Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Is there a minimum shiur to be chayav for anointing on Yom Kippur, and, if so, what is it? The gemarah (Yoma 76b) seems to learn it out as a comparison to food consumption: would that mean it has the same shiurim?

share|improve this question
    
Just to clarify, by m'chayav you mean obligated in Karet, not just Makkat Mardut or and issur aseh or something. –  Double AA Sep 23 '12 at 23:02
1  
@DoubleAA - One cannot incur kareis for anointing on Yom Kippur, only for eating or drinking (or forbidden labor). –  Fred Sep 23 '12 at 23:06
    
Actually, @Fred, I think Melachah is also not liable for Kareith. I could be mistaken, though. –  Seth J Sep 24 '12 at 18:32
1  
@SethJ he.wikisource.org/wiki/… –  Double AA Sep 24 '12 at 18:45
    
Oh, that's right. I was thinking no death penalty. Yes, there is an Isur Kareith for Melachah. My bad. thanks! –  Seth J Sep 24 '12 at 18:49
add comment

1 Answer 1

The Mazal Sha'ah on the Rambam infers that the shi'ur l'chayyev for anointing with t'rumah oil is a k'zayis, based on R' Yehudah's opinion in the gemara (K'risus 6b) who holds that a person is liable for a k'zayis of prohibited anointing with the shemen hamishchah (Commentary to Mishneh Torah, Hil. T'rumos 10:2). (One should note that it is still Biblically forbidden to anoint with even less than a k'zayis, at least in the case of the shemen hamishchah).

Although in those cases the oil itself is a prohibited substance, one might consider further extrapolating the above standard to the prohibition against anointing on Yom Kippur. However, disagreement among the Rishonim about the Biblical or rabbinic status of the anointing prohibition on Yom Kippur suggests that there must at least be no Biblical penalty for anointing. Rashi and the Rambam both maintain that the punishment for violation is makas mardus (Rashi on the Rif, Shabbos, Chapter 9; Rambam's Peirush HaMishnayos, Shabbos 9:4, and Tosafos Yom Tov, ibid., who clarifies the Rambam's position). The lack of a Biblical penalty is confirmed by the Yerushalmi (Yoma 8:1; see also Korban HaEidah ibid., s.v. Aval lo l'onesh) Therefore, the issue of a liable quantity seems moot.

Furthermore, a lengthy halachic discussion by Dayan Y.Y. Fisher (Even Yisrael, Hil. Ma'achalos Asuros 17:27) yields the conclusion that, according to those Rishonim who view anointing as Biblically forbidden, the Biblical prohibition against consuming a chatzi shiur of nourishment on Yom Kippur may be derived from the prohibition against anointing (which is itself derived from Daniel, 10:3,12). This seems to be premised on the lack of a minimum shi'ur for anointing on Yom Kippur.

Notably, the Semag distinguishes between Biblically and rabbinically prohibited anointing, though not in terms of the quantity of ointment used. He maintains that a criterion for the Biblical prohibition against anointing on Yom Kippur is anointing the entire body, while anointing even part of the body is forbidden rabbinically (Tosafos Y'shanim, Yoma 77b). This view is echoed by the Mabit (Kiryas Sefer, Hil. Sh'visas Asor, 3).

See here and here for further halachic discussion on this topic.

share|improve this answer
    
do you perhaps mean revi'is and not kezayis? –  not-allowed to change my name Sep 24 '12 at 0:08
    
@vram - K'zayis is the measure used by the gemara, even though oil is liquid. I've seen this elsewhere in the Talmud, as well. I assume that this literally means the equivalent volume of a solid k'zaiyis, but you are welcome to research this. –  Fred Sep 24 '12 at 0:35
1  
@vram Kezayis shows up as a liquid measurement also by eating blood and the after bracha on wine (accd to some rishonim) IIRC. –  Double AA Sep 24 '12 at 1:30
    
@vram is correct, since here oil is forbidden by comparison to drinking, and based on its quality to provide nourishment. Hence it should be reviis –  user1668 Sep 24 '12 at 15:00
    
@PM It is, in fact, k'zayis. Are you arguing that the gemara actually meant "revi'is" (which is not a corresponding volume), or are you arguing "it is, but hadn't ought to be"? –  Fred Sep 24 '12 at 17:27
show 3 more comments

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.