Yoma 73b — the Talmud in English

And they answer:

David asked ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

not in the proper order,

as he should first have asked whether Saul would descend to Keilah, and only afterward asked whether the people of Keilah would hand him over.

And

therefore

they answered him in the proper order,

addressing the question that should have been asked first.

And once he knew

from the answer he received about Saul’s descent, while he had not received an answer about handing him over,

that he had asked not in the proper order—

he asked again

about handing him over, and now his question was

in the proper order.

As it is stated [1 Samuel 23]

«

Will

he

the people of Keilah hand me and my men over to Saul?”

“And the Lord said: They will hand them over.”

And if

the situation is urgent and

it was necessary for

Saul

to ask two questions

at once—

they answer him both.

As it is stated [1 Samuel 30]:

«

“And David inquired of the Lord, saying:

a. “Will

I pursue this troop?

b.

Will I overtake it?”

And He answered him

through the Urim and Tummim:

a.

Pursue

them

[and pursue them]!

b.

For you will surely overtake them, and you will surely rescue [the captives].”

And the Gemara adds a general principle concerning the Urim and Tummim:

Although a prophet’s decree

of calamity

can be rescinded,

if the people repent,

a decree issued by the Urim and Tummim—

cannot be rescinded,

as it cannot be annulled!

As it is stated [Numbers 27]

«

“by the judgment of the Urim.”

The response of the Urim and Tummim is considered a judicial ruling, which cannot be annulled.

And

why were they called “Urim and Tummim”?

“Urim”—

because they illuminate their words,

meaning that their instruction is clear and lucid.

“T

u

mmim”—

because they complete their words,

meaning that their ruling cannot be annulled.

But if you say: What about Gibeah of Benjamin—

why did they not complete

their words? For twice, on the first two days of the war against the people of Benjamin, the Israelites asked through the Urim and Tummim whether they should go up and fight the people of Benjamin following the incident of the concubine at Gibeah, and they received an answer to go up. Nevertheless, the Israelites were defeated in their war against Benjamin!?

Your answer is:

They,

the Israelites,

did not investigate the matter,

as they did not ask

whether

their war would be

for victory or for defeat,

but only asked whether they should go up and fight. They received an answer to fight, but it did not include a promise of victory [according to Rashi in Tractate Shevuot 35b; see Rashi’s wording here].

And

only

the last time,

during their third battle,

when they did investigate the matter,

asking whether they would be victorious—

they received confirmation

from Heaven, and the Urim and Tummim answered them that they would be victorious: “For tomorrow I will deliver him into your hand.”

As it is stated

the third time [Judges 20]:

“And Pinchas, son of Eleazar, son of Aaron, stood before it in those days, saying,

asking:

‘Shall I again go out to battle against the people of Benjamin, my brother, or shall I refrain?’”

The question “or shall I refrain?” means: Will I be victorious?

“And the Lord said

through the Urim and Tummim:

‘Go up, for tomorrow I will deliver him into your hand.’”

How was

the instruction of the Urim and Tummim conveyed?

Rabbi Yohanan says: The letters protruded.

The letters of the breastplate through which the answer was received would protrude, and the priest would read the protruding letters.

Reish Lakish says:

The letters that formed the answer were uprooted from their places and

joined together

to form the words that answered the question.

And we raise a difficulty concerning this:

But the letter

tsadi

was not written among them,

so how could an answer be conveyed if it required that letter!?

Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak said: “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” was written there

on the breastplate, in addition to the names of the tribes, and those names contain the letter tsadi.

And we raise another difficulty:

But the letter tet was not written there!

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said: “The tribes of Jeshurun” was written there

on the breastplate.

They raise an objection based on a source

to what Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish said—that the priest read the answer by combining the letters—from that which was taught in a beraita, a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna:

Any priest who does not speak through divine inspiration, and

the Divine Presence

does not rest upon him—

one may not inquire through him.

And the proof is:

For Zadok asked

the priest through the Urim and Tummim,

and an answer came to him.

But

Ebiathar

the priest asked,

and no answer came to him.

ответ.

As it is stated [2 Samuel 15]

«И поднялся Эвьятар»,

“And Ebiathar went up,”

meaning that David removed him from the High Priesthood because no answer came to him from the Urim and Tummim, and David understood from this that divine inspiration had departed from Ebiathar. The continuation of the verse is:

».

But according to the words of Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish, that the letters protruded or joined together, why was divine inspiration necessary in order to read them?

And they answer:

The priest provided assistance

to the letters

along with them.

For if the priest had not been on the level of divine inspiration, the letters would not have protruded or joined together.

We learned in the Mishna:

And one may inquire only for a king

or for the head of the court.

From where are these words derived?

Rabbi Abbahu said: The verse states

concerning Joshua, who, when he was appointed leader of the people of Israel, had the status of a king [Numbers 27]:

“And he shall stand before Eleazar the priest, and he shall inquire of him by the judgment of the Urim;

by his word they shall go out, and by his word they shall come in—he and all the children of Israel with him, and the entire assembly.”

“He”—

this

is Joshua, who had the status of a

king.

