מפת הסוגיא — יומא ע״גSugya map — Yoma 73

ברייתא: כיצד שואלים באורים ותומים? השואל (המלך או משוח מלחמה) עומד ופניו אל הנשאל (הכהן הגדול), והנשאל מפנה פניו כלפי השכינה — אל האורים ותומים שעל החושן, שבהם שם המפורש.

§ The Sages taught: How does one consult the Urim VeTummim? The one asking stands with his face toward the one who is asked, i.e., the High Priest or the priest anointed for war. And the one who is asked, the High Priest, turns his face toward the Divine Presence, i.e., the Urim VeTummim, in which the explicit name of God is found, by tilting his head downward toward it.

השואל אומר את שאלתו, כגון ״ארדוף אחרי הגדוד הזה?״, והנשאל משיב כתשובה שקיבל: ״כה אמר ה׳ עלה והצלח״. ר׳ יהודה: אין צריך לומר ״כה אמר ה׳״, אלא די בתוכן התשובה — ״עלה והצלח״.

The one who asks says his question, e.g.: “Shall I pursue after this troop?” (I Samuel 30:8). And the one who is asked answers him according to the response he receives and says, for example: Thus says God: Go up and succeed. Rabbi Yehuda says: He need not say the words: Thus says God; rather, it is sufficient to relay the content of the response and say: Go up and succeed, since he is obviously only repeating what he was told.

אין שואלין בקול רם, שנאמר ״ושאל לו״ — לעצמו בלבד. וגם אין מהרהר בלבו בלבד, שנאמר ״ושאל לו לפני ה׳... בְּפיו״. אלא כדרך שהתפללה חנה — מבטא בשפתיו אך בלחש, שנאמר ״וחנה היא מדברת על לבה... וקולה לא יִשָּׁמע״.

One does not ask in a loud voice, as it is stated: “And he shall stand before Elazar the priest, who shall inquire for him by the judgment of the Urim” (Numbers 27:21), which implies that the inquiry is to be audible only to the person asking. And he should not think his question in his heart but should enunciate it, as it is stated: “And…who shall inquire for him by the judgment of the Urim before God” (Numbers 27:21), and immediately afterward it states: “By his mouth” (Numbers 27:21). Rather, how shall he inquire? He should do so akin to the way that Hannah spoke in her prayer, as it is stated: “Now Hannah spoke in her heart; only her lips moved, but her voice could not be heard” (I Samuel 1:13), which indicates she did enunciate the words but spoke so quietly that no one else could hear.

אין שואלין שני דברים בבת אחת; ואם שאל — משיבים רק על אחד, ורק על הראשון, שנאמר בדוד ששאל שתיים: ״היסגירוני בעלי קעילה... היֵרֵד שאול... ויאמר ה׳ יֵרֵד״. ומקשה: והרי אמרת שמשיבים רק על הראשון, וכאן נענה על השנייה? תירוץ: דוד שאל

One does not ask about two matters simultaneously; rather, one asks one question, and after he is answered he asks a second question. And even if he asks about two matters simultaneously, he is answered only with regard to one of them, and he is answered only with regard to the first question. As it is stated with regard to King David that he asked two questions simultaneously: “Will the men of Keilah deliver me into his hand? Will Saul come down?” (I Samuel 23:11). And he was answered with regard to only one: “And God said: He will come down.” (I Samuel 23:11). The Gemara asks: But didn’t you say that if one asks two questions, he is answered only with regard to the first question? Yet the verse states that David received an answer for his second question, not the first. The Gemara answers: David asked the questions

דוד שאל שלא לפי הסדר (שאל על קעילה לפני שאול), ונענה לפי הסדר הנכון — על שאלת ״הירד שאול״. וכיון שהבין ששאל שלא כסדר, חזר ושאל כסדר, שנאמר ״היסגירו בעלי קעילה אותי ואת אנשי ביד שאול ויאמר ה׳ יסגירו״.

out of order and he was answered in order. He should have asked first whether Saul would come down, and afterward what the people of Keilah would do. And once he realized that he had asked out of order he went back and asked in order, as it is stated immediately afterward: “Will the men of Keilah deliver me and my men into the hand of Saul? And God said: They will deliver you” (I Samuel 23:12).

