1. Jeffrey L. Rubenstein, Talmudic Stories: Narrative Art, Composition and Culture (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999); Rubenstein, Stories of the Babylonian Talmud (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010); Ofra Meir's studies on stories embedded in the Palestinian Talmud and other rabbinic compositions (see “Hashpa‘at ma‘ase ha-‘arikhah ‘al hashkafat ha-‘olam shel sipurei ha-'aggadah,” Tura 3 [1994]: 67–84Google Scholar. For a comprehensive list of Ofra Meir's studies on this issue see Rubenstein, Talmudic Stories, 412). For similar studies on aggadah in the Mishnah see also Yonah Fraenkel, “Ha-'aggadah she-ba-mishnah,” in Meḥkerei Talmud, ed. Yaakov Zussman and David Rosenthal (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1990), 3:655–683, and references to his other studies there; Moshe Simon-Shoshan, Stories of the Law: Narrative Discourse and the Construction of Authority in the Mishnah (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012).

2. Rubenstein, Talmudic Stories and Stories of the Babylonian Talmud, Meir, “Hashpa‘at ma‘ase ha-‘arikhah.” On the BT see also Yonatan Feintuch, “Tales of the Sages and the Surrounding Sugyot in Bavli Neziqin” (PhD diss., Bar-Ilan University, 2008); Barry Scott Wimpfheimer, Narrating the Law: A Poetics of Talmudic Legal Stories (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011).

3. Rubenstein, Talmudic Stories, 266–267; Simon-Shoshan, Stories of the Law. See also Naeh, Shlomo, “‘Bore’ niv sefatayim’: Perek be-fenomenologiah shel ha-tefillah ‘al pi mishnah Berakhot 4:3, 5:5,” Tarbiz 63 (1994): 206–213Google Scholar.

4. See, e.g., Rubenstein's analyses in Talmudic Stories of the aggadot of “The Oven of Aknai,” “The Sinful Sage,” “The Destruction of Jerusalem,” and many others.

5. See, e.g., Rubenstein, Stories of the Babylonian Talmud, on the stories about “stammaitic astrology” (150–181, esp. 169). Other famous examples are the tales of Rabbah b. b. Ḥannah in B. Bava Batra 73a ff., and the stories of R. Elazar b. Shimon in B. Bava Meẓi‘a 83b ff. (see Feintuch, “Tales of the Sages,” 240–247). For a detailed assessment of the natures of the links between stories and their halakhic contexts in tractate Nezikin of the BT see Feintuch, “Tales of the Sages,” esp. 250–254.

6. Translated from MS Budapest – Akademia - Kaufmann A 50.

7. Eating and drinking are considered one affliction, thus there are five afflictions altogether listed in this mishnah (see, e.g., Rashi on this mishnah, B. Yoma 73b).

8. Citation of the baraitot, which are introduced by the term tannu rabanan, appears to open a new talmudic halakhic discussion. It follows a discussion of another halakhic subject, of “half a legal measure,” (74a–74b), which is a digression from a talmudic discussion of the terminology in the mishnah at the beginning of the BT chapter.

9. The citation and translation of the BT here and hereafter are based on MS Munich 6 (Muenchen - Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Cod. hebr. 6), which is considered one of the primary textual witnesses for B. Yoma (for a comprehensive discussion of textual witnesses and branches for B. Yoma see Yakhin Epstein, “Masoret ha-nusaḥ shel Bavli Yoma perek gimel (“'Amar la-hem ha-memuneh”—28a–39a),” [Master's thesis, Hebrew University, 2000]). There are very few textual variants in the other extant witnesses that are significant for our discussion, and these few will be mentioned below. The English translation of the BT is based on the Soncino translation, with necessary changes. The translation of biblical verses is usually based on The New JPS Translation According to the Traditional Hebrew Text (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1985), with necessary changes. For the sake of brevity only the parts that are necessary for the discussion were cited, and only in the English translation. The full and original Hebrew/Aramaic text appears in the appendix, below. The sequence of baraitot is interrupted by brief anonymous discussions in Aramaic, some of which will be discussed below. These “interruptions” are presented in the translated text in smaller font, and are marked as 1a, 2a, 3a, and 3b.

