Yoma 161

שכוסס שעורים של תרומה משלם את הקרן ואינו משלם את החומש (ויקרא כב, יד) כי יאכל פרט למזיק

who chews<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Chewing' which is the term. techn. for irregular eating.');">¹</span> barley-corns of terumah must pay the principal, but not the additional fifth, for Scripture said: 'If a man eat', that excludes one causing harm.

אמר רב שיזבי א"ר יוחנן זר שבלע שזפין של תרומה והקיאן ואכלן אחר ראשון משלם (את) קרן וחומש שני אין משלם אלא דמי עצים לראשון בלבד

R'Shezbi said in the name of R'Johanan: If a non-priest swallowed jujubes of terumah, and spat them out, and another one ate them, then the first pays the principal, and the fifth, whereas the second does not pay more than their wood [fuel] value.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first, having eaten them, must pay both principal and fine, a complete offence having been committed by him; but not the second, who ate something which could have been used only as fuel.');">²</span> BUT WHAT A MAN EATS AND DRINKS DOES NOT GO TOGETHER'Who is the Tanna [of this part of the Mishnah]? - R'Hisda said: This has been taught under a controversy of opinion, and it is in accord with R'Joshua, for we learned: R'Joshua pronounced with principle: All foods are equal regarding the [duration of] their uncleanness and the quantity of them [required to convey uncleanness] combine; if they be equal only concerning the [duration of] their uncleanness, but not concerning the quantity of them [required to convey uncleanness]; or only regarding quantity, but not in the duration of uncleanness; or if they be equal neither in respect of [duration of] uncleanness nor quantity, they do not combine [to make up the minimum quantity which constitutes the transgression].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Two half olives from two corpses, or two pieces of the size each of one half of a lentil, coming from a dead creeping thing, share the duration of uncleanness and the minimum quantity; a creeping thing and the carcase of an animal that died a natural death, are alike with regard to duration of the uncleanness they cause (in each case up to the evening of the day) , but differ as to the minimum quantity which causes defilement; the former has the standard of an olive, the latter that of a lentil. A human corpse and the carcase of an animal again are alike in the minimum required for defiling a person, viz., an olive, but are different with regard to the duration of the uncleanness caused: the former causing one lasting seven days, the latter one lasting up to the evening only; v. Me'il. 17a.');">³</span>

האוכל והשותה אין מצטרפין מאן תנא אמר רב חסדא במחלוקת שנויה ור' יהושע היא דתנן כלל א"ר יהושע כל שטומאתו ושיעורו שוה מצטרף

R'Nahman said: You may even say that [this part of our Mishnah is] in accord with the Rabbis. For the Rabbis [opposing R'Joshua] hold their view only touching uncleanness, because all are designated as 'uncleanness', but here the point involved is 'coming to', and this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The quantity of a big date, composed of food and drink does not enable one to come to, whereas food alone of that quantity would. The only matter in connection with the minimum required on the Day of Atonement is that it enables one to come to, hence the Rabbis could agree here, whilst disputing R. Joshua in the matter of the combination of various unclean foods.');">⁴</span>

טומאתו ולא שיעורו שיעורו ולא טומאתו לא טומאתו ולא שיעורו אין מצטרפין

does not enable one to come to. Thus also did Resh Lakish say: This has been taught under the controversy of an opinion and our Mishnah is in accord with R'Joshua, for we were taught: R'Joshua pronounced a principle etc. but R'Johanan said: You may even say that our Mishnah is in accord with the Rabbis: There the Rabbis present their view only in connection with uncleanness, but here 'coming to' is the point, and this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The quantity of a big date, composed of food and drink does not enable one to come to, whereas food alone of that quantity would. The only matter in connection with the minimum required on the Day of Atonement is that it enables one to come to, hence the Rabbis could agree here, whilst disputing R. Joshua in the matter of the combination of various unclean foods.');">⁴</span>

רב נחמן אמר אפילו תימא רבנן עד כאן לא קא אמרי רבנן התם אלא לענין טומאה דשם טומאה חד היא אבל הכא משום יתובי דעתא הוא והאי לא מיתבא דעתיה

does not enable one to come to. <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF A MAN ATE AND DRANK IN ONE STATE OF UNAWARENESS, HE IS NOT OBLIGED TO BRING MORE THAN ONE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He did not know all the time that it was the Day of Atonement. Because whereas two offences took place, both belong to one head: eating includes drinking.');">⁵</span>

