QUESTION: Abaye teaches that the cup of David ha'Melech in Olam ha'Ba will hold 221 Log. He derives this from the verse, "Kosi Revayah" -- "my cup overflows" (Tehilim 23:5). The Gematriya of the word "Revayah" is 221.
The MAHARSHA explains that the cup of David ha'Melech refers to the Kos Shel Berachah, the cup of wine over which Birkas ha'Mazon is recited. The Gemara in Pesachim (119b) relates that in the World to Come, Hash-m will make a feast at which David ha'Melech will be honored with the recitation of Birkas ha'Mazon over a cup of wine.
What does the Gemara intend to teach? What is the significance of the number 221, and why is it important to know that David ha'Melech's cup will hold that quantity of Log? (Various approaches are given based on Kabalastic symbolism.)
(a) RAV YOSEF GAVRIEL BECHHOFER shlit'a suggests the following approach.
The Gemara in Sanhedrin (97a) says that the arrival of Mashi'ach ben David is associated with an epoch of seven years. David ha'Melech's "cup" refers to the amount of wine used for the Kos Shel Berachah of Birkas ha'Mazon over the seven-year period of Mashi'ach ben David's arrival.
How many times must Birkas ha'Mazon be recited over a Kos Shel Berachah in the course of seven years?
In seven years, there are approximately 365 days of Shabbos. Since the obligation to eat bread applies only to the first two Shabbos meals (since, b'Di'eved, one fulfills the requirement to eat the third Shabbos meal even if he does not eat bread (Shulchan Aruch OC 291:5)), Birkas ha'Mazon needs to be recited twice on Shabbos. Thus, in seven years there are 730 cups over which Birkas ha'Mazon is recited (Kos Shel Berachah) on Shabbos.
On Yom Tov, too, one is required to eat two meals with bread. In seven years, how many days of Yom Tov are there on which two meals are eaten? During the exile, two days of Yom Tov are observed in Galus. Although the Rabanan did not apply the enactment to observe two days of Yom Tov to the Jews in Eretz Yisrael, from the time of the beginning of the Galus the majority of the Jewish people have lived in Chutz la'Aretz and have observed two days of Yom Tov. Accordingly, there are 12 days of Yom Tov on which two meals are eaten: the first two days of Sukos and last two days (Shemini Atzeres and Simchas Torah), the first two and last two days of Pesach, two days of Shavuos, and two days of Rosh Hashanah. However, on Rosh Hashanah, one is permitted to fast during the day, according to the letter of the law, and recite Kidush and eat only at night (Shulchan Aruch OC 597). Therefore, Birkas ha'Mazon with a Kos Shel Berachah is recited on Yom Tov 22 times during the year, or 154 times in seven years. The total number of times which Birkas ha'Mazon is recited with a Kos Shel Berachah in seven years is 884.
Every Kos Shel Berachah is comprised of a minimum of one Revi'is, which is a fourth of a Log. Hence, 884 cups of Kos Shel Berachah are comprised of 221 Log, the number alluded to by the verse, "Kosi Revayah," which refers to the cup of wine of David ha'Melech!
(b) Perhaps the Gemara here may be understood based on the Gemara in Berachos (7b) which says, "Why was she called 'Ruth'? -Because among her offspring was David ha'Melech, who satiated ('Rivehu') Hash-m with songs and praises." The Chachamim make use of the root "Revayah" to describe the satisfaction of Hash-m with the Tehilim of David ha'Melech. Accordingly, the Gemara here in Yoma is saying that as reward for the Tehilim he composed to praise Hash-m, David ha'Melech will receive, measure for measure, a "satiating cup" ("Kos Revayah").
The Chachamim teach that there are not actually 150 chapters in Tehilim (as divided in our texts), but 147, which correspond to the years of the life of Yakov Avinu (Maseches Sofrim ch. 16, cited by Tosfos to Pesachim 117a; see Parsha Page, Vayechi 5757, for a comprehensive discussion about how to reconcile this number with the count in our texts of Tehilim). David ha'Melech's intention was to counteract the 49 curses listed in Parshas Bechukosai and the 98 curses in Parshas Ki Savo (see Rashi to Devarim 29:12) with 147 psalms of Tehilim. For this he was rewarded with the cup of Birkas ha'Mazon in the World to Come (Pesachim 119b), which is the "Kos Revayah" of 221 Log mentioned by the Gemara here according to the Maharsha.
How is a cup of 221 Log a fitting reward for David ha'Melech's achievements?
In order to compose the chapters of Tehilim, David ha'Melech stayed awake to serve Hash-m for an amount of time one and a half times more than the ordinary person. It is appropriate for the reward for his efforts to correspond to one and a half times the number of psalms he composed. One and a half times 147 is 220.5. The Gemara rounds up the fraction to 221 (because one half is treated like a whole; see Berachos 3b, "Mishmerah u'Palga, 'Mishmaros' Kari Lehu"). For this he is rewarded with the "Kos Revayah" which contains 221 Log of wine (as "songs [of praise to Hash-m] may be recited only over a cup of wine," Berachos 36a). This can be demonstrated as follows.
