Laws of Resting on the Tenth (Yom Kippur), Chapter 2 (Auto Translated)

Laws of Resting on the Tenth – Chapter 2: Measures of Eating and Drinking on Yom Kippur

Introduction to Chapter 2

Speaker 1: Good. We are learning the holy Rambam, Sefer Zemanim, the third group of laws, which is Hilchot Shevitat Asor. This is what the Rambam calls the laws regarding not doing work, which we already learned in the first chapter – there are almost no details about it because it’s all just like Shabbat, and also primarily that one may not eat and drink and the other afflictions on Yom Kippur.

So, in the first chapter we learned in a general way, in a fundamental way, that there is an obligation to fast, when the obligation is. Now we’re going to learn all the details of the matter of fasting. Yes, chapter 3 will be about the rest of the afflictions. This is basically the order, three chapters of Hilchot Shevitat Asor.

And we mention the great patrons of the shiur, Rabbi Yoel Wertzberger and all the other participants in this shiur who listen to it, who are engaged in Torah, who are engaged in mitzvah, who inspire others to be able to learn. May it be His will, everyone should learn well.

I have proof that in the middle of learning one must, one may and one must bring in the vegetable portion, the money, the greens, because we learned that before Yom Kippur one may engage in gathering vegetables, because one has distress about what one will eat on motzaei. So, it comes into the shiur. Very good.

Halacha 1: The Measure of Eating on Yom Kippur

Speaker 1: What are we learning? Okay, let’s learn the shiur. The Rambam says this, all, and also in Hilchot Shabbat he began each halacha with the measure. One must always, a halacha comes with a measure. We discussed that if eating on Yom Kippur is karet, or a chatat, what is the measure?

The Rambam says this, it means, regarding the prohibition it’s obviously clear that one may not eat anything, or as the Rambam will say with karet. But first we want to say, but regarding punishment. “One who eats on Yom Kippur, foods that are fit for a person”, later he will also expand on this. It must be foods that are fit for a person, normal foods. As opposed to if a person eats something that is not called food, it’s not the normal way of eating.

But foods that are indeed fit, what is the measure? “Like a large date”, like a thick date, a date. But not everyone knows the fruit. The Rambam says, “a measure slightly less than an egg”, which is a bit smaller than an egg, a little bit smaller than an egg. This is the measure that if one eats this measure one is liable for karet. This is the measure of eating for this matter.

Why is the Measure Greater than a Kezayit?

It means, unlike certain other things where there is a kezayit, or there is what we call a kebeitzah? Most measures of eating are a kebeitzah, but the measure of a fast is more than a kebeitzah, whether kotevet or gasah. More. Most measures, a kezayit. Less than a kezayit, a kebeitzah is more than a kezayit. Most measures of eating are a kezayit, and here it’s a bit more.

When there is a prohibition to eat something in the Torah the measure is a kezayit, but there is no prohibition to eat on Yom Kippur, there is an obligation to fast. So the Sages estimated that a kotevet hagasah is called in the Gemara “mitayshevet da’ato”, meaning satisfied, meaning he doesn’t feel that he’s hungry or that he’s fasting at all.

Combining Foods

Well, the Rambam says, this is not specifically that it must be the measure from one food, rather “all foods combine for this measure”. A person ate a bit of this and a bit of that, they combine.

Halacha 1 (continued): The Measure of Drinking on Yom Kippur

Speaker 1: The Rambam says, “And similarly…”. And what is the measure of drinking? A different measure. One who drinks, simply practically one cannot say, one cannot make a measure on drinking as large as a kotevet. No, one can, but it has a different level. I don’t mean, it’s not the equivalent. The two measures have no connection. Regarding eating it’s mitayshevet da’ato. There’s a special measure for drinking, yes?

Yes, there’s a special measure for drinking on Yom Kippur, because normal drinking, we know this rule, usually drinking is a measure of a revi’it. Revi’it means a minimum drinking mostly for a beracha acharona, for all matters where a measure is relevant. This is a bit less than a revi’it. It’s different, yes. The Rambam says it’s less. It has nothing to do.

Meaning that by drinking it’s the opposite, as it appears that one is a bit lenient with drinking. A drinking one doesn’t yet become calm with less. On the contrary, one is stringent. It becomes a smaller measure. Ah, with a smaller measure. It has nothing to do. It has nothing to do with the measure.

Discussion: Are Eating and Drinking One Prohibition or Two?

Speaker 2: What does a law of drinking mean? It’s not the liquid measure of kotevet. No, no. Drinking. No, what I mean to ask is, eating and drinking, the Rambam says a whole extra side, but eating and drinking aren’t two prohibitions, right? It’s not two Torah laws. What’s the practical difference?

Speaker 1: Eating and drinking is the same thing. It’s two different types of eating. It’s eating liquid, eating solid. The Rambam says like eating and drinking.

Speaker 2: No, I mean like in fasting it’s extra. But for the measure, yes. It’s exactly the same prohibition, it’s not… I don’t know, for what matter, if someone makes a list… Eating and drinking is the same thing. It’s not like… No one would think to say for example that eating is Torah law and drinking is like the end of an opening. Could one think that? Certainly not.

Speaker 1: No, practically speaking, if one counts that there are five afflictions, you would say that truly there are six, because eating and drinking are two. Also it doesn’t have a great practical difference, but for the hint it changes. The Zohar, when it makes the hint about eating and drinking that there are five, says two opinions. There’s an opinion in the Zohar that says one must count six afflictions, because drinking is extra. So, one goes apparently according to this, because there’s a different measure, and so on. And now there’s always a solution. If one needs…

Speaker 2: No, I don’t agree with you. I don’t agree with you, it’s not true. It’s a serious inquiry whether one must count five or six. Not what you’re saying.

The Measure of Melo Lugmav

Speaker 1: Okay, the Rambam says, ah, this is relevant. Yes, yes. What is indeed relevant? But this is extra.

The Rambam continues, “And similarly one who drinks liquids fit for human drinking, its measure is like the cheekful of the drinker”, like the cheeks of the drinker. “Each one according to his cheekful is liable”, each one according to his size.

Ah, this is also different, very different from kotevet hagasah which is for everyone. Everyone must measure their… Usually it’s a categorical measure, no difference your size, theirs is a kebeitzah, all eggs the same. Here it goes according to the person, so is the measure of drinking.

“And how much is his cheekful?” What does melo lugmav mean? The Rambam says, “Enough that it should move from one side”, usually when a person drinks, it spreads in the mouth. When he drinks on one side, “and it appears full”, that side should look full. “And this measure for an average person is less than a revi’it”.

This also means that for a large person it will be more than a revi’it. Like what the Gemara says about Og King of Bashan and so on. That is, it’s not such an interesting measure. There’s no such measure in the entire Torah, that is according to the person, according to each one who… Each one would be according to something. Interesting.

The people who conduct themselves with a certain stringency, which doesn’t appear in this Rambam, that if a sick person needs to drink less than the measure, he should on erev Yom Kippur take a bit of drink and spit and see how much his measure is, because it depends on each person.

Discussion: The Default Measure

Speaker 2: The Rambam says yes, but “for an average person it is less than a revi’it”. Practically speaking, perhaps by default one can assume that this is the measure? It could be, yes. It could be that it’s also a half, because once one leaves it to the person, what does one do? Melo lugmav. You won’t see people asking, what does one do? Melo lugmav, until where must I feel it’s full? He gives a certain… It comes out approximately a revi’it. Measure. Yes.