ואם הוצרך הדבר לשתי שאלות בבת אחת (כשהשעה דחוקה) — משיבים על שתיהן כאחת, שנאמר ״וישאל דוד בה׳ לאמר הארדוף אחרי הגדוד הזה האשיגנו ויאמר לו רדֹף כי השג תשיג והצל תציל״.

But if the matter is urgent and requires asking two questions simultaneously, there being no time to follow the standard protocol, one may ask both questions simultaneously and he is answered with regard to the two questions together, as it is stated: “And David asked of God, saying: Shall I pursue after this troop? Will I overtake them? And He answered him: Pursue, for you will surely overtake them, and will surely rescue” (I Samuel 30:8).

ואף שגזירת נביא יכולה לחזור (לעיתים נבואה רעה נאמרת כאזהרה ואינה מתקיימת), גזירת האורים ותומים אינה חוזרת, שנאמר ״במשפט האורים״ — לשון משפט, כפסק דין מוחלט.

The Gemara notes the reliability of the Urim VeTummim: Even though a decree of a prophet can be retracted, as sometimes a dire prophecy is stated as a warning and does not come true, a decree of the Urim VeTummim cannot be retracted. As it is stated: “By the judgment of the Urim” (Numbers 27:21). The use of the term judgment suggests that the decree is as final as a judicial decision.

למה נקראו ״אורים ותומים״? ״אורים״ מלשון אור — שמאירים ומבארים את דבריהם; ״תומים״ מלשון תם ושלם — שמשלימים את דבריהם, שתמיד מתקיימים.

Why is it called Urim VeTummim? Urim, which is based on the word or, light, is so called because it illuminates and explains its words. Tummim, which is based on the word tam, completed, is because it fulfills its words, which always come true.

קושיא: ואם תאמר — במלחמות שלאחר מעשה פילגש בגבעה (גבעת בנימין), מדוע לא ״השלימו״ האורים ותומים את דבריהם? ישראל שאלו שלוש פעמים ונאמר להם לעלות, ובשתי הראשונות נחלו תבוסה. הרי שאינם תמיד מתקיימים?

And if you say: In the battles following the incidents in Gibeah of Benjamin (Judges 19–20), why did the Urim VeTummim not fulfill its words? The Jewish People consulted the Urim VeTummim three times with regard to their decision to attack the tribe of Benjamin, and each time they were instructed to go to battle. However, the first two times they were defeated and only on the third attempt were they successful. Is this not proof that the UrimVeTummim does not always fulfill its words?

תירוץ: בשתי הפעמים הראשונות הם לא ביררו אם ינצחו או ינוצחו, אלא רק אם לעלות; אילו שאלו, היו נענים שלא ינצחו. ובפעם האחרונה, שביררו ושאלו אם ינצחו — האורים ותומים הסכימו שיעלו ויצליחו, שנאמר ״ופנחס בן אלעזר... האוסיף עוד לצאת... אם אחדל ויאמר ה׳ עלו כי מחר אתננו בידך״.

The Gemara answers: The first two times they did not check with the Urim VeTummim whether they would be victorious or be defeated but only inquired how and whether they should go to battle. Had they asked, they indeed would have been told that they would not succeed. But on the last time, when they did check and inquire whether they would be successful, the UrimVeTummim agreed with them that they should go to battle and that they would succeed, as it is stated: “And Pinehas, the son of Elazar, the son of Aaron, stood before it in those days, saying: Shall I yet again go out to battle against the children of Benjamin my brother, or shall I cease? And God said: Go up, for tomorrow I will deliver him into your hand” (Judges 20:28).