The Gemara in Berachos (4a) relates that David ha'Melech considered himself worthy of praise. He said, "Am I not a Chasid (who conducts himself over and above the letter of the law)? All the world's kings arise at the third hour of the day, while I arise at midnight to praise You!" Rashi (Berachos 3b) explains that the third hour refers to the beginning of the third hour of the day (i.e., two hours into the day). Accordingly, David ha'Melech arose eight hours earlier than other kings. These hours were David ha'Melech's "overtime," so to speak, during which he composed the psalms of Tehilim, as the Gemara in Berachos (3b) says.
In total, how many hours during the day was David ha'Melech awake and involved in the service of Hash-m? He was awake the entire day and night. The Gemara (ibid.) says that he merely "napped like a horse" from nightfall until midnight, which, as Rashi explains, means that he merely "dozed as he learned" -- he did not enjoy a full sleep at all. Ordinary people, on the other hand, are awake for 16 hours of the day: The Gemara (Berachos 3a) teaches that at dawn (Alos ha'Shachar) "a man begins to talk with his wife" (he wakes up; Rashi), and the latest time at which the average person goes to sleep is the end of the fourth hour of the night (Rashi, end of Berachos 4a, based on the Gemara there). This leaves a total of 16 hours of wakeful activity. (This may be the source for the Rambam's statement (Hilchos De'os 4:6) that eight hours is a sufficient (and necessary) amount of sleep for the average person.)
The number of hours (24) that David ha'Melech was awake and served Hash-m each day was one and a half times more than the number of hours an ordinary person (16) is awake. He added those extra eight hours in order to sing praises to Hash-m, praises which he composed as the 147 psalms of Tehilim. This is why he was rewarded with a cup that holds one and a half times 147 Log, or 221 Log).
(According to a different opinion in Berachos (beginning of 3b), the night is divided into four Mishmaros, each of which is three hours long (as opposed to the opinion which maintains that the night is divided into three Mishmaros, each of which is four hours long). This opinion apparently maintains that David ha'Melech added only six waking hours (the length of two Mishmaros) to his day, and not eight. This opinion compares David ha'Melech to the ordinary Jew and not to other kings who rise especially late. Nevertheless, this opinion seems to agree that David ha'Melech served Hash-m for one and a half more hours than the ordinary person, because it simply equates being "half-awake" to being asleep. Thus, the first six hours of the night, when David was half-awake, were not considered to be waking hours; he was awake only 18 hours. Other people, on the other hand, go to bed at the earliest at the beginning of the night (Tzeis ha'Kochavim). Even though some go to sleep later, the hours during which only some people are awake do not count as normal waking hours. Accordingly, waking hours for normal people are considered to be 12 hours, while David ha'Melech was awake 18 -- one and a half times more than others.) (M. Kornfeld)


QUESTIONS: The Gemara teaches that the primary form of Inuy (affliction) of Yom Kippur is the requirement to refrain from Achilah and Shetiyah, eating and drinking. These two acts are considered one Inuy, since Shetiyah is included in Achilah. The Gemara proves that Shetiyah is included in Achilah from a verse which lists the items that one may buy with the money of Ma'aser Sheni to eat in Yerushalayim. "You shall buy with the money whatever you desire of cattle, sheep, wine, and old wine (Shechar)... and you shall eat it there" (Devarim 14:26). Since the verse says that one shall "eat" the food of Ma'aser Sheni, and one of those foods mentioned is Shechar, clearly the act of drinking Shechar is considered "eating."
The Gemara rejects this proof with the suggestion that perhaps the "Shechar" mentioned in the verse refers to an intoxicating food, such as "Deveilah Ke'ilis," a type of fermented fig. Consequently, there is no proof that Shetiyah is called Achilah. The Gemara proves that figs can be intoxicating from the Beraisa that says that a person is Chayav Misah if he enters the Mikdash while under the influence of "Deveilah Ke'ilis" or intoxicating beverages, as the verse says, "Yayin v'Shechar Al Tesht... v'Lo Samusu" (Vayikra 10:9).
The Gemara rejoins that "Shechar" must refer to a wine product, because the Torah prohibits a Nazir from drinking "Shechar," while it also states that he is prohibited only from "what comes from grapes." Accordingly, the word "Shechar" used in reference to Ma'aser Sheni must also refer to an intoxicating beverage and not to a food. Hence, the proof that drinking a beverage is indeed a form of "Achilah" remains.
There are a number of difficulties with the words of the Gemara.
