Laws of Resting on the Tenth (Yom Kippur) Chapter 3 (Auto Translated)

Laws of Shevitat Asor Chapter 3 — The Prohibition of Washing on Yom Kippur

Introduction to the Shiur

Speaker 1: Yes, we are learning Hilchot Shevitat Asor, the laws of Yom Kippur, the third chapter. And now we’re going to learn about the prohibition of washing (rechitzah). We learned that there are five afflictions (inuyim). We already learned about eating and drinking, and now we’re going to learn about washing and anointing (rechitzah, sichah).

Yes, today is Rosh Chodesh Av, baruch Hashem Rabbi Yehudah’le is back from matters of service of Hashem from Switzerland, and we’re putting it up a bit in a different order, but we’re sharing with the world our news. Baruch Hashem, we’re going back to learning in honor of Rosh Chodesh Av. It could be that there will still be interruptions throughout the summer, I also need to travel somewhere for a few days, but anyway, we’re very pleased to be learning.

And it’s Rosh Chodesh Av which is also interesting, because in the Nine Days there are also certain customs of not washing, and what else? Not eating certain things, but the shiur on Yom Kippur is completely not eating. But it has some similarity to the laws of Yom Kippur that we’re learning here, and Yom Kippur is coming soon anyway, so we’re learning through as preparation. Wonderful.

And this shiur has been donated, dedicated the entire shiur, the entire series of shiurim for the year, by our friend, our learner of Torah, supporter of Torah. Not all Jews who are supporters of Torah properly understand what they’re supporting, but this is a Jew who actually learns the Torah and has pleasure from it and is immersed in it, and also understands that naturally one must add the actual money and the support for it, this is Rav Rabbi Yoel Leib Wertzberger. And we wish him a good month. And this speaks for all the other Jews who learn along and who love the shiur, and who continue with the shiur. I hope that the world forgives us that we sometimes need to go on vacation. Our Rebbes used to say “one who stands from the Torah, that is its preservation,” sometimes one must neglect the Torah as well. But with Hashem’s help we’ll catch up, we’ll return to the order over time, and the main thing is that we continue every day, we continue.

Yes, we’re a bit behind, there was a bit to give space between parsha and parsha, but we’re going to try now to catch up, and we’re going to finish here Hilchot Yom Kippur, and after that comes Hilchot Yom Tov.

Halacha 1: The Prohibition of Washing — Whether in Hot or Cold Water, Whether the Whole Body or One Limb

Speaker 1: The Rambam says as follows, yes, the prohibition of washing. The Rambam says: “It is forbidden to wash on Yom Kippur”, and washing here means “whether in hot water or in cold water”. It’s not, often the pleasure of washing means the pleasure of hot water, so we rule in certain cases, for example, in the laws of Shabbat, for example… ah, does it already mean bathhouse? Yes, certainly not. Because in the laws of Shabbat, the rabbinic prohibition that exists on bathhouses, is specifically on hot water, because there’s always the concern that one will fix the bathhouse. Because yes, because the bathhouse attendants used to heat. The decree of bathhouse attendants.

Yes. I’m saying, there’s sometimes such a thing. Okay, but here the words are whether hot or cold. Yes, it’s a bit interesting, because we’ll already see. The question is, what is the pleasure? We’ll already see that if it’s only in order to be clean, that’s not called pleasure from washing.

Right, but it’s certain that washing means very good. Washing is not to clean, it’s a certain taste, a certain pleasure (taanug) from going in water, but it’s not necessarily hot water. There’s no halacha, right? There’s later perhaps some halacha that makes a distinction between hot and cold, no halacha, right? Not that I remember here. There’s no distinction at all.

No, for example in the Nine Days, perhaps yes there is a distinction, because it’s more a matter of mourning (aveilus), it’s different. From pleasure, or… perhaps there is a certain pleasure from bathing in hot water.

Even One Limb, Even a Small Finger

Speaker 1: Yes, okay, but here we see the prohibition is washing, whether hot or cold, whether his whole body or one limb. On Shabbat there actually is a distinction between his whole body and one limb, but on Yom Kippur there’s no distinction. Even, says the Rambam, even a small finger is forbidden to put in water, one may not even dip a finger in the water. That means a finger in cold water.

No, stands well.

Halacha 2: A King and a Bride May Wash Their Faces

Speaker 1: But, says the Rambam, there are in this permissions, there are in this conditions. Who may yes. “And the king and the bride may wash their faces”. A king and a bride may yes wash themselves. Why? Why did they permit for these two? “A bride so that she not become repulsive to her husband”. A bride may wash herself so that she should look good, she should look clean, so that she not become repulsive to her husband. So that her husband should not become disgusted. It says on this holy day, the holy day, if the groom will see that his bride is dirty, he has no shalom bayit.

Speaker 2: Yes, actually actually. He’s talking about Yom Kippur. Yes. One may not anyway, I mean relations (tashmish) is certainly forbidden. Yes, the Rambam ends with tashmish. So, interesting. Yes. And in general, why does it have to do specifically with a bride? If there’s something of a matter that she not become repulsive to her husband, we need to understand why a bride, the Rambam says until thirty days, what happens after that?

Speaker 1: Ah, it seems that we’ve already caught on, he’s already fallen in, there’s still.

A King — So That He Be Seen in His Beauty

Speaker 1: “And the king so that he be seen in his beauty”, the king must be seen with his beauty, “as it says ‘a king in his beauty your eyes shall behold’”. Here we see that a king has a matter of beauty, that there’s a matter that the king should look beautiful. Yes, that’s what he means. He doesn’t mean here… seemingly that verse speaks “a king in his beauty your eyes shall behold” means the Almighty is the king, no?

Speaker 2: “He gave charity, look eat”. “King of charity”. I don’t know what it means in its simple meaning.

Discussion: What is the Basis of This Permission?

Speaker 1: I mean, but this we certainly see that a king… I mean that the point is, that when people wash themselves, they don’t do it for pleasure, rather they do it because they have… they always remember that they must look beautiful. But let’s understand, they have no other person, when he washes himself simply, thinks that he does it because he wants to have pleasure from washing himself. I don’t know if that was… I mean that’s how I would think, but it could also be. That is, it depends if washing is rabbinic, all these matters, except for eating and drinking which are from the Torah are rabbinic. But it could be that even if something is from the Torah, there’s no karet, it’s more like fences, the Sages are making. It could be that this is a very great need, it’s very terrible that the bride will become repulsive to her husband and not be able to live. So the Sages were lenient.

That is, I don’t mean that we must arrive at this distinction. The Rambam, we’ll see later, there are ways that it seems to me certainly not washing of pleasure, and the Rambam still forbids everything, therefore it’s difficult for me. Therefore I think that perhaps one will be able to learn, this is simply a leniency. It’s a difficult thing.

Question: What Does Washing the Face Accomplish?

Speaker 2: It’s a bit difficult, because… what does this mean? It means like this: if she’s dirty, she should wash like everyone else. As he’s going to say later, that one who is dirty may wash himself. No, means dirty, it’s something in between. That if she bathes it won’t make her more beautiful. Make beautiful the hair with the king, yes? What? We want to be hair, his beard, whatever, should be beautifully put together. This, whether he washed his face or not, a person who goes through to see the king, will seemingly not see. It’s interesting. It could be that we don’t understand clearly the laws, because this has to do with the culture. What does it mean that one doesn’t wash the face?

Speaker 1: No, I’m not talking about the beautiful king. Even you’re asking a good question. You see, one can see whether someone has already washed his face today, he looks a bit… well check, you’ll see that you notice his face. Not dirty. One doesn’t see on the face. One sees yes, he’s something like… dirty (meluchlach) is actually dirty, but here we’re talking about a certain addition. Washing is simply becoming clean. I mean, what is it? It’s not for fun.

I mean, it seems like, let’s say a person washes himself, he takes a good long hot shower, for the next hour one will see on him a certain glow, a certain redness on his face. But you won’t see in the afternoon whether the person bathed this morning or he bathed yesterday. The Torah says that one won’t.

Perhaps the point here is that these two people have a concern (hakpadah), they are very particular that people look at them, and because of that they wash themselves, they don’t wash themselves for pleasure, therefore because of that it was permitted. Or, this is already another question, this you’re asking why it’s permitted, but one can say simply that it’s a strong need, as I want to argue perhaps.

Gemara: The Distinction Between Mourning and Pleasure

Speaker 1: But I just want to say, he brings here a Gemara, yes? You spoke a minute ago about this distinction from Rav Chisda said, Rav Chisda said, anything that is because of mourning, such as Tisha B’Av, is forbidden whether in hot or in cold. Anything that is because of pleasure, such as a public fast, in hot is forbidden, in cold is permitted. And mourning implies that this is only on a rabbinic public fast, but on a Torah public fast one doesn’t distinguish, the Rambam says that even in cold is forbidden on Yom Kippur. It comes out that a normal public fast, that is the four fasts, we don’t have a prohibition of washing, but a public fast that is decreed which is yes forbidden in washing, one may yes wash in cold, because that’s not called pleasure. But mourning, there’s no distinction, there’s a certain pleasure from washing in hot. There is, mourning means one doesn’t wash. There’s such a thing, a person who is a mourner, he forgets about his body, he’s immersed in his pain. He neglects everything except his pain. He thinks only about his pain. Right. He’s neglected, very good, that’s the point.