כיצד נמסרה התשובה? על אבני החושן חקוקים שמות השבטים. ר׳ יוחנן: אותיות התשובה בולטות, והכהן מצרפן לתיבות. ריש לקיש: האותיות עצמן מצטרפות ומסתדרות לתיבות.

How is it done? How does the Urim VeTummim provide an answer? The names of the twelve tribes were engraved upon the stones of the breastplate. These letters allowed for the answer to be received. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The letters of the answer protrude, and the priest then combines those letters to form words in order to ascertain the message. Reish Lakish says: The letters rearrange themselves and join together to form words.

קושיא: כיצד אפשר לקבל תשובה לכל שאלה — והרי אות צד״י אינה בשמות השבטים? רב שמואל בר יצחק: נכתבו שם גם ״אברהם יצחק ויעקב״ (וב״יצחק״ יש צד״י). ושוב: והרי טי״ת אינה כתובה! רב אחא בר יעקב: נכתב שם ״שבטי ישורון״ (וב״שבטי״ יש טי״ת) — וכך נשלמה כל האלף־בית.

The Gemara asks: How was it possible to receive an answer to every question? But the letter tzadi is not written within the names of the twelve tribes engraved on the breastplate’s stones. Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak said: The names Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were also written there. The name Yitzḥak, Isaac, contains the letter tzadi. The Gemara asks again: But surely the letter tet was not written on the breastplate, since it is not found in the names of the Patriarchs nor in the names of the twelve tribes. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: Shivtei Yeshurun, the tribes of Jeshurun, was also written there. The word shivtei, tribes, contains the letter tet. In this way the entire alphabet was represented.

מיתיבי: כל כהן שאינו מדבר ברוח הקודש ואין השכינה שורה עליו — אין שואלין בו. שהרי שאל צדוק ועלתה לו (קיבל תשובה), אביתר שאל ולא עלתה לו, שנאמר ״ויעל אביתר עד תֹם כל העם״ — שהוסר מן הכהונה הגדולה משסרה ממנו רוח הקודש.

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Any priest who does not speak with Divine Spirit and upon whom the Divine Presence does not rest is not consulted to inquire of the Urim VeTummim. As Zadok inquired of the Urim VeTummim and it was effective for him, and he received an answer; but Ebiathar inquired and it was not effective for him, and he did not receive an answer. As it is stated: “But Ebiathar went up until all the people had finished” (II Samuel 15:24), which is taken to mean that he was removed from the High Priesthood since the Divine Spirit had departed from him.

תירוץ: אם האותיות בולטות או מצטרפות, מדוע צריך הכהן לרוח הקודש? ואם יש לו רוח הקודש, למה צריך לאורים ותומים? אלא: רוח הקודש מסייעת לאורים ותומים — האותיות מצטרפות לתשובה רק אם הכהן עצמו ראוי.

The Gemara asks: If it is true that the letters of the breastplate protrude or even join together to form the answer, why does the High Priest need the Divine Spirit and Divine Presence to be with him? And if he has the Divine Spirit and Divine Presence with him, why does he need the Urim VeTummim? The Gemara answers: The Divine Spirit assisted the Urim VeTummim. In other words, the letters formed the answer only if the High Priest himself was worthy, but his divine inspiration was not great enough to provide an answer without them.

המשנה: אין שואלים באורים ותומים אלא למלך, או לאב בית דין, או למי שהציבור צריך לו. מניין? ר׳ אבהו: שנאמר ״ולפני אלעזר הכהן יעמֹד ושאל לו במשפט האורים... הוא וכל בני ישראל אתו וכל העדה״. ״הוא״ — זה מלך (יהושע, שדינו כמלך); ״וכל בני ישראל אתו״ — זה משוח מלחמה, שכל ישראל יוצאים על פיו; ״וכל העדה״ — זו סנהדרין.