“And all the children of Israel with him”—

this

is the

priest anointed for war.

“And the entire assembly”—

this is the Sanhedrin.

We have completed Tractate Yoma, chapter: “The High Priest Comes to Him.”

Matanita:

Five expressions of affliction were stated concerning Yom Kippur, and from here the Sages said that one is obligated to afflict the soul on Yom Kippur with five afflictions, and these are:

Yom Kippur is forbidden:

a.

in eating and drinking.

b.

and in washing.

c.

and in anointing.

d.

and in wearing sandals.

e.

and in marital relations.

And the king,

whose practice is to display himself as handsome,

and the bride,

who needs to be attractive in order to find favor with her husband —

may wash their faces,

and the reason for the permission will be explained in the Gemara.

And the woman who has given birth,

the one who has given birth,

may wear sandals

in order to avoid the cold, since it is harmful to a woman who has given birth.

All these permissions—for the king, the bride, and the woman who has given birth—are

the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

And the Sages forbid.

One who eats

on Yom Kippur

the amount of

the measure of

a large date

[a date]

that is coarse

[large],

like it and like its pit.

And one who drinks

a liquid in the measure of

“the fullness of his cheek”.

Is liable

to karet if he did this intentionally, and a sin-offering if he did this unintentionally.

All foods combine for the

measure of

the amount of a date.

And all liquids combine for the

measure of

“the fullness of his cheek”.

One who eats

less than the measure

and drinks

less than the measure —

do not combine

the food and the drink into the liable measure.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: Yom Kippur is forbidden in eating.

And we raise an objection to it: Is it only

“forbidden”

in eating, and nothing more!?

But

he is liable for karet

for eating it!?

Rabbi Ila said, and some say Rabbi Yirmeya: It was necessary

that the “prohibition”

only

in relation

to

eating

half a measure,

less than the measure of a large date, for which there is no punishment of karet, but there is only a prohibition against eating it.

However, if we establish the wording of the Mishna as referring to eating half a measure, it is still possible to object:

For

this works for the one who says, “Half a measure —

is forbidden by Torah law.”

But for the one who says, “Half a measure —

is permitted by Torah law,”

what is there to say,

since according to him there is no prohibition!?

And the Gemara brings the source of their dispute:

For it was stated: Half a measure —

Rabbi Yohanan said: It is forbidden by Torah law; Reish Lakish said: It is permitted by Torah law.

This works for Rabbi Yohanan,

since it is properly possible to establish the wording of “prohibition” in our Mishna as referring to less than the measure.

But for Reish Lakish,

who permits, by Torah law, eating less than the measure —

what is there to say;

why did the Mishna write the wording “forbidden,” when it is permitted to eat less than the measure on Yom Kippur, whereas for eating the measure one is liable for karet!?

And we answer:

Reish Lakish concedes that

half a measure

is forbidden by rabbinic law,

and this is what the Mishna intended by the prohibition of eating.

And we object:

If so,

if indeed according to Reish Lakish half a measure is forbidden by rabbinic law, the objection that we raised in tractate Shevuot [23b] returns:

One who swore that he would not eat half a measure of forbidden food, and ate it —

we should not make him liable for a sacrifice for an oath,

as is the law of one who swears to fulfill a mitzva or to nullify it and violates his oath, that he is exempt from a sacrifice for an oath.

It follows,

why

did we learn:

One who swore

an oath that I will not eat, and ate unslaughtered carcasses and animals with fatal injuries, repugnant creatures and creeping things —

is liable

for a sacrifice for an oath.

And Rabbi Shimon exempts.

And we raised an objection

in tractate Shevuot:

Why is he liable

for a sacrifice for an oath, and how did his oath take effect, when

he is already sworn and standing from Mount Sinai

not to eat forbidden foods? If so, he is like one who swears to fulfill a mitzva, whose oath does not take effect.

And there we answer with two answers:

The first, that of

Rav, and Shmuel, and Rabbi Yohanan, who say:

Here it is speaking

of including

in his oath

permitted things together with forbidden things,

for then he can swear also concerning a forbidden thing, which he is commanded not to eat. Since the oath takes effect upon the permitted thing, it also takes effect upon the forbidden thing.

But Rabbi Shimon disagrees and holds that an oath including a permitted thing and a forbidden thing does not take effect also upon the forbidden thing.

And

the second answer:

Reish Lakish said:

Everyone agrees that it is impossible to make an oath take effect upon a forbidden thing, even if he includes with it in his oath a permitted thing.

Therefore,

you find

that an oath takes effect upon a forbidden thing

only:

Either

when he specifies

in his oath that he will not eat

half a measure

of a forbidden thing, since half a measure is a permitted thing, because it does not contain the measure.

And

this,

according to the view of the Sages,

who hold that one who swears that he will not eat, and does not specify in his words a measure, intends to prohibit eating the measure of an olive but not less than that. Therefore, according to them, only if he specified in his oath that he prohibits himself from eating less than the measure of an olive is he prohibited from eating less than the measure of an olive.

Or

even

without specification,

of the measure of his prohibited eating in his oath, without specifying that he swore concerning eating half a measure.