are forbidden. And no Torah study. Yes, and the practices of mourning of course: sitting low, and several other mourning customs. Simply nothing. It is a day on which you are completely paralyzed; you do nothing. And the shutdown on Tisha B’Av is so complete that one does not even study Torah. But this also means, beyond the mourning in it—“the precepts of the Lord are upright, rejoicing the heart”; after all, that is what the prohibition is learned from—every detail has its own reason. I’m only trying to present a picture of what comes out in the end. What comes out in the end is that Tisha B’Av is really the most intimate encounter we have, more than Yom Kippur, and therefore it requires a more total suspension. So if that is the case, then there is a Jewish holiday with minimal suspension—only occupational labor. On Sabbath there is all labor, including labor for food preparation. On Yom Kippur there is also the five afflictions—eating and drinking, and the five afflictions. And on Tisha B’Av there is also Torah study. Meaning, this is the most fundamental encounter we have with the Holy One. And in that sense, even if the encounter carries a sad charge or a sad character, the very fact that there is an encounter allows us already to rejoice today. Even before the future redemption comes, the fact that there is an encounter here is itself gladdening. The fact that this encounter is sad—okay, that makes us sad. But the very fact that there is an encounter—that is gladdening. Therefore we do not say Tzidkatcha Tzedek and not supplication prayer on the eve of Tisha B’Av. There are customs of an appointed time surrounding Tisha B’Av already today, even before all of its mourning customs are entirely abolished. And how does one have an encounter without Torah? The encounter is through Torah, and usually the encounter should also be in everyday life, not only through Torah. The encounter becomes more and more—more and more narrowed, but more focused. And obviously this is not a directive for the whole year. It’s not that now one should be strict all year and do nothing and not study Torah in order to meet the Holy One. There are encounters that you need. Yes, so why not have every day be Sabbath, as the song says? But it is not right that every day should be Sabbath. These encounters are meant to nourish the rest of the year. But apparently you need one day on which you really still everything, even Torah study. Nothing. Except for the encounter with the Holy One. And where—where is the encounter expressed? It looks like disconnection. Right. That’s exactly… there is nothing, nothing at all you can do, you are simply there. That’s exactly the point. Sometimes, you know, “the Lord was not in the noise.” That’s what it says there about Elijah the prophet. Not in the noise, not in the fire, not in the wind, but in a still, small voice. And then Rashi writes there: I heard that there is a voice that emerges from the silence. Meaning, there is something that no concrete expression can contain. So do nothing—be silent. Still everything and try to see what remains. It’s like the shofar blast on Rosh Hashanah. The matter of the shofar blast on Rosh Hashanah is very interesting. Think for a moment about the blast. A blast, broken notes, staccato notes—these are all laws of doubt. And think about the plain blast. What is a plain blast? A song is something with words and melody, right? There is a melody from which we stripped away the words. Okay. Now there is a melody from which we strip away even the modulations of the melody, meaning all that remains is just a sound, that’s all. Simply a bare sound without modulation. That is the plain blast. And that is the place where you want to encounter—Ran speaks about this a lot. When you want to meet the Holy One, you need to peel away all the complications of this world, all the changes, all the dramas, all the big things. Remain with the sound. Try— all of that is nonsense. Let’s see what really remains after everything is stripped away. Like Descartes’ move, in a different context, when he tried to find some anchor. I think we once talked about this. He tried to find some rationalist anchor. What is that solid Archimedean point from which I can be certain? So he casts doubt on everything. He says: what I see is not true, and what I am sure is true is not true either. Nothing is true. Let’s see what remains. Then he reaches “I think, therefore I am”—some one point that remained. In a certain sense, what we have here is simply a process of stripping away. Let’s leave aside all that I am certain of and occupied with and that all seems terribly important—and rightly so, these are indeed important things. In daily life one should not treat this world with contempt. But once a year one must silence everything in order to see what lies beyond it. And I think that here there is some kind of encounter, an interesting encounter. Fine. So He wanted the sin of the spies to fall specifically on Tisha B’Av, and then through mourning He would channel us too through all these things. Cleanse us through mourning. Exactly. There, the way this encounter is built—after all, Torah study is prohibited because “the precepts of the Lord are upright, rejoicing the heart.” It’s not because of this silence in preparation for the encounter. Every detail has its own reason. The sin of the spies fell on Tisha… but all in all, when you look at the overall picture, and the Sages sense this when they compare it to Yom Kippur—and in the Torah itself it says that the affliction is a “Sabbath of solemn rest”—the whole move here lets us see that everything is really hiding behind it some kind of structure, de facto. In the final analysis, what emerges is a construction of something that is really some kind of encounter. And since that is so, then Tisha B’Av really is similar to Yom Kippur. The similarity between them is not accidental. Good tidings.