First, why does the Gemara derive the meaning of the term "Shechar" written in reference to Ma'aser Sheni from the term "Shechar" written in reference to a Nazir (where "Shechar" must mean wine)? The Gemara could also learn its meaning from the term written in reference to the prohibition against entering the Mikdash while intoxicated, where "Shechar" includes any food item that has intoxicating properties (such as Deveilah Ke'ilis). Why does the Gemara prefer to learn Ma'aser Sheni from Nazir than to learn Ma'aser Sheni from Bi'as Mikdash (entering the Mikdash while intoxicated)?
Second, with regard to Bi'as Mikdash itself, why is a person liable for entering the Mikdash after eating an intoxicating fig? If the meaning of "Shechar" in the verse of Ma'aser Sheni can be derived from Nazir, why is the meaning of "Shechar" in the verse of Bi'as Mikdash not also learned from Nazir? The Gemara should learn from Nazir that the "Shechar" of Bi'as Mikdash refers only to wine and not to figs.
Third, even if Bi'as Mikdash is not comparable to Nazir, there is another reason to exempt a person who enters the Mikdash after he eats a Deveilah Ke'ilis. With regard to Bi'as Mikdash the verse says, "Wine and Shechar you shall not drink" (Vayikra 10:9). The verse specifically refers to drinking. Even if the word Achilah includes the act of Shetiyah, certainly the word Shetiyah does not include the act of Achilah. Why, then, should a person be liable for Bi'as Mikdash after he eats an intoxicating fig dish if the verse specifically refers to drinking?
(a) The TOSFOS YESHANIM answers all three questions as follows. Why does the Beraisa say that one is liable for Bi'as Mikdash when he enters the Mikdash after he eats intoxicating figs? The word "Shechar" of Nazir, which refers only to wine, should teach that the "Shechar" of Bi'as Mikdash also refers only to wine and not to intoxicating figs. The answer is that, indeed, when the Gemara says that the meaning of "Shechar" of Ma'aser Sheni is derived from "Shechar" of Nazir, it also means that the meaning of "Shechar" of Bi'as Mikdash is derived from "Shechar" of Nazir, and one will not be liable for eating intoxicating figs and entering the Mikdash.
When the Beraisa says that one is liable for such an act, it is expressing the view of a Tana who disagrees with the conclusion of the Gemara. The Gemara follows the view of Rebbi Shimon (Nazir 4a) who maintains that one is not liable for Bi'as Mikdash after he eats intoxicating figs (one is liable only if he enters the Mikdash after he drinks wine). The Beraisa cited by the Gemara, which expresses the opposite view, follows the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah who maintains that one is liable for entering the Mikdash after eating intoxicating figs, but when the Gemara concludes that Ma'aser Sheni is derived from Nazir, it rejects his opinion and accepts the opinion of Rebbi Shimon who does derive Bi'as Mikdash from Nazir.
The other two questions may be answered as follows. According to Rebbi Yehudah, why is one liable for entering the Mikdash after eating intoxicating figs? Even Rebbi Yehudah agrees that "Shechar" of Nazir refers only to wine, and thus "Shechar" of Bi'as Mikdash should also refer only to wine and not to food items. Moreover, the fact that the verse says that "you shall not drink" should teach that one is liable only for entering the Mikdash after drinking an intoxicating beverage, but not after eating an intoxicating food.
The Tosfos Yeshanim answers that the verse which discusses entering the Mikdash while intoxicated gives the reason why one may not drink wine and enter the Mikdash: "so that he can differentiate between the holy and the profane... and so that he can teach all of the laws to the Jewish people" (Vayikra 10:10-11). The logic of this reason implies that anything which causes one to be in a state of drunkenness may not be consumed (whether a beverage or a food) before one enters the Mikdash. Thus, intoxicating foods are included in the prohibition of Bi'as Mikdash. (That is, they are not learned from the words "Shechar Al Tesht," but from the end of the verse, "l'Havdil ul'Horos").
(b) TOSFOS (DH Gamar) suggests that everyone (even Rebbi Shimon) agrees that one who eats an intoxicating fig and enters the Mikdash is liable. Even though "Shechar" always refers to wine (as derived from Nazir), and even though the verse says "you shall not drink" and implies that the prohibition of Bi'as Mikdash applies only to wine, nevertheless logic teaches that the prohibition applies even to entering the Mikdash after eating intoxicating foods. The reason the Torah prohibits entering the Mikdash while intoxicated is because it is disgraceful for a person to stand in front of a mortal king in such a state, and all the more so in front of Hash-m. The same logic should apply to one who eats an intoxicating food. This logic, which applies only to Bi'as Mikdash and not to other laws (such as Nazir and Ma'aser Sheni), precludes deriving the laws of entering the Mikdash while intoxicated from Nazir, and the laws of Ma'aser Sheni from Bi'as Mikdash.