§ It was taught in the mishna: And the High Priest may be consulted for the decision of the Urim VeTummim only on behalf of the king, or on behalf of the president of the court, or on behalf of one whom the community needs. From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Abbahu said that the verse states: “And he shall stand before Elazar the priest, who shall inquire for him by the judgment of the Urim before God; by his mouth they shall go out, and by his mouth they shall come in, both he and all the children of Israel with him, even all the congregation” (Numbers 27:21). Each phrase describes a different circumstance in which the Urim VeTummim may be consulted: “He”; this is a reference to a king, as “he” refers to Joshua, who had the status of a king. “All the children of Israel with him”; this is a reference to the priest anointed for war, as all of the Jewish people follow him to war according to his instruction. “Even all the congregation”; this is a reference to the Sanhedrin, who are the heads of the Jewish people.

״הדרן עלך בא לו כהן גדול״ — נוסח חתימת הפרק השביעי. כאן מסתיים פרק ׳בא לו כהן גדול׳, ומיד מתחיל פרק שמיני — ׳יום הכיפורים׳.

(הדרן — chapter division; no Davidson translation)

משנה: יום הכיפורים, שמצוה מן התורה להתענות בו, אסור בחמשה עינויים — אכילה, שתייה, רחיצה, סיכה, נעילת הסנדל ותשמיש המטה. אך המלך (מפני כבודו) והכלה (בתוך שלושים יום לנישואיה) ירחצו את פניהם, והחיה (יולדת) תנעל את הסנדל מפני צערה — דברי ר׳ אליעזר; וחכמים אוסרים אף להם.

MISHNA: On Yom Kippur, the day on which there is a mitzva by Torah law to afflict oneself, it is prohibited to engage in eating and in drinking, and in bathing, and in smearing oil on one’s body, and in wearing shoes, and in conjugal relations. However, the king, in deference to his eminence, and a new bride within thirty days of her marriage, who wishes to look especially attractive at the beginning of her relationship with her husband, may wash their faces on Yom Kippur. A woman after childbirth, who is suffering, may wear shoes because going barefoot causes her pain. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. The Rabbis prohibit these activities for a king, a new bride, and a woman after childbirth.

המשנה ממשיכה בשיעורים: האוכל כשיעור כותבת גסה — כגודלה ועם גרעינתה — או השותה מלוא לוגמיו (לחי) חייב כרת. כל מיני האוכלים מצטרפים יחד לשיעור כותבת, וכל המשקים מצטרפים למלוא לוגמיו; אבל אכילה ושתייה אינן מצטרפות זו לזו, שכל אחת נמדדת לעצמה.

The mishna elaborates: One who eats a large date-bulk of food, equivalent to a date and its pit, or who drinks a cheekful of liquid on Yom Kippur is liable to receive the punishment of karet for failing to fulfill the mitzva to afflict oneself on Yom Kippur. All foods that one eats join together to constitute a date-bulk; and all liquids that one drinks join together to constitute a cheekful. However, if one eats and drinks, the food and beverage do not join together to constitute a measure that determines liability, as each is measured separately.

גמרא: הגמרא תמהה על לשון המשנה ״אסור״ — לשון המורה שהמעשה אסור בלבד, והרי האוכל ביום הכיפורים ענוש כרת, והיה ראוי לומר ״חייב״! ר׳ אילא (ואיתימא ר׳ ירמיה): לשון ״אסור״ נצרכה לחצי שיעור — שהאוכל פחות מן השיעור המחייב כרת עובר על איסור.

GEMARA: The Gemara expresses surprise at the mishna’s terminology, which states that it is prohibited to eat and drink on Yom Kippur. Why does the mishna use the word prohibited, which indicates that these activities are only sinful? It is, after all, punishable by karet if he eats, and the mishna should have used the more accurate word liable. Rabbi Ila said, and some say that Rabbi Yirmeya said: This term is needed only for a half-measure, meaning that if one eats less than the amount that incurs the punishment of karet, he still violates a prohibition.