Discussion: Why is Eating Categorical and Drinking According to the Person?

Speaker 2: And like by eating… is it certain that there’s some explanation why by eating the measure is categorical and by drinking it’s according to Yom Tov?

Speaker 1: Because it turns according to the person, how much the mind is settled. Settling the mind by eating…

Speaker 2: By eating doesn’t the mind become settled with a different type of measure?

Speaker 1: No, every person eats a large date, he’s satisfied. But drinking a person who is a large person, he drinks literally a drop, he feels nothing. Simply… Do you need to know the reality like this? Ask a… I don’t know, it’s an estimation of the Sages. You can’t check one. This is the reason, it could be that it’s something else. One must know the sugyot, I don’t know.

Combining Liquids, and Eating and Drinking Don’t Combine

Speaker 1: The Rambam continues, here there’s an interesting thing: “And eating and drinking don’t combine for one measure. And all liquids”, first of all. “And all liquids combine for one measure”. Like by eating, if one drinks water and juice, the same thing.

“And eating and drinking”, but “eating and drinking don’t combine for one measure”. If one ate half a kotevet and drank half a melo lugmav, one doesn’t make them one… Here it appears that eating and drinking are two completely different things. Regarding this, he brings, the Gemara also states that it’s not settling the mind. A person, if he wants to drink, he wants to drink a whole drinking. If he wants to eat, he wants to eat. Half eaten, half drunk, doesn’t do anything. Whatever. This is the reality. The Sages understood people very well, okay?

Halacha 2: One Who Ate Forbidden Things on Yom Kippur

Speaker 1: Now, what kind of foods does one transgress? One will actually learn various laws. First one must learn an interesting law of prohibition upon prohibition essentially. Yes? Section 2 means.

The Rambam says, “Whether one ate permitted foods, or ate forbidden things”. The obligation that one is liable for karet by eating on Yom Kippur makes no difference whether one ate food that is permitted, or one ate forbidden things, “such as” a person ate “piggul”. Or “notar”, things that are prohibitions of sanctified items or “tevel” from which one didn’t take ma’aser, or “nevelot and tereifot” or “chelev and dam” which are all prohibitions of forbidden foods.

The law says, “Since he ate food fit for a person”, as the Rambam began that it must be foods fit for a person and not spoiled food, but the prohibition doesn’t concern me regarding the liability for karet, “behold he is liable for karet for eating on Yom Kippur”. One shouldn’t think, as you said a matter of a prohibition doesn’t take effect upon a prohibition, or should one say that something that isn’t a measure, as one doesn’t say about forbidden things, but about things liable for burning, like idolatry.

Discussion: Why Does Prohibition Take Effect Upon Prohibition?

Speaker 2: Yes, it means, or one might have said that it means it’s not fit, because one may not eat it, therefore perhaps the Rambam emphasizes a proof.

Speaker 1: But the main point is that one doesn’t say a prohibition doesn’t take effect upon a prohibition, and the rules of this we will learn in Hilchot Ma’achalot Asurot, the rules of prohibition upon prohibition, but the learning here is because it’s called a comprehensive prohibition. That is, on Yom Kippur one may not eat even permitted things. Since the prohibition of Yom Kippur takes effect on all foods, one doesn’t say that these are two prohibitions on the same thing, it’s a greater prohibition. Therefore one is already liable also when one eats a forbidden thing that was already prohibited. Forbidden anyway.

Speaker 2: So. This is the Gemara, this is the reason? Yes.

Speaker 1: The Rambam explicitly, the Rambam himself, he brings in Hilchot Ma’achalot Asurot chapter 14, explains this, that it means it’s an additional prohibition, it’s added that the comprehensive, I don’t know what one calls it, the same thing. Since Yom Kippur is not only on forbidden things, therefore a new prohibition has been added, and in such a case yes prohibition takes effect upon prohibition. Yes, this is like the general rule of prohibition upon prohibition, which is not comprehensive not this.

Halacha 2 (continued): Less Than the Measure

Speaker 1: What happens with less than the measure? “One who ate less than this measure is not liable for karet”, one is not liable for karet. But here comes as if to say, essentially it’s forbidden from the Torah. If one ate less than the measure, one is indeed not liable for karet, but it’s still forbidden from the Torah. But what does the Rambam say? “Even though it is forbidden from the Torah with half a measure”. Did the Rambam already say once that from the Torah half a measure is forbidden? I don’t remember. But here he says it, he says it in this interesting way, “but one is only liable for karet for the full measure”. The reason why one is not liable for karet is not because it’s not Torah law. It is indeed Torah law, it is indeed from the Torah, but it is, the liability for karet is only on the measure, but less than this is also forbidden from the Torah.

Lashes of Rebellion for Half a Measure

The Rambam continues, “And one who eats or drinks half a measure, we strike him with lashes of rebellion”. Here you see another similar thing that we learned in the previous chapter. Lashes of rebellion is your power. One gives a blow, an ax, this is an ax there or something. Lashes of rebellion appears here, it can also go on a Torah law if there’s no other punishment. Right. If they learned, this would be a proof what they learned yesterday, perhaps on all the afflictions the Rambam said there are lashes of rebellion, even though there’s Torah law. There’s Torah law, there’s a distinction within Torah law on what one receives the punishment that’s written in the Torah, and sometimes there’s still forbidden. Like half a measure forbidden from the Torah, which prohibition? It’s always forbidden. This is only regarding punishment, but lashes of rebellion one does receive. How did the Rambam derive that there are lashes of rebellion on all these kinds of things? Perhaps the Rambam has a source. Or can one not say that all things that the Rabbis are the ones who make the definition of it? No? It doesn’t look like the… It’s not a rabbinic definition. Why? The Rabbis learned from the oral tradition yes that these are the afflictions, the afflictions are Torah law. Measures are a… The Gemara also says halacha leMoshe miSinai, but it’s a Torah law the measure. But how did the Rambam derive this that one receives lashes of rebellion? It’s not clear.

Discussion: What are Lashes of Rebellion – Punishment or Coercion?

Speaker 1:

Essentially, why shouldn’t one… Lashes of rebellion, one must know what lashes of rebellion mean? Is it a proper punishment, or is it a kind of… one stops him from the transgression?

Speaker 2:

No, no, it’s a punishment. It’s not lashes of rebellion is not… one always needs it, here too by Torah law. Lashes of rebellion is a proper punishment, like rabbinic lashes is a punishment. No doubt whatsoever. I don’t remember in this Rambam, I think generally, when it says in the Gemara lashes of rebellion, it only means a way of saying rabbinic lashes. Why is it called rebellion? Go know. But… it’s plain rabbinic lashes.

Speaker 1:

What? They don’t believe that it’s…

Speaker 2:

But it could be that one can say this, as if there’s like lashes, you’re right that it’s always a punishment, so that tomorrow you’ll do it. Every punishment is not so different, a punishment of what you say, one makes that he should do it, we strike him until he does. It’s also there, lashes of rebellion, to stop next time doing. What’s the difference? I think, it could be that the Rabbis may not, every thing that one may not, the court won’t let you because there’s no punishment. They’ll already strike, so you won’t do it. It’s the same thing as before, the afflictions. One may not. If one may not, one doesn’t look that learning there’s no obligation of punishment. One will make sure that one doesn’t do it. This is a complete prohibition, a strong prohibition, even if there’s a rabbinic or Torah law that doesn’t have another prohibition, there must be such… This is the protest, as if what you’ll make yourself.