I don’t know if on Yom Kippur it’s a subject of neglect, it’s very funny. It’s more a subject of affliction (inuy), so then it should yes be similar to the subject of pleasure, which should only be forbidden in hot. Not clear. Perhaps why… It’s an interesting halacha.

Question: Why Does the Rambam Bring the Law of a King?

Speaker 2: One should understand why the Rambam brings it at all. The Rambam didn’t know that there’s no king of Israel. The king of Israel doesn’t sit on his bench and receive the community on Yom Kippur. Yom Kippur the world is busy with the Kohen, not with the king. Does the king have any job at all on Yom Kippur? He stands in the corner in the Beit Hamikdash, and he watches the service of the Kohen. He’s not now the center of the attention of the people. This is certainly not such a problem.

Speaker 1: No, I think the Rambam means to say, he brings the two examples, that when the washing is about the appearance and not about the pleasure, he says it but not clearly. He brings the second Gemara, which this is the matter. I see clearly later that there are ways which is certain, because the Rambam forbids the immersion of Ezra, the immersion for a seminal emission, the Rambam forbids. If this would have been the correct law, it wouldn’t have made sense in the halacha.

Therefore, this is the thing that lies in my head the whole time, to see that you’re right that it’s very reasonable to say so. But the Rambam doesn’t see clearly that he holds so. But perhaps I think now… Do you want to make a general permission? I want to understand. That is, if we speak like by way of explanation or more to understand, it’s very difficult to understand the subject of not washing on Yom Kippur.

The Distinction Between a Mourner and a Fast

A mourner, as you say, a mourner is neglected. A mourner doesn’t fast, right? A mourner may even eat meat and wine. It’s not afflicting oneself. There’s a language that one should not be distracted from the mourning. One can perhaps explain it so. Another you say, it’s an honest thing. You shouldn’t now be busy bathing, forget about your body, now you forget only about the mourning.

I would say, it’s neglected, as you said. I saw someone explain. A mourner, he would want to die together with the one who died, as if. It’s a great time, you must participate in the pain of another Jew, that one is unfortunately not. He participates with his pain, and he makes himself as if he died.

I don’t know let’s say. So this I understand that he neglects his body, but a fast is not made to neglect the body, it’s made to afflict oneself a bit, whatever the matter should be, to elevate the soul, I don’t know what you should say, but what does it help not to wash?

The Distinction Between Our Time and the Time of Chazal

I mean that we are very accustomed most people that I know take a shower every day, or almost every day. It doesn’t seem, we don’t have the same view of washing that the Gemara had. It was customary to wash once a week, we learned in Hilchot Talmud Torah, once a week one goes to the bathhouse. A bathhouse is special, okay, it’s a normal thing, once a week, but that once shouldn’t be on Yom Kippur.

The washing of the face as well, it’s something… something is missing in our understanding of this, because we live very differently in this sort of thing. Even a while it’s not possible for a person to go a week without a shower, in this time, it’s not a subject of… We don’t look at washing as something an extra pleasure that one doesn’t need when one fasts, when one is in mourning.

And this is the difficulty that the world has now in the Nine Days, because all these things that were forbidden have changed very much in reality. Both washing, washing laundry. Washing laundry was once a whole business, it was ironed, it was a huge effort, it was only done. But today, when people are accustomed to put on every day new laundry, the same thing with washing.

King and Bride — The Law of “King in His Beauty”

Speaker 2: No, for that I thought, perhaps this you mean to hint, that perhaps king and bride says, it doesn’t say “and who will say to the king what are you doing,” he must be a king of Israel. This is above his rabbi, and he is also an aspect of king in his beauty.

We see that the Rebbes sit shiva today on a stage. It’s a new custom, innovated by the Skverer Rebbe a few years ago, and everyone already does it too. That the Rebbe sits shiva on a stage, and the whole world stands around with friends. There’s actually a question of king in his beauty for the laws of mourning how it goes. But he holds that he is king in his beauty. Therefore, he already doesn’t need to make any tearing, he may already wash himself too. Should we tell him, you’re a Rebbe? You’re exempt.

Speaker 1: No, but I want to say, if you want to say that the two, the king and bride, the Sages understood that okay, a normal person, one can tell him not to wash on Yom Kippur, but a bride is too much. It could be that every person today is like a king and bride from then, do you understand?

The Rambam’s Restriction in the Laws

Discussion on Washing on Yom Kippur — Levels of Pleasure, Being Dirty with Sweat, and Morning Hand Washing

Continuation: The Logic of Levels of Distress and Pleasure

Speaker 1: That is, one is closer [to being allowed] than a regular person. A regular person is not in danger if he is a bit dirty, so it’s permitted. The same thing with a king or a bride, where there’s a greater need to be clean.

So it’s very difficult to make the distinction of pleasure. The only thing you can say is pleasure is the cold water, which the Gemara says. If when one washes in cold water, then there’s no pleasure, but there is still the pleasure of washing.

There’s no distinction, but also someone who is dirty, yes, now I understand, he also has pleasure from washing, because he becomes clean.

Question: Dirty with Excrement vs. Dirty with Sweat

I wanted to ask, what’s the difference between being dirty with excrement or dirty with sweat? Dirty with perspiration. Why shouldn’t we say? Because then every person, if he’s dirty with sweat, I may not.

Speaker 2: Because he may, he may, I agree. It’s not the whole body, he sweated, he became sweaty.

Speaker 1: First of all, I think the answer must be yes. But the issue of being dirty with sweat is something of an issue that it’s not just that you feel uncomfortable, but you’re disgusting, there’s a stench. It’s an issue of your honor, as if protecting your honor, doesn’t mean protecting your pleasure from not not. So these are levels of the same thing.

Innovation: There Is No Special “Pleasure of Washing”

What I’ve come to say is, that there’s no such clear distinction, not like we’ve had until now, until now I thought, and I think I imagined, because it’s not really such a thing as pleasure of washing, as if there’s some pleasure from washing oneself. The pleasure of being in hot water. Okay, isn’t there hot water? Perhaps we can speak, but now we’re talking about cold, right?

There’s no distinction, there’s no such pleasure from going into cold water. That is, yes, here, cooling off, but cooling off is also perhaps permitted, one will cool off, it’s a different pleasure. Now we’re talking about the washing. The pleasure is to be clean. The issue of not washing is that he’s a bit less clean.

Now, at some level it’s already called distress, it’s already called a king, not such a great matter was decreed. For him it would have been such a great matter, therefore it’s permitted. Someone who is dirty, you’re right, perhaps we can say dirty is different, but in any case, it’s another level worse. And another practical difference, it could be that someone who is so sweaty that perhaps it will also be permitted. I don’t know if it’s… You understand?

The Standards of Cleanliness

Again, one must take into account that we have very different standards of what feels pleasant for a person. That is, in any case, a bit, everyone understands, a bit he hasn’t taken a shower for a whole day, he feels a bit uncomfortable, but he’s not in danger. One can go another day without a shower if he won’t find a shower. But by the second day, then it’s already called dirty. You understand? That’s basically the level.

Digression: Swimming During the Nine Days

I think for example, it’s very strongly accepted that one doesn’t go swimming during the nine days. I don’t see that swimming is an issue of washing. One doesn’t swim… It’s a different type of pleasure. It’s a pleasure of exercise, of activity. It’s some physical activity. It’s cooling. That’s what the Gemara calls “in order to cool off,” right? Regarding Shabbos it says it would be permitted, but… I don’t know if it’s regarding Yom Kippur, but… It’s not the same thing that was forbidden, bathhouse was not now forbidden. Is that correct?

It could be that it’s a new stringency, a Jewish custom, that one doesn’t swim during the nine days. It’s not a bad custom, but it doesn’t really have to do with the topic of washing.

Law: Those Obligated in Immersions Immerse as Usual

Speaker 1: Okay, let’s continue. “And all those obligated in immersions immerse as usual.” We’re talking about immersing as usual. That is, someone who goes to the mikvah because he is obligated, for example a niddah and the like, “they immerse as usual whether on Tisha B’Av or on Yom Kippur.” He throws in there Tisha B’Av. Yes, that’s also the language of the Baraisa.

Immersion at Its Time Is a Mitzvah — The Investigation in the Gemara

But apparently, this has to do with… Why? One must know, in the Gemara there’s an investigation whether immersion at its time is a mitzvah. That is, for example, regarding a niddah for example, she won’t be able to do anything with it on Yom Kippur anyway. So what does she gain from going to the mikvah? There’s a mitzvah that one should go for immersion at its time.

