Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

June 24, 2021 | 讬状讚 讘转诪讜讝 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Yoma is sponsored by Vicky Harari in commemoration of her father's Yahrzeit, Avraham Baruch Hacohen ben Zeev Eliyahu Eckstein z'l, a Holocaust survivor and a feminist before it was fashionable. And in gratitude to Michelle Cohen Farber for revolutionizing women's learning worldwide.

This month's shiurim are sponsored by Fredda Cohen and Eric Nussbaum in memory of her beloved father, Mitchell Cohen, Michael ben Shraga Faivel haLevi, whose 27th yahrzeit falls on 16 Tammuz. He was kind, sweet and funny, and had a big open heart for klal Yisrael v'chol yoshvei tevel.

And for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah.

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

Yoma 74

Today’s daf is sponsored by Art Gould in thanks to HaShem for 48 years of marriage to my beloved bride and partner for life Carol Robinson. 50 years ago this August at a Hillel Summer Institute in Starlight, Pennsylvania on Erev Shabbat before davening I said to this really cute girl “sit with me and I’ll get you a prayer book”. (She said Yes!) We’ve been inseparable ever since.” And by Robin Katcoff in honor of her 20th Anniversary to Jason. “Jason is my rock and my hero. He keeps me going every day and has helped me build an amazing family with our two daughters. His love of learning has inspired me to continue studying Daf for the past year and a half.聽 I love having him as my partner in Daf learning and life.”

The Gemara continues with a difficulty about the Reish Lakish’s opinion that eating less than the requisite amount is forbidden by Rabbinic law. The gemara then questions the assumption the gemara made previously that the word “forbidden” would imply that there is no karet punishment. The opinions of Reish Lakish and rabbi Yochanan are discussed regarding less than a requisite amount (chatzi shiur) – is it or is it not forbidden by Torah law? What are the reasons behind each opinion? Rabbi Yochana brings a source against Reish Lakish. What is the definition of “affliction” of Yom Kippur and how is it derived from the verses?

讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 讗讚诐 讗讜住专 注爪诪讜 讘讻诇 砖讛讜讗


and the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who said: A man prohibits himself from any amount. If a man swears that he will not eat, he thereby prohibits himself from eating even the smallest amount of food. Therefore, Reish Lakish himself maintains that eating a half-measure does not constitute a prohibition.


讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讛讬转专 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 拽讗 讞讬讬诇 拽专讘谉 砖讘讜注讛 讜讛转谞谉 砖讘讜注转 讛注讚讜转 讗讬谞讛 谞讜讛讙转 讗诇讗 讘专讗讜讬讬谉 诇讛注讬讚 讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪诇讱


And if you say: Perhaps Reish Lakish maintains that since a half-measure is permitted by Torah law, despite the fact that it is prohibited by rabbinic law, one is liable to bring an offering for violating an oath, then there is the following problem: Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: An oath of testimony where one is sworn to give testimony on something that he saw or knew, applies only to those who are eligible to give testimony. If one who is ineligible to testify swears an oath to give testimony, the oath is invalid even if he does not testify. And we discussed it: The statement: Those who are eligible to give testimony, comes to exclude what? After all, it was already said that the oath does not apply to women, relatives, and other disqualified people. Rav Pappa said: It comes to exclude a king. A king is not disqualified from giving testimony, but he does not testify before a court, due to the requirement to give respect to a king.


专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪砖讞拽 讘拽讜讘讬讗 讜讛讗 诪砖讞拽 讘拽讜讘讬讗 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讬讞讝讬 讞讝讬 讜专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讚驻住诇讜讛讜 讜诇讗 拽讗 讞讬讬诇讗 注诇讬讛 砖讘讜注讛


Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said: It comes to exclude one who plays with dice, whom the Sages disqualified from giving testimony. But surely one who plays with dice is eligible by Torah law to give testimony, and it is the Sages who disqualified him. Despite this, an oath of testimony does not apply to him by Torah law, even though the prohibition on his testifying is rabbinic.


砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讗诐 诇讗 讬讙讬讚 讜讛讗讬 诇讗讜 讘专 讛讙讚讛 讛讜讗 讻诇诇


The Gemara rejects this by distinguishing between the two cases: It is different there, in the case of testimony, where the verse states: 鈥淚f he does not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity鈥 (Leviticus 5:1), i.e., a man who can testify but doesn鈥檛 do so should be punished. But this person cannot ever give testimony since the court will not accept his testimony. The Torah makes liability for an oath of testimony contingent on one鈥檚 ability to testify. Therefore, an oath of testimony would not apply to someone unable to testify. However, one who takes an oath not to eat is liable if he breaks that oath, notwithstanding the rabbinic prohibition against eating less than a measure of forbidden food. Consequently, this rejection does not stand, and the first explanation remains.


讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚转谞讬 注谞讜砖 讻专转 诇讗 转谞讬 讗住讜专 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 讗住讜专 讘讻讜诇谉 诇讗 讗诪专讜 注谞讜砖 讻专转 讗诇讗 注诇 讛讗讜讻诇 讜砖讜转讛 讜注讜砖讛 诪诇讗讻讛 讘诇讘讚 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻砖讗诪专讜 讗住讜专 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讘讻讞爪讬 砖讬注讜专 讗讘诇 讻砖讬注讜专 注谞讜砖 讻专转 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖注谞讜砖 讻专转 讗讬谉 注谞讜砖 讻专转 讗诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讜砖讜转讛 讜注讜砖讛 诪诇讗讻讛 讘诇讘讚


搂 The Gemara鈥檚 initial assumption is that the mishna鈥檚 use of the word prohibited is referring to a transgression not punishable by karet. The Gemara asks: And anywhere that it teaches that transgressing is punishable by karet, does it never teach using the word prohibited? Was it not taught in a baraita: Although they said the word prohibited with all of the five Yom Kippur afflictions, they said that the punishment of karet applies only to one who eats, or drinks, or performs prohibited labor. This means that the word prohibit is used with transgressions punishable by karet as well. The Gemara rejects this. This is what the baraita is saying: When they said that those five activities are prohibited, they said that only with regard to a half-measure; but a full measure is punishable by karet. And although a violation is punishable by karet, it is punishable by karet only if one eats, or drinks, or performs prohibited labor; these alone are the cases where karet is incurred.


讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讬 拽转谞讬 讗住讜专 讗砖讗专讗 讚转谞讜 专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讘砖讗专 住讬驻专讬 讚讘讬 专讘 诪谞讬讬谉 诇讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 砖讗住讜专 讘专讞讬爪讛 讘住讬讻讛 讜讘谞注讬诇转 讛住谞讚诇 讜讘转砖诪讬砖 讛诪讟讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖讘转讜谉 砖讘讜转


And if you wish, say instead that when it is taught in the mishna using the language of prohibited, it is referring to the other transgressions, which do not incur karet. As Rabba and Rav Yosef taught this in other books of Rav鈥檚 school, i.e., the Sifrei, the halakhic midrash on Numbers and Deuteronomy: From where is it derived that it is prohibited to engage in bathing, and in smearing oil on one鈥檚 body, and in wearing shoes, and in having relations on Yom Kippur? The verse states: 鈥Shabbaton (Leviticus 16:31), meaning resting and refraining from certain activities. Therefore, the word prohibit is used with these activities, but they are not punishable by karet.


讙讜驻讗 讞爪讬 砖讬注讜专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗住讜专 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诪讜转专 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗住讜专 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讝讬 诇讗讬爪讟专讜驻讬 讗讬住讜专讗 拽讗 讗讻讬诇 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诪讜转专 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讗讻讬诇讛 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讬讻讗


搂 Apropos the dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish, the Gemara deals with the matter itself: What is the law with regard to a half-measure? Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is prohibited by Torah law. Reish Lakish said: It is permitted by Torah law. The Gemara elaborates: Rabbi Yo岣nan said it is prohibited by Torah law because it is fit to combine with another half-measure. If one continues to eat more, he will eat a whole measure, which is punishable by Torah law. Therefore, even when he eats the first half-measure he is eating forbidden food. Reish Lakish said it is permitted by Torah law. His reason is as follows: With regard to all forbidden foods, the Merciful One states in the Torah: 鈥淓at,鈥 for example in the verse: 鈥淵ou shall eat neither fat nor blood鈥 (Leviticus 3:17). Eating is defined as consuming a minimum of an olive-bulk, and there is no prohibition if one eats less than an olive-bulk.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讻诇 砖讬砖谞讜 讘注讜谞砖 讬砖谞讜 讘讗讝讛专讛 讻讜讬 讜讞爪讬 砖讬注讜专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬谞讜 讘注讜谞砖 讬讻讜诇 讗讬谞讜 讘讗讝讛专讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻诇 讞诇讘 诪讚专讘谞谉 讜拽专讗 讗住诪讻转讗 讘注诇诪讗


Rabbi Yo岣nan raised an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish from what was taught in a baraita with regard to the prohibition of forbidden fat: I have derived only that anything that is included in the punishment of karet is included in the prohibition. However, one might have thought that there is no prohibition to eat fat of a koy, or a half-measure of forbidden fat, since there is no punishment for those. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎ll fat鈥 (Leviticus 7:23), indicating that there is a prohibition to eat any kind of fat, including fat of uncertain status and a half-measure of fat. Therefore, a half-measure of fat is prohibited by Torah law. Reish Lakish rejects this argument: This prohibition is rabbinic, and the verse brought as a proof is a mere support. It cannot be claimed that there is such a prohibition by Torah law.


讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讻讜讬 住驻讬拽讗 讛讜讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇讗转讜讬讬 住驻讬拽讗 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讗 诇讗 讗讬专讬讗 拽住讘专讬


The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable to say that the baraita cites only the verse as a support and not as a source to prove the prohibition. For if it could enter your mind that this teaching constitutes a prohibition by Torah law, there is uncertainty whether a koy is a wild beast or a domestic animal. Is a verse necessary to include an uncertainty? There is no doubt before God and therefore no purpose in writing a case of doubt in the Torah. Consequently, the baraita cites the verse only as a support. The Gemara answers: If that is the reason, there is no conclusive argument. The Sages of the baraita might have thought


讻讜讬 讘专讬讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讛讬讗 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗祝 讻诇 诇讗转讜讬讬 讻讜讬 讻讜讬 住驻讬拽讗 讛讜讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇专讘讜讬讬 住驻讬拽讗 讗诇讗 讘专讬讛 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘专讬讛 砖讗谞讬


that a koy is its own species, and the uncertainty pertains not only to whether it is a wild or domestic animal, but also to whether it even can fit into one of those two categories. For if you do not say so and maintain that it might be its own species, how can we understand that which Rav Idi bar Avin said, that also the word 鈥渁ll鈥 stated in the verse: 鈥淎ll blood you may not eat, whether of birds or of beasts鈥 (Leviticus 7:26), comes to include the koy. Now, if you say that the koy is a case of uncertainty, is a verse necessary to include an uncertainty? Rather, the koy is obviously its own species, and therefore it is different and needs a special verse to include it. Here too, in the case of the forbidden fat, we could say that the koy is its own species, and therefore it is different. Consequently, Reish Lakish鈥檚 opinion cannot be proven by this baraita.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 转注谞讜 讗转 谞驻砖讜转讬讻诐 讬讻讜诇 讬砖讘 讘讞诪讛 讗讜 讘爪谞讛 讻讚讬 砖讬爪讟注专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻诇 诪诇讗讻讛 诇讗 转注砖讜 诪讛 诪诇讗讻讛 砖讘 讜讗诇 转注砖讛 讗祝 注谞讜讬 谞驻砖 砖讘 讜讗诇 转注砖讛


搂 After clarifying the wording of the mishna, the Gemara brings a halakhic midrash to analyze the mishna鈥檚 laws. The Sages taught: The verse states: 鈥淎nd this shall be a statute to you forever: In the seventh month on the tenth day of the month you shall afflict your souls鈥 (Leviticus 16:29). I might have thought that one should sit in the sun or in the cold to suffer and afflict his soul; therefore the continuation of the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall not do any labor, the home-born, or the stranger that lives among you鈥 (Leviticus 16:29). This teaches that just as prohibited labor is a mitzva that requires one to sit and do nothing, as one is commanded to refrain from action, so too, affliction of one鈥檚 soul is also a mitzva requiring one to sit and do nothing. One is not commanded to be proactive in order to afflict his soul. Rather, one must refrain from specified actions such as eating and drinking.


讜讗讬诪讗 讛讬讻讗 讚讬转讬讘 讘砖讬诪砖讗 讜讞讬讬诐 诇讬讛 诇讗 谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 拽讜诐 转讜讘 讘讟讜诇讗 讬转讬讘 讘讟讜诇讗 讜拽专讬专 诇讬讛 诇讗 谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 拽讜诐 转讜讘 讘砖讬诪砖讗 讚讜诪讬讗 讚诪诇讗讻讛 诪讛 诪诇讗讻讛 诇讗 讞诇拽转 讘讛 讗祝 注谞讜讬 诇讗 转讞诇讜拽 讘讜


The Gemara asks: And say that it means that when one sits in the sun and it is too hot for him, we do not say to him: Get up and sit in the shade. Or, if one sits in the shade and it is too cold for him, we do not say to him: Get up and sit in the sun. These are also cases of affliction involving sitting and doing nothing. The Gemara rejects this: It must be similar to the prohibition of labor. Just as with regard to prohibited labor you did not distinguish between situations, since the prohibition is independent of one鈥檚 personal circumstance, so too, you do not distinguish with regard to affliction, which is not affected by one鈥檚 circumstance.


转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 转注谞讜 讗转 谞驻砖讜转讬讻诐 讬讻讜诇 讬砖讘 讘讞诪讛 讜讘爪谞讛 讜讬爪讟注专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻诇 诪诇讗讻讛 诇讗 转注砖讜 诪讛 诪诇讗讻讛 讚讘专 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讗祝 注谞讜讬 谞驻砖 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讜讗讬 讝讛 讝讛 讝讛 驻讙讜诇 讜谞讜转专


It was taught in another baraita that as the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall afflict your souls鈥 (Leviticus 16:29), I might have thought that one must sit in the sun or the cold and be uncomfortable; therefore, the continuation of the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall not do any labor鈥 (Leviticus 16:29). Just as prohibited labor is something that incurs karet in other circumstances, like Shabbat, so too, affliction relates to acts that in other circumstances incur karet. And what is that circumstance? That is referring to piggul and notar, which lead to karet if eaten, and which therefore may not be eaten on Yom Kippur.


讗讘讬讗 驻讙讜诇 讜谞讜转专 砖讛谉 讘讻专转 讜诇讗 讗讘讬讗 讗转 讛讟讘诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讻专转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 转注谞讜 讜注谞讬转诐 讗转 谞驻砖讜转讬讻诐 专讬讘讛


The baraita continues: I will include the categories of piggul and notar, for which one is punished with karet if eaten during the year, but I will not include untithed produce, which does not cause one to incur the punishment of karet if eaten. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall afflict鈥 (Leviticus 16:29), and it also states: 鈥淎nd you shall afflict your souls鈥 (Leviticus 16:31). The Torah comes to include another affliction of a serious eating prohibition, i.e. untithed produce.