English Translation

Speaker 1:

Perhaps on tosefes Yom Kippur they don’t give makkos mardus.

Speaker 2:

There aren’t that many police.

Discussion: Difficult Question — Makkos Mardus on Mashehu

Speaker 1:

Now one can learn how it combines if one doesn’t eat all at once, yes? Chatzi shiur that the Rambam means to say is any shiur. Chatzi shiur means without a shiur, right? It doesn’t mean half a k’zayis, a half. It means even a mashehu. On this I thought, perhaps it’s difficult to say, to force I can hear, but to give malkus afterwards. It’s difficult to say a punishment on something that doesn’t have a shiur. A person had a lick of water. The thing that the Torah says that there must be a shiur, there is a reason in this, because one can’t say… Why? What is the reason? Because you understand, because there is a shiur I can hear, because although shiur means very little. But a person has… It becomes just like in the end, yes, a person should now spit out the whole time, because they have… About this although shiur one hears, but…

Speaker 2:

He brings here from us various Acharonim who wonder whether chatzi shiur means literally mashehu, or perhaps… For example, here where you can say you eat only a k’zayis, but just not any shiur on Yom Kippur. But it’s not clear. Chatzi shiur is implied to mean anything, but perhaps you’re right like we say in Pesachim, yes, mashehu also has a shiur. Mashehu doesn’t mean microscopic, it means less. I mean that the issur of chatzi shiur comes to say that a person shouldn’t outsmart, you shouldn’t come with little pieces and say outsmart the system. There are the questions that you ask, spitting, swallowing the leftover things, is a question, that is, whether it’s considered achilah at all. It’s not outsmarting the shiur, it’s a different thing. It’s hard to see the great difference.

Speaker 1:

I’m saying, to explain the word malkus, I can still hear. But once it’s literally malkus, I can hear that when one gives a knas there must be something, a davar mashehu.

Speaker 2:

I don’t see such a problem, because always, by the way, always when one gives malkus, the beis din thinks beforehand. There’s no automatic. Beforehand there is a beis din that should decide whether now comes malkus. And usually, malkus comes. Basically, it seems to me generally that malkus, we see in the Gemara that one gives malkus also on the resha’im, on zenus. It says in the Gemara, yes? Why? Beis din would want to warn him. Yes, but that’s the thing that beis din can do, to make sure that people don’t do this. Since outside of issur I mean that one may not do this, see, you can’t let people do it. They received makkos mardus. You want to know everyone who once ate… outside the shiur receives makkos mardus, and there the Rav asks whether he holds that this was enough b’meizid, or perhaps he is a tinok shenishba. I don’t know, one can stand.

Speaker 1:

Yes, okay, further, very good.

Halacha 4 — Combining Eating: K’dei Achilas Pras

So, the Rambam says further, next halacha. Once we’ve said that there is a shiur regarding the obligation of kares, always when there is a shiur there is also how quickly one eats it. Because if we would say a k’beitzah, but one eats it over the whole day, it will still not have a shiur. There is a shiur in this. “Achal me’at, v’chazar v’achal, v’chazar v’achal” — he ate very slowly. It turns out, “im yesh mitchilas achilah rishonah ad sof achilah acharonah”, from when he began eating until finishing, there was enough long time how long it takes for a normal person to eat three eggs, “harei eilu mitztarfos l’shiur”. Because if one eats this amount in this short time, it’s called like one eating. But if not, the time stretches out, and as if one doesn’t get satisfied and doesn’t feel it, it’s not the same thing, then “ein mitztarfos”, it’s several less-than-shiur amounts, which is also forbidden but not kares.

The Rambam’s Language: “Shalosh Beitzim” Instead of “Achilas Pras”

This is an example of what I said yesterday, that the Rambam doesn’t even say the word “achilas pras,” yes? I remember I once learned, the Rambam brings a lashon haGemara and he says “u’mahu?”, he translates, “pras” means three eggs. And everyone can [eat] it “b’soch k’dei achilas pras”. Whoever learns this Rambam has never heard of the word “pras”, because “pras” is some Aramaic word that means half a loaf, whatever, which is three eggs.

Digression: Shiurim in the Ancient World — Practical Measures, Not Abstract

The Chachamim make the shiurim from the matter, like for example regarding speech it’s how long it takes to say “shalom alecha rebbi u’mori”. Regarding eating they give you a significant eating. They give you a shiur from the matter, yes? They didn’t start to say how many minutes. There weren’t any minutes. But all shiurim go like this. An amah, whatever, he takes a piece, he takes a practical thing. “K’dei achilas pras” and “k’dei amiras” this. This is regarding speech, and this is regarding eating. Yes, okay, soon we’ll see that by drinking it’s different, because drinking has a different shiur. But generally the Chachamim don’t go with… We are very accustomed. There is a history of about by the, what’s it called, French Revolution, a big part of their revolution was that they made the measures, yes? And also in England and other places there were such revolutions where they made that there is one shiur. Until then there was, one went to market, one buys a “bushel” of wheat. Every region had their bushels with their… It’s before in English, in America they still held a bit more the tradition, and we have all kinds of “funny” shiurim. Yes, a “yard”, and I know what, a “mile”. Nobody knows what it is. It comes because that’s how it was practical once, some vessel that introduced this. Later, the more “rational”, like Descartes, was very into this, that one should make like one true measure, that the whole country, the whole world will use this. But this is very late. In the time of Chachamim, and even much later, there wasn’t such a thing. One measured. You look sometimes at an old “recipe”, it says three handfuls of salt. What is a handful? One doesn’t know, one takes with the hands, what is the custom. And on Shabbos it was very strong like this, because every melacha was according to… It was accepted in that matter.

We are accustomed, we ask the question, because we… Just before this, Rav Moskal wrote about this, about the dispute about shiurim which is from the Noda BiYehuda, is about the same period, when they began to turn to see what is essentially the very “abstract”, yes, how many “meters”, how many “centimeters”, “milliliters”. This was a contradiction of the etzba’os with the… This never occurred. Here one counts the etzba’os, here one counts the revi’ios.

And also once, regarding times, one said, “Go out, see stars according to the horizon.” And what happens if the mountain is below, the mountain is today? Regarding times is also the same thing. What you say is a very similar thing, that people say, they ask me many questions, I did, I know, began counting clean days, the four minutes after. The history that a person can say “four minutes after” on the telephone to a person in another city, doesn’t have a long history of more than two hundred and some years, when there became a fast “train” from London to Manchester. Because before, every city had a clock in the middle of the “center” of the city, and what difference does it make what there is in the other city.

Shiurim and Beis Din

But it’s a question, because beis din did indeed give punishments. There had to be something, there had to be, it wasn’t completely random.

Before this it says in the Gemara, very interesting, that if someone eats less than a shiur, or he does a melacha less than a shiur on Shabbos, he should put away money for a chatas, “shema yavo’u beis din acher v’yarbu b’shiurin”. You see that every beis din had, certainly, this is discussed, from the time they had their official eye, I know with this they count the k’beitzah for all Jews.

