The Five Afflictions of Yom Kippur in the Mishnah and the BT

The first mishnah in the eighth chapter of M. Yoma lists the obligatory afflictions of Yom Kippur:Footnote ⁶

The mishnah includes all the prohibitions in one continuous list, with no apparent differentiation between them. However, a more complex picture emerges from the talmudic discussion of this mishnah in the BT.

B. Yoma 74a cites a sequence of three halakhic baraitot,Footnote ⁸ which together differentiate between the first affliction—abstention from eating and drinking (considered one act)—and the other four:Footnote ⁹

1. 1. The rabbis taught: “you shall afflict your souls”—Perhaps one should afflict oneself by sitting in the sun? The verse states: “you shall do no manner of work”—I have prohibited that which is an affliction, and I have prohibited work; just as the prohibition of work is refraining from action, so too affliction is refraining from action.

   1a. And perhaps I should say: when one is sitting in the sun and is suffering he shouldn't get up and sit in the shade, for it is refraining from action [shev ve-'al ta‘ase]? [It should be] similar to work: just as with regard to work you do not differentiate, so too with regard to affliction you do not differentiate.

2. 2. It was taught in another [baraita]: “you shall afflict your souls”—Perhaps one should afflict oneself by sitting in the heat or the cold? The verse states: “you shall do no manner of work”—I have prohibited that which is an affliction, and I have prohibited work; just as the prohibition to do work is [one that is] punishable elsewhere, so too the affliction [is one that is] punishable elsewhere. And what is it? Piggulin and notarot.Footnote ¹⁰ Should piggulin and notarot be included, which are punishable by karet, and not tevalim,Footnote ¹¹ which are not punishable by karet? The verse says: “you shall afflict your souls,” to include this as well. Should tevalim be included, since they are punishable by death, but not the [eating of] an unslaughtered animal, which is not punishable by death? The verse states “you shall afflict your souls,” to include this as well. Should the [eating of an] unslaughtered animal, which is a prohibition [lav], be included, but not [the eating of] nonsacrificial foods [ḥulin], which is not prohibited? The verse states “you shall afflict your souls,” to include this as well. Should [the eating of] nonsacrificial foods [ḥulin], which is not a commandment [kum ’ekhol], be included, but not terumah, which is a commandment? The verse states “you shall afflict your souls,” to include this as well.

   And if it is your wish to say, it is written, “… and I shall destroy that soul from among its people” [Leviticus 23:30]—this would indicate an affliction which leads to death. And what is it? Eating and drinking.

   2a. What is “and if it is your wish to say?” Should you say: the verse is referring to prohibited sexual relations?—It is stated: “and I shall destroy that soul,” in reference to actions that lead to death. And what are these? Eating and drinking.

3. 3. The school of R. Ishmael taught: here it is written, “you shall afflict your souls,” and later it is written, “and He afflicted you and starved you” [Deuteronomy 8:3]. Just as later “affliction” refers to hunger, here too “affliction” refers to hunger.

   3a. Perhaps we should learn from [the verse] “if you should afflict my daughters” [Genesis 31:50]? We derive an affliction affecting the public [rabim] from an affliction that affected the public, and we do not derive an affliction affecting the public from an affliction that affected an individual.

   3b. Perhaps we should learn from [the verse] “and He saw our affliction” [Deuteronomy 26:7],Footnote ¹² as it was said: this is referring to abstaining from marital relations? We derive an affliction by God's hand from an affliction by God's hand, and we do not derive an affliction by God's hand from an affliction by the hands of man.

Leviticus 16:29 commands one to afflict oneself (te‘anu ’et nafshotekhem) on Yom Kippur. It does not specify how this is to be carried out, that is, what type of affliction the verse refers to. The halakhic exegeses in these baraitotFootnote ¹³ initially reject the possibility that the affliction mentioned in Leviticus should be fulfilled by active affliction of physical suffering on oneself, such as voluntary exposure to extreme cold or heat.Footnote ¹⁴ They then interpret the affliction as abstention from eating/drinking, by linking the affliction to the proximate prohibition of work on Yom Kippur. The inference determines that the affliction could only relate to actions that are punishable by karet in other contexts, such as eating. However, the possibility follows that the only eating prohibited on Yom Kippur is the specific type of eating that is indeed punishable by karet in other contexts, such as notar and piggul. Therefore, the baraita initiates a gradual process of expansion and inclusion, finally concluding that even eating neutral nonsacrificial foods, as well as ritual eating, are prohibited on Yom Kippur.

