Yoma

in wrong order and received his answer in right order.1 And as soon as he knew that he had asked in wrong order, he asked again in right order, as it is said: Will the men of Keilah deliver up me and my men in to the hand of Saul? And the Lord said.’ They will deliver thee up.2 But if the occasion required both questions, both were answered, as it is said: And David inquired of the Lord, saying: Shall I pursue after this troop? Shall I overtake them? And He answered him: pursue; for thou shalt surely overtake them and shalt without fail recover all.3 And although the decree of a prophet could be revoked, the decree of the ‘Urim and Thummim’ could not be revoked, as it is said: By the judgment of the Urim. Why were they called ‘Urim and Thummim’? ‘Urim’ because they made their words enlightening.4 ‘Thummim’ because they fulfil their words. And if you should ask: Why did they not fulfil their words in Gibeah Benjamin?5 It is because they did not inquire6 [whether the result would be] victory or defeat.7 But at last, when conquered, they [the Urim and Thummim] approved their action, as it is said: And Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, stood before it in those days, saying: ‘Shall I yet again go out to battle against the children of Benjamin my brother, or shall I cease?’ and the Lord said: Go up, for tomorrow I will deliver him into thy hand. 8 How was it effected? — R. Johanan said: [The letters] stood forth.9 Resh Lakish said: They joined each other. But the ‘Zade’ was missing?10 R. Samuel b. Isaac said: They contained also the names of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But the ‘Teth’, too, was missing? — R. Aha b. Jacob said: They contained also the words: The ‘tribes’11 of Jeshurun. An objection was raised: No priest was inquired of who does not speak by means of the Holy Spirit and upon whom the Divine Presence does not rest, for Zadok inquired and succeeded, whilst Abiathar inquired and failed, as it is said: But Abiathar went up until all the people had done passing out of the city?12 — He helped along.13 AND ONE INQUIRED ONLY FOR A KING. Whence do we know these things? — R. Abbahu said: Scripture said, And he shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall inquire for him by the judgment of the Urim;14 ‘he’ i.e., the king, ‘and all the children of Israel with him’, i.e., the [priest] Anointed for Battle, ‘even all the congregation’, that is the Sanhedrin. MISHNAH. ON THE DAY OF ATONEMENT IT IS FORBIDDEN TO EAT, TO DRINK, TO WASH, TO ANOINT ONESELF, TO PUT ON SANDALS,15 OR TO HAVE MARITAL INTERCOURSE.16 A KING OR BRIDE17 MAY WASH THE FACE, AND A WOMAN AFTER CHILDBIRTH18 MAY PUT ON SANDALS. THIS IS THE VIEW OF R. ELIEZER. THE SAGES, HOWEVER, FORBID IT. IF ONE EATS THE BULK OF A LARGE DATE, THE LIKE THEREOF, WITH ITS STONE INCLUDED, OR IF HE DRANK A MOUTHFUL, HE IS CULPABLE.19 ANY FOODS COMPLEMENT ONE ANOTHER IN MAKING UP THE BULK OF A DATE, AND ALL THE LIQUIDS COMPLEMENT ONE ANOTHER IN MAKING UP A MOUTHFUL, BUT WHAT A MAN EATS AND DRINKS DOES NOT GO TOGETHER.20 GEMARA. [Merely] FORBIDDEN? But surely punished with extirpation?21 — R. Ela, or as some say, R. Jeremiah, said: This refers only to less than the legal quantity.22 That will be right according to the view that even less than legal quantity is for — bidden by the law of the Torah, but what can be said according to the view that less than the legal quantity is permitted by the law of the Torah? For it was said: As for less than the legal quantity, R. Johanan holds it forbidden by the law of the Torah, but Resh Lakish considers it permitted by the law of the Torah. Now [the above answer] would be right according to R. Johanan, but what can be said according to Resh Lakish? — Resh Lakish would agree that [less than the legal quantity] is forbidden by [decree of] the Rabbis.23 If that be the case, one should not be liable on account thereof to offer a sacrifice for an oath,24 why then did we learn:25 [If one had sworn] an oath not to eat carrion, trefah things,26 abominable27 or creeping things, and then had eaten thereof, he is culpable? R. Simeon holds him not culpable. And we raised the point in connection therewith: Why should he be culpable? Surely he stands committed to the oath28 from Mount Sinai on! [And] Rab, Samuel and R. Johanan [in reply] said [it is a case] when he includes things permitted in the oath touching foods forbidden,29 whereas Resh Lakish said: This cannot be explained except where he either expressly refers to less than the legal quantity, and that in accord with the view of the Sages,30 or that he made a general statement text, explains: They (the Urim and Thummim) did not state clearly, etc.]. the letters which stood in relief. and Thummim. This in turn would indicate that it is the Holy Spirit resting on the priest that gives that reply and not the letters of the Oracle]. will protect her against such contingency. transgression by eating would be punished with extirpation, kareth (v. Glos.). Atonement, the bulk of a big date. Any less than that, though the eating thereof does not involve one in the prescribed punishment, nevertheless constitutes a transgression. That is what the Mishnah indicates by the term ‘forbidden’ i.e., in any quantity. not be forbidden at all, Rabbinical law, as a fence around the laws of the Torah, may declare less than a minimum forbidden, or punishable, too. The dispute between R. Johanan and Resh Lakish would hinge on the question as to whether forbidden foods are so considered in any quantity, however small, or whether the term ‘eating’ etc. implies a definite minimum below which no transgression at all can be said to have taken place. forbidden, he has, as it were, already sworn on Mount Sinai, not to eat it; the present oath, therefore, has no force, for the transgression of which no sin-offering is necessary (v. Shebu. 27a). refers to the flesh of animals which had died a natural death, or in connection with the ritual slaughtering of which a basic mistake or irregularity had been committed. as far as the oath is concerned. But, by including things permitted, he swears an oath, the effect of which is to prohibit for him the eating of otherwise permissible foods. Hence the transgression implies the obligation of sacrifice. hence he could be guilty in the case of having eaten less than that only if he had expressly stated: I shall not eat anything at all of that food, his special declaration investing his oath with validity in the case of an infinitesimal amount of the food now forbidden to himself.