But it can change according to the situation, according to before this, what there is today a dispute of Acharonim about shiurim, essentially, like the Chazon Ish, one must look at it that the beis din of this time investigates whether the halacha is so. Okay, this is already a whole other discussion, but we are perhaps not accustomed to forget that the halacha is established through the beis din, through the rabbis of his days. If the rabbis say that this is the shiur, this becomes the shiur, how much one gives to the rabbis.

Digression: Unification of Klal Yisrael

I mean that the change also happened in this that Klal Yisrael is more unified, because then, you say, in the city everyone saw the same mountain and the same, and it wasn’t relevant more. But today, since people live together, a part of this is that there must be clearer… Punctually the clock, with the time… Okay, further.

Halacha 4: Shiur Combining Drinking

The Rambam says further, what happens with drinking? The same thing regarding drinking there is also a matter of k’dei shtiyas shiur. So what?

“Shatah me’at v’chazar v’shatah v’chazar v’shatah, im yesh mitchilas shtiyah rishonah ad sof shtiyah acharonah k’dei shtiyas revi’is”, as much as the drinking of a revi’is, very interesting, because this is almost double from the… Only double. Almost the shiur. I mean, almost the shiur. The shiur is a bit less than a revi’is. So it’s almost the same amount as one allows. If he continues still so long, it’s already not in the same shiur, and he takes from Satmar shlita, will one be combined.

The Reason for K’dei Shtiyas Revi’is

The reason is apparently because… I mean that regarding a bracha is also this, because drinking one doesn’t drink like that. People ask today what one drinks for example tea, something that is very hot, it can be the way is to drink slowly. If you see, the normal way of drinking doesn’t take a loaf, a person can eat slowly b’khdei achilas pras.

Discussion: Thick Soup – Eating or Drinking?

Speaker 1:

I thought, I don’t know if someone drinks a thick soup, I don’t know if it has a din of drinking here. It doesn’t have to do with whether you take it with a spoon, or you take it with a cup. Because I thought, here it’s k’dei shiur k’k’zayis, but one drinks milk, like always is regarding milk. Can’t one say that the shiur of milk will be different if it’s thick milk, because it’s the issur of milk. It’s correct, one must look later.

Speaker 2:

Drinking means presumably either water, perhaps wine, but if someone takes and drinks flour, he’s eating bread. What is a difference?

Speaker 1:

If I remember that there is an explicit halacha about this, right? For example, by chametz in a situation I remember that the Rambam says… Everything I remember is what they already learned earlier from the Rambam.

Speaker 2:

Homech? There where one has it…

Speaker 1:

Yes. I remember that there is a halacha that chametz… drinks chametz.

Speaker 2:

Ah, one made it into… And the question is which shiur? Whether then it should be the shiur of revi’os or shiur of k’zayis?

Speaker 1:

Ah. Ah, the same thing in Hilchos Ma’achalos Asuros it says, if I remember explicitly, something like that topic.

Speaker 2:

Ah, question, nu? Let’s see… Echad ha’ochel, it will first enter by echad ha’ochel and echad… It’s not there in… Echad ha’ochel v’echad hamemacheh v’shoteh, yes here. Chamur tzumetzug chapter aleph, but they don’t have here. He’s not clear, he doesn’t say what the shiur, perhaps the shiur will be revi’os, not k’zayis or k’beitzah what revi’os for chametz. It’s hard to say, especially here where the matter is indeed v’nasan malsa sachar. Okay, there comes in another complication.

Speaker 1:

I’m just saying that it could be you’re right that eating standing is not a din in the object because it’s a liquid thing, it’s some sort of eating. And I also, if the thing one conducts to drink slowly, you know already, here you have the proof. One can say that when a person drinks water, he drinks, if he makes between this k’dei shtiyas revi’is, it’s already not the same thing as to give a drink a full glass of water. But that he should go in the same as eating, is harder to think, yes?

Speaker 2:

Here, l’inyaneinu, regarding v’nishmartem l’nafshoseichem.

Speaker 1:

Yes, but the Rambam doesn’t say clearly “shatah mayim”, so it’s certain that “shatah” will indeed mean water and wine and whatever is called drinking. Because beer is indeed, for example beer is exactly what I’m talking about, because you drink a glass of beer you’ve eaten by the way.

Proof from Hilchos Ma’achalos Asuros

But there it says in the Rambam in Hilchos Achilas Refuos, he says explicitly, Achilas Refuos, that if someone drinks, even “hamemacheh es hachalav”, there is no shiur of drinking, one must say according to Achilas Refuos.

Speaker 2:

Yes, shiur drinking. So it makes, so it sounds. Already a lo plug such a… I don’t know. So specifically it says explicitly the halacha, one must know.

Speaker 1:

That is, then you can reverse, because he drinks it. If he eats a soup, then perhaps it means that he eats. It can be reversed, you understand? I don’t know.

Speaker 2:

No, but it’s certain that when someone will take wine with a spoon, it won’t eat with a spoon or drink with a cup. That is how we usually look at it, eating or drinking. That’s not. The question one must know.

Speaker 1:

In the end yes. I don’t know, it’s a thing that is the… What can be is that they didn’t make any difference. This is accepted by people that it’s drinking. A glass of beer is almost the same thing as a slice of bread, in terms of what it does for the body. This is a bunch of… The drink that I have, the protein shake. It’s called drinking, it doesn’t help me. So you would say, eating drinking in categories what lies which ingredients.

Speaker 2:

No, but here, I say here l’inyaneinu, k’dei shtiyas revi’is one can very well hear that it’s a different kind of thing from the matter of nafshoseichem. But let me go with lo plug, that they made a shiur, eating drinking drinking.

Speaker 1:

Nu, the only thing I would say is, ah, regarding the matter? I don’t believe, after all. I don’t believe that the matter goes with the practical what this is a nut case, it’s also a matter of eating.

The only thing I would say is, if the reason why b’khdei revi’ah, this I think, if the reason why revi’ah is because the thing is the custom to drink quickly, drinking doesn’t have such a continuation of time like eating, then you can say that a thing where the order is that one drinks it not like a soup, then it will still be b’khdei achilas revi’is of soup, which perhaps takes longer.

Halacha 5: Foods That Are Not Fit for Human Consumption

The Rambam has already requested, the issur is something that is called normal eating. Now he’ll go say what not?

“Achal achalin she’eino ra’ui l’ma’achal adam, k’gon asavim hamarim me’od, o srafim habiyushim”. What is srafim? There is srafim meaning srafim, and there is srafim habiyushim. There are nachashim hasrafim. In short, stinking things. Srafim means apparently that it’s srafim. Sharp things, something sharp things that are in quality. But not sharp that one can eat. Sharp is already…

“O sheshah mashkin she’eino ra’ui”, everyone knows, everyone has something a taste in his mouth from what we’re talking about. “O sheshah mashkin she’eino ra’ui, k’gon tzir”, which we learned in Hilchos Eiruv is a practical thing, with bread it’s something one can eat, “o muryas”. But it is itself not food, or itself a drink, “or chometz chiyos”. You see here, mor ayas is some fish that are mixed, it calls it like a drinking, so immediately various types of work. Okay.