The Gemara concludes that even if immersion at its time is not a mitzvah, it has to do further with this, then one must indeed say the innovation, because it’s not washing for pleasure, it’s washing for… because she’s not dirty. A zavah, I don’t know, she’s not dirty, she’s already clean. The question is only halachically, she is tamei. But from tamei to tahor, there’s no appearance of washing. It’s a different matter, then that’s the permission. Right?

Morning Hand Washing on Yom Kippur — Dispute Between Rambam and Rabbeinu Tam

The Rambam’s Position

Speaker 1: So, in the Rambam there’s nothing at all about, for example, washing for davening, or washing in the morning. But apparently, washing in the morning is about “hands are busy,” and therefore we look at it as if he’s dirty with excrement.

Speaker 2: Very good, but we mentioned this earlier, because that’s only a presumption.

Speaker 1: I don’t believe that helps, because that is exactly, you must remember, that is exactly the sort of washing that is forbidden. A regular person washes his hands and face, I know, in the morning, as they learned in the laws of morning prayer, yes. That’s a… every person does that, but not because he feels dirty, because it’s morning. That’s not done on Yom Kippur. That’s exactly what’s not done on Yom Kippur.

How can you come and say if there’s a law? Yes, that law speaks about that level which is not… If he’s actually dirty, certainly he may. But not dirty. The morning washing is not in the world, it’s about “hands are busy.” Only when it’s certain, when he has actually… He can point to the mud or excrement, not that perhaps there’s somewhere. That’s a presumption. Very good.

Rabbeinu Tam’s Position — Hagahos Maimoniyos

Rabbeinu Tam disagreed with us.

Speaker 2: You said, let’s look right away at the Hagahos Maimoniyos that he brings on this page.

Speaker 1: Yes, you see that you know. Rabbeinu Tam said, we can rule like Rabbeinu Tam that it’s permitted to wash one’s hands in the morning, for there is no greater mud and excrement than the hands in the morning. But Rabbeinu Tam says, he should not intend for the pleasure of washing.

Ah, but you see, Rabbeinu Tam thought, this is permitted what one must give bread to a child, why? Because the hand is dirty. No, so Rabbeinu Tam it seems understood that the morning washing has to do with the evil spirit.

Rambam vs. Rabbeinu Tam — Evil Spirit or Busy Hands

If there’s an evil spirit, that is, the Rambam apparently held the two versions in the rulings and the Gemara, whether in the three things it’s about the evil spirit or about the evil spirit. The evil spirit is a Divine decree that exists on everyone. Then certainly Rabbeinu Tam is right.

But presumably if the Rambam thought that it’s mainly because it’s dirty, that is, not dirty enough that it should be… Right?

Other Rishonim — Rabbeinu Yerucham, Rashba

And he indeed brings, “and so ruled all our teachers,” that what? That… ah, he goes to the laws of prayer, that the one who gives bread to a child, yes, is… and the Rambam, says Rabbeinu Yerucham, that all our teachers after him, whoever the author may be, hold that one may indeed. One also may not give food to someone without washing the hands, even if it’s not dirty. This is also applicable.

If So, Then Certainly One May Also in the Morning

If so, then certainly one may also in the morning, and also the Rashba added that the same thing, that if one went to the bathroom, he may wash himself because of repulsiveness and it is called. Even if it’s a minor amount, even if he didn’t rub, even if he’s not dirty, but it’s still there.

The same thing is a Kohen, anything where one doesn’t intend for the pleasure of washing but rather to clean from filth that is present, so says the holy one… so the halacha leads us that they do indeed, therefore the one who permits is indeed to wash in the morning, to wash when one leaves the bathroom.

Up to the Joint — How Much One Washes

He doesn’t even say the limitation of only up to the fingertips here. Perhaps this simply depends on how much one needs, because I remember that that has to do with… no, that has to do with the essential law of washing.

We learned in the laws of washing hands, or whatever it’s called in the Rambam, laws of blessings, laws of prayer, that there is a dispute about what “up to the joint” means. There are those who say “up to the joint” means up to the fingers, and there are those who say it means up to here. And I think the reason we are stringent on Yom Kippur is simply according to the opinion that there is no obligation at all to wash the palms of the hands. Therefore, if there’s no obligation, it’s not relevant. This simply has to do with that topic. Yes. Good, very good.

Summary: Fastidiousness — Mishlei Torah

Yes, in short, there is for example the Torah said, the Gaon wrote that one who is fastidious and needs to wipe his face with water, is permitted even on Yom Kippur.

So we see yes, the Rambam is indeed stringent today, and I explained a bit the Rambam’s logic, but it appears that other Rishonim and other sages were indeed much more lenient regarding this reasoning, that if it’s not washing for pleasure it’s only more about how much discomfort one needs.

Innovation: The Essential Distinction — Pleasure of Washing vs. Pleasure of Cleanliness

It could be that the distinction is the question of whether there is an external pleasure of washing besides the pleasure of being clean. The Rambam didn’t make this distinction, and the others who made this distinction… right, I today… the Mishlei Torah thinks that a fastidious person is like a king. That is, a king is very aware that people look at him and he must look presentable, because he doesn’t have pleasure of washing, he only has a practical thing that he must be clean. The same thing is being fastidious.

It’s not even so much a contradiction. That is, even according to the Rambam, even if I could say this, because I’m simply saying… I simply caught that I don’t understand, we’re talking about that pleasure of washing as if it’s different from being clean, which doesn’t make sense to me. But today it doesn’t make sense, perhaps tomorrow, yesterday it made sense, I now caught that there’s a problem here.

But it could be even according to the Rambam he agrees with that law, because the Rambam will say that whatever pleasure there is has a level, how much discomfort one needs to have, no more than that. Perhaps fastidiousness, you’re right, there is a law of a king, perhaps a fastidious person is like a king. One doesn’t need to reach the definition of pleasure of washing to be permitted. When there’s a bit more discomfort.

The Essential Distinction Between Rambam/Rabbeinu Tam

The distinction is essentially, I mean the essential distinction between the Rambam and Rabbeinu Tam is the exact question of Rabbeinu Tam, about washing in the morning. What is washing in the morning when one isn’t dirty, it’s only some presumption, some practice, then I think that according to the Rambam it should certainly be forbidden, but according to Rabbeinu Tam it is explicitly permitted. Yes.

Law: One Who Had a Seminal Emission on Yom Kippur

The Rambam’s Ruling

Speaker 1: Further, the Rambam says this, one who had a seminal emission… so do you know what will be a Rambam must?

Speaker 2: No, I didn’t know about this. But Rambam must?

Speaker 1: No, you can call it mine. Don’t wash negel vasser on Yom Kippur. Do it for the Jews who hold that there is a ruach ra’ah. There is no ruach ra’ah. How do we know? I don’t wash negel vasser on Yom Kippur. This is for our Rambam-must friends to have fun on Yom Kippur. Perhaps it’s too technical, there’s a matter here.

One who had a seminal emission nowadays on Yom Kippur, nowadays when we have already nullified the obligation to immerse, that’s what “nowadays” means, yes, on Yom Kippur, if it’s moist, he wipes with a cloth and that’s enough, he should wipe it off. If it’s dry to the extent, he can no longer simply wipe it off. If it’s no longer moist, everything has already become smeared, he can’t simply wipe it off. Then he indeed needs to use water to clean himself, and then he washes in the place that is dirty only, he should wash there where it’s dirty. Not wash in his usual way, but wash indeed only more precisely where there where it’s dirty, and prays, and afterwards he stands to pray. But what?

One Who Had a Seminal Emission on Yom Kippur – Law 11

Law 11: One Who Had a Seminal Emission on Yom Kippur

The Rambam’s Words:

“On Yom Kippur. If it is moist, if the emission is still moist, he wipes with a cloth and that’s enough, he should wipe it off. If it’s dry, he can no longer simply wipe it off, if it’s no longer moist, everything has already become smeared, he can’t simply wipe it off, then he indeed needs to use water to clean himself, and then he washes in the dirty place only, he should wash there where it’s dirty, not wash in his usual way, but wash indeed only more precisely where there where it’s dirty, and prays, and afterwards he stands to pray.

But it is forbidden for him to wash his entire body or to immerse, he may not wash his entire body or immerse as he would have done on a regular day for a seminal emission. Why? Says the Rambam, because one who immerses nowadays is not pure, because even when one immerses nowadays one is still not pure because of corpse impurity, we are all impure from corpse impurity, your immersion won’t help even for the purity.

Question on the Rambam’s Reason of Corpse Impurity

Is this a law? One who is impure from a corpse who immerses for his niddah doesn’t become pure? He does become, I don’t understand what he’s saying. He doesn’t become pure but he does become pure from niddah, but he doesn’t become… something isn’t clear to me. He does become pure. There is no such law that one impure from a corpse who immerses for another impurity doesn’t become pure from that impurity. He does become. It’s a practical difference regarding entering the Temple, there’s no difference, but regarding niddah and the like, there is a difference. It makes sense, it does help for prayer. What is the Rambam saying? Very unclear.