קושיא: תירוץ זה עולה יפה לדעת הסובר שחצי שיעור אסור מן התורה (אף שאינו ענוש); אבל לדעת הסובר שחצי שיעור מותר מן התורה, ורק חכמים אסרוהו — מה יש לומר בלשון ״אסור״?

The Gemara asks: This explanation works out well according to the one who said that a half-measure is prohibited by Torah law even though it does not incur a punishment. But according to the one who says that a half-measure is permitted by Torah law, and that it is the Sages who prohibit eating less than a full measure, what is there to say about the terminology?

הגמרא מבארת את צדי המחלוקת: נחלקו אמוראים בחצי שיעור של איסור — ר׳ יוחנן: אסור מן התורה (התורה אוסרת אף משהו); ריש לקיש: מותר מן התורה. עולה יפה לר׳ יוחנן; אבל לריש לקיש מה יש לומר? תשובה: מודה ריש לקיש שחצי שיעור אסור מדרבנן — וכך גם ביום הכיפורים אסור מדרבנן.

The Gemara explains: as it was stated that amora’im debated the nature of a half-measure of a forbidden substance: Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is prohibited by Torah law, and the Torah prohibits even a minute amount of forbidden substance. Reish Lakish said: It is permitted by Torah law. This explanation works out well according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan. However, according to the opinion of Reish Lakish, what can be said? The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish concedes that a half-measure is prohibited by rabbinic law. If so, Reish Lakish, too, will say that eating or drinking a half-measure is prohibited on Yom Kippur, by rabbinic law.

קושיא על ריש לקיש: אם חצי שיעור מותר מן התורה, לא יתחייב קרבן שבועה על אכילת חצי שיעור מאיסור. והרי שנינו: ״שבועה שלא אוכל״ ואכל נבלות וטרפות שקצים ורמשים — חייב קרבן שבועה; ור׳ שמעון פוטר.

The Gemara asks: If so, if according to Reish Lakish there is a rabbinic prohibition to eat a half-measure, one should not be liable to bring an offering for breaking an oath to eat a half-measure of forbidden foods. Why, then, did we learn in a mishna otherwise: He who swore the following oath, an oath that I will not eat, and then ate unslaughtered animal carcasses, tereifot, reptiles, or creeping animals, he is liable to bring an offering for violating his oath. Rabbi Shimon exempts him.

ודנו בה: מדוע חייב קרבן שבועה? והרי כבר מושבע ועומד מהר סיני שלא לאכלם, ואין שבועה חלה על שבועה! רב, שמואל ור׳ יוחנן: מדובר במי שכלל בשבועתו דברים המותרים עם האסורים (״שלא אוכל״ סתם) — והשבועה חלה על המותרים, וממילא אף על האסורים.

And we discussed it: Why should he be liable for breaking an oath? He was already sworn and obligated at Mount Sinai, along with the rest of the Jewish people, not to eat these things. According to halakha, an oath does not take effect if it contradicts a previously existing oath. The second oath to not eat has no effect in terms of eating forbidden foods, so why should one be liable for breaking it? Rav, and Shmuel, and Rabbi Yoḥanan say with regard to this: Here we are dealing with a case where one includes permitted foods with forbidden foods. This means that had one sworn only not to eat unslaughtered animal carcasses or tereifot and then ate them, he would not be liable for breaking the oath because he was already sworn not to eat those foods. However, if one swore not to eat at all, his oath takes effect on permitted foods. Consequently, if he eats any food he is liable.