“Afilu achal v’shasan harbeh, harei zeh patur min hakares”, not any evil to drink, yes. “Aval makeh nosei makkas mardus”. But one will indeed give makkas mardus, similar to chatzi shiur.

Discussion: Patur Min HaKares – D’Oraisa or D’Rabbanan?

Speaker 1:

It’s interesting, because there’s no matter of kares not, but in practice you had benefit that the in practice…

Speaker 2:

Yes. But lo makin oz maximize means that it’s d’Rabbanan?

Speaker 1:

Yes, it’s d’Rabbanan.

Speaker 2:

Or not? Patur min kares? Even mid’Oraisa? Not clear. Perhaps this is a sort of chatzi shiur?

Speaker 1:

A sort of shiur, I thought of this, but apparently the word is that it’s not called eating, but it doesn’t say specifically the word eating so clearly. But it’s even not in proof, it’s like something that one doesn’t do k’darko, it’s not called done, it’s not called ochel.

Halacha 6: List of Ra’ui and Not Ra’ui

Further, the next is basically a list of things, of what is called ra’ui and what is called not ra’ui. And the Rebbe should say, a person who will go say things that are not comfortable or not good, but it’s indeed within ra’ui. You shouldn’t think that ra’ui means something that is… And conversely, preferred.

“She’asah chometz mazik b’mayim” is indeed perhaps presumably bitter or what, but he’s still obligated, because it’s still called drinking.

Translation

“One who chews pepper and ginger” – pepper or, I mean ginger is cinnamon or something from that family – you know how bitter it is! “Ki yotzei bo mamash”, it’s not something that’s tasty. You can’t eat it, it’s not derech achilah (a normal way of eating). That means not derech achilah, yes. But “ginger retuvah” (moist ginger) is yes something that is ra’uy le’ochel (fit for eating).

Lulvei Gefonim (Vine Shoots)

The same thing with grapevines. Someone, yes, started eating from the tree and became so hungry. So all the grapevines, the little leaves are exempt. The lulvei gefonim, the small other growths on the grapevine tree, are obligated. I mean that this is something that one eats. Sometimes one makes such a… it’s not a normal food, but something…

Speaker 2:

No, there are people who make such a… what’s it called? Like sauerkraut, such a holupche, such a thing from grape… there are parts, the lulvei gefonim that we’re learning here, there are parts that are more fit for eating, not just crazy things.

Speaker 1:

Yes, there is such a Sephardic dish.

“Lulvei gefonim chayav” (vine shoots are obligated). Says the Rambam, what are lulvei gefonim? Says the Rambam: “Kol she’livlevo be’Eretz Yisrael me’Rosh Hashanah ve’ad Yom Hakippurim” (everything that sprouts in the Land of Israel from Rosh Hashanah until Yom Kippur). Certain leaves that grow at such and such a time in Eretz Yisrael, the Rambam just brings here a Gemara, simply this was the tradition, there they knew the measure, this is lulva. In short, now it’s actually Yom Kippur.

Speaker 2:

Ah, true. It means that it’s only a few days old, right? That’s what I mean. Perhaps specifically this thing grows precisely at that time.

Speaker 1:

The point is, in Eretz Yisrael there was the season when in Eretz Yisrael back then it grows, and then it’s still fresh.

Speaker 2:

Yes. And a Jew will think, it’s actually, this is actually an aseret yemei teshuvah (Ten Days of Repentance) fruit, what could be more fitting? Even on Yom Kippur one may not eat, hello. This one may not…

Continuation: Lulvei Gefonim (End of Discussion)

Speaker 1: This is the lulov. Moreover, in the other times, true, it means that it’s only a few days old, right? That’s what I mean. Perhaps specifically this thing grows now too, but the point is, in Eretz Yisrael there was the season when then it grows, and then it’s still fresh. Yes? And a Jew will think, it’s actually, this is actually an aseret yemei teshuvah fruit. What could be more fitting?

On Yom Kippur one may not eat, hello? This one may not eat on Yom Kippur. But is there here some sort of fruit that grows during aseret yemei teshuvah? I’m sure it’s fit for food, or what does one call bringing this. It’s called a lulov, what has the name lulov? It’s a grapevine, it has a lulov, it’s a grapevine. In short, one must tithe it. If someone wants to find such a thing in the neighborhood, you should eat here during aseret yemei teshuvah, yes. Moreover, harei hen ke’eitzim (behold they are like wood), afterwards it becomes dried out or something, it’s no longer called lulvei gefonim, one has a law like wood, and it’s exempt, it’s no longer derech achilato (its normal way of eating). Says the Rambam, ve’chen kol kayotzei ba’elu (and so all similar cases), you must always figure out which fruit, if it’s fit for eating.

Halacha 7: Combining Measures — Food with Salt and Brine

Speaker 1: Ha’ochel tzli be’melach (one who eats roasted food with salt), here the Rambam goes to speak about combining measures. We learned earlier that if one ate different foods, they combine. Says the Rambam, that eating and drinking don’t combine, he could have learned a way that perhaps looks like eating and drinking, but it does combine, it’s like the juice of the food. But perhaps one would have said that it’s nullified. As if achal tzli be’melach (he ate roasted food with salt), one estimates how much the measure is, and if together with the salt there was a measure, then mitztaref be’melach le’vatel (it combines with the salt to nullify). Seemingly I would have tended to say that salt is a nullified liquid, something like that.

But comes, the next one is certainly so, tzir al gabei yerek (brine on vegetables), vegetables with such juice also mitztaref (combines). U’minah she’yihyu machshirei ha’ochel hame’oravim ba’ochel ke’ochel hen chashuvim (and from this we learn that food enablers that are mixed with food are considered as food). You shouldn’t say that brine he earlier counted among the liquids, and food and liquids don’t combine. He says, no, this is called food. The juice of the food is still also a part of the food. Since it’s mixed, he considers it as food.

Halacha 7 (Continued): Achilah Gasah — Satiation from Coarse Eating

Speaker 1: Another one who is exempt. Hayah savei’a me’achilah gasah she’achal ad she’katz bi’mezono (if one was satiated from coarse eating that he ate until he was disgusted with his food), if a person is full because he has already eaten a lot, so much that he is katz bi’mezono (disgusted with his food), he is nauseated by his food. And yet he eats, ve’achal yeiter al hasovah (and he ate more than his satiation), he eats more than he needs for his fullness, he is patur (exempt).

This is called dechiyat aseh (pushing aside a positive commandment). Because this is the Rambam’s way, there’s a lot of discussion about Yom Kippur. Because it’s a way of education, because on Yom Kippur night, if this will be violated, it won’t be a prohibition either, because it’s dechiyat aseh, and no one needs to eat then. Afterwards he has already survived the whole night, and now you only need a few more hours until night.

Kemo she’achal (as if he ate), if a person gets a law kemo she’achal ma’achalim she’einan re’uyim la’achilah (as if he ate foods that are not fit for eating). Says the Rambam, af al pi she’zeh ha’yeiter ra’uy le’adam (even though this extra food is fit for a person) the other food that he filled himself with, for a hungry person, but for one who is not hungry, for him it’s not fit. Or not just for him, but perhaps the Rambam is difficult, what kind of crazy person? The Rambam says that foods that are not fit has to do with the person. But if it’s le’chol mi (for everyone), it’s a general thing that no one who… if you are a person who doesn’t like this, I don’t like any chocolate in the world, it’s a davar hara’uy (a fit thing). If no person who is in your state will eat, it’s called eino ra’uy le’adam (not fit for a person), because it’s not eating, it’s achilah gasah (coarse eating).