Thus, these baraitot interpret and define the affliction mentioned in the verses in Leviticus 16 as the prohibition to eat, but they do not mention the other afflictions listed in the mishnah: bathing, anointing, wearing sandals, and sexual relations. Indeed, these afflictions are referred to in a different source, which is cited earlier in the chapter and discusses the term 'asur (forbidden) in the initial mishnah (74a): “If you wish, say that when the mishnah says ‘forbidden’ ['asur] it only relates to the remainder [bathing, anointing, wearing sandals, and sexual relations]. As Rabbah and R. Yosef learned in ‘the other books in the school of Rav’: From where do we derive that on Yom Kippur it is prohibited to bathe and wear sandals, and have marital relations? Therefore the verse states, ‘Shabbaton’—refrain.”Footnote ¹⁵

Thus, in these proximate halakhic discussions—the discussion of the term 'asur that appears in the mishnah, and the sequence of baraitot—the BT assigns the Yom Kippur prohibitions to two categories: (a) the prohibitions of eating and drinking, which are derived from the verse “you shall afflict your souls” and are punishable by karet; (b) the remaining prohibitions listed by the mishnah, which are not punishable by karet and are derived from the more general restriction known as “Shabbaton—refrain” (cease from certain activities on a day defined as a sabbatical).

The continuity of the sequence of baraitot on 74a is interrupted by brief anonymous Aramaic discussions.Footnote ¹⁶ A common denominator can be found in the content of the latter three of these four brief discussions (2a, 3a, and 3b, above): they all suggest an alternative interpretation of affliction, which is defined as abstaining from sexual relations. The suggestions are all based on various biblical verses in which the root of the word “affliction” (‘inuy) is used to imply sexual relations. Thus, sexual relations should, seemingly, be included in the category of those acts that are punishable by karet. However, each of the three suggestions is rejected, based on an exegesis of another verse or a distinction between the suggested verse and the Yom Kippur imperatives. The significance of these brief discussions will be discussed below.

The Aggadic Unit and Its Links to the Sequence of Halakhic Baraitot

The sequence of halakhic baraitot discussed above is directly followed by a lengthy aggadic unit that commences with an amoraic debate between R. Ammi and R. Assi regarding the manna in the desert (B. Yoma 74b):

This debate is followed by a series of aggadic debates (most of them between R. Ammi and R. Assi) on the manna, as well as various other matters (74b–75a), and concludes with a lengthy aggadic homily on verses from Exodus 16 and Numbers 11 regarding the manna (75a–76a).Footnote ¹⁷

Prima facie, there is no substantive thematic affinity between the discussion in the aggadic unit and the prohibitions of Yom Kippur. Yom Kippur is not mentioned, or implied, anywhere in the aggadic unit. The debate about the manna between R. Ammi and R. Assi appears to have been placed here because of a link with the school of R. Ishmael's mention of the starvation experienced by the Israelites in the wilderness, in the sequence of baraitot (3). The school of R. Ishmael cites the beginning of the verse from Deuteronomy 8:3: “He afflicted you and starved you….” The verse continues: “and He fed you the manna, which you have not known.…” R. Ammi and R. Assi cite a similar verse, Deuteronomy 8:16: “He who fed you manna in the wilderness … in order to afflict you and test you for your own good.” The remaining parts of the aggadic unit appear to be loosely connected to the debate between R. Ammi and R. Assi: They are either debates between these two Amoraim, or similarly patterned debates between various Amoraim centering on the manna, but with no apparent order. However, a closer reading of the aggadic text reveals a more substantial connection to the preceding halakhic portion.

First, the aggadic unit can be divided into two parts, based on form and thematic considerations. The first part is the sequence of six amoraic exegetical debates, each of which begin by quoting a verse and are phrased: “Rabbi X and Rabbi Y: one said … and the other said.…”Footnote ¹⁸ The second part of the aggadic unit is a lengthy passage concentrated on the manna, a sort of aggadic midrash (exegesis) on verses from Exodus 16 and Numbers 11 that deal with the manna.Footnote ¹⁹

Intriguingly, while the theme of most of the six debates (A–F in the appendix, below) seems to be food and/or the manna, the wording of various parts of the text seems laden with sexual overtones.Footnote ²⁰ This is apparent especially in the first, second, and fifth debates:Footnote ²¹

