Siman 608

The Rambam wrote at the end of the first chapter that one must add from the profane to the holy at its onset and at its conclusion, as it is said: "And you shall afflict your souls on the ninth of the month in the evening," meaning: begin to fast and to afflict yourself from the evening of the ninth adjacent to it. And so too at the conclusion, one lingers in his affliction slightly from the night of the eleventh adjacent to the tenth, as it is said (ibid.): "From evening until evening you shall rest on your Sabbath." Thus far his words. Meaning: "until evening" and including it. And this cannot be said to mean the entire evening, for it says "from evening until evening" – behold, it is only a twenty-four hour period. Rather, this is its explanation: from evening and slightly before, as is proven from "on the ninth," as I have written, and "until evening" and slightly later.

It appears explicitly from the words of the Rambam that there is no addition except regarding affliction, but not regarding the matter of melacha. For just as on Shabbatot and Yamim Tovim there is no addition according to the opinion of the Rambam, as he did not mention this in any place, so too on Yom Kippur regarding a matter equal to Shabbat and Yom Tov, which is melacha. And only regarding affliction, which is unique to Yom Kippur, is there an addition of affliction; and so wrote the Maggid Mishneh. And even though in that same baraita that derives the addition of affliction, it also derives there the addition of melacha and for Shabbat and for Yom Tov, see there—the Rambam holds that regarding this the halacha is not so, because in the first chapter of Rosh Hashanah (9a) it is proven that this derivation is according to Rabbi Ishmael and not according to Rabbi Akiva, and the halacha follows Rabbi Akiva against Rabbi Ishmael, as is known. However, the addition of affliction is explained in Beitzah (30a) as being from the Torah. And regarding the matter of Shabbat and Yom Tov—it is explained at the beginning of Moed Katan (4a) that there is no addition; and so it is explained in the Yerushalmi at the beginning of tractate Shevi'it (the Tosafot brought it in Rosh Hashanah ibid.). And that which Rabbi Akiva says there that there is an addition in Shevi'it—it says at the beginning of Moed Katan and in the Yerushalmi there that the halacha is not so, see there. (And it turns out that the primary reason of the Rambam is because in Beitzah there it is proven that regarding affliction there is an addition, and in Moed Katan there it is proven that regarding melacha there is no addition. And so it is implied explicitly in Pesachim 54b that there is no addition in melacha, see there. And know that even though there is an addition regarding affliction, nevertheless there is neither karet nor a negative commandment in it, but rather a mere positive commandment, as is proven in Yoma there. And see Maggid Mishneh and Lechem Mishneh who labored over the words of the Rambam, and be precise and you will find it easy.)

But the Rif and the Rosh ruled that there is an addition also regarding labor, and similarly on Shabbat and Yom Tov there is an addition. And this is the opinion of the Tur, who wrote that one eats and ceases before bein hashemashot, for we derive from a verse that one must add from the profane onto the holy, whether regarding the prohibition of eating or regarding the performance of labor. And this addition has no fixed measure, rather before bein hashemashot—whose time is the duration of a walk of one thousand five hundred amot before night—one must add a small amount from the profane onto the holy. (See Turei Zahav, that the Tur derives the addition from the Baraita of "etzem" "etzem," and therefore he did not write of an addition on Shabbat and Yom Tov, see there. And this is the primary view, for it is impossible to say that the Tur derives it from the Baraita of "on the ninth of the month" like the Rif, for the Tur required it for the eating on the eve of Yom Kippur. Furthermore, there, Shabbat and Yom Tov are also explained. And the Rif truly holds there is an addition on Shabbat and Yom Tov, and several of the Rishonim hold so. Examine carefully and you will find it simple.)

The Rosh wrote at the end of Yoma and the Ran at the beginning of the fourth chapter of Beitzah, that this tosefet must perforce have some measure, and not merely any amount. For if not so, even without this one must necessarily separate himself a little earlier, because it is impossible to be exact, and a doubt regarding a Torah law is ruled stringently. Rather, it is certain that this has a measure, only we do not know how much its measure is. Therefore, all Israel are careful to cease from their eating and their drinking while the sun is still clearly visible upon the earth, and not right before the actual sunset. And regarding this measure they said in Beitzah (30a): These women who eat and drink until it grows dark, and we do not protest against them, for it is better that they be unintentional transgressors and not intentional transgressors. And the intention is not "until it grows dark" literally, for Heaven forbid to say so, as even regarding bein hashemashot one must protest against them. Rather, the intention is regarding the tosefet, which is while the sun is shining, and they will not listen to us. And so it is explained there that this is regarding the matter of tosefet, because in their lightheaded opinion it is impossible that it should be forbidden to eat while the sun is shining, and they will not accept it from us when we tell them that tosefet Yom Kippur is from the Torah.

And this is when he knows for certain that they will not accept it from him (Magen Avraham). But if there is a doubt whether they will accept—he must protest. And when he sees that they will not obey—he shall not protest further. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that the same law applies to any prohibited matter, we say: It is better that they be unintentional transgressors and not be intentional transgressors. And specifically when it is not explicit in the Torah, even though it is a Torah law. But if it is explicit in the Torah—one protests against them. And if he knows that his words will not be heard—he shall not speak in public to rebuke them except for one time, but he shall not increase in rebukes, since he knows that they will not listen to him. But with an individual—he is obligated to rebuke him until he strikes him or curses him. Thus far his words. And his words require explanation: for the beginning of his words concern unintentional transgressors, and the end of his words concern intentional transgressors (for this is from the Nimukei Yosef at the end of the sixth chapter of Yevamot, and there it deals with an intentional transgressor and regarding the matter of rebuke, see there).

And it seems to me that this is the explanation: when there are people who err in the law, and they believe that this matter is permitted, if he knows for certain that they will not accept it from him—he should remain silent, for it is better that they be unintentional transgressors and not intentional ones. But when there is a doubt that perhaps they will listen—he is obligated to inform them that this matter is forbidden, and he should protest against them. And for this matter even the righteous were punished at the time of the Destruction, in that they did not protest. And the Attribute of Justice said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: If it is revealed before You that they would not listen to them, was it revealed before them (Shabbat 55a; see Taz, subsection 2)? And there is no difference in this between a Torah prohibition and a rabbinic one. Even regarding a rabbinic prohibition, if there is a doubt that perhaps they will listen—he is obligated to inform them and protest against them. And if he informs them and protests, and they do not listen—he should remain silent, for it is better that they be unintentional transgressors. And this applies to a matter that is not explicitly stated in the Torah. But regarding a matter explicitly stated in the Torah, even if he knows for certain that they will not listen—or if he protested once and they did not listen since they are unintentional, as it is not their desire to transgress intentionally but rather they were mistaken to say that this matter is permitted, and this matter is explicit in the Torah—he is obligated to speak and rebuke them several times, and to show them that this is explicitly stated as a prohibition in the Torah. And it is likely that they will obey him, since they are unintentional. However, afterwards, when he has protested several times and achieved nothing—he should remain silent.

And all of this is regarding those who act inadvertently. But if they transgress willfully—and regarding this it is not relevant to inform them that it is forbidden, for they know it themselves but transgress it willfully—they said in the Gemara at the end of the sixth chapter of Yevamot (65b): Just as it is a mitzvah to say a matter that will be heard, so it is a mitzvah not to say a matter that will not be heard. And one said it is an obligation not to say it, as it is stated: "Do not rebuke a scorner, lest he hate you." And the Nimukei Yosef asked: But is there not the mitzvah of "you shall surely rebuke," the essence of which is for one who acts willfully? And he answered that certainly one time he is obligated to rebuke them, for perhaps they will listen. And even if it is clear to him that they will not listen, nevertheless, so that they should not have an opening of the mouth—he is obligated to rebuke them in public one time, and no more. And according to this, that which they said there that it is a "mitzvah" not to say it, or an "obligation"—this is regarding more than one time, and this is in public. But to an individual it is written "you shall surely rebuke" even a hundred times, and as I wrote above in siman 156: until he strikes him or curses him, according to the opinions we explained there. And for a transgression in private he should rebuke him in private, and for a transgression in public he should rebuke him immediately, so that the Name of Heaven should not be profaned (Magen Avraham subsection 3). And know that all of this is regarding a believing Israelite, only that his inclination overcame him to act, and regarding this rebuke is relevant. But those who treat the words of our sages, of blessed memory, with contempt—regarding these rebuke is not relevant, for they are heretics and apikorsim, and one should not debate with them. (And were it not for the words of the Nimukei Yosef and the Rema, I would have said that it is regarding these that we are dealing with in Yevamot there.)

If he ceased from his eating while the day was yet long, he may return and eat as long as he has not accepted the fast upon himself. And even if he accepted it upon himself before plag ha-mincha, it is nothing. This is when he accepted it upon himself because of Yom Kippur. But if he accepted upon himself not to eat further, it is no less than the rest of the year, where he must fulfill his vow, as I wrote in siman 562 (and this is the intent of the Magen Avraham, subsection 4). And acceptance in the heart is not an acceptance. There are those who are concerned to say that it is an acceptance, but it is an excessive stringency. Nevertheless, there are those who practice so (see Magen Avraham ibid.). It is good to practice that before sunset each person should say: "Behold, I accept upon myself the positive commandment of the fast of Yom Kippur, as You commanded us in Your holy Torah, through Moses Your servant. And behold, I accept upon myself the five afflictions, as Your holy ones instructed us." And automatically, when he practices so, there is nothing in his previous thought.

On the eve of Yom Kippur, one should only eat foods that are easy to digest. Therefore, one eats poultry at the seudah hamafseket, so that one will not be overly satiated and become haughty when he prays. Likewise, one does not eat things that heat the body, so that they do not lead to keri. Likewise, one should not eat dairy foods which increase semen. There are those who are accustomed to eating them in the morning, but among us we are not accustomed to do so. The caution regarding light foods is only for the seudah hamafseket, and not in the morning, for by nightfall the satiety will depart. And one should not eat things that increase phlegm and mucus, such as sesame seeds and the like; and they also cause regurgitation, and are not suitable for eating on the eve of this holy day.