Yoma 162

הוא גופיה שבת איקרי דכתיב תשבתו שבתכם בשלמא רב פפא לא אמר כרב אחא בר יעקב דקרא דכתיב בגופיה עדיף אלא רב אחא בר יעקב מאי טעמא לא אמר כרב פפא

This day itself is also called Sabbath, for Scripture said: [In the ninth day of the month, from even to even], shall ye keep your Sabbath. R'Papa did not [well] interpret as R'Aha B'Jacob, because it is preferable to use a Scriptural text mentioned in connection with the subject itself. But why did not R'Aha B'Jacob expound as R'Papa did? - That<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Scriptural text adduced by R. Papa.');">¹</span> is necessary for the following teaching: And ye shall afflict your souls, in the ninth da of the month.

מיבעי ליה לכדתניא (ויקרא כג, לב) ועניתם את נפשותיכם בתשעה לחודש יכול יתחיל ויתענה בתשעה ת"ל בערב אי בערב יכול משתחשך ת"ל בתשעה הא כיצד מתחיל ומתענה מבעוד יום מכאן שמוסיפין מחול על הקודש

One might have assumed that such affliction commences on the ninth of the month already. Therefore the text reads: 'At even'. If from 'at even', one might have inferred that one must afflict oneself only after it gets dark, therefore the text reads: 'In the ninth'. How is [this to be explained]?

ואין לי אלא בכניסתו ביציאתו מנין ת"ל (ויקרא כג, לב) מערב עד ערב ואין לי אלא יוה"כ (ימים טובים) מניין ת"ל (ויקרא כג, לב) תשבתו אין לי אלא (ימים טובים שבתות) מנין ת"ל (ויקרא כג, לב) שבתכם הא כיצד כל מקום שנאמר שבות (מכאן שמוסיפין) מחול על הקודש

He should commence to afflict himself whilst it is yet day. From here we learn that we add from the profane time to the sacred one. Thus I know it only at its beginning. Whence do I know it at its end?

ותנא דעצם עצם האי בתשעה לחודש מאי עביד ליה מיבעי ליה לכדתני חייא בר רב מדיפתי דתני חייא בר רב מדיפתי ועניתם את נפשותיכם בתשעה וכי בתשעה מתענין והלא בעשור מתענין אלא לומר לך כל האוכל ושותה בתשיעי מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו התענה תשיעי ועשירי

Therefore Scripture said: 'From even unto even'. Thus I know it only for the Days of Atonement, whence do I learn the same for the Sabbath days? Therefore the text reads: 'Your Sabbath'. How is that?

אכל אוכלין שאין ראוין לאכילה אמר רבא כס פלפלי ביומא דכפורי פטור כס זנגבילא ביומא דכפורי פטור

Wherever the word 'shebuth' [rest] is mentioned, we add from the profane time to the sacred one. How does the Tanna who infers from the word-analogy of 'self-same',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who infers the additional time from the words of the text, which are free for interpretation (v. supra) . To him the words 'And ye shall afflict yourself on the ninth', which to us suggest the additional time, must convey a different meaning.');">²</span> 'self-same' interpret the words: 'In the ninth of the month'? - He uses it in accord with what Hiyya, the son of Rab, of Difti taught, for Hiyya, the son of Rab, of Difti learned: 'And you shall afflict your souls in the ninth [day of the month]'. But is one fasting on the ninth?

מיתיבי היה רבי מאיר אומר ממשמע שנאמר (ויקרא יט, כג) וערלתם ערלתו את פריו איני יודע שעץ מאכל הוא אלא מה תלמוד לומר עץ מאכל עץ שטעם עצו ופריו שוה הוי אומר זה פלפלין ללמדך שהפלפלין חייבין בערלה ואין ארץ ישראל חסרה כלום שנא' (דברים ח, ט) לא תחסר כל בה

Do we not fast on the tenth? Rather, it comes to indicate that, if one eats and drinks on the ninth, Scripture accounts it to him as if he had fasted on the ninth and the tenth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The feasting on the ninth of Tishri helps to emphasize the solemnity and the self-affliction due on the morrow, indeed, starting at the eve of the same day. The more feasting on the eve of the Day of Atonement, the more pronounced the affliction on the day itself.');">³</span> IF HE ATE FOODS UNFIT FOR FOOD. Raba said: If one chewed pepper on the Day of Atonement, he is not culpable.

ל"ק הא ברטיבתא והא ביבישתא

If one chewed ginger on the Day of Atonement, he is not culpable. An objection was raised: R'Meir used to say: By mere implication from the text: Then you shall count the fruit thereof as forbidden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 23.');">⁴</span> I could understand that fruit trees are meant. Why then does Scripture say: 'trees for food'?

