Yoma 76b — the Talmud in English

Rather, he derives “reward -

reward” from the nazirite.

Just as there

the nazirite is prohibited from the reward of

wine

specifically,

so here

with regard to Second Tithe, Scripture is speaking of the reward of

wine,

and it is considered reward only when it is a beverage in itself, and not when it is mixed into food.

And it may still be challenged:

And

for

tirosh hamra

wine

is it?

But was it not taught: One who vows against tirosh -

is prohibited from all kinds of

fruit

of sweetness,

such as apples and grapes [which are called tirosh],

but is permitted wine [since it is not called tirosh]!?

And we raise the opposite difficulty:

And we ask,

And

for tirosh

is it not wine?

And it is written [Zechariah 9]:

“And tirosh shall cause the virgins

to speak

.”

And the meaning of the verse is: the good wine, called tirosh, which intoxicates people, causes them to reveal the secret of their hearts, sealed like a sealed virgin.

And we answer: Actually, the grapes themselves are called tirosh, and not the wine that comes out of them, and this is the meaning of the verse: wine, which is

a

thing that comes from tirosh [the grapes],

shall cause virgins to speak.

And we challenge this:

And it is written

[Proverbs 3]:

“And your winepresses shall burst forth with tirosh

.”

And it implies that tirosh is wine, since the grapes are not found in the winepress; there is found there only the grape juice after its pressing.

And we answer: This is what the verse said: wine, which is

a

thing that comes from tirosh [the grapes],

your winepresses shall burst forth.

And we challenge this:

But it is written [Hosea 4]:

“Promiscuity and wine and tirosh shall take away the heart

.”

But the eating of grapes does not intoxicate, and it is proved that tirosh is a type of good wine.

Rather,

the Gemara concludes,

according to everyone, tirosh

in the language of Scripture

is wine.

But with vows, one follows the language of people.

And since people do not customarily call wine by the name tirosh, but call sweet fruits by this name, therefore one who vows against tirosh is not prohibited from wine.

And why does Scripture call it

wine

and why does it call it tirosh?

Wine -

because it brings wailing into the world,

on account of the promiscuity that it causes, because of which calamity comes into the world. And “yayin,” wine, is an expression of lamentation and wailing.

Tirosh -

for whoever provokes himself with it [is drawn after it]

becomes poor.

Rav Kahana raised a contradiction: It is written tiresh and it is read tirosh.

But rather: if

a person

merits

and drinks according to the fitting measure,

he becomes a head,

because drinking wine in the fitting measure opens a person’s heart to wisdom.

But if he

does not merit,

but becomes intoxicated,

he becomes poor.

Rava raised a contradiction: It is written yismach and it is read yismach.

If he merits -

it gladdens him; if he does not merit -

it stupefies him.

And this is what Rava said: Wine and fragrances,

the wine that I drank and the fragrances that I smelled

make one wise,

they made me wise.

And we further inquire: Abstention from

washing and

from

anointing -

from where do we know that it is called affliction?

And we answer:

For it is written in Daniel [chapter 10], when he was mourning the delay that occurred in the building of the Temple through Cyrus:

“I ate no desirable bread, and meat and wine did not come into my mouth, and I did not anoint myself.”

And, parenthetically, the Gemara explains:

What is “I ate no desirable bread

”? Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Shmuel bar Shilat, said: Even bread

bread

of refined wheat

clean and fine

he did not eat.

Rather, only bread that was not so clean and fine.

And from where do we know that “I did not anoint myself”

is considered

an affliction?

For it is written, “And he said to me

the angel Gabriel:

Do not fear, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart to understand and to afflict yourself before your God -

your words were heard, and I came because of your words.”

We find

that abstention from

anointing

is called affliction. But abstention from

washing -

from where do we know

that it is considered affliction?

Rav Zutra bar Toviyya said in the name of Rav: The verse says [Psalms 109]:

“And it came like water into his midst and like oil into his bones

.”

And it implies that washing with water [“and it came like water into his midst”] is like anointing with oil.

And therefore abstention from washing is also considered affliction, like abstention from anointing.

And we challenge this:

But let us say

that the anointing mentioned in the verse is

like drinking

water, and from where do we know from this verse that washing is like anointing?

And we answer: In this verse it says, “And it came like water into his midst,”

analogous to oil [“and like oil into his bones”]:

Just as oil

is not drunk but is applied

from outside,

from the outside, and it is absorbed inside,

so too water

mentioned in the verse is water with which a person’s body is washed

from outside,

and the water is considered as though it is absorbed “into his midst.” And the verse is not speaking of drinking water, which one drinks into the body.

And the Gemara asks about the derivation of washing from anointing:

But the tan[n]a

in the Mishna in tractate Shabbat [86a]

derived it oppositely

[he learned the matter in the reverse manner: he learned oil from water, that anointing with oil is like drinking water, and he did not learn water from oil].

For we learned: From where is it that anointing is

prohibited

like drinking on Yom Kippur?

Although there is no proof for the matter -

there is a remembrance for the matter

there is:

as it is stated, “And it came like water into his midst and like oil into his bones

.”

Rather, Rav Ashi said: Washing -

from the body of the verse

in Daniel

he understood it.

For it is written, “And I did not anoint myself,”

and this too is included in the affliction mentioned in the verse.

And now the Gemara explains the verse in Daniel brought above:

What is

this that Gabriel said to Daniel,

“And I came because of your words,”

which implies that Gabriel was expelled to “outside the curtain,” and returned there because of Daniel?

That is, as it is written

in Ezekiel [chapter 8], who saw in the prophetic vision:

“And seventy men of the elders of the House of Israel, and Jaazaniah son of Shaphan stood among them, standing before them, and each man with his censer in his hand, and a cloud of the smoke of the incense rose.”

And it is written there at the beginning of the matter, as Ezekiel says:

“And the form of a hand was sent forth, and it took me by a lock of my head, and a spirit lifted me between the earth and between the heavens

. And it brought me to Jerusalem, in visions of God, to the entrance of the inner gate that faces north, where the seat of the image of jealousy that provokes jealousy

exact location of the column

stood

the idol

.”