10. The prohibition of piggul (literally “abomination”) relates to an invalidated sacrifice. When eaten with sinful intent, the action is punishable by karet. The prohibition of notar (literally “leftover”) relates to the meat left over from a sacrificial meal, beyond the designated timeframe. When eaten with sinful intent after the set time, the action is punishable by karet.

11. Tevel is the rabbinic term for produce from which the requisite dues and tithes were not separated.

12. This verse is referring to the forced abstention experienced by Israel when they were enslaved in Egypt.

13. Similar parallels to these baraitot are found in the Sifra, 'Aḥarei Mot, per. 7, to Leviticus 16:29 (ed. Weiss, p. 82d), with certain differences.

14. It is unclear whether the opinion that appears in the baraita is driven by a principal rejection of the idea of active affliction to the body, or by the link to the prohibition to engage in work, which focuses the affliction on one specific type of physical suffering.

15. It is interesting to note that this source in the BT differs from its parallel in the Sifra, 'Aḥarei Mot, par. 8, to Leviticus 16:31 (ed. Weiss, p. 83b). The relationship between the various baraitot in the Sifra warrants a separate discussion, which is beyond the scope of the present study.

16. On the interruption of a baraita or a sequence of baraitot for talmudic debate see Rosenthal, David, “Benei ha-talmud hifsiku ve-kafẓu le-hakshot be-tokh ha-baraita,” Tarbiz 60 (1991): 560–563Google Scholar.

17. See the complete text below in the appendix.

18. The common themes in this part will be presented below.

19. The division of the aggadic unit into two parts is based on the abovementioned form that includes the citations of a verse followed by the opinions of “Rabbi X and Rabbi Y …,” and also on a recurrent theme in the first part, as shall be detailed below. However, I acknowledge that there is also a certain overlap between the parts, because sections E and F (see below in the appendix) are also exegeses of verses from Numbers 11 about the manna, as is most of the material in the second part of the aggadic unit. Indeed, the structure of the aggadic unit in general, and the precise relationship between its various components, as well as the order, structure, and sources of the midrash on the manna that appears in it, in particular, require a separate discussion, which is beyond the scope of the present study.

20. On this phenomenon in general see Rozen-Zvi, Ishay, “Yeẓer ha-raʿ ba-sifrut ha-'amora'it: Beḥinah me-ḥadash,” Tarbiz 77 (2007): 100–101Google Scholar.

21. As for the other debates—C does not appear to contain such an allusion, and in fact is different from all the rest of the debates since it doesn't deal with food, and is only loosely connected to the rest by its form and the names of the debating Amoraim. D (see in the appendix) contains a more implicit allusion to sexual matters—“… he cursed the woman—all chase her.” F plays a different role with respect to the connection between the halakhic and aggadic units, see below in the next section of the article.

22. This is how the verse is translated in the JPS translation. In order to understand the exegesis, however, one must look at the original verse: כי יתן בכוס עינו יתהלך במישרים, which may be literally translated as: “when he puts his eye in the cup he will walk straightly [on a plane].”

23. The anonymous discussion of the debate continues; it is omitted here for the sake of brevity. See E2 in the appendix.

24. The phrase “bread in his basket” appears only in the BT, and infrequently therein. There are only two other occurrences of the phrase “you cannot compare one who has bread in his basket etc.”: (a) B. Yevamot 37b, a parallel to B. Yoma 18b mentioned above; and (b) B. Ketubot 63b. In both sources the phrase appears in the context of marital relations, not food. The phrase only appears in one other location in the context of food (B. Sotah 48b).

25. For example, the midrash views Reuel's instructions to his daughters, “invite him to eat bread” as a euphemism for marriage (Shemot Rabbah, Shemot, par. 1:32, to Exodus 2:20 [ed. Shinan, p. 97]). This is based on another well-known midrash about Joseph and Potiphar's wife (see Bereshit Rabbah, Va-yeshev, par. 70, to Genesis 39:6 [ed. Theodor-Albeck, p. 801]), when the verse describes Potiphar's generosity with Joseph, he is said to hand over all responsibility to Joseph, so he could concern himself with nothing “apart from the bread that he does eat.” The midrash views this phrase as a euphemism for Potiphar's wife. See Michael L. Satlow, Tasting the Dish: Rabbinic Rhetorics of Sexuality (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 278–280, and the references in n. 44 there.

26. MS New York - JTS Rab. 1623\2 (EMC 271). In a second Yemenite manuscript (New York - JTS Rab. 218 [EMC 270]) the text is omitted due to a homoioteleuton.