I’m already thinking here of an interesting… there are many times people who are bothered, one throws away things that are still good. It’s such a shame, one throws away. And he says, during the war, I know how, in Eretz Yisrael Jews would have been sustained with this. But here one sees that this is not fit, because it’s eino ra’uy le’chol mi she’sovev ba’zeh (not fit for all who are in this situation). The people who sit here at the table, for them it’s eino ra’uy, nu? One could think here of a proof, but not important, not relevant. Enough, yes, nonsense. Further. Okay.

Halacha 8: Choleh She’yesh Bo Sakanah — Introduction

Speaker 1: Until now we have learned what is the measure, which foods one is obligated for, which one is exempt from. Now we will learn who may indeed eat. Yes. Be’di’eved (after the fact) as if one is not in danger. Very good.

Says the Rambam thus, I mean I would make a small introduction such that we have already learned in hilchot Shabbat, and we have already actually learned in some Torah study, that anything that is sakkanat nefashot (danger to life) is certainly that one is exempt from kol haTorah kulah (the entire Torah). And in hilchot Shabbat we learned it that whether when the doctor says that it’s a danger, and one is lenient, or whether there is a concern of danger. Here one goes a bit more into the details of what happens when there is a dispute between doctors, or when it’s not certain that it’s really important to eat.

And I mean that all these things are when there’s certainly not any real concern of danger of dying, a real concern of danger, but that a sick person everyone understands that a sick person doesn’t fast. But here one must however define that there must really be a reason that he should eat.

Discussion: Is This a Leniency or a Stringency?

Speaker 2: I would say the opposite, that this is a leniency.

Speaker 1: That is, first of all, there are details of laws. You ask a good question that one must understand, I claim that people don’t understand this in a general way. If it’s pikuach nefesh (saving a life), and even safek pikuach nefesh (doubtful danger to life), throughout kol haTorah kulah there are no shalosh chamurot (three severe prohibitions). Even if there is only one doctor, soon we’ll see the details, we’ll come to that. It’s always lenient. To make the word chashash sakanah (concern of danger) is enough, even a concern, even one doctor, even a rumor.

But in other words, let’s say clearly, if it’s a chashash sakanah, the whole Mishnah doesn’t begin, one must simply say, chashash sakanah is safek nefashot is docheh (overrides), it’s not from the shalosh chamurot. It must be that all these laws, even when one says choleh she’yesh bo sakanah (a sick person who has danger), doesn’t mean he’s going to die this morning from not eating. It means that it will worsen his illness, it will… it’s such a sort of illness she’yesh bo sakanah, it’s a dangerous situation, from this one can die. And there are many details there, and most of the details are great leniencies. Although the Rambam does have one case that is a stringency, one must understand according to how the Rambam explains.

But so one must say. People who think that one can learn from this, there is such a thing called the definition of danger, because if one knows that it’s already danger one may, one must say what danger means, one looks in hilchot Yom Kippur, what does danger mean? It’s not correct. Because here one speaks of it’s not danger, it’s not equal. Danger I mean to say that one can die from this today.

Speaker 2: Exactly what I wanted to say, because I found that in hilchot Shabbat you don’t see…

Speaker 1: In hilchot Shabbat it’s very very simple. One word, here there are a few details. This is not made to be more stringent here.

Speaker 2: Compared to a non-Jew, some doubt, yes, do you remember? Some doubt that perhaps it’s a non-Jew? Do you remember? The topic of majority.

Speaker 1: The Rambam does have, ways that perhaps it’s a majority. I don’t know clearly. But you’re right that it wasn’t in hilchot Shabbat. There was yes a certain thing, for example a sick person, an animal we learned it, it’s a bit more stringent. That is, the whole stringencies that we learned there is that on Shabbat there is such that one can say one should bring it shelo ke’darkah (not in its usual way), one should do it, your friend does it should bring it. And you hear the name… this says that there he wants to say that no one thinks that one may do threshing because of someone who is sick. He says, no, if there is someone with chashash sakanah, do threshing.

But here, a choleh yesh beit sakanah (sick person with danger), everyone will say don’t fast. He comes to tell him, no, it’s not so simple, there must really be a real reason. Because everyone understands by themselves that pikuach nefesh overrides. You should know that a choleh yesh beit sakanah must also have a reason he should fast.

Speaker 2: A reason he should fast, you mean?

Speaker 1: Okay, I have no danger. No, but I say, even a choleh yesh beit sakanah, if everyone agrees that it’s okay for him to fast, he’s not in danger. Then he’s still obligated, yes. Choleh yesh beit sakanah doesn’t mean yesh beit sakanah im yamim (there is danger if days), it means choleh be’machalah metukenet (sick with a dangerous illness).

But it’s also different for example from the law of cholim u’meshamshim (sick people and their attendants) who are exempt from sukkah, yes?

Speaker 2: No, if the sick person, the sick person is exempt from sukkah, or…

Speaker 1: Okay, because he is… or prayer.

Speaker 2: Or no, there is an exemption that is much broader.

Speaker 1: Okay, but the Rambam further, choleh she’yesh bo sakanah.

Halacha 8: Choleh She’sha’al Le’echol — Lev Yodei’a Marat Nafsho

Speaker 1: She’sha’al al ochel be’Yom HaKippurim (who asked for food on Yom Kippur). He asked to eat. He says, I’m hungry. He knows that it’s certainly Yom Kippur. He says, I want to eat, I feel… even, af al pi she’rofei mi beki’im omrim eino tzarich (even though expert doctors say he doesn’t need it). Even if the doctors who are experts, who are accepted to understand what is medicine, say one doctors for his health condition, they see more than what the sick person requests. They say according to their understanding, it won’t worsen his situation if he doesn’t eat. Yet still ma’achilin oto al pi atzmo (we feed him according to his own word), we give to the sick person according to his own request, ad she’yomar dai (until he says enough), he hasn’t given less than the measure or something, ad she’yomar dai when he says that he already feels better.

The topic of she’yomar is, the Rambam didn’t bring it at all, other Rishonim innovated it. And the Gemara explains, because it says lev yodei’a marat nafsho (the heart knows its own bitterness), a person, his own body, he understands it even more than the doctor. If he says, it means we assume that it is indeed a danger. Eh, the doctor says, the doctor can’t know every situation, but the person, if he says “I need,” simply he needs.

Speaker 2: For example, such a case in hilchot Shabbat, seemingly it’s not necessarily, if it’s not a medicine of the interior or…

Speaker 1: No, the same thing. I don’t know if regarding Shabbat one will say that a person feels… he feels that he is in a state of danger. Here it’s relevant, because he feels hungry, he feels that he needs to eat. What’s relevant in hilchot Shabbat? If there would be such a case, I mean yes, but I don’t believe in hilchot Shabbat… do you understand what I’m saying? I don’t know where it’s relevant.