讗讘讬讗 讛讟讘诇 砖讛讜讗 讘诪讬转讛 讜诇讗 讗讘讬讗 讗转 讛谞讘讬诇讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讘诪讬转讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 转注谞讜 讜注谞讬转诐 讗转 谞驻砖讜转讬讻诐 专讬讘讛


The baraita continues: I will include untithed produce, for which one receives death at the hand of Heaven; but I will not include an unslaughtered animal carcass, which, although it is prohibited for consumption, one who eats it is not punishable by death at the hands of Heaven. Therefore, the verse states 鈥測ou shall afflict鈥 and also 鈥渁nd you shall afflict your souls.鈥 The Torah includes foods that are associated with a prohibition even if one who eats them is not punishable by death.


讗讘讬讗 讗转 讛谞讘讬诇讛 砖讛讜讗 讘诇讗讜 讜诇讗 讗讘讬讗 讗转 讛讞讜诇讬谉 砖讗讬谞谉 讘诇讗讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 转注谞讜 讜注谞讬转诐 讗转 谞驻砖讜转讬讻诐 专讬讘讛


The baraita continues: I will include an unslaughtered animal carcass, which is prohibited by a negative mitzva, but I will not include non-sacred, regular food, which is not prohibited by a negative mitzva. Therefore, the verse states both 鈥測ou shall afflict鈥 and 鈥渁nd you shall afflict your souls.鈥 Although non-sacred food is not prohibited in general, the Torah includes it in the prohibition of eating on Yom Kippur.


讗讘讬讗 讛讞讜诇讬谉 砖讗讬谞谉 讘拽讜诐 讗讻讜诇 讜诇讗 讗讘讬讗 讗转 讛转专讜诪讛 砖讛讬讗 讘拽讜诐 讗讻讜诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 转注谞讜 讜注谞讬转诐 讗转 谞驻砖讜转讬讻诐 专讬讘讛 讗讘讬讗 讗转 讛转专讜诪讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讘讘诇 转讜转讬专讜 讜诇讗 讗讘讬讗 讗转 讛拽讚砖讬诐 砖讛谉 讘讘诇 转讜转讬专讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 转注谞讜 讜注谞讬转诐 讗转 谞驻砖讜转讬讻诐 专讬讘讛


The baraita continues: I will include non-sacred food, which is not associated with any positive mitzva to arise and eat, i.e., there is no obligation to eat non-sacred food; but I will not include teruma, which one is required to arise and eat, as priests are commanded to eat teruma. Therefore, the verse states 鈥測ou shall afflict鈥 and 鈥渁nd you shall afflict your souls.鈥 The Torah includes teruma as well in the foods one is prohibited to eat on Yom Kippur. I will include teruma, which is not subject to the command: 鈥淵ou shall not leave over鈥 (Leviticus 22:30), since teruma need not be consumed within a specific time, but I will not include sacred food, which is subject to the command 鈥測ou shall not leave over鈥; it is prohibited to leave the meat uneaten after a certain amount of time. Therefore, the verse states 鈥測ou shall afflict鈥 and 鈥渁nd you shall afflict your souls,鈥 to include the category of sacred food in the prohibition of eating on Yom Kippur. Consequently, the Gemara has demonstrated that it is prohibited to eat any type of food on Yom Kippur.


讜讗诐 谞驻砖讱 诇讜诪专 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讛讗讘讚转讬 讗转 讛谞驻砖 讛讛讬讗 注谞讜讬 砖讛讜讗 讗讘讬讚转 讛谞驻砖 讜讗讬 讝讛 讝讛 讝讛 讗讻讬诇讛 讜砖转讬讛


And if it is your wish to say something to challenge this reasoning, the Gemara brings an additional proof: Surely, the verse states with regard to one who violates Yom Kippur: 鈥淚 will destroy that soul from among his people鈥 (Leviticus 23:30). Therefore, affliction is something that destroys a soul. And what is that? That is refraining from eating and drinking, since someone who does not eat and drink at all will die. The Torah is not referring to other afflictions that do not lead to death. These are the words of the baraita.


诪讗讬 讜讗诐 谞驻砖讱 诇讜诪专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讘注专讬讜转 拽讗 诪讬砖转注讬 拽专讗 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讛讗讘讚转讬 讛谞驻砖 注谞讜讬 砖讬砖 讘讜 讗讘讬讚转 谞驻砖 讜讗讬 讝讛 讝讛 讝讛 讗讻讬诇讛 讜砖转讬讛


The Gemara explains: What is meant by: And if it is your wish to say? What flaw did the first proof have? The Gemara explains: And if you say the verse is discussing relations with those with whom relations are forbidden, avoidance of which is also called affliction, and it is not discussing eating and drinking, the verse states: I will destroy that soul, meaning an affliction that can cause death. And what is that? That is refraining from eating and drinking.


讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 转谞讗 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 注谞讜讬 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 注谞讜讬 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 注谞讜讬 专注讘讜谉 讗祝 讻讗谉 注谞讜讬 专注讘讜谉


The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught the following concerning the nature of Yom Kippur: The word affliction is stated here with regard to Yom Kippur, and the word affliction is stated further on in a different place, concerning the Jews in the desert: 鈥淎nd He afflicted you and caused you to hunger鈥 (Deuteronomy 8:3). Just as further on the meaning of affliction is hunger, so too, here, the meaning of the word affliction is hunger.


讜谞讬诇祝 诪讗诐 转注谞讛 讗转 讘谞讜转讬 讚谞讬谉 注谞讜讬 讚专讘讬诐 诪注谞讜讬 讚专讘讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 注谞讜讬 讚专讘讬诐 诪注谞讜讬 讚讬讞讬讚


The Gemara asks: And let us derive it not from the verse that indicates affliction of hunger but from the verse where Laban warns Jacob: 鈥淚f you shall afflict my daughters鈥 (Genesis 31:50), which is referring not to hunger but to marital relations. The Gemara answers: We derive affliction commanded to the public on Yom Kippur from affliction relating to the public, i.e., the Jewish people in the desert, and we do not derive affliction of the public from affliction of an individual, as in the case of Jacob鈥檚 wives.


讜谞讬诇祝 诪注谞讜讬 讚诪爪专讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬专讗 讗转 注谞讬谞讜 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 讝讜 驻专讬砖讜转 讚专讱 讗专抓 讗诇讗 讚谞讬谉 注谞讜讬 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 诪注谞讜讬 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 注谞讜讬 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 诪注谞讜讬 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐


The Gemara continues to challenge the view of Rabbi Yishmael: And let us derive it from affliction stated with regard to Egypt, as it is written: 鈥淎nd He saw our affliction鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:7). We say that this verse is referring to abstinence from conjugal relations. The Egyptians prevented the Jewish people from having relations. This affliction is an example of public affliction that is not abstention from eating or drinking. Rather, the prohibition to eat or drink on Yom Kippur should not be learned as stated previously, but as follows: We derive affliction by the hand of God from affliction by the hand of God, i.e., affliction caused directly by God or through His mitzvot; and we do not derive affliction by the hand of God from affliction by the hand of man.


讛诪讗讻讬诇讱 诪谉 讘诪讚讘专 诇诪注谉 注谞讜转讱 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 讞讚 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 讚讜诪讛 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 驻转 讘住诇讜 诇诪讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 驻转 讘住诇讜 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 讚讜诪讛 诪讬 砖专讜讗讛 讜讗讜讻诇 诇诪讬 砖讗讬谞讜 专讜讗讛 讜讗讜讻诇


搂 Apropos the verse: 鈥淎nd he afflicted you and caused you to hunger, and fed you with manna鈥 (Deuteronomy 8:3), the Gemara expounds related verses. The Torah states: 鈥淲ho feeds you manna in the desert which your fathers did not know, in order to afflict you鈥 (Deuteronomy 8:16). What affliction was there in eating the manna? Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi disagreed on the matter. One said: There is no comparison between one who has bread in his basket and one who does not have bread in his basket. The affliction in eating the manna lay in there being no leftover food for the next day. Each day the people worried that they might not have any food to eat the next day. And one said: There is no comparison between one who sees the food and eats it and one who does not see the food and eats it. Though the manna could taste like anything, it always looked the same and did not look as it tasted. Being unable to see the food that they tasted was an affliction.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讻讗谉 专诪讝 诇住讜诪讬谉 砖讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜讗讬谉 砖讘注讬谉 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛诇讻讱 诪讗谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 住注讜讚转讗 诇讗 诇讬讻诇讛 讗诇讗 讘讬诪诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪讗讬 拽专讗 讟讜讘 诪专讗讛 注讬谞讬诐 诪讛诇讱 谞驻砖 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讟讜讘 诪专讗讛 注讬谞讬诐 讘讗砖讛 讬讜转专 诪讙讜驻讜 砖诇 诪注砖讛 砖谞讗诪专 讟讜讘 诪专讗讛 注讬谞讬诐 诪讛诇讱 谞驻砖


Rav Yosef said: From here there is an allusion to the idea that blind people eat but are not fully satisfied when they eat because they cannot see their food. Seeing the food contributes to the enjoyment of eating. Abaye said: Therefore, from what we have just learned, one who has a meal should eat it only during daytime, when there is light to see the food that is being eaten. Rabbi Zeira said: What is the verse that alludes to this? 鈥淏etter is the seeing of the eyes than the wandering of the desire鈥 (Ecclesiastes 6:9). On the same verse, Reish Lakish said: The sight of a woman is better than the actual act of relations, as it is stated: 鈥淏etter is the seeing of the eyes than the wandering of the desire.鈥


讻讬 讬转谉 讘讻讜住 注讬谞讜 讬转讛诇讱 讘诪讬砖专讬诐 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 讞讚 讗诪专 讻诇 讛谞讜转谉


搂 Apropos the dispute between Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi, the Gemara continues with another dispute they had with regard to the correct interpretation of a verse. It is stated: 鈥淒o not look upon the wine when it is red, when it gives its color in the cup, when it glides down smoothly [bemeisharim]鈥 (Proverbs 23:31). Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi disagreed. One said: Whoever casts

Masechet Yoma is sponsored by Vicky Harari in commemoration of her father's Yahrzeit, Avraham Baruch Hacohen ben Zeev Eliyahu Eckstein z'l, a Holocaust survivor and a feminist before it was fashionable. And in gratitude to Michelle Cohen Farber for revolutionizing women's learning worldwide.