וכן אמר ר"ל במחלוקת שנויה ורבי יהושע היא דתנן כלל א"ר יהושע כו' ורבי יוחנן אמר אפילו תימא רבנן עד כאן לא קאמרי רבנן התם אלא לענין טומאה אבל הכא משום יתובי דעתיה הוא והאי לא קא מיתבא דעתיה

SIN-OFFERING, BUT IF HE ATE AND PERFORMED LABOUR WHILE IN ONE STATE OF UNAWARENESS HE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But eating and working are two different forms of activities prohibited on the Day of Atonement, derived from two Scriptural verses, Num. XXIX, 7 and Lev. XXIII, 29.');">⁶</span> MUST OFFER UP TWO SIN-OFFERINGS.

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> אכל ושתה בהעלם אחד אינו חייב אלא חטאת אחת אכל ועשה מלאכה חייב (שני) חטאות אכל אוכלין שאינן ראוין לאכילה ושתה משקין שאינן ראוין לשתיה ושתה ציר או מורייס פטור

IF HE ATE FOODS UNFIT FOR FOOD, OR DRANK LIQUIDS UNFIT FOR DRINKING, OR DRANK BRINE OR FISH-BRINE, HE IS NOT CULPABLE. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Resh Lakish said: Why is no explicit warning<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The usual form of which is: 'Thou shalt not'.');">⁷</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר ר"ל מפני מה לא נאמרה אזהרה בעינוי משום דלא אפשר היכי נכתוב נכתוב רחמנא לא יאכל אכילה בכזית נכתוב רחמנא לא תעונה קום אכול משמע

mentioned in connection with the commandment to afflict oneself? - Because it is impossible. For how shall the Divine Law word it?

מתקיף לה רב הושעיא נכתוב רחמנא השמר פן לא תעונה א"כ נפישי להו לאוי

Were the Divine Law to write: 'He shall not eat'? But 'eating' implies [the minimum size of] an olive.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The usual minimum (to render one culpable of having eaten forbidden food) is the quantity of an olive. Had the Torah therefore used the phrase 'He shall not eat', the inference would have been that one who ate the quantity of an olive had thereby transgressed the law; whereas the quantity on the Day of Atonement is dependent on one's coming to, which is the result of having eaten as much as the size of a big date.');">⁸</span>

מתקיף לה רב ביבי בר אביי נכתוב רחמנא השמר במצות עינוי אם כן השמר דלאו לאו השמר דעשה עשה מתקיף לה רב אשי נכתוב אל תסור מן העינוי קשיא

Shall the Divine Law write: 'He shall not afflict himself'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The form would be negative, but the meaning just the opposite of what is required!');">⁹</span> That would mean: Go and eat! - R'Hoshaiah asked a strong question: Let the Divine Law write: 'Take heed, lest thou dost not afflict thyself'! - That would mean several prohibitions.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Take heed' and 'lest' are phrases each implying a separate negative command, v. 'Er. 96a.');">¹⁰</span>

ותנא מייתי לה מהכא (במדבר כט, ז) ועניתם את נפשותיכם וכל מלאכה לא תעשו יכול יהא ענוש על תוספת מלאכה ת"ל (ויקרא כג, ל) וכל הנפש אשר תעשה כל מלאכה בעצם היום הזה על עיצומו של יום ענוש כרת ואינו ענוש כרת על תוספת מלאכה

To this R'Bibi B'Abaye demurred: Let the Divine Law write: Take heed concerning the commandment of affliction! 'Take heed' implies a command, if attached to a command, and a prohibition, if attached to a prohibition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIV, 8: 'Take heed in the plague of leprosy' implies the prohibition of cutting off the bright spot (Lev. XIII, 2) whereas 'Take heed that you do a certain thing', i.e., not neglect it, has affirmative exhortatory meaning. The phrase here would therefore imply a positive command.');">¹¹</span> R'Ashi asked a strong question: Let the Divine Law write: Do not depart from affliction! - This is a difficulty.

