Implied question: Perhaps Inuy of the verse does not refer to anointing, rather, to "Lechem Chamudos Lo Achal." He afflicted himself regarding eating!

Answer: It is not Inuy if one does not eat choice bread, but he eats other bread, and he does not drink wine, but he drinks another drink!

Rather, surely it applies to anointing. He did not anoint at all.

Citation (Shabbos 86a): Even though there is no proof, there is a commemoration of the matter - "it will come into him like water."

Question: In Nidah (32a), a Beraisa expounds "v'Lo Yechalelu Es Kodshei Bnei Yisrael" to include anointing like drinking. Alternatively, we learn from "va'Tavo cha'Mayim b'Kirbo";

Why do we initially bring a proof from a Torah verse, and afterwards from a verse of Kesuvim, which is a mere commemoration?

Answer #1: The Gemara means that even if we did not have a verse to forbid anointing mid'Oraisa, we would forbid it mid'Rabanan, due to "va'Tavo..."

Answer #2: Also the verse "v'Lo Yechalelu..." is only an Asmachta. Primarily, the verse does not teach about this (anointing), rather, like it says in Zevachim (3b);

Citation (3b): [If a Chatas was slaughtered with intent for something else], Kodshim are Mechalel Kodshim [if he intended for a different Korban, it is Pasul], but Chulin are not Mechalel Kodshim [if he intended for Chulin, it is Kosher].

In Sanhedrin (83a), we learn from the verse that one who eats Tevel is Chayav Misah [b'Yedei Shamayim].

R. Tam's opinion: R. Tam explains that all of the Inuyim of Yom Kipur, except for eating and drinking, are only mid'Rabanan. The verses are mere Asmachtos.

Support: Below, we say that if one was dirty with mud or excrement, he washes normally without concern. If one has scabs on his head, he anoints normally without concern. In Kerisus (7a) we say that a Kohen may anoint his daughter's son, a Yisrael, with Terumah oil, without concern.

If it were mid'Oraisa, it would be forbidden in every case. Rather, it is mid'Rabanan.

Observation: One may anoint with Chelev. We find that anointing is like drinking only regarding Yom Kipur, Terumah and Isurei Hana'ah, like in Pesachim 25b;

Citation (25b): Ravina smeared his daughter with unripe olives of Orlah. (Mar bar Rav Ashi questioned this.) He (Ravina) answered that this is not the normal benefit.

Citation (cont.) Inference: One who puts raw Chelev of Shor ha'Niskal (an ox sentenced to be stoned) on a wound is exempt. This implies that melted Chelev is forbidden, for it (Shor ha'Niskal) is Isurei Hana'ah.

Note: Pesachim 24b says "one who puts Chelev (it does not mention "raw") of Shor ha'Niskal on a wound is exempt, and all the more so one who eats raw Chelev is exempt." The Mordechai (Pesachim 545) permits putting Chelev on a wound. The Gemara said "exempt" because this was taught with eating raw Chelev, which is forbidden but exempt. Other than Isurei Shabbos, "exempt" does not imply that it is forbidden. The Me'iri explains that one may put Chelev on a wound only if there is illness or pain.

However, Chelev of matters that one may benefit from is permitted.

Summation: Regarding Terumah it is forbidden, for there is the Asmachta "v'Lo Yechalelu";

On Yom Kipur it is forbidden due to pleasure. It is permitted for Refu'ah, or if his hands are filthy. The general rule is, when it is not for pleasure, it is permitted.

Question: Why does the Gemara need to learn anointing from "v'Sach Lo Sachti"? We know from here, "va'Tavo cha'Mayim b'Kirbo..."! This is a Mishnah in Shabbos (86a).

Answer: We need ["v'Sach Lo Sachti"]. Had the Torah written only "va'Tavo cha'Mayim b'Kirbo", we would forbid even anointing not of pleasure, just like drinking.

Therefore, we bring the verse of Daniel, which connotes that he refrained only from anointing of pleasure, for it says Lehis'anos;

Had the Torah written only the verse of Daniel, we would not forbid anointing. He afflicted himself in several ways, and we do not learn from there!

Perhaps we would forbid one of the other afflictions that he did, but not anointing! "Va'Tavo cha'Mayim..." teaches that anointing is like drinking.

Also, from the verse "va'Tavo..." we must learn that anointing is like drinking regarding Terumah. We could not learn this from the verse of Daniel.

Rashi's opinion: It is a Ru'ach Ra'ah that rests on hands that were not washed in the morning.

R. Tam's opinion: Even if one need not feed bread to a child, he may wash his hands in the morning on Yom Kipur;

He is no less [permitted] than one whose hands are dirty with mud or excrement. We say that he may wash normally without concern;

This is even worse than one whose hands are dirty with mud or excrement!

One who did not wash his hands in the morning may not touch his mouth, nose, ears and eyes. We say (Shabbos 108b) that a hand that touches the mouth [before it was washed in the morning] should be cut off... because the Ru'ach Ra'ah on it is a Bas Melech.

R. Tam's opinion (cont.): Shivsa here is a different matter. It rests on the food when one comes to give bread to a child four or five years old, and chokes him if the one feeding him did not wash then, even if he washed in the morning;

Our custom: Nowadays people are not careful about this, for this Ru'ach Ra'ah does not dwell in these kingdoms, just like we are not careful about exposure [of liquids that snakes drink from] and Zugos (doing things in even numbers).