This month's shiurim are sponsored by Fredda Cohen and Eric Nussbaum in memory of her beloved father, Mitchell Cohen, Michael ben Shraga Faivel haLevi, whose 27th yahrzeit falls on 16 Tammuz. He was kind, sweet and funny, and had a big open heart for klal Yisrael v'chol yoshvei tevel.

And for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah.

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Yoma 74

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yoma 74

讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 讗讚诐 讗讜住专 注爪诪讜 讘讻诇 砖讛讜讗


and the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who said: A man prohibits himself from any amount. If a man swears that he will not eat, he thereby prohibits himself from eating even the smallest amount of food. Therefore, Reish Lakish himself maintains that eating a half-measure does not constitute a prohibition.


讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讛讬转专 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 拽讗 讞讬讬诇 拽专讘谉 砖讘讜注讛 讜讛转谞谉 砖讘讜注转 讛注讚讜转 讗讬谞讛 谞讜讛讙转 讗诇讗 讘专讗讜讬讬谉 诇讛注讬讚 讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪诇讱


And if you say: Perhaps Reish Lakish maintains that since a half-measure is permitted by Torah law, despite the fact that it is prohibited by rabbinic law, one is liable to bring an offering for violating an oath, then there is the following problem: Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: An oath of testimony where one is sworn to give testimony on something that he saw or knew, applies only to those who are eligible to give testimony. If one who is ineligible to testify swears an oath to give testimony, the oath is invalid even if he does not testify. And we discussed it: The statement: Those who are eligible to give testimony, comes to exclude what? After all, it was already said that the oath does not apply to women, relatives, and other disqualified people. Rav Pappa said: It comes to exclude a king. A king is not disqualified from giving testimony, but he does not testify before a court, due to the requirement to give respect to a king.


专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪砖讞拽 讘拽讜讘讬讗 讜讛讗 诪砖讞拽 讘拽讜讘讬讗 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讬讞讝讬 讞讝讬 讜专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讚驻住诇讜讛讜 讜诇讗 拽讗 讞讬讬诇讗 注诇讬讛 砖讘讜注讛


Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said: It comes to exclude one who plays with dice, whom the Sages disqualified from giving testimony. But surely one who plays with dice is eligible by Torah law to give testimony, and it is the Sages who disqualified him. Despite this, an oath of testimony does not apply to him by Torah law, even though the prohibition on his testifying is rabbinic.


砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讗诐 诇讗 讬讙讬讚 讜讛讗讬 诇讗讜 讘专 讛讙讚讛 讛讜讗 讻诇诇


The Gemara rejects this by distinguishing between the two cases: It is different there, in the case of testimony, where the verse states: 鈥淚f he does not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity鈥 (Leviticus 5:1), i.e., a man who can testify but doesn鈥檛 do so should be punished. But this person cannot ever give testimony since the court will not accept his testimony. The Torah makes liability for an oath of testimony contingent on one鈥檚 ability to testify. Therefore, an oath of testimony would not apply to someone unable to testify. However, one who takes an oath not to eat is liable if he breaks that oath, notwithstanding the rabbinic prohibition against eating less than a measure of forbidden food. Consequently, this rejection does not stand, and the first explanation remains.


讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚转谞讬 注谞讜砖 讻专转 诇讗 转谞讬 讗住讜专 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 讗住讜专 讘讻讜诇谉 诇讗 讗诪专讜 注谞讜砖 讻专转 讗诇讗 注诇 讛讗讜讻诇 讜砖讜转讛 讜注讜砖讛 诪诇讗讻讛 讘诇讘讚 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻砖讗诪专讜 讗住讜专 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讘讻讞爪讬 砖讬注讜专 讗讘诇 讻砖讬注讜专 注谞讜砖 讻专转 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖注谞讜砖 讻专转 讗讬谉 注谞讜砖 讻专转 讗诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讜砖讜转讛 讜注讜砖讛 诪诇讗讻讛 讘诇讘讚


搂 The Gemara鈥檚 initial assumption is that the mishna鈥檚 use of the word prohibited is referring to a transgression not punishable by karet. The Gemara asks: And anywhere that it teaches that transgressing is punishable by karet, does it never teach using the word prohibited? Was it not taught in a baraita: Although they said the word prohibited with all of the five Yom Kippur afflictions, they said that the punishment of karet applies only to one who eats, or drinks, or performs prohibited labor. This means that the word prohibit is used with transgressions punishable by karet as well. The Gemara rejects this. This is what the baraita is saying: When they said that those five activities are prohibited, they said that only with regard to a half-measure; but a full measure is punishable by karet. And although a violation is punishable by karet, it is punishable by karet only if one eats, or drinks, or performs prohibited labor; these alone are the cases where karet is incurred.


讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讬 拽转谞讬 讗住讜专 讗砖讗专讗 讚转谞讜 专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讘砖讗专 住讬驻专讬 讚讘讬 专讘 诪谞讬讬谉 诇讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 砖讗住讜专 讘专讞讬爪讛 讘住讬讻讛 讜讘谞注讬诇转 讛住谞讚诇 讜讘转砖诪讬砖 讛诪讟讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖讘转讜谉 砖讘讜转


And if you wish, say instead that when it is taught in the mishna using the language of prohibited, it is referring to the other transgressions, which do not incur karet. As Rabba and Rav Yosef taught this in other books of Rav鈥檚 school, i.e., the Sifrei, the halakhic midrash on Numbers and Deuteronomy: From where is it derived that it is prohibited to engage in bathing, and in smearing oil on one鈥檚 body, and in wearing shoes, and in having relations on Yom Kippur? The verse states: 鈥Shabbaton (Leviticus 16:31), meaning resting and refraining from certain activities. Therefore, the word prohibit is used with these activities, but they are not punishable by karet.


讙讜驻讗 讞爪讬 砖讬注讜专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗住讜专 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诪讜转专 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗住讜专 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讝讬 诇讗讬爪讟专讜驻讬 讗讬住讜专讗 拽讗 讗讻讬诇 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诪讜转专 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讗讻讬诇讛 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讬讻讗


搂 Apropos the dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish, the Gemara deals with the matter itself: What is the law with regard to a half-measure? Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is prohibited by Torah law. Reish Lakish said: It is permitted by Torah law. The Gemara elaborates: Rabbi Yo岣nan said it is prohibited by Torah law because it is fit to combine with another half-measure. If one continues to eat more, he will eat a whole measure, which is punishable by Torah law. Therefore, even when he eats the first half-measure he is eating forbidden food. Reish Lakish said it is permitted by Torah law. His reason is as follows: With regard to all forbidden foods, the Merciful One states in the Torah: 鈥淓at,鈥 for example in the verse: 鈥淵ou shall eat neither fat nor blood鈥 (Leviticus 3:17). Eating is defined as consuming a minimum of an olive-bulk, and there is no prohibition if one eats less than an olive-bulk.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讻诇 砖讬砖谞讜 讘注讜谞砖 讬砖谞讜 讘讗讝讛专讛 讻讜讬 讜讞爪讬 砖讬注讜专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬谞讜 讘注讜谞砖 讬讻讜诇 讗讬谞讜 讘讗讝讛专讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻诇 讞诇讘 诪讚专讘谞谉 讜拽专讗 讗住诪讻转讗 讘注诇诪讗


Rabbi Yo岣nan raised an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish from what was taught in a baraita with regard to the prohibition of forbidden fat: I have derived only that anything that is included in the punishment of karet is included in the prohibition. However, one might have thought that there is no prohibition to eat fat of a koy, or a half-measure of forbidden fat, since there is no punishment for those. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎ll fat鈥 (Leviticus 7:23), indicating that there is a prohibition to eat any kind of fat, including fat of uncertain status and a half-measure of fat. Therefore, a half-measure of fat is prohibited by Torah law. Reish Lakish rejects this argument: This prohibition is rabbinic, and the verse brought as a proof is a mere support. It cannot be claimed that there is such a prohibition by Torah law.


讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讻讜讬 住驻讬拽讗 讛讜讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇讗转讜讬讬 住驻讬拽讗 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讗 诇讗 讗讬专讬讗 拽住讘专讬


The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable to say that the baraita cites only the verse as a support and not as a source to prove the prohibition. For if it could enter your mind that this teaching constitutes a prohibition by Torah law, there is uncertainty whether a koy is a wild beast or a domestic animal. Is a verse necessary to include an uncertainty? There is no doubt before God and therefore no purpose in writing a case of doubt in the Torah. Consequently, the baraita cites the verse only as a support. The Gemara answers: If that is the reason, there is no conclusive argument. The Sages of the baraita might have thought


讻讜讬 讘专讬讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讛讬讗 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗祝 讻诇 诇讗转讜讬讬 讻讜讬 讻讜讬 住驻讬拽讗 讛讜讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇专讘讜讬讬 住驻讬拽讗 讗诇讗 讘专讬讛 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘专讬讛 砖讗谞讬


that a koy is its own species, and the uncertainty pertains not only to whether it is a wild or domestic animal, but also to whether it even can fit into one of those two categories. For if you do not say so and maintain that it might be its own species, how can we understand that which Rav Idi bar Avin said, that also the word 鈥渁ll鈥 stated in the verse: 鈥淎ll blood you may not eat, whether of birds or of beasts鈥 (Leviticus 7:26), comes to include the koy. Now, if you say that the koy is a case of uncertainty, is a verse necessary to include an uncertainty? Rather, the koy is obviously its own species, and therefore it is different and needs a special verse to include it. Here too, in the case of the forbidden fat, we could say that the koy is its own species, and therefore it is different. Consequently, Reish Lakish鈥檚 opinion cannot be proven by this baraita.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 转注谞讜 讗转 谞驻砖讜转讬讻诐 讬讻讜诇 讬砖讘 讘讞诪讛 讗讜 讘爪谞讛 讻讚讬 砖讬爪讟注专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻诇 诪诇讗讻讛 诇讗 转注砖讜 诪讛 诪诇讗讻讛 砖讘 讜讗诇 转注砖讛 讗祝 注谞讜讬 谞驻砖 砖讘 讜讗诇 转注砖讛