In the first debate (A), on the verse in Deuteronomy 8:16, both R. Ammi and R. Assi note the disadvantages of the manna, which rendered life in the desert an affliction. The first explanation uses the expression “has no bread in his basket” to explain the difficulty, or affliction, that was experienced with the manna. This expression appears twice more in B. Yoma:Footnote ²⁴ once in the context of food (B. Yoma 67a), and in another instance related to the topic of sexual relations (18b [=B. Yevamot 37b]):

This passage tells about rabbis who, while staying far away from home, sought to marry a local woman so that they wouldn't be tempted to have illicit sexual relations or be disturbed by their sexual desires. However, the anonymous stratum in the sugya eventually interprets their actions differently—they did not actually marry a local woman, rather, they would single out a specific woman whom they could, theoretically, marry, and this gave them the required peace of mind, because it was like “having bread in one's basket,” which gives a certain peace of mind to a hungry person even without eating it.

The debate in A goes on to discuss the disadvantage of eating without seeing one's food (A1, A2), leading to a more explicit sexual context when Reish Lakish compares the enjoyment experienced by seeing one's food to the enjoyment of seeing a woman (A3). Indeed, a double meaning could have been read into the discussion about food even prior to Reish Lakish's comment, since rabbinic texts often use eating as a euphemism for sexual relations.Footnote ²⁵ In fact, this concept is referred to explicitly later in the aggadic unit (E): “This is a euphemism, as it is written, ‘she eats, wipes her mouth, and says I have done no wrong.’”

The next debate between R. Ammi and R. Assi (B) links drinking wine with sexual promiscuity. The version of the text cited above does not explicitly refer to sexual matters, with the possible exception of “all sins.” However, in other textual variants, including Yemenite MS Enelow 271,Footnote ²⁶ one of the positions states explicitly that one who “puts his eye in the cup,” a euphemism for drunkenness,Footnote ²⁷ is undeterred by sexual immorality. A more significant link to sexual immorality may stem from the phrase “puts his eye in the cup.” This expression is used with an intentional double meaning elsewhere in the BT, in reference to drinking wine and to sexual immorality, as in B. Nedarim 22b: “‘… So that you do not follow your heart …’ [Numbers 15:39]Footnote ²⁸—From this Rabbi derived: A man should not drink from one cup and put his eye on another cup.”Footnote ²⁹

The debate in E, associated in most textual variants with Rav and Shmuel, is attributed according to another opinion that appears in Yemenite MS Enelow 271 to R. Ammi and R. Assi, and might therefore be a continuation of the series of debates on manna. Regardless of the correct attribution, the content of the discussion explicitly links the act of eating discussed in Numbers 11:5 with sexual immorality: “… The other said: [fish indicates] immoral sexual relations…. This is a euphemism.…”

The series of exegetical discussions between R. Ammi and R. Assi is concluded by a debate regarding the flavor of the manna (F). The two final debates (E, F) that deal with the manna apparently trigger the second part of the aggadic unit—the lengthy and extensive midrashic passage about the mannaFootnote ³⁰ that commences with an exegetical statement by R. Assi. This part of the long midrash appears to be merely loosely connected to the preceding series of debates that mention the manna.Footnote ³¹

The connection of the first part of the aggadic unit—the sequence of amoraic debates (A–F)—to the halakhic unit that precedes it may be easier to establish. The presence of both subtle and obvious allusions to sexual relations in these aggadic discussions, which on the surface relate primarily to eating, is similar to the dynamic of the preceding halakhic unit. As shown above, in the halakhic unit the anonymous stratum makes three separate attempts to dispute the baraita's interpretation of affliction, which includes only eating and drinking, and to extend the prohibition to sexual relations as well. Phrased differently, these are attempts to read the word “afflict,” which had been interpreted in terms of food, also in terms of sexual relations, based on various verses that use the term “affliction” in sexual contexts. Thus, a close reading of the first part of the aggadic unit reveals a significant link between the halakhic and aggadic texts.

