Talmud - Yoma 76b יומא ע״ו ב׳

is liable for violating the prohibition: “Drink no wine nor strong drink [sheikhar]” (Leviticus 10:9). Consequently, the term sheikhar in the text can be understood here as the sweet dried fig.

Rather, the Gemara rejects this and states: It is derived through a verbal analogy of “sheikhar” and “sheikhar” stated in the verses of the nazirite (Numbers 6:3). Just as there, in the case of the nazirite, sheikhar means strong wine, so too, here, it means strong wine and not sweet dried figs.

The Gemara returns to the meaning of the word tirosh: Is tirosh wine? Isn’t it taught in a baraita: One who vows not to benefit from tirosh is not allowed sweet foods, e.g., sweet fruits, but is allowed wine. Therefore, tirosh is not wine but sweet food. The Gemara rejects this: And is tirosh not wine? But isn’t it written: “Tirosh shall make the young women flourish [yenovev]” (Zechariah 9:17). The word yenovev comes from the word niv, speech. Consequently, tirosh is a food that tempts the heart and mouth of the drinker, even of virgins, who are modest and reticent. Since sweet foods do not have this effect, tirosh must be wine. The Gemara replies: This is not a proof, since we could explain it otherwise: Something that comes from tirosh, such as wine, causes virgins to come forth; tirosh itself means sweet grapes. Perhaps wine is called tirosh only by extension because it is made from tirosh.

The Gemara challenges this: But isn’t it written: “And your vats shall overflow with tirosh” (Proverbs 3:10). This description implies that tirosh is wine rather than sweet grapes. The Gemara answers: This too is not a proof that tirosh means wine. We could say that the vats shall overflow with something that comes from tirosh, i.e., wine; yet tirosh itself means sweet fruits.

The Gemara objects: But it is written: “Harlotry, and wine, and tirosh take away the heart” (Hosea 4:11). Since tirosh leads the heart astray, it is clear that it is wine. Therefore, the Gemara accepts that tirosh means wine. Rather, according to everyone, the word tirosh in the Bible refers to wine, but vows follow colloquial language. During the time of the Mishna, tirosh meant sweet fruits; the term included grapes but not wine. When dealing with vows, the intention of the speaker is what must be determined, but no inference can be drawn from colloquial language to the biblical definition of the word.

The Gemara asks: And if so, why does the Bible call it wine and why does it call it tirosh? The Gemara explains: “Wine” suggests that it brings lament to the world because drunkenness causes most sins. There is a phonetic resemblance between the yayin, wine, and ta’aniya va’aniya, sorrow and howling, which Rashi (on Job 2:5) explains as lament. “Tirosh” shows that those who indulge in it become poor [rash].

Rav Kahana raised a contradiction: It is written as tirash but we read it tirosh. This should be understood as follows: If one merits and drinks appropriately, he is made a head [rosh]; if one does not merit and does not drink appropriately, he is made poor [rash]. The Gemara comments: This is the same as what Rava said, as Rava raised a contradiction: It is written: “And wine that makes glad [yishamaḥ] the heart of man” (Psalms 104:15) with a shin, but we read it yisamaḥ with a sin. This teaches: If one merits, wine makes him happy [same’aḥ]; if one does not merit, it makes him confounded [shamem]. This is the same as what Rava said: Wine and good scents make me wise, meaning that wine benefits one who deserves it.

§ The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that abstaining from bathing and smearing oil on oneself is called affliction? The Gemara answers: As it is written “I ate no pleasant bread, neither did meat nor wine enter my mouth, neither did I anoint myself at all” (Daniel 10:3). The Gemara explains the verse: What is the meaning of “I ate no pleasant bread”? Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, said: He did not eat even bread made from refined wheat; he ate only wheat mixed with bran.

The Gemara continues to show that abstaining from smearing oil on oneself is considered an affliction: And from where do we derive that abstaining from the activities that Daniel describes is considered affliction? As it is written: “Then he said to me: Fear not, 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 have come due to your words” (Daniel 10:12). “For you are greatly loved” (Daniel 9:23).

We have found proof that abstaining from smearing oil on oneself is considered affliction; from where do we derive that abstaining from bathing is also called affliction? Rav Zutra, son of Rabbi Toviya, said: The verse states: “And it came into his innards like water, and like oil into his bones” (Psalms 109:18). This means that the water with which one bathes and the oil with which one smears himself are absorbed into the body. Just as abstaining from smearing oil is considered an affliction, so too, abstaining from bathing is considered an affliction. The Gemara objects: But say that “came into his innards like water” is referring to drinking rather than smearing oil. The Gemara rejects this: It is similar to oil. Just as the oil described in the verse is smeared from outside the body and not drunk, so too, the water mentioned in the verse is used for bathing from the outside. It is not drunk.

The Gemara asks: But the tanna took the opposite meaning, as we learned in a mishna: From where do we derive that smearing oil is like drinking on Yom Kippur? Although there is no explicit proof of the matter from the Bible, there is an allusion to the matter from the verse, as it is stated: “And it came into his innards like water, and like oil into his bones” (Psalms 109:18), meaning that oil on the body is like water within it. Therefore, the phrase “and it came into his innards like water” is referring to the act of drinking water. Rather, Rav Ashi said: Bathing is derived from the same verse cited above, as it is written: “Neither did I anoint myself at all” (Daniel 10:3). This teaches that Daniel did not do any anointing, including bathing. Consequently, the same source prohibits both of these activities.

Apropos the verses from Daniel, the Gemara asks: What did the angel mean when he said to Daniel: “And I have come due to your words” (Daniel 10:12)? From this, it seems that the angel was able to come only because of Daniel. The Gemara answers: This is as it is written: “And there stood before them seventy men of the Elders of the house of Israel, and Jaazaniah, son of Shaphan, standing in the midst of them, each man with his censer in his hand, and a thick cloud of incense went up” (Ezekiel 8:11). Ezekiel saw the Elders of the house of Israel worshipping foreign gods. “And the form of a hand was put forth, and I was taken by a lock of my head; and a spirit lifted me up between the earth and the heaven, and brought me in the visions of God to Jerusalem, to the door of the gate of the inner court that faces northward where

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Yoma 76b examines whether sheikhar refers to strong wine or sweet dried figs, and debates the biblical meaning of tirosh through several scriptural proofs.