יכול לא יהא ענוש כרת על תוספת מלאכה אבל יהא ענוש כרת על תוספת עינוי ת"ל (ויקרא כג, כט) כי כל הנפש אשר לא תעונה בעצם היום הזה ונכרתה על עיצומו של יום ענוש כרת ואינו ענוש כרת על תוספת עינוי

The following Tanna derives it [the prohibition relating to affliction] from here: And ye shall afflict your souls: ye shall do no manner of work.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXIX, 7.');">¹²</span> One might have assumed that the punishment<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Reading with Bah.');">¹³</span>

יכול לא יהא בכלל עונש אבל יהא מוזהר על תוספת מלאכה ת"ל (ויקרא כג, כח) וכל מלאכה לא תעשו בעצם היום הזה על עיצומו של יום הוא מוזהר ואינו מוזהר על תוספת מלאכה

[of extirpation] is involved for one who disregarded the addition<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibitions and positive commandments in connection with the Day of Atonement become valid some time before the actual commencement of the day - before the night of the tenth of Tishri, and extend for some minutes after the end of the Day of Atonement - the night of the eleventh day. The validity for this additional time of the laws governing the Day of Atonement is Biblical, v. infra 81b.');">¹⁴</span> by doing a labour, therefore Scripture said: For whatsoever soul it be that doeth any manner of work in that same day he shall be cut off,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXIII, 30.');">¹⁵</span>

יכול לא יהא מוזהר על תוספת מלאכה אבל יהא מוזהר על תוספת עינוי ודין הוא ומה מלאכה שנוהגת בשבתות וי"ט אינו מוזהר עליה עינוי שאינו נוהג בשבתות וי"ט אינו דין שלא יהא מוזהר עליו

i.e., only for th [disregard of] that day itself is one punished with extirpation, but for labour performed during the additional time one is not punished with extirpation. One might have assumed that one does not incur punishment of extirpation by doing labour during the additional time, but that one does incur punishment of extirpation for failure to afflict oneself during the additional time, therefore the text reads: For whatsoev soul it be that shall not be afflicted in that same day he shall be cut off;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXIII, 29.');">¹⁶</span>

אבל אזהרה לעינוי של יום עצמו לא למדנו מניין לא יאמר עונש במלאכה דגמר מעינוי ומה עינוי שאינו נוהג בשבתות וי"ט ענוש כרת מלאכה שנוהגת בשבתות וימים טובים לא כל שכן למה נאמר מופנה להקיש ולדון ממנו גזרה שוה נאמר עונש בעינוי ונאמר עונש במלאכה מה מלאכה לא ענש אלא אם כן הזהיר אף עינוי לא ענש אלא אם כן הזהיר

that means for [failure of] afflictin [oneself on] the day itself does the penalty of extirpation come, but the penalty of extirpation does not result from failure to afflict oneself during the additional time. One might have assumed that one is not included in the penalty, but that one is under a warning against performing work during the additional time, therefore the text reads: And ye shall do no manner of work in that same day,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. v. 28.');">¹⁷</span>

איכא למיפרך מה לעינוי שלא הותר מכללו תאמר במלאכה שהותרה מכללה

i.e., one is warned concerning the day itself but not concerning [work done] during the additional time. One might have assumed that one is not under a warning concerning labour performed during the additional time, but one is under a warning concerning [failure of] affliction during the additional time; but a logical inference cancels that.

אלא לא יאמר עונש בעינוי דגמר ממלאכה מה מלאכה שהותרה מכללה ענוש כרת עינוי שלא הותר מכללו לא כל שכן למה נאמר מופנה להקיש ולדון ממנה גזירה שוה נאמר עונש בעינוי ונאמר עונש במלאכה מה מלאכה ענש והזהיר אף עינוי ענש והזהיר

For if in the case of labour, the prohibition of which applies on Sabbath and festival days, one i not under a warning [concerning additional time] then with regard to [the commandment of] affliction, which does not apply on Sabbath and festival days, how much more should one not be under a warning against it [during the additional time]! But we have not learnt [so far] of any explicit warning with regard to the [obligation to] affliction on the day itself, whence then do we derive [that required 'warning']? [From the following]: There was no necessity for stating the penalty resulting from the performance of labour, for that is inferable from the [commandment of] affliction.