27. E.g., Rashi, s.v. ‘eino be-koso.

28. The verse reads: “… so that you do not follow your heart and eyes in your lustful urge.”

29. A similar double meaning is used in B. Gittin 58a, where an apprentice who has “placed his eye” on the wife of his master tricks him into divorcing her, only so he can marry her himself. The master subsequently loses his wealth, and is forced to serve his former apprentice and wife, now married to the apprentice. The story concludes with a description of the former master's tears falling into the couple's cups, in reference to a real wine cup, but also as an indication of the immoral act that took place.

30. See below in the appendix, G.

31. It is difficult to determine whether the aggadic unit under discussion, or any of its various parts, were placed in the BT as one unit, or developed (perhaps associatively) in several stages (with regard to the homily—perhaps it was copied from a no longer extant midrash on the manna).

32. Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra, The Impact of Yom Kippur on Early Christianity (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 41, 47, 97.

33. Stökl Ben Ezra, Impact of Yom Kippur, 47.

34. Stökl Ben Ezra, Impact of Yom Kippur, 47 n. 170. To the best of my knowledge the link between the manna and Yom Kippur does not appear in rabbinic literature prior to the BT. It may be worth noting that B. Yoma contains at least one other example of a tradition that previously appears only in Second Temple literature (Enoch 1:8–10), which links the scapegoat with the atonement of the mythological ‘Uzah and ‘Aza'el (B. Yoma 67b).

35. On the remaining parts of the aggadah see below.

36. The practical ramification of this division is that eating and drinking on Yom Kippur are the only prohibitions that carry the penalty of karet.

37. The two perceptions on affliction and fasting that are expressed in this particular BT sugya should be examined in the wider context of the attitudes toward these issues in the BT as a whole; however such a comparison is beyond the scope of the present study. For a comprehensive and up-to-date summary of scholarship on rabbinic views about fasting and asceticism in general, and a different and intriguing perspective on the issue of fasting and asceticism in the BT in particular, see Kiel, Yishai, “Fasting and Self-Deprivation in the Babylonian Talmud in Light of Zoroastrian Ideology,” Jewish Studies: An Internet Journal 12 (2013)Google Scholar.

38. It must be noted here that whether or not the authors of unattributed dialectic material in the halakhic sugyot in the BT should be identified with the redactors of those sugyot, or with the authors of aggadic materials in those sugyot, is a matter of current scholarly debate. See, e.g., Rubenstein, Talmudic Stories, 15–21, 244; Richard Kalmin, “Formation and Character of the Babylonian Talmud,” in Cambridge History of Judaism, ed. Steven T. Katz (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 4:845–847; Kalmin, Jewish Babylonia between Persia and Roman Palestine (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 10–11; Wimpfheimer, Narrating the Law, 148–149, 159–160. For a review of various positions on this matter see also Rozen-Zvi, “Yeẓer ha-ra‘,” 99, and n. 75; 100–101, and nn. 181–184.

39. Thus, the talmudic text discussed here adds an interesting example to the ongoing wider scholarly debate about “nomos and narrative.”

40. This is, in fact, the reading of the JPS translation (from which I deviated in this case), which reads: “he subjected you to the hardship of hunger and then gave you the manna to eat.”

41. It is also worth pointing out another element that adds to the smoothness of the transition between the halakhic and aggadic units. The remark of the anonymous stratum of the Talmud in the halakhic unit, which follows the discussion of the exegesis by the school of R. Ishmael (3b), is: “Perhaps we should learn from [the verse] ‘and He saw our affliction,’ as the master said, this is referring to abstaining from marital relations? We derive an affliction by God's hand from an affliction by God's hand, and we do not derive an affliction by God's hand from an affliction by the hands of man.” The “affliction” of abstaining from relations in Egypt was caused by the hands of man—Pharaoh and the Egyptians—therefore this affliction cannot be compared with the divine ordinance to afflict oneself on Yom Kippur. The first aggadic debate (A), which defines the manna as an affliction, immediately follows this statement. However, the manna is not merely an affliction—it is clearly defined as an affliction at the hands of God. The aggadic text is therefore designed as a natural continuum to the halakhic unit, since the halakhic text defines the Yom Kippur afflictions as afflictions by divine decree, and the aggadic text refers to another affliction at the hands of God.