The Rambam’s Approach – Nullification of Ezra’s Enactment and the Custom of Washing

Let’s explain. Where is the custom… this is apparently the main point. The Rambam already said in the laws of Torah study or in the laws of prayer? No, in the laws of prayer. That Ezra’s enactments will be nullified. In the laws of prayer and in Shema reading.

And the washing, says the Ra’avad further, and the washing for a seminal emission nowadays, the washing for a seminal emission is not an obligation, but a custom, it’s only a custom. And if it were an obligation, one would have said that the obligation would override the prohibition of washing. Why? Because all those obligated in immersions… the Rambam is actually difficult, they learned earlier all those obligated in immersions immerse in their usual way. It’s one who had a seminal emission who is obligated in immersion, he says, yes, but you’re not a true captive. First of all, you’re anyway such a corpse impurity. I don’t catch what he wants from this corpse impurity. I’m sorry. Yes? Explain.

But in practice, the Rambam did indeed learn in the laws of prayer, right? The Rambam learned in the laws of Shema reading, the Rambam wrote, if I remember clearly, remind me if I’m distorting something. In the laws of Shema reading the Rambam brings the topic of Ezra’s enactment, he says that it’s not practiced today, it was nullified. In the laws of prayer the Rambam brings that despite all this, the custom – in the evening, I don’t remember, the custom of their places is that one washes, not that one immerses, there is no custom to go to the mikveh, yes? There is indeed a custom of being washed, that is to go to the bathhouse, to wash after one has had a seminal emission. So, in this custom it’s only for prayer, not for Shema reading.

The Essential Reason: “And a Custom Cannot Nullify Something Forbidden”

Someone comes and says to himself, but a custom, I want to do the custom of the whole year, of washing before praying. Says the Rambam, this is only a custom, and a custom cannot nullify something forbidden but only to enhance what is permitted. Customs are always only there to add, to supplement, it cannot take away. Therefore here if you do this custom, you will indeed be disrespectful of the prohibition of washing on Yom Kippur.

The Rambam’s Relationship to the Gemara in Yoma

And they didn’t say… ah, does this say? Interesting. The Rambam doesn’t say, the distinction that we have been trying to say the whole time that there is a distinction between pleasure and washing, and he’s not going because he wants pleasure from washing. He’s doing it because he wants to… because of the emission. Here he says something, when there’s an obligation of immersion, or when it would have been corpse impurity, a washing for corpse impurity doesn’t mean washing at all, it’s something that changes the person, from impurity to purity. He wouldn’t have called… but look, explain. Okay, further.

What does the Rambam say, ah, it says in the Gemara such a thing, that if someone has a seminal emission on the night of Yom Kippur, he should immerse even on Yom Kippur. Says the Rambam, and they only said that one who has a seminal emission on the night of Yom Kippur immerses, only, we only said this when there was still the enactment, when they enacted immersion for one who had a seminal emission. There was an effect of the custom, the enactment of the sages, that one must immerse for a seminal emission. Then one could even do it on Yom Kippur. But we have already explained, we already learned in the laws of Shema reading that this enactment was nullified, that the enactment was nullified, and therefore today there is no longer the enactment of immersing for a seminal emission. What there is is only a custom, and therefore one doesn’t use a custom to be lenient.

Innovation: The Rambam Doesn’t Hold of the Distinction of “Washing of Pleasure”

Yes, so let’s see what is certain that Tosafot meant, seen the whole time. This seems clear to me that the Rambam doesn’t hold of the distinction of immersion, that even if he immerses because it’s a custom, not because he’s dirty. On this I think that my reasoning is good reasoning, this is what is written washing. You have a custom to wash, very good, but a custom is to wash. And a custom, you can’t have any custom to wash, it’s a custom for prayer, a very nice custom. Nicer is, the whole year when you wouldn’t have needed to from the essential law, you are stringent upon yourself. But there’s a custom that on Yom Kippur to wash? It doesn’t make sense. This is the Rambam’s argument, do you understand? According to the Rambam’s approach.

And I didn’t want to, according to the other Rishonim who hold that there is a great distinction between pleasure’s washing and intention, like what intention he has, it should indeed be permitted. But there is that the Rambam indeed puts in the word corpse impurity, and I understood when the Rambam puts in the word corpse impurity, that by corpse impurity it’s not washing, it’s only some kind of thing of… some kind of decree of Scripture of mikveh that changes him from impurity to purity, that doesn’t mean washing anymore.

Answer to the Question About Corpse Impurity

So, I would say this, I’ll tell you tomorrow what I think about this, because… it can’t be that the Rambam means that, because it wasn’t in the whole… I mean that he means that it’s a simple thing. There is indeed a principle of all those obligated in immersions immerse in their usual way. Now, one who had a seminal emission is still that he may not enter the Temple, right? There is nowadays, it’s not obligatory for prayer, but he is also obligated in immersion. On this the Rambam says, no, because you’re obligated in immersion for corpse impurity, you can’t go into the Temple anyway because you’re obligated in immersion for corpse impurity.

Ah, there is a distinction in the courtyard must you indeed go? I don’t know. There is a distinction, he thinks that a practical difference isn’t. What was said is those obligated in immersions immerse, one must have some benefit from it. Although academically you become pure, that would have been the question. In practice he does become pure from his seminal emission impurity, he may not eat terumah, now he may eat terumah. So about that, you don’t eat any terumah anyway, something like that he means to say that on Yom Kippur one doesn’t eat, not relevant. So the immersion doesn’t help at all.

So rather what remains is only the custom, the custom doesn’t help. But if it would have been that it does help indeed, even from the emission, this would have overridden the prohibition. Not then it wouldn’t have held an external washing. Because the principle of all those obligated in immersions, you would have some matter that the one obligated in immersion, he wants to go into the Temple for example, I don’t know what he wants something from this, so then it will override, yes, that it should be interesting, because even then he also still needs to have ashes of the red heifer, yes, you’ll also say that since the immersion itself isn’t enough for him from the beginning, this is the principle of all those obligated in immersions.

And something one also sees this way, he says, “because he has no benefit in this nowadays pure from corpse impurity.” At least, because the mikveh wouldn’t have been enough yet. The mikveh wouldn’t have anyway made the person become pure. No, therefore you don’t have the permission of all living things and prayers, they do indeed have a permission. It remains indeed only a custom, but a custom one cannot enough. But this is certain that the Rambam doesn’t hold of this distinction. So I’m learning now, he doesn’t hold of the distinction of prayer of pleasure or washing of pleasure. Indeed so, Rabbeinu Tam, who does hold of this distinction, must also permit. And I remember that there are indeed explicitly other Rishonim who permit immersion for a seminal emission.

Question: Why Is a King Permitted to Wash?

According to the Rambam it’s a bit difficult why they were lenient, let’s say, for a king. A bride at least, because I know, for the sake of peace in the home the sages were lenient. Let’s say, if washing is only that the rabbis gave it away. Because it’s a need. It’s a great day for a king. Because they bring the verse king means about being a miracle, it’s not a mitzvah. Basically, the verse says that a king is one who is more aware of his vision, of his look. If not for the verse it would also have been, true. Right, right. So because you’re a king, on the contrary, this is indeed even more, “and I will be even more contemptible than this,” because you’re a king, as King David says there. Well, well. Say, will we make the distinction? Says the king, I don’t have any pleasure of washing, I only have a thing that I must be clean for my kingship. But if one doesn’t make the distinction, why did they permit? Indeed so, perhaps some great leader king will perhaps do so, but a normal king isn’t so.

General Law: When Difficulty Is a Permission

And here we see that we’re learning a law the whole time. The law isn’t like we concluded earlier from certain rabbis who hold that the law came to persecute the Jews. The law always has a permission. You’re not the same, you must remember, the Torah has the law that the decree that the rabbis made on washing. He spoke of a normal person, a bit of discomfort, but such great discomfort they didn’t speak of. And what we see constantly in halacha we see such things. This learns law, and it comes out such a fundamentalist, that one may not, and you should burst.

Every time someone asks, let’s understand clearly. Every time when a rav asks indeed, we’re indeed talking about religious Jews, right? One never asks any question when it’s the exact law that’s written, right? It says that one may not. If one may not. When it’s the case that one may not, no one says, and one is a niddah, perhaps I’m permitted. It’s a niddah, you’re indeed a Jew, you want niddah. But what one asks, but today it is very difficult, it’s a great difficulty, right? The rav comes and says that a difficulty is not a permission. And a difficulty is usually indeed a permission, many times, if it’s rabbinic, if one needs to know boundaries. It’s not a permission, and in a general way, when it’s difficult, all the entire Torah will also be nullified.

But in a general way, when a person asks, simply he meant to say, the Gemara indeed spoke, the law, the Torah indeed spoke of a normal case, I’m indeed not a normal case. Tell me the law of the new case. So you can’t say, but there is indeed a law. On this do you understand? I’m bringing out.