Halacha 8 (Continued): Rofei Omer Tzarich, Choleh Omer Eino Tzarich

Speaker 1: And not only that, but he shouldn’t be stringent, and if he says that I want to be pious and fast, we will stuff him and they shouldn’t ask. Okay, when the doctor says, the next case makes sense, right? Yes, but what happens the opposite? When the sick person says he doesn’t need the food, and a rofei omer (doctor says) that medically he needs to have it, because he is in danger, ma’achilin oto al piv (we feed him according to his word). We give him yes to eat al piv (according to the word) of the doctor, even if the sick person himself says he doesn’t need.

The “lev yodei’a marat nafsho” is there to be lenient, not to be stringent. His word against just another person’s word would indeed be strong, but when he is actually a doctor. But this is simple, because the doctor, certainly, every doctor can know more than him. It can’t be that a person can know more than the doctor.

Halacha 8 (Continued): Machloket Rofe’im (Dispute of Doctors)

Speaker 1: Okay. What if there’s a dispute of doctors? Rofei echad omer tzarich ve’echad omer eino tzarich (one doctor says he needs and one says he doesn’t need). That is, he himself doesn’t have an opinion here in such a case seemingly, that he’s not requesting. He’s not requesting, right. He’s not requesting, but… and now there’s a dispute between doctors. It seems that it’s not the first time when a person has a time of trouble one runs to ten people. So, rofei echad begins, one doctor this way, one doctor that way. Ma’achilin oto (we feed him). Says the Rambam, in such a case it becomes a doubt between two doctors. The sick person himself we put to the side, and the dispute between two doctors is a doubt. Ma’achilin oto.

What if there is a great… so he says, not that one didn’t ask just one doctor, one made a whole assembly of doctors, one asked them all, yes? Yes.

Machloket Rofe’im — Continuation

When Miktzat HaRofe’im Say “Tzarich” and Miktzatam Say “Eino Tzarich”

It seems that it’s not the first time when a person has a time of trouble one runs to ten people. So, rofei hakol begins one doctor this way, one doctor that way. “Ma’achilin oto” (we feed him), says the Rambam, in such a case it becomes a doubt between two doctors, and the sick person himself we put to the side. A dispute between two doctors is a doubt, “ma’achilin oto”.

What if there is a great… so he says, not just that one asked one doctor, one made a whole assembly of doctors, one asked them all, yes? So “miktzat harofe’im omrim tzarich” (some of the doctors say he needs) — there was a “staff meeting,” the hospitals have such a serious situation, all the doctors stood discussing the “case.” There are a few doctors who say that he needs to eat, “u’miktzatam omrim eino tzarich” (and some of them say he doesn’t need). Here becomes the question thus, whom does one follow? Here one would when a person could have thought even one doctor against many. But we’re not speaking here of… here one must also add our thing, but we’re speaking further not seemingly when it’s really a chashash pikuach nefesh that he’s going to die now. But a doctor says that he recommends, because a few doctors say that “tzarich.” “Tzarich” doesn’t say that he’s going to die without it, because then perhaps even one doctor.

“She’miktzatam omrim eino tzarich, halacha achar harov o achar habeki’im” (that some of them say he doesn’t need, the law follows the majority or the experts). One goes either after the majority of doctors, that is for example three against two, or experts. The one who is more expert… how does one know who is more expert? That’s one question, but also… the Rambam knew because the Rambam was a doctor. Right, but he also doesn’t tell us the “ratio,” that is one expert against nine non-experts, but he says both, majority and experts. He says that sometimes one goes even after the minority. If there is a dispute of many, one should go after the majority. It’s interesting, although it says in the law “be’nefashot achar rov” (in matters of life follow the majority), the Rambam’s ruling is very difficult. The Rambam says that if there are many doctors and a portion, one goes after the majority. But what he says “achar habeki’im” (after the experts) means even not a majority. If there is one who is more expert, certainly one expert is worth more than a hundred non-experts, or less expert ones, it’s still yes a majority of doctors. This is seemingly what he says.

Discussion: The Lack of Clarity in the Rambam’s Ruling

However, this very point in the Shulchan Aruch is not clear to the other commentators who don’t agree with the halacha, because either one must go even for a doubt, even according to the minority, or one should go according to the majority, or this is not clear. The Rambam says that the halacha is not clear. If the halacha is half and half, then yes, because as we learned earlier, one doctor says this and one doctor says that, it’s a doubt, and it’s… a minority doesn’t make a doubt? I can understand that one should go according to the majority, but enough, at least you should make it a doubt. And as it was said regarding half, once it’s a doubt, then yes, one must consider it.

And also, the Rambam doesn’t say it clearly. He says “or” “or”, I don’t remember which. It’s not clear. It appears that the Rambam, I think that the Rambam was a doctor. The Rambam understands, sometimes there is an ordinary case, the doctors say ordinarily. One goes according to what one hears. I don’t know. “Provided that the sick person does not say ‘I need it,’ but if he said ‘I need it,’ then he desecrates and eats.”

Interesting, he says it here again. No, because he says that the whole thing goes according to the doctor. Yes, you’re right. Even if he says “I need it” against the experts, against the majority of experts, against everything, there’s no difference. “I need it” overrides everything.

When the Sick Person Says Nothing and the Doctors Are Equally Divided

He says, “The sick person did not say that he needs it, and the doctors disagree,” what happens? He still hasn’t resolved it. He says nothing, and the doctors are arguing. And one cannot say “follow the experts,” they are all experts. And they are also, “those who said he needs it are equal in number to those who said he doesn’t need it,” and they are divided. It’s equal. It’s equal, so it becomes the same as two. True, true. I didn’t need him to say it again. I said a bit about the two halachos. It’s not clear. Perhaps there are some distinctions? One must understand a bit better. Yes. Okay.

The Ramban’s Leniency — “Two Are Like a Hundred”

Now, the Rambam says further, “however, there is a leniency.” The Ramban says another leniency, that if there are two doctors who say “he needs it,” even against a hundred, one says “two are like a hundred,” and one doesn’t go according to the majority. It turns out that the Rambam is not clear about the leniency, the leniency, the… not what leniency, stringency, whatever you want to call it, that there are times when the Rambam says one should go either according to the majority of doctors or according to the expert doctors, I understand that it’s according to the situation, one perhaps cannot…

I think that’s why he throws in there again, “provided that he does not say,” because he didn’t want… he thought of a scenario, yes? Like one doctor says really, I feel that it’s really a danger. So the doctor will say “I need it,” he’ll tell him, “the sick person, you should know, I think you’re going to die.” He tells him “I need it,” then everything is settled. It’s not really a problem that there will sometimes be a danger and one will be stringent. Okay, fine.

Halacha: A Pregnant Woman Who Smelled Food

Let’s take another interesting halacha, also the manner in which it’s pikuach nefesh, so to speak. Yes. The Rambam says thus: A pregnant woman who smelled food, another case of pikuach nefesh, because a pregnant woman is very sensitive to food. She smelled food, and it really grabs her… in other places they call it bulmos. No, no, bulmos we’ll learn now. A pregnant woman who smelled food, and she gets some kind of great weakness from the food she smelled. So first there’s a smell, so to speak a desire to eat, but a desire that is dangerous, that is somewhat dangerous for her. It was accepted, today it’s not accepted, it was accepted. Today also many pregnant women get a great desire for a certain food. It was accepted that if one doesn’t eat it, it’s dangerous. Dangerous for the fetus perhaps, I don’t know if it’s dangerous for her even, that the baby can be in danger.