וריש לקיש (לשיטתו שאינו יכול ליישב בכולל) אומר: אין אתה מוצא חיוב קרבן שבועה אלא במי שמפרש בשבועתו ״שלא אוכל חצי שיעור״, ואליבא דרבנן הסוברים שסתם ״שלא אוכל״ הוא רק שיעור שלם; או בשבועה סתמית —

And Reish Lakish said: The only application of this mishna you will find is in a case where one explicitly says that he will not eat a half-measure, and this is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. They say that when one swears that he will not eat, he prohibits himself only from eating a whole measure of food. If he eats a half-measure, he has not violated a prohibition. Therefore, in order for a half-measure to be prohibited, he needs to specify this in his oath. Or, you find it in the case of one who makes no specification at all of a half-measure,

— ואליבא דר׳ עקיבא הסובר ״אדם אוסר עצמו בכל שהוא״: סתם ״שלא אוכל״ אוסרו אף בכל שהוא. בין כך ובין כך, לשיטת ריש לקיש עצמו אכילת חצי שיעור אינה איסור מן התורה.

and the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who said: A man prohibits himself from any amount. If a man swears that he will not eat, he thereby prohibits himself from eating even the smallest amount of food. Therefore, Reish Lakish himself maintains that eating a half-measure does not constitute a prohibition.

וכי תאמר: כיון שלריש לקיש חצי שיעור מותר מן התורה, לכן חלה עליו שבועה וקרבן שבועה — קושיא על כך: והרי שנינו ״שבועת העדות אינה נוהגת אלא בראויין להעיד״, ודנו: למעוטי מאי (את מי ממעט הכתוב)? רב פפא: למעוטי מלך — שכשר להעיד אך אינו מעיד מפני כבודו.

And if you say: Perhaps Reish Lakish maintains that since a half-measure is permitted by Torah law, despite the fact that it is prohibited by rabbinic law, one is liable to bring an offering for violating an oath, then there is the following problem: Didn’t we learn in a mishna: An oath of testimony where one is sworn to give testimony on something that he saw or knew, applies only to those who are eligible to give testimony. If one who is ineligible to testify swears an oath to give testimony, the oath is invalid even if he does not testify. And we discussed it: The statement: Those who are eligible to give testimony, comes to exclude what? After all, it was already said that the oath does not apply to women, relatives, and other disqualified people. Rav Pappa said: It comes to exclude a king. A king is not disqualified from giving testimony, but he does not testify before a court, due to the requirement to give respect to a king.

רב אחא בר יעקב: ״ראויין להעיד״ בא למעט משחק בקובייא, שחכמים פסלוהו לעדות. ומדייקת הגמרא: והרי משחק בקובייא כשר מן התורה להעיד, ורק חכמים פסלוהו — ובכל זאת אין שבועת העדות חלה עליו! משמע שפסול דרבנן מועיל לבטל את חלות השבועה — בניגוד לסברת ריש לקיש.

Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: It comes to exclude one who plays with dice, whom the Sages disqualified from giving testimony. But surely one who plays with dice is eligible by Torah law to give testimony, and it is the Sages who disqualified him. Despite this, an oath of testimony does not apply to him by Torah law, even though the prohibition on his testifying is rabbinic.

דחייה: שונה שם — בשבועת העדות נאמר ״אם לוא יגיד ונשא עונו״, וחיוב השבועה תלוי ביכולתו להגיד; ומשחק בקובייא אינו בר הגדה כלל, שאין בית הדין מקבל עדותו. אבל הנשבע שלא לאכול חייב, אף שיש איסור דרבנן — ואין מכאן ראיה. ממילא הדחייה אינה עומדת, והיישוב הראשון נשאר.

The Gemara rejects this by distinguishing between the two cases: It is different there, in the case of testimony, where the verse states: “If he does not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 5:1), i.e., a man who can testify but doesn’t do so should be punished. But this person cannot ever give testimony since the court will not accept his testimony. The Torah makes liability for an oath of testimony contingent on one’s ability to testify. Therefore, an oath of testimony would not apply to someone unable to testify. However, one who takes an oath not to eat is liable if he breaks that oath, notwithstanding the rabbinic prohibition against eating less than a measure of forbidden food. Consequently, this rejection does not stand, and the first explanation remains.