Immersions of the High Priest on Yom Kippur

Laws of Washing on Yom Kippur — Immersion for a Ba’al Keri, Stringencies and Leniencies

What is actually the simple meaning that the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur goes repeatedly to the mikveh? And they even make it warm, yes? It says there that they put in warm iron implements. Tifkatzantan, yes. Tifkatzantan. What’s interesting is, they don’t bring it. What is that immersion? That immersion is a mitzvah, just like any immersion. He also slaughters, he does many services on Yom Kippur Gadol. Yes, okay. No, no, the immersions aren’t mentioned in the verses, actually, it’s only the seder hayom how the Chachamim arranged it.

What I thought is, that the Kohen Gadol, people look at him on Yom Kippur, yes? The entire nation stands in contemplation, he knows like the king. No, it’s a halachah, if there’s an obligation there’s no question.

For Practical Halachah: Rishonim Who Permit

He brings, one must remember for practical halachah, that the Tur brings from, it says in the Geonim, and the Tur brings from Rabbi Yehudah Barceloni, and the Rokeach, and the Meiri, who all permitted for a ba’al keri to immerse on Yom Kippur. And he brings the language of the Meiri here from below, that “We have heard from Chachamim and Gedolim who did not hesitate to teach their students through action, because the prayer of Yom Kippur was not beloved to them unless it was in extra purity.” That means, it can even be the opposite, even a person who is not so careful about tefillat keri the whole year, on Yom Kippur, to pray without a mikveh, is indeed strange.

Laws of Washing on Yom Kippur — Immersion for Ba’al Keri, Stringencies and Leniencies

Continuation: Opinion of the Meiri — Permission for Immersion for Ba’al Keri on Yom Kippur

Speaker 1: And he brings the language of the Meiri here from below, that “We have heard from Chachamim and Gedolim who did not hesitate to teach their students through action, because the prayer of Yom Kippur was not beloved to them unless it was in extra purity”. That means, it can even be the opposite, even a person who is not so careful about tefillat keri entirely, to pray without a mikveh, yet the custom is that one goes to the mikveh erev Yom Kippur, even one who doesn’t conduct himself this way, so that one should approach the prayer in purity. This the Meiri brings that several gedolim, he doesn’t say who, Chachamim and Gedolim, when they were asked privately, they permitted going to the mikveh on Yom Kippur, if a ba’al keri, one who needs to.

In Shulchan Aruch it doesn’t say this, but whoever wants can do it quietly. There is a responsum from Rav Vozner where he writes that someone asked him on Yom Kippur, and he told him quietly that he may, like the custom of the Meiri. But this is built on the distinction of rechitzah shel taanug. This is essentially the… There is Rabbeinu Manoach who also speaks about simply washing one’s hands before praying, or in the morning, Yom Kippur in the morning. Far, far, far, they spoke, but… It’s built on the lomdus. That is, according to the Ramban… It means, I say the Rabbeinu Meiri, the Meiri said that a ba’al keri won’t be able to pray properly, but someone who is simply accustomed and he is careful from the letter of the law, he also won’t be able to pray properly, he will feel unclean. Ah, one must be precise. Okay.

Speaker 2: The reason why they said it quietly is because normally no one will come and announce on the bimah that he is a ba’al keri.

Speaker 1: It’s generally a matter of speaking quietly. True.

Speaker 2: No, I mean to say that at the shiur erev Yom Kippur one says…

Speaker 1: Understood, it’s only such a… Only when a Jew comes to ask, or he knows himself that he is a talmid chacham, by the way, in short, one must speak with the mikveh and it’s open.

Speaker 2: In the Meiri one goes simply… Meiri is indeed a student of the Rambam. The Meiri also presumably doesn’t make the distinction between pleasure from washing and no pleasure from washing.

Speaker 1: What the Meiri says is that even without the distinction between rechitzah shel taanug and not regular rechitzah…

Speaker 2: He says yes, he says yes, there in his intention that he brings it on the head.

Speaker 1: No, one can say, you’re right, that according to my Torah one can say even according to the Rambam, if it’s such a person. The Rambam didn’t know a Chassidic Jew. The Rambam looks, he indeed became a Chassidic Jew, God forbid. But the Rambam looks, there is a custom, the custom is not to permit a forbidden thing. But the Meiri comes with a new reasoning that the Rambam didn’t think of, he indeed can’t pray on Yom Kippur, how will he pray without a mikveh? This is already a question of great distress which perhaps is also.

Discussion: The Boundary of the Permission — Only Immersion, Not Anointing

Speaker 2: Can, the Meiri doesn’t mean to say, no one would think that one may transgress the afflictions of Yom Kippur in order to be able to pray well. He means to say that it makes the prayer have actual value, not that because the person… Every time we speak of this we mean that there is value, true.

Speaker 1: But certainly, the affection that a Jew has for the prayers of Yom Kippur in purity is a holy thing, not simply a desire. Okay.

Speaker 2: He wouldn’t say it about anointing I mean to say. He wouldn’t say that a person will feel better after doing anointing with oil.

Speaker 1: Let’s see, let’s see soon such anointing. Okay, continue.

Halachah 2: Law of Wet Mud — Stringency on Washing

Speaker 1: The Rambam says further, another permission.

Speaker 2: More prohibitions?

Speaker 1: No, no, no, more prohibitions. You can learn stringencies for me.

Speaker 2: What? That it should be wetter?

Speaker 1: What one may not, one may not. How far does the washing go. The Rambam says thus: Mud that is very wet — mud that is soaked. But only to this extent, that if a person places his hand on it, it will come up with moisture. If he goes to touch the mud, his hand will become wet. And to this extent, what? To this extent wet that his hand will become wet, but not simply a bit damp, but rather after he touches with his hand his other hand, the other hand will become wet. This is called tofei’ach al menat lehatfi’ach. Because this is the language. That it transfers moisture to another hand and comes up with moisture, actually wet. It is forbidden to sit on it, one may not sit on the mud, because he will become wet from it. And the prohibition of washing is not only when water is actually poured, but there is more.

Here we see clearly that there is some pleasure from becoming wet. We understood, we knew that the pleasure from hot water hitting the back, that is a pleasure of bathing. But then there is some pleasure from becoming wet. So it appears here. It’s not the word, it’s such a not clear such a not clear such a… It appears to be a stringency, these are all stringencies on washing. It could be there are people who should do it specifically.

Halachah 3: Law of Earthenware Vessel Full of Water — Additional Stringency

Speaker 1: There indeed came a blow on the… Another thing, “A person should not fill an earthenware vessel with water and cool himself with it”. A person wants to cool himself on Yom Kippur, he thinks he will take an earthenware vessel that absorbs a lot, and thus he will become wet, thus he will become cold from the… from the outside, he doesn’t want to actually pour water, he only wants a small amount of moisture from the outside, yes, from the outside of the earthenware vessel, certainly from the outside, from the surrounding, and he wants to cool himself with this. The Rambam says, this one may not do. Why? “Because water flows from its walls”, because earthenware absorbs a lot, and water runs out. It’s not only a pleasure from becoming cool, but it’s a pleasure from actually becoming wet.

Discussion: What Does “Water Flows from Its Walls” Mean?

Speaker 2: “Water flows from its walls”, he doesn’t mean that it goes through.

Speaker 1: So says the commentator, it doesn’t seem right to me. An earthenware vessel, behold, one uses it for liquid, it’s not something that all the liquid runs out. This apparently means the sweat, yes, when one places it, usually it has to do with the difference in temperature. When one places cold water in a warm room, the outside of the… yes, it comes from the water that was in the air in the room. Yes, when you place a cold coke in a warm room, there is water on the outside, right? And it depends which type of thing. Iron a bit less, earthenware more, or plastic more. This is true, because the temperature difference causes the water that is in the air to settle there. I don’t know if they realized that. So perhaps they meant that it’s the water from the… It’s certainly not the water from inside that comes out.

And earthenware is the opposite, because earthenware doesn’t become so warm, that is it doesn’t catch, it doesn’t conduct the heat so, the temperature so, it doesn’t become cold like the water inside, therefore it remains different from the air, therefore it catches the… it is warmer than the air, therefore it catches the… or colder than the air, either way, it catches the water in the air. In any case, this is the reasoning. Even metal vessels, which don’t sweat so strongly, one calls it sweating, yes, a vessel sweats. It is forbidden lest one come to squeezing. It is forbidden, it has something to do with water, water will pour out, the vessel itself will pour out.

Halachah 4: Permission to Cool Oneself with Fruits

Speaker 1: But what may one indeed do? “But it is permitted to cool oneself with fruits”. One may indeed grab a fruit that has great coldness, because it appears that there isn’t the concern that it will pour out. There isn’t so much water, and it won’t pour out. One may cool oneself with this.

Halachah 5: Law of Cloth from Erev Yom Tov

Speaker 1: Another thing that one may do, similar to this, the Rambam says thus: “A person may take a cloth from erev Yom Tov”, may take a rag and soak it in water, “and dry it and place it under the garments”, and then squeeze it out, or whatever, wipe it a bit, and place it on oneself, on the body, under the garments.

Speaker 2: Ah, no, “place it under the garments” so it shouldn’t be wet.