א"ל רבינא למרימר והאמר רב נחמן האי הימלתא דאתי מבי הנדואי שריא ומברכינן עליה בורא פרי האדמה לא קשיא הא ברטיבתא והא ביבישתא

It means a tree the taste of whose wood and fruit are alike. Say: This is pepper. That teaches you that the plant of pepper is subject to the law of 'orlah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which forbids for the first three years the fruit of trees, v. ibid.');">⁵</span> and that the land of Israel lacks nothing, as it is said: Thou shalt not lack anything in it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. VIII, 9. Hence pepper is considered fruit, and as such should involve the eater thereof on the Day of Atonement in the penalty of extirpation, whereas Raba had taught that one who ate thereof is not culpable. R. Meir speaks of green pepper which can be eaten, hence subject to the law of 'orlah, whereas Raba speaks of dry pepper, which cannot be considered a food, hence one who has eaten thereof, in the best case has not partaken of eatables, in the worst case has harmed himself, in either case is not culpable.');">⁶</span>

ת"ר אכל עלי קנים פטור לולבי גפנים חייב אלו הן לולבי גפנים אמר רבי יצחק מגדלאה כל שלבלבו מר"ה ועד יוה"כ ורב כהנא אמר כל שלשים יום תניא כוותיה דר' יצחק מגדלאה אכל עלי קנים פטור ולולבי גפנים חייב אלו הן לולבי גפנים כל שלבלבו מר"ה ועד יוה"כ

- That is no difficulty; The one case deals with green pepper, the other with dry pepper.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. VIII, 9. Hence pepper is considered fruit, and as such should involve the eater thereof on the Day of Atonement in the penalty of extirpation, whereas Raba had taught that one who ate thereof is not culpable. R. Meir speaks of green pepper which can be eaten, hence subject to the law of 'orlah, whereas Raba speaks of dry pepper, which cannot be considered a food, hence one who has eaten thereof, in the best case has not partaken of eatables, in the worst case has harmed himself, in either case is not culpable.');">⁶</span> Rabina said to Meremar: But R'Nahman has said that preserved ginger coming from India is permitted,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Preserved ginger therefore is considered a food. The blessing due emphasizes that it is considered such.');">⁷</span> and the blessing. Who createst the fruit of the ground' is obligatory [before eating it].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Preserved ginger therefore is considered a food. The blessing due emphasizes that it is considered such.');">⁷</span>

שתה ציר או מורייס פטור הא חומץ חייב מתני' מני רבי היא דתניא ר' אומר חומץ משיב את הנפש

- This is no difficulty: The one case deals with fresh one, the other with dry one. Our Rabbis have taught: If one ate the leaves of calamus, he is culpable. If he ate the leaves of vine, he i culpable. What vines are meant here? - R'Isaac of Magdala said: Such as sprouted forth between New Year and the Day of Atonement.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But if they sprouted forth before the New Year, they are considered stale and 'even as wood', i.e., no food.');">⁸</span>

דרש רב גידל בר מנשה מבירי דנרש אין הלכה כרבי לשנה נפקי כולי עלמא מזגו ושתו חלא שמע רב גידל ואיקפד אמר אימר דאמרי אנא דיעבד לכתחלה מי אמרי אימר דאמרי אנא פורתא טובא מי אמרי אימר דאמרי אנא חי מזוג מי אמרי

R'Kahana said: During the first thirty days,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The same principle, though in different terms.');">⁹</span> it was taught in accord with R'Isaac of Magdala: If one ate the leaves of calamus, he is not culpable. If he ate the leaves of vines, he is culpable. The vines meant here are those that sprouted forth between New Year and the Day of Atonement. IF HE DRANK BRINE OR FISH-BRINE HE IS NOT CULPABLE. But [if he drank] vinegar, he is culpable - according to whom is our Mishnah? - According to Rabbi. For it was taught: Rabbi said, Vinegar restores the soul.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., has the effect of satisfying one, of helping one to come to, on the Day of Atonement.');">¹⁰</span> R'Giddal B'Menasseh of Bari of Naresh<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Bari, which was near Naresh, north of Sura. V. Obermeyer, p.308.');">¹¹</span> reported that the halachah is not in accord with Rabbi, whereupon in the following year all went forth to drink [on the Day of Atonement] vinegar [mixed with water]. When R'Giddal heard that he became angry and said: I spoke only of a de facto case, did I say at all that one may do so at the outset? I referred only to a small quantity, did I speak at all of a large one? I spoke only of raw vinegar, did I refer at all to [vinegar] mixed [with water]? [