This case for this link may be bolstered by a long-standing tradition, dating back to Second Temple literature, that connects the manna with Yom Kippur. Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra noted several sources that emphasize this link, including Qumran fragments and the writings of Philo.Footnote ³² For example, the journeys through the desert and nourishment from the manna are mentioned in a Yom Kippur prayer cited by Philo, possibly a public prayer recited in his time.Footnote ³³ The prayer expresses the belief that God can provide nourishment for man with or without the help of nature. A more direct link in Philo's writings is the connection Philo makes between refraining from food or other physical pleasures and the ability to receive spiritual nourishment. The deprivation forced upon the people of Israel in the desert, which the nation is commanded to repeat each Yom Kippur, enables atonement and acceptance of God's spiritual kindness.Footnote ³⁴

The Relationship between the Halakhic and Aggadic Texts

The link between the first part of the aggadic unit and the halakhic unit suggests that it could be productive to read the aggadic unit, or at least its first part (A–F in the appendix below),Footnote ³⁵ in its wider halakhic context—the discussion of the Yom Kippur afflictions. Such a reading suggests that the aggadic unit offers a notion of the Yom Kippur afflictions that differs from that put forward by the halakhic unit.

As shown above, the halakhic discussion, based on the tannaitic exegeses in the baraita, creates a sharp dichotomy between the consumption of food and drink on the one hand and the other Yom Kippur prohibitions on the other: only eating and drinking are included in the definition of the biblical commandment of ‘inuy (affliction), while the other prohibitions listed in the mishnah stem from a more general commandment to refrain from material activity on Yom Kippur.Footnote ³⁶ The reasoning behind this dichotomy may be explained as follows: the baraitot interpret affliction on Yom Kippur as actual physical suffering, a result of the prevention of one's most basic, or essential, physical needs—food and drink. On the other hand, the additional prohibited activities mentioned in the mishnah—bathing, anointing, marital relations, and wearing sandals—do not meet the most essential physical needs, and thus refraining from these activities for one day may not have been perceived to cause real anguish or physical suffering.

This dichotomous view of the afflictions is reinforced by the baraitot's suggestion of adding sitting in the heat or cold to the list of afflictions. While this possibility is rejected by the baraitot, the concept of affliction it reflects—some type of physical suffering—may persist. Thus, the leading principle at the core of the dichotomy between eating/drinking and the remaining prohibitions is the distinction between abstention from essential physical needs, which may cause actual physical suffering, and abstention from other less essential needs, some of which may even be perceived as luxuries.

Conversely, when read in the context of a discussion of Yom Kippur prohibitions, the aggadic unit reflects a completely different perception of the term “affliction,” expressed through verses and exegeses that refer to the manna as an affliction. The first debate between R. Ammi and R. Assi (A) centers on the verse: “He fed you manna in the wilderness … in order to afflict you,” and defines eating manna in the wilderness as an affliction. In their framing, the affliction is not actual physical suffering caused by deprivation of basic needs, but simply an extremely unsatisfactory culinary experience. Since the sensory experience and enjoyment of eating is created not only by flavor, but by visuality as well (seeing the food triggers the production of stomach acids in preparation for the breakdown of food that is expected to arrive soon), this process is part of a complete culinary experience. The sixth debate between R. Ammi and R. Assi (F) develops this point of view:

Indeed, enjoyment of food is also derived from feeling the unique texture of each dish. This textural experience was absent in the eating of manna: “they were able to taste, but without their accompanying textures.” Hence, the affliction of eating manna is more accurately described as a deprivation of a physical desire, rather than the denial of an actual physical need. While manna provides necessary nourishment and prevents starvation, it fails to satisfy the physical sensory desire associated with eating.

Following the notion that failing to satisfy a physical desire is an affliction, including abstention from sexual relations in the definition of affliction is reasonable; abstaining from sexual relations indeed deprives the body from fulfilling a physical desire. Furthermore, according to this definition, a clear conceptual line can be drawn between the prohibitions on eating and sexual relations on the one hand, and the additional prohibitions in the mishnah—bathing, anointing, and wearing sandals on the other hand. The latter may belong to a third category: they may be perceived more as conveniences, and less as satisfying physical desires as in the case of food and sexual relations. Therefore, the aggadic unit that redefines “affliction” based on the gastronomic experience of the manna also includes in this definition, through euphemisms and insinuations, the concept of abstention from sexual relations.

In the context of Yom Kippur, according to this understanding of affliction, the prohibition of eating and drinking is also not seen from the point of view of the suffering it causes the body, as in the halakhic unit, but rather as a requirement for suppressing the temptation, or physical desire, of enjoying a good meal. Similarly, while a person may not physically suffer from refraining from sexual activity for one day, he or she may have to suppress a natural desire or temptation to engage in such activity.