Speaker 1: The “dry it and place it under the garments” is the same type of thing. He wipes it, he places it under what, to wipe, to squeeze out the cloth again. “And tomorrow he passes it over his face and doesn’t worry”, one may the next day, tomorrow, wipe oneself with it, because since one has already dried it and it was already placed under the garments, it is no longer “tofei’ach al menat lehatfi’ach”, no water runs from it. “Even though it has much coldness”, even though it has in it a certain coldness, a certain wetness, much coldness and wetness. It doesn’t say “coldness”, but what he speaks of here is the wetness. Why will the garment be cold? The garment will be cold because it is wet. But not wet enough that it should be “tofei’ach al menat lehatfi’ach”. It is only the coldness that he wants, like “to cool oneself with fruits”. There is only a small amount of moisture, enough to make cold, but not enough to make wet, one may indeed.

The Rema says that one should not do it, because perhaps there will be squeezing from the cloth. I don’t understand, it is now dried out. Anyway, I don’t understand how this works. This is all reality, against what the Gemara assumes that there is such a thing, this is what one does. I don’t know exactly what it means, there is such a measure that is permitted, there is such a measure that is forbidden, it’s something very delicate. In any case, we don’t have this, it’s not something that one does sometimes, so we don’t know what it means.

Discussion: Application Today — Air Conditioning and Sweating

Speaker 2: Perhaps today one would have to say that one may stand near the air conditioner, although cold comes out and it’s perhaps wet, I don’t know.

Speaker 1: We haven’t seen that one may not sweat on Yom Kippur, so… Sweating is also like drops of water coming up on you.

Speaker 2: Yes, you yourself become like the vessel, the earthenware vessel.

Speaker 1: Okay, but there isn’t pleasure of washing in it, on the contrary. Okay.

Halachah 6: Permission to Pass Through Water for a Mitzvah Matter

Speaker 1: Here the Rambam will say an interesting leniency that one may indeed do. The Rambam says thus: One who goes… when someone goes for some matter of mitzvah… like to receive the face of his teacher or the face of his father or the face of one who is greater than him in wisdom. He goes to greet his teacher, his father, people whom he is obligated in their honor, but someone who is… it’s a nice thing to honor, he is not his teacher, although he is not his teacher, but there is no mitzvah, on this there isn’t like he has a mitzvah to greet. There is a mitzvah from the Chachamim. They spoke, there is honor of one’s teacher and honor of Chachamim. It’s honor of a Chacham, although he is not his teacher. Or he goes to enter the Beit Midrash, he goes to learn in the Beit Midrash. In the middle of Yom Kippur. In the middle of Yom Kippur means, they didn’t pray the whole day, that is until… he has already finished by the time, he has already finished praying, and now one has half a day free on Yom Kippur. He wants to go to the Beit Midrash to learn, or do one of these things, greet his teacher. But there is water in between. The halachah is he passes through water up to his neck, and doesn’t worry, one may go… up to his neck is specifically up to his neck? Even up to his neck. More than this one may not.

Speaker 2: He will drown, that is the problem.

Speaker 1: No, perhaps today drinking the concern that he will drink a bit, perhaps, I don’t know, up to the neck, so he should actually drink.

Speaker 2: I, he doesn’t need to think, what do you want? He should drown, he should swim?

Speaker 1: I mean, a person would have a reasoning, even a reasoning. Not only is it permitted to go in a small puddle where the bottom of the feet will become wet, but one may actually have the entire body become wet. And doesn’t worry, he doesn’t need to think that he is now transgressing the prohibition of washing. And does a mitzvah — only so that he can continue to go do his mitzvah of greeting his teacher, or learning.

Innovation — Permission to Return Through the Water

And not only this, but also that when he has finished he may on the way back again go into the water, and returns from it to his place. Why? Because if you don’t permit him to return he won’t go, if one won’t permit him to return he also won’t go at all, and it turns out he is prevented from the mitzvah. Here he explains why one may also return.

So going one may because it’s a mitzvah of going to learn or going to honor a talmid chacham and the like, one permitted that this doesn’t mean automatically one has, I would have said, like one has seen that the Rambam permitted the prohibition of washing. For him one permitted, since it is only a rabbinic prohibition, let’s say it’s not such a great prohibition, one permitted for him. According to the other Rishonim it’s a bit more simple, that he doesn’t mean the washing at all, he means here to go.

Discussion — Returning to Guard His Fruits

Speaker 1: He sees further that the Rambam doesn’t hold of that approach. Right? Because what goes back, by the way, not only this, even without this to go down must be with this, he goes through.

Speaker 2: No, this is indeed clear, this is agreed upon by everyone…

Speaker 1: No, what is the next piece? Apparently one who goes?

Speaker 2: No, this is a clear mitzvah matter, but simply he goes to stroll one may not.

Speaker 1: One who goes not willingly, this is a mitzvah matter?

Speaker 2: Yes, yes, yes.

Speaker 1: Because it’s called a mitzvah matter. A loss. So it says in Shulchan Aruch. And so one who goes to guard his fruits, he goes to guard his fruits.

Speaker 2: Ah, when rain fell, one indeed permitted on Yom Kippur, so he may already go occupy himself with his fruits.

Speaker 1: No, to guard his fruits means to guard the fields. Like on Shabbat we saw it, yes. Also is the same thing, he passes through water up to his neck and doesn’t worry. Here it doesn’t say about returning. Perhaps he may not return. Returning doesn’t appear, only a case. The returning…

Speaker 2: Aha.

Speaker 1: And that is, here we don’t consider it says in the Gemara, not the Rambam said it.

Innovation — Distinction Between Mitzvah and Loss

Laws of Yom Kippur: Bathing, Wearing Shoes, Anointing, and Kindling Lights

So we see here clearly that the need is missing, the mitzvah so to speak that exists here, and this is “lishmore peirotav” (to guard his fruits) also means somewhat of a mitzvah. We learned that one may violate the techum (Sabbath boundary) to guard his fruits, because it’s considered somewhat of a mitzvah. A person, that is, we learned, to make new money, the Rambam says this distinction, to make new money is not a mitzvah, but money that one already has, which guarding is a mitzvah, and it’s a need. There are even certain Sabbaths where one was not permitted, the rabbis were not permitted, but here one is permitted. The same thing here.

Innovation — One Who Simply Goes for a Stroll May Not

But simply if someone goes for a stroll, he’s going for a walk, and water comes, he cannot say, I just want to go through the water. You understand? So you see indeed that further on it’s not entirely a general permission when I don’t want to. I don’t mean, because he’s going, because I said so.

Speaker 2: Yes, now you’re going on a trip, part of a trip is going in the water. It’s bathing.

Change in the Manner of Crossing Water

Speaker 1: Yes, he says further, wait, “that he should not remove his hands from under his garments upon his clothes in the manner that he does on a weekday.” If he were to go in water during the week, he would have taken off his clothing halfway. I don’t know exactly what it means to remove the hands “mitachat shulav al begadeihem” (from under his garments upon his clothes), but one would have taken off the clothing. So that the clothing should be taken off, it must have his clothes.

Innovation — The Reason for the Change

And furthermore, bathing is only a pleasure when one can undress and wash oneself, and then one puts back on fresh dry clothing. I don’t know, he’s going in with your clothes. I would have thought that it’s just so that it shouldn’t be in the manner that one does on a weekday.

Speaker 2: Yes, it’s a change.

Speaker 1: He brings from the…

Speaker 2: Ah, the Sha’ar HaTziyun Rebbe says, because it has to do with squeezing, eh there now, one must make some change. It’s not, one undresses halfway and goes, it’s not usual, one may not, one goes. That is, with this he changes it, he simply goes on his way, he wades through the water, not he goes to wash himself in the water. Some such distinction?

Speaker 1: He makes a distinction.

Innovation — General Approach to Leniencies

I said, the general principle is, this is how I look at it, perhaps I’m very heretical and apikorsish, I don’t know. But it seems to me that when a Jew comes to the rabbi to ask about everything that is difficult, or it’s a good thing to do, it’s not the normal case, the rabbi tells him, you may, but not entirely, just as he says one shouldn’t cling to someone. Make some distinction. What exactly is the distinction? Make some distinction, so you should remember that it’s Yom Kippur.

I said, but the Shulchan Aruch HaRav says that it’s because of squeezing, and I perhaps thought that this way it’s not the usual manner of pleasure from bathing. It makes sense, because when a person wants to bathe, he takes off his clothing and he bathes. He’s going here to go in with his clothing in the water, and he doesn’t really have pleasure. “Kederech she’osin bechol” (in the manner that one does on a weekday) is certainly not “kederech she’osin bechol,” because one wants to pass through. Because one wants to pass through, one always goes with the clothes, because he must arrive with his clothing to the other side. So he lifts it up a bit.

Discussion — How High May One Lift the Clothes

Speaker 1: He only lifts it to his neck.

Speaker 2: Ah, here one may not take off completely, one may only roll up a bit. Why is it so?

Speaker 1: Yes, on Yom Kippur one may not take off. In general also perhaps. I don’t know if he lifts it, you understand? Perhaps he does something. I have a name.

So, until here the laws of the prohibition of bathing. And let’s go see the other afflictions that one must still…

Wearing Shoes — Law 1

Wearing shoes. Next is wearing shoes. Very good.

It is forbidden. The Rambam says further, it is forbidden to wear, one may not wear shoes and sandals, two types of footwear. Even on one foot, even on one foot. Even it’s not to say that only when one puts on both feet and walks comfortably, even just one foot one also may not.

But this is proper shoes. But it is permitted to go out in sandals of cork and of rubber. A shoe that is made from… cork is a type of plant material, or a type of wood, or rubber. Rubber is the rubber that we talk about all the time, right? It’s papery, it’s such… cork is also short, it’s not helping. Rubber I know what it is. And cork is still something else, something a coarse thing. And not proper shoes.

Speaker 2: Okay, we rely on this. So slippers work for this reason, so that one shouldn’t go… It doesn’t say here leather doesn’t.

Speaker 1: He doesn’t say what not. He says what one may yes. Cork is not proper.

Speaker 2: It has to do with… doesn’t jump my table strength.

Speaker 1: It has to do with the… We spoke this morning at length from the other time when we learned about the topic of which shoes. It’s not clear how it’s a… others say that the prohibition is on shoes of leather, nu?

Speaker 2: No, there’s certainly not here any shorter than leather.

Speaker 1: What there is is that there’s a distinction in the level of the matter.

Innovation — And So a Person May Wrap a Garment on His Feet

Read out, let’s read out what the Rebbe says. And a person may wrap. The same thing, and so a person may wrap a garment on his feet and go out, one may also put on, wrap around a garment on one’s feet and go out thus. Why? For the hardness of the ground reaches his feet, the hardness of the ground reaches the feet, and he feels as if barefoot, he feels as if he’s going without shoes, even though he has the garments. The garments are not as comfortable as shoes.

Innovation — Relevant to Practical Law: Crocs, Slippers, Sneakers

So basically it says here that what is not as comfortable as regular shoes, whether it’s sandals of cork or a garment, one may yes. This is the question, whether the leniency of rubber is the same thing as a garment? You see clearly that even a garment one would not be permitted if there weren’t a certain feeling of being barefoot. But others can say that no, perhaps sandals are something an extra leniency. I don’t know.

The world is lenient for example with Crocs and such things, there are indeed poskim who didn’t like it, they say that it’s something that is quite comfortable, people go with this. According to the Rambam one can hear it, that one should not be permitted to go. There’s a great dispute among today’s later poskim and remember.

That is, a person goes in a sneaker, it’s a normal shoe because it’s not leather, it doesn’t seem that it’s a leniency. But a Croc for example is not a normal shoe, it’s something a slipper. Because people go, you understand one must know, each thing is something different. But in the Rambam one doesn’t see properly the leniency. Sandals of cork, a type of sandal, you come to such a slipper, it’s not a shoe.

Wearing Shoes — Children

Okay, another law.

Speaker 2: Yes.

Speaker 1: Children, the Rambam says thus, a leniency, a community. Little children, although one is not commanded to prevent them from eating… Excuse me. Children, although regarding eating and drinking they were permitted, as the Rambam said that only from when they reach the age of education must one begin with hours. Small children, the Rambam says, should not be bothered at all, should let them eat. And the same thing, bathing we saw for ourselves, we haven’t seen yet, we see it here. Bathing and anointing one also brings for a child.

But from wearing shoes one does prevent the children, one also doesn’t let the children wear shoes. There is the Rambam says it’s not the reason why.

Innovation — Why We Prevent Wearing Shoes

Speaker 2: What is easier?

Speaker 1: Because this doesn’t disturb. You see bathing? They learned by a sick person. Bathing and anointing is part of treatment. A child is weak, one must indeed wash. But… but wearing shoes doesn’t harm even for a child. Apparently he means that there’s the same law of education. Perhaps he’s speaking of a child who has reached the age of education, whatever the level is, he’s a child, he can already, it doesn’t cost.

Another thing, when he may yes… I don’t know if he’s speaking, because one who has reached the age of education will presumably also need to begin being strict about eating and drinking and the like.

Speaker 2: No, no, there’s an extra law of education. Only on hours, but…

Speaker 1: Yes, okay, but it’s also permitted.

Speaker 2: Yes, I hear.

Wearing Shoes — Because of Scorpions

Speaker 1: The Rambam says further, it is permitted for any person to wear the sandal because of a scorpion and the like so that it should not bite him. If there’s a place where there are scorpions, there are snakes, and the reason why he puts on the shoes is not because he wants to have pleasure from the shoes, but because he must, because if not he can be bitten.

Innovation — This Is Not Life-Threatening Danger

I must clearly say, when… I mean that one must do it without the distinctions at all, and all the entire Torah I hold more from this way. If a person does it because of a scorpion, is this what the Torah meant when it said that one should not go in shoes on Yom Kippur, that a scorpion and a snake shouldn’t come and sting you? No, you don’t tell me about life-threatening danger, this is obviously simple. When the reason why you go without the shoes is because of the scorpion, then one may.

There are many levels… You don’t need to arrive at the definition. There are many levels of need which are before life-threatening danger which permit very many prohibitions in the Torah. And the Torah didn’t say that it means to say that the scorpion should sting you, that’s all. Obviously, you don’t need to arrive at the Torah that a scholar is given a stringency that he should remain in the room where there’s no scorpion.

Wearing Shoes — A Woman Who Has Given Birth and a Sick Person

So, further. And a woman who has given birth, a woman who has given birth a child, is permitted to wear the sandal because of cold all thirty days. One may also put on shoes because of the cold floor, the coldness of the ground will hurt her feet, all thirty days, as is the measure of a woman who has given birth. He sees, until thirty days there’s still, she’s still called a woman who has given birth.

The Rambam says, and a sick person is similar even if there’s no danger. A sick person, even a sick person without danger, may also put on shoes, so that he shouldn’t become cold.

Laws of Yom Kippur: Anointing and Kindling Lights

Laws of Anointing

Rambam: It is forbidden to anoint part of one’s body like all of one’s body.

One may not anoint, smear, even a part of the body, just as a part of the body is the same prohibition as the entire body.

Which type of smearing?

Rambam: Whether anointing of pleasure or anointing that is not of pleasure.

No distinction why one does the anointing, whether one does it for pleasure, whether one does it for another reason. Again, I said that pleasure means simply that it’s a level of enjoyment, as we learned by the meal, yes, after the meal one applies oil and so forth. There is anointing that is not of pleasure, for example he uses it as a soap thus, to wash himself, something like that. There’s also in this a certain pleasure, but it’s less pleasure, not pure pleasure, this is also forbidden.

Okay, and the Rambam is quite consistent, because the Rambam has no distinction.

Permission to Anoint for Medical Purposes

But look at the next law:

Rambam: And if he was sick even though there’s no danger, or if he has sores on his head, he anoints in his usual manner and doesn’t worry.

He has pain, he has wounds on his head, he may indeed properly do anointing. Because it was permitted for him, as another thing was permitted for a sick person.

Although it says, you see clearly that the permission of need has no distinction between with the language of pleasure. Exactly. Here you see very clearly again. A sick person is more a need, therefore it’s permitted. And not only a sick person in general, any time that it’s for medical purposes, he has sores, he’s missing something a scratch, one must… sores means, I mean, blisters, or he has something bursting some such thing that people used to have, then he may.

Understanding the Language “Anointing That Is Not of Pleasure”

So anointing that is, we could have called the entire anointing simply “anointing of pleasure,” therefore I say. But even “that is not of pleasure” means that sometimes there’s a person who every day applies some ointment so that he should look nicer. I don’t know, it’s not called “of pleasure,” it’s not something a need, but it’s called, it’s not for medical purposes.

Further it comes out, any anointing that is for a need, any ointment that a person smears on himself, not because it’s part of the order of ointments, but because it’s for medical purposes, is permitted. This is the leniency that the Chasam Sofer would have said, and today’s poskim have called the other poskim “anointing that is not of pleasure.”

So what it says that “anointing that is not of pleasure” is also forbidden, doesn’t mean what we would call “that is not of pleasure,” but what the Rambam calls “that is not of pleasure.” And again, this is another thing that is not introduced today, and we have almost no language that I know. People don’t do in my area anointing. Generally, we don’t know what we’re talking about, but one learns in the… exactly. Not of pleasure, not that is not of pleasure one does. One only does… People who anoint, they love it very much. Women at least anoint very commonly, ask the women.

Speaker 2: Or someone who has a massage, let’s say, has a certain pleasure from this. I don’t know if this is anointing.

Speaker 1: No, that is anointing of pleasure, true. Or that is not of pleasure, again, I wasn’t. It adds a lot to become softer, the… this is anointing that is not of pleasure for example, but this is forbidden. You understand?

Speaker 2: Yes.