איכא למיפרך מה למלאכה שכן נוהגת בשבתות וימים טובים תאמר בעינוי שאינו נוהג בשבתות וימים טובים

If [for failure of] affliction, which is not commanded on the Sabbath and festival days, one is punished with extirpation, then for the performance of labour [the prohibition of] which does apply on Sabbath and festival days, how much more shall [one be punished with extirpation]! Why then was [the penalty] stated? It is free<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'being free', or 'vacated', here unnecessary for the context, hence available for hermeneutical purposes.');">¹⁸</span>

אמר רבינא האי תנא עצם עצם גמר מופנה דאי לא מופנה איכא למיפרך כדפרכינן

for interpretation, hence it serves for comparison, to derive thence an inference from analogy of expression: the penalty is stated in connection with [the commandment of] affliction, and the penalty is stated in connection with the [prohibition of] labour, hence just as the performance of labour was punished only after warning,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXIII, 28.');">¹⁹</span> so also is [failure of] affliction punished only after warning.

לאיי אפנויי מופנה חמשה קראי כתיבי במלאכה חד לאזהרה דיממא וחד לאזהרה דליליא וחד לעונש דיממא וחד לעונש דליליא וחד לאפנויי למגמר עינוי ממלאכה בין דיממא בין דליליא

But against this it may be objected:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The comparison is superficial, because in spite of similarity of expression, basic difference of prevailing conditions render the comparison unjustified, and but for an explicit statement of penalty in the case of 'labour' one would not be able to derive it from 'affliction'.');">²⁰</span> The specific condition with affliction [which attaches a penalty to it] lies in the fact that no exception against the general rule was made here; but would you apply [the same] to the performance of labour seeing that in its case exceptions from the general rule were made?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' None is exempted from the affliction, whereas as regards labour the priests in the Sanctuary were permitted to perform all work in connection with the ceremonial of the Day of Atonement.');">²¹</span>

דבי ר' ישמעאל תנא נאמר כאן עינוי ונאמר להלן עינוי מה להלן לא ענש אלא אם כן הזהיר אף כאן לא ענש אא"כ הזהיר רב אחא בר יעקב אמר יליף שבת שבתון משבת בראשית מה להלן לא ענש אלא אם כן הזהיר אף כאן לא ענש אלא אם כן הזהיר

Rather [argue thus]: Let Scripture not mention any penalty in connection with [failure of] affliction, inferring it from the [prohibition of] labour. If [the performance of] labour, from the general prohibition of which some exceptions were made, involves the penalty of extirpation, how much more must [failure of] affliction, from the general prohibition of which no exception was made, involve such penalty?

רב פפא אמר

Then why does Scripture mention it? It is free for interpretation, hence it serves for comparison, to derive thence an inference from analogy of expression: the penalty is mentioned in connection with [failure of] affliction, and the same penalty is mentioned in connection with [the performance of] labour, hence just as [performance of] labour is punished only after warning, so is [the failure of] affliction punished only after warning. Against this may be objected: There is a specific condition in connection with labour [to which a penalty is attached] in that it is forbidden on Sabbath and festival days, but would you apply the same to [the commandment of] affliction seeing that does not apply on Sabbath and festival days? Rabina said: This Tanna infers it from the word 'self-same'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This word occurs both with the prohibition of labour in Lev. XXIII, 30 and with the commandment of affliction in v. 29 ibid., hence appears available for inference from analogy of expression.');">²²</span> Now it must be free,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 397. n. 3.');">²³</span> for if it were not free, the objection as above could be raised against it. Hence it indeed must be free. [Consider] there are<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Bah.');">²⁴</span> five Scriptural verses written in connection with labour:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 29; XXIII, 28, 29, 30 and Num. XXIX, 7.');">²⁵</span> one indicating the prohibition for the day, one the prohibition for the night, one the warning for the day, one the warning for the night, one remains free for inference from [the prohibition of] labour for [the commandment of] affliction, touching both day and night. The School of R'Ishmael taught: Here the word 'affliction' is used and there the word 'affliction'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In connection with the rape of a betrothed maiden, Deut. XXII, 24.');">²⁶</span> is used; hence just as there the penalty is incurred only after warning, so here too the penalty is incurred only after warning. R'Aha B'Jacob said: One can infer that from the phrase 'Shabbath Shabbathon' ['solemn day of rest']<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXIII, 32.');">²⁷</span> which occurs in connection with the ordinary Sabbath,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'with the Sabbath of creation',i.e., the Sabbath, the observance of which is due to the first Sabbath, a tech. term. for any ordinary seventh day Sabbath, as against other days of rest, viz.,the Holy Days.');">²⁸</span> and just as there penalty is incurred only after warning, so here too, penalty is incurred only after warning. R'Papa said: