Halakhah su Deuteronomio 8:3

This conclusion was, in fact, espoused by an anonymous interlocutor who consulted R. Chaim Ozer Grodzinski with regard to whether it is permissible to introduce foodstuffs into the intestines rectally without violating Yom Kippur restrictions. That anonymous writer opined that such an act was biblically forbidden upon pain of the same penalty as the swallowing of food by mouth. R. Chaim Ozer, Teshuvot Aḥi'ezer, III, no. 61, peremptorily dismisses this contention by citing the interpretation of the verse "who fed you in the wilderness with manna … that He might afflict you" (Deuteronomy 8:16)⁴Actually, apparently citing Yoma 74b from memory, Aḥi‘ezer quotes the earlier verse “and He afflicted you and caused you to hunger and fed you manna” (Deuteronomy 8:3) from which the point emerges with even greater clarity. It is not at all clear why Yoma 74b cites Deuteronomy 8:16 rather than Deuteronomy 8:3. adduced by the Gemara, Yoma 74b. On the basis of the association of "affliction" with "eating" in the verse cited, the Gemara demonstrates that the "affliction" commanded on Yom Kippur is abstention from food, rather than some other form of self-denial. Accordingly, argues Aḥi'ezer, violation of the commandment mandating "affliction" on Yom Kippur occurs only if hunger is assuaged by "eating"; hunger that is assuaged other than by means of swallowing food in the normal manner is yet regarded as "affliction."⁵Cf., Teshuvot Binyan Ẓion, no. 35. Aḥi'ezer also cites Minḥat Hinnukh, no. 313, who maintains that there can be no violation of the Yom Kippur prohibition other than through both "enjoyment by the intestines" and "enjoyment by the palate." Minḥat Hinnukh maintains that this is also the position of Resh Lakish with regard to the prohibition against partaking of forbidden foods. The dispute between Rav Yoḥanan and Resh Lakish occurs in the context of a discussion of an individual who swallows a quantity of forbidden food equivalent to half an olive, regurgitates what he has swallowed, and swallows it again. Resh Lakish asserts that the individual has derived nutritional benefit (hana'at mei'av) from only a half-olive quantity of forbidden food and hence the individual incurs no penalty. Rav Yoḥanan disagrees and asserts that, since the palate has twice derived pleasure from forbidden food equal in measure to a half olive by swallowing the same half olive twice, the result is that the palate has experienced pleasure equivalent to that derived from food equal in measure to an entire olive and hence punishment is incurred. Yet, even according to Resh Lakish, no penalty is incurred unless the forbidden food is swallowed by mouth as is evidenced by the provision that if the food is encased in other substances, thereby depriving the palate of pleasure, no penalty is incurred. In a like manner, argues Minḥat Hinnukh, with regard to Yom Kippur, all maintain that a violation of the prohibition occurs only in the presence of both "enjoyment by the intestines" and "enjoyment by the palate." Accordingly, concludes Aḥi'ezer, even according to Minḥat Hinnukh and Hatam Sofer, there can be no infraction of the prohibition against eating on Yom Kippur unless food enters the stomach through the mouth. This position is also espoused by Teshuvot Ketav Sofer, Oraḥ Hayyim, no. 117; Teshuvot Kol Aryeh, no. 74; and Teshuvot Maḥazeh Avraham, no. 129.⁶See also R. Dov Berish Weidenfeld, Teshuvot Dovev Meisharim, III, no. 88 and additional sources cited in Likkutei He’arot al She‘elot u-Teshuvot Ḥatam Sofer, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, no 127, sec. 9.