Laws of Marital Relations and Kindling Lights

Okay, let’s learn one more law, yes? Which has to do with marital relations. But as I say, there’s no more… Marital relations are forbidden, but there’s a certain stringency which there are certain people who conduct themselves regarding this topic, and this we’re now going to learn.

Custom of Kindling Lights on Yom Kippur Night

There is the Rambam thus, the Rambam says there:

Rambam: There are places where they had the custom to kindle the light on Yom Kippur night.

There are places where they conducted themselves to do kindling of lights on Yom Kippur night.

Why is the reason why they introduced kindling of lights on Yom Kippur?

Rambam: So that he should have shame before his wife.

He should be ashamed, that it should be light. Therefore when it’s light one can see one another, and when one can see one another one is more ashamed.

Rambam: So that he should have shame before his wife, and not come to marital relations.

But do you see this? They know that it’s Yom Kippur, something like that.

Speaker 2: Because this is simply because one may not have relations by candlelight, but he’s not speaking of the lights. At the moment when he has relations he can cover it.

Speaker 1: I don’t believe that this is the word. Because his wife will see him, and they will both blush, they will both have shame that they are transgressing a prohibition. This will stop them. But he does bring on a Yerushalmi that this has to do because one doesn’t have relations by candlelight. But it’s very funny, because the kindling of lights one speaks in the bedroom, speaks apparently in… I don’t know…

Speaker 2: How does one do Shabbos? How does it work every Shabbos that does lights? How does one do the…

Speaker 1: Oh, well, simply it’s different on Shabbos. In other rooms or in other… I don’t know, it’s very funny. I would have meant simply that he sees her, but it’s possible that it speaks when he sleeps. Not clear.

Discussion: Whether One Makes a Blessing on Kindling Yom Kippur Lights

Look, you see, he brings, and there is a place, he brings from the Shulchan Aruch HaRav, that if one conducts oneself, and we conduct ourselves thus to kindle lights, that one must kindle with a blessing, to elevate the matter to the action of Yom Kippur. Another problem. I don’t know what comes into the blessing, if it’s only a custom for the topic of the… It seems, perhaps the opposite. Perhaps the opposite, perhaps the lights that one speaks of here is indeed a light that kindles specifically in the bedroom, so that one shouldn’t be able to have relations, but shame, because it’s not a decree, it’s not a sin to have relations, it’s only a matter of modesty. And he’s indeed a modest person, a normal Jew, doesn’t have relations by candlelight.

Interesting, because the prohibition of marital relations is a complete prohibition, this still won’t prevent him. The prohibition of having relations by candlelight is only a light which is a matter of modesty, this will stop him? It can be as the Rambam said that a custom exists to distinguish.

Speaker 2: Yes, that’s how it goes.

Speaker 1: Okay. But the Rambam, and there is a place the opposite.

Speaker 2: No, this is the opposite. It can be that we don’t do this custom, because we kindle.

Speaker 1: He brings the verse after Rav that one must light a candle in the bedroom of the world. I have never heard that anyone does this on Yom Kippur, perhaps people do, and I don’t know about it. So perhaps we don’t follow this custom. Perhaps we have a different custom that we say that Yom Kippur is a Yom Tov, so one should light candles, although one could argue that perhaps it’s because the lighting has something to do with the meal perhaps, and Yom Kippur one doesn’t make a meal. Another question.

Speaker 2: Further, “and there are places”? The lighting of Shabbos candles is not only at the place of the meal, it’s shalom bayis (domestic peace), it’s light in the house, so when one prepares to deal with this.

The Custom Not to Light

Speaker 1: The Rambam says:

Rambam: And there are places that have the custom not to light.

Exactly the opposite.

In short, the Rambam says this: There is a prohibition of marital relations, and to prevent the prohibition of marital relations there is a certain approach that helps. We know that there was an old custom regarding what, that candles help for this. But we don’t know what helps, whether to light candles or specifically not to light candles. There are “some places” where one specifically did light so that he should be ashamed before his wife, and there were places where one specifically did not light so that he should not see his wife, because when he sees her she will find favor in his eyes and he will come to marital relations.

Speaker 2: Yes. Interesting that it wasn’t said that a bride should not… It still says everything that the name will say.

Speaker 1: Ah, that’s during the day.

When Yom Kippur Falls on Shabbos

The Rambam says, both places are as if, see which works for you, or which is in your city.

Speaker 2: One should apparently each place do what is the custom of the place, no? Or perhaps he didn’t take the custom of the place, what kind of person are you? There are types of people where you need specifically candles to prevent, and there are specifically candles not to prevent.

Speaker 1: No, the question is, there is a custom of the place versus what one does at home privately. It’s no longer relevant as a custom of the place. The custom of the place is a matter of dispute, where no one knows what you do in your bedroom.

Speaker 2: Okay.

Speaker 1: The Rambam says:

Rambam: And if Yom Kippur falls on Shabbos, everyone is obligated to light in every place, for the lighting of candles on Shabbos is an obligation.

If Yom Kippur falls on Shabbos, then you don’t have the option of whether or not to light. One must certainly light candles, for the lighting of candles on Shabbos is an obligation. The lighting of candles on Shabbos is an obligation, it’s a mitzvah. And just as the Rambam said that a custom cannot nullify a mitzvah.

Speaker 2: Ah, very good. We learned this last Shabbos.

Innovation: The Lighting of Candles on Shabbos is Not Dependent on the Meal

Speaker 1: It’s very interesting, it appears that the mitzvah of lighting candles on Shabbos has nothing to do with the meal.

Speaker 2: Ah, it’s already a decree, it’s already a law for everyone.

Speaker 1: I would say this, what we see from this Rambam is one thing, one must think extra, it appears from this Rambam thus, that the lighting of candles that we’re speaking about from this custom is the same place, the same manner as Shabbos. If here we’re talking about a new custom in the bedroom, there wouldn’t be any contradiction from Shabbos. If it’s Shabbos, there is an obligation, there are no customs, there is an obligation as you say. But if it’s not Shabbos, there is no obligation at all, there is no mitzvah at all every Shabbos, every Yom Tov to light candles. So says the Rambam. The Rambam didn’t even say that on Yom Tov there is a mitzvah to light candles. If you remember, in the laws of Shabbos it doesn’t say. In the laws of Shabbos is the place, and if I remember, it doesn’t say that Yom Tov there is a mitzvah of lighting candles, it says Shabbos. So Shabbos is a mitzvah. Yom Tov, perhaps practically one lights candles, but Yom Tov perhaps there is no mitzvah because one can always light a candle. Shabbos one must light before Shabbos for the honor of Shabbos. Yom Tov, if it’s missing, then one will light then.

So that means, there is no mitzvah of lighting candles on Yom Tov in the Rambam, we don’t see such a mitzvah, because Yom Kippur also not. It’s certainly just a custom. So it’s certain that one doesn’t make a blessing, because there isn’t even an enactment on this custom, it’s only a custom as a fence against marital relations, there’s no relevance of a blessing on this custom. We do conduct ourselves to make a blessing on the lighting of candles on Yom Kippur, just as we conduct ourselves on Yom Tov to make a blessing, because we assume that there is indeed something, a concept of every Yom Tov to light candles. Yom Kippur is a Yom Tov, it has honor, so it’s appropriate to light candles. But that one truly has nothing to do with this custom at all, not that we are a place that has the custom to light. We have a different idea that there is an obligation to light candles on Yom Kippur. And besides this we light living candles and memorial candles, with all kinds of things which are already other concepts. But interesting, it appears that there is a tradition that Yom Kippur has something to do with candles. It’s already become much more, one lights candles. The prohibition of marital relations on Yom Kippur has to do with candles.

Another note 55 says that the Gemara says that both customs are good. Yes, because both have the same intention. Both mean… It’s very interesting, sometimes there are two Jews who have opposite customs, but it’s not because they have an opposite thing. Both mean the same thing.

Speaker 2: Yes.

Speaker 1: And it says explicitly in the Mishnah that when one is there where one must, one lights yes in the beis medrash (study hall), and where there are scholars, and the like. Because there is indeed a concept that it’s not for honor, it’s so much peace.

Conclusion of the Laws of Yom Kippur — The Custom of Candles on Yom Kippur

The Prohibition of Marital Relations and the Custom of Candles

The prohibition of marital relations on Yom Kippur one deals with candles. I have note 55, the Gemara says that both customs are good. Yes, because both have the same intention. Both mean… It’s very interesting, sometimes there are two Jews who have opposite customs, but it’s not because they have an opposite… Both mean the same thing. Yes.

And it says explicitly in the Mishnah that when one is there where one must, one lights yes in the beis medrash, and where there are scholars and the like, because there is indeed a concept that Yom Kippur… not for honor, it’s for shalom bayis, one could have gone to shul, it’s not a question. So, anyway, interesting the law.

Conclusion

Okay, until here the laws of Yom Kippur. Blessed is the Merciful One who has helped us. It has helped us finish the laws of Yom Kippur. Wonderful.