The Segulah of Whispering

So first one tries to calm her, one doesn’t immediately permit. “One whispers in her ear that today is Yom Kippur.” First one tells her that it’s Yom Kippur, today one may not eat. This is a segulah, because the knowledge was that the baby is what makes the craving, and if the baby is a tzaddik, as it says in the Gemara, yes? If the baby is a tzaddik, one reminds him that it’s Yom Kippur, he stops wanting. Like the animal of the Tanna that wasn’t resting, he said to the animal, in short. One can also say the rationalistic explanations as one wishes, but this is… So “if her mind is calmed by this reminder, good.” She calmed down. “And if not,” if she’s still not calm, then “one feeds her until her mind is settled,” one gives her to eat until she calms down, because it appears that this is some matter of danger.

Distinction Between Psychological and Physical

But it appears here quite interesting, like a drama, one made a distinction between psychological desire and something when it’s already the body. Yes, there are these two types of things. If a person wants something very strongly, but one can make her mind calm. But there is when it becomes a physical craving that won’t be helped by speaking to the intellect. I think that one doesn’t conduct the halacha this way today, because we don’t take the cravings of the pregnant woman seriously enough. But in the Gemara one sees that they took it very seriously. I say, the distinction is very relevant in life. Many times it’s psychological, a person has a panic attack, and sometimes it’s really in the body. It’s psychological, it can help. The Gemara says that they found one who didn’t want, and that one grew up to be a famous wicked person, because the baby wanted to eat on Yom Kippur. I’ll understand. I ate at the end.

Halacha: Bulmos

“And similarly,” the similar thing, like the opposite of “fortunate is she who bore him.” A person was seized by weakness, a strong hunger. It can put him in danger. Bulimia is a disease, in English they say bulimia. It’s the same language, it means that it’s a strange eating desire, basically. And again, this is perhaps psychological, or perhaps not. The point is, he must eat now. In short, we’re talking here about eating disorders. Yes, it’s eating disorders. “And one feeds him until his eyes light up.” When one sees that the eyes brighten, one knows that he has calmed down. Because “even non-kosher carcasses and vermin”… the Rambam says that such hunger is such a danger that “even non-kosher carcasses and vermin one feeds them immediately,” because it’s really a danger. “And one does not” wait “until one prepares permitted things.” And now I throw in here, because he already spoke about the matter of Yom Kippur, he already spoke in the same place. Yes. Because it’s similar to a pregnant woman who smelled. It’s also such a situation, a person is seized by a great desire and he must eat, and even forbidden things.

Halacha: Educating Minors on Yom Kippur

And now we’ll learn about the age from when one must eat. I’ll go like this: “A minor between nine years and ten years,” from nine or ten, “one educates him by hours.” One educates by hours. What does this mean? “How? If he was accustomed to eat at two hours of the day,” he eats two hours into the day. “One feeds him at three,” one gives him today you should fast an hour, “or he was accustomed at three, one feeds him at four. According to the strength of the child, one adds to his affliction by hours,” according to how strong he is, one adds more hours that he should fast. “And when he is eleven,” when he is already eleven, “both males and females, he afflicts himself and completes.” He fasts and he finishes the entire fast. And the halacha is “from the words of the Rabbis,” it’s not from the Torah. From the Torah he’s still not an adult, but from the words of the Rabbis, “to educate him in mitzvos.” It appears that the obligation is on him, not on the father. Education, as if it becomes his own mitzvah of education. Something like that. It’s a funny inquiry that people have. The point is that he must do it for the sake of education.

The Ra’avad’s Dispute

And what does this mean? The Ra’avad disagrees with this. The Ra’avad says he doesn’t understand why eleven should be both male and female eleven, it still remains the law that according to his strength one educates. If he already has the strength to fast a whole day, then he’ll fast a whole day. But the Ra’avad doesn’t agree with the halacha that at eleven one must already fast completely.

When Does One Become an Adult for All Mitzvos

Afterwards, let’s finish the Rambam. When the girl becomes twelve and the boy, “twelve and one day, and the male thirteen years and one day, and they have also brought the other signs of maturity of two hairs, as is explained in the details thereof in the Laws of Marriage, yes, they are adults for all mitzvos.” Then they acquire the status of adults regarding mitzvos, they are already properly obligated, “and they complete from the Torah,” they must fast the entire Yom Kippur fast. The Rambam says, this is when one has done both, both years and signs, as the Gemara calls it, “but if he did not bring two hairs, they are still minors,” they have a status like the minors that we learned earlier, “and he only completes from the words of the Rabbis,” and then one is obligated with the law of education. He doesn’t say what happens if there are hairs alone. No, it doesn’t help. That means you should remember there, Rabbeinu.

Less Than Nine Years Old

The Rambam says further, “a minor who is less than nine years old,” what happens before eleven? Before nine, excuse me. There is not yet the mitzvah of education. That is, earlier he said that one educates by hours. From nine and ten and further. But less than that, “one does not afflict him on Yom Kippur.” In general, one should not.

Halacha 10 — A Minor Less Than Nine Years Old: Prohibition to Afflict

He doesn’t say what happens if it’s hairs alone. No, it doesn’t help. That means you should remember the words. Okay, that’s how one understands in Marriage, yes.

The Rambam says further, “A minor who is less than nine years old,” what happens before nine? “One does not afflict him on Yom Kippur at all.” One should not, not that one may not. Not only is one not obligated, but one may not, one should not. “So that he not come to danger.” When one is still very young, the Rambam says that it’s a danger to fast.

The Custom to Be Lenient — Education Only by Hours, Not a Full Day

Very good. And what the Rambam said that from nine and ten, or from eleven certainly, if they can they must fast the whole day, on this there are other Rishonim who say no, that education is only by hours, well, there is never education to fast a whole day.

And not only that, the holy Shulchan Aruch HaRav and other Acharonim also, what the Pabitscher brings once from the Shulchan Aruch HaRav, but there were others who said this, that the custom is such that one doesn’t let any minor fast a whole day.

The Shulchan Aruch HaRav says thus, “Since everyone studies now and Torah weakens their strength,” therefore they’re not healthy, therefore they don’t need to. So because all children today go to cheder and are weak, one doesn’t fast before the bar mitzvah.

So I think by most Jews the custom today is that one doesn’t educate to fast a whole day until the bar mitzvah. A few hours perhaps, yes. One Yom Kippur, one before, yes. There are different… according to the main law one must educate even earlier, but the custom is more lenient than what it says in this Rambam. One must always be stringent regarding pikuach nefesh. Yes, although… okay, whatever, let’s not go into this. I don’t know, no one would imagine.

Asking a Doctor — Distinction Between Private and General Matters

Also all these halachos, what one must ask a doctor, is also when it’s a private matter. But in history there have been a few times that if it was a general matter, there was a plague or such a thing.

Or just a… I don’t want exactly on that level, but for example tomorrow will be a very hot day, it will be a hundred degrees. There are people who are forced that they must be outside, they work on construction sites and the like. He doesn’t need to ask his specific doctor. It’s today a very terrible… the day is dangerous. It’s enough that the doctors say that when it’s a hundred degrees and one is outside, more than so much, so much one begins to become a danger.

And this is also that one can be lenient, all these things that we learned here… I have a rabbinic fast. Yes, okay. We need to know all these details. Okay. It’s a tremendous thing.