Perhaps the concept of affliction that emerges from reading the aggadic unit in the context of the halakhic one sets a higher, voluntary, spiritual standard than the standard the halakhic part of the text obliges all to follow. Thus, by juxtaposing the aggadic text to the halakhic one, the redactors may be challenging those who observe the Yom Kippur afflictions to focus not only on certain physical suffering, but rather on becoming spiritual beings, detached from worldly desires.Footnote ³⁷

A closer look at the transition point between the halakhic and aggadic units may reveal two additional points. Firstly, as we have seen above, three consecutive questions/suggestions posed by the anonymous stratum in the halakhic unit center on the fact that abstention from sexual relations is also referred to as “affliction” in the biblical text (2a, 3a, 3b). While these discussions appear in the halakhic unit, the questions they raise actually seem to reflect an awareness of the perception of affliction represented by the aggadic unit. On the one hand, this apparently reinforces the connection between the two units.Footnote ³⁸ On the other hand, the same anonymous stratum ultimately rejects each of the three suggestions. The text as a whole thus conveys the message that the ramifications of the perception of affliction in the aggadic unit, which puts eating/drinking and sexual relations in the same category, are limited: despite the addition of a new perspective on affliction to the halakhic discussion, the law remains that only eating/drinking is punishable by karet, while sexual relations are not. The weight of the concept of affliction presented in the aggadic text—when one reads the text as a whole—appears to be on a more voluntary spiritual plane, presumably a suggestion to shift the focal point of the Yom Kippur afflictions from accepting certain physical suffering to creating a day of disengagement from bodily desires.Footnote ³⁹

Secondly, the halakhic text concludes with the school of R. Ishmael's exegesis of a verse about the manna, which mentions the term “affliction” (Deuteronomy 8:3): “And he afflicted you and starved you, and he fed you the manna which neither you nor your fathers had ever known.…” In this verse, the “affliction” is not directly linked to the eating of the manna, as the two parts of the verse may be read separately to mean: first he afflicted you by starving you, and then he fed you the manna.Footnote ⁴⁰ Thus, affliction in this verse is linked with deprivation of food. Conversely, the aggadic debate that follows (A) opens with a different verse from the same biblical chapter and context—Deuteronomy 8:16—which also mentions affliction; however, in this verse the affliction refers explicitly to eating the manna: “He fed you manna in the wilderness … in order to afflict you.” Thus, while the halakhic and aggadic units are clearly linked by the two verses related to manna and affliction, the difference between the verses also illuminates the distinction between the two definitions of affliction in each unit.Footnote ⁴¹

* * * * *

The above analysis provided a complex example of the relationship between an aggadic unit in the BT vis-à-vis its halakhic context. In this case a large aggadic unit appears in the context of a halakhic discussion about the prohibitions of Yom Kippur. The aggadic unit appears, prima facie, to be linked to its halakhic context merely by a technical associative link: it begins with an aggadic exegesis of a verse about the manna, which is proximate and similar to a verse that is quoted in the halakhic discussion. However, a close reading of both parts reveals substantive thematic links between the first part of the aggadic unit and the halakhic discussion. Uncovering these substantive links endorses the reading of the halakhic and aggadic units in a mutual context. This reading has shown that by juxtaposing the aggadic unit to the halakhic one the redactors added an alternative notion of the afflictions discussed in the halakhic unit. Thus, the addition of the aggadic unit allowed the redactors to express a view that differs from the view that arises from the tannaitic discussion and is expressed in the halakhic part. Yet, the links between the halakhic and aggadic parts and their significance require a close reading; the redactors' added view is not expressed explicitly. The reason for this cannot be definitely determined. It is reasonable to assume that they did not want to contradict the tannaitic position explicitly. Yet, in their own sophisticated way the redactors still managed to voice their view.

This study also demonstrates the complexity of the BT as a composition. In the case discussed here the redactors inserted a complex aggadic unit that may be seen as comprised of two parts. The first part was shown to contain multiple links to its halakhic context, and thus make a substantial contribution to the halakhic discussion. The second part of the aggadic unit, however, is only loosely linked to the preceding parts, and thus seemingly does not contribute to the halakhic discussion. Whether the same redactors inserted the whole aggadic unit, or whether the second part was added at a later stage is difficult to determine. Hopefully, analyses of additional talmudic aggadot in their wider contexts will help shed additional light and draw a more complete picture of the composition and redaction of the BT, its various stages, techniques, and goals.