搂 After clarifying the wording of the mishna, the Gemara brings a halakhic midrash to analyze the mishna鈥檚 laws. The Sages taught: The verse states: 鈥淎nd this shall be a statute to you forever: In the seventh month on the tenth day of the month you shall afflict your souls鈥 (Leviticus 16:29). I might have thought that one should sit in the sun or in the cold to suffer and afflict his soul; therefore the continuation of the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall not do any labor, the home-born, or the stranger that lives among you鈥 (Leviticus 16:29). This teaches that just as prohibited labor is a mitzva that requires one to sit and do nothing, as one is commanded to refrain from action, so too, affliction of one鈥檚 soul is also a mitzva requiring one to sit and do nothing. One is not commanded to be proactive in order to afflict his soul. Rather, one must refrain from specified actions such as eating and drinking.


讜讗讬诪讗 讛讬讻讗 讚讬转讬讘 讘砖讬诪砖讗 讜讞讬讬诐 诇讬讛 诇讗 谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 拽讜诐 转讜讘 讘讟讜诇讗 讬转讬讘 讘讟讜诇讗 讜拽专讬专 诇讬讛 诇讗 谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 拽讜诐 转讜讘 讘砖讬诪砖讗 讚讜诪讬讗 讚诪诇讗讻讛 诪讛 诪诇讗讻讛 诇讗 讞诇拽转 讘讛 讗祝 注谞讜讬 诇讗 转讞诇讜拽 讘讜


The Gemara asks: And say that it means that when one sits in the sun and it is too hot for him, we do not say to him: Get up and sit in the shade. Or, if one sits in the shade and it is too cold for him, we do not say to him: Get up and sit in the sun. These are also cases of affliction involving sitting and doing nothing. The Gemara rejects this: It must be similar to the prohibition of labor. Just as with regard to prohibited labor you did not distinguish between situations, since the prohibition is independent of one鈥檚 personal circumstance, so too, you do not distinguish with regard to affliction, which is not affected by one鈥檚 circumstance.


转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 转注谞讜 讗转 谞驻砖讜转讬讻诐 讬讻讜诇 讬砖讘 讘讞诪讛 讜讘爪谞讛 讜讬爪讟注专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻诇 诪诇讗讻讛 诇讗 转注砖讜 诪讛 诪诇讗讻讛 讚讘专 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讗祝 注谞讜讬 谞驻砖 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讜讗讬 讝讛 讝讛 讝讛 驻讙讜诇 讜谞讜转专


It was taught in another baraita that as the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall afflict your souls鈥 (Leviticus 16:29), I might have thought that one must sit in the sun or the cold and be uncomfortable; therefore, the continuation of the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall not do any labor鈥 (Leviticus 16:29). Just as prohibited labor is something that incurs karet in other circumstances, like Shabbat, so too, affliction relates to acts that in other circumstances incur karet. And what is that circumstance? That is referring to piggul and notar, which lead to karet if eaten, and which therefore may not be eaten on Yom Kippur.


讗讘讬讗 驻讙讜诇 讜谞讜转专 砖讛谉 讘讻专转 讜诇讗 讗讘讬讗 讗转 讛讟讘诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讻专转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 转注谞讜 讜注谞讬转诐 讗转 谞驻砖讜转讬讻诐 专讬讘讛


The baraita continues: I will include the categories of piggul and notar, for which one is punished with karet if eaten during the year, but I will not include untithed produce, which does not cause one to incur the punishment of karet if eaten. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall afflict鈥 (Leviticus 16:29), and it also states: 鈥淎nd you shall afflict your souls鈥 (Leviticus 16:31). The Torah comes to include another affliction of a serious eating prohibition, i.e. untithed produce.


讗讘讬讗 讛讟讘诇 砖讛讜讗 讘诪讬转讛 讜诇讗 讗讘讬讗 讗转 讛谞讘讬诇讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讘诪讬转讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 转注谞讜 讜注谞讬转诐 讗转 谞驻砖讜转讬讻诐 专讬讘讛


The baraita continues: I will include untithed produce, for which one receives death at the hand of Heaven; but I will not include an unslaughtered animal carcass, which, although it is prohibited for consumption, one who eats it is not punishable by death at the hands of Heaven. Therefore, the verse states 鈥測ou shall afflict鈥 and also 鈥渁nd you shall afflict your souls.鈥 The Torah includes foods that are associated with a prohibition even if one who eats them is not punishable by death.


讗讘讬讗 讗转 讛谞讘讬诇讛 砖讛讜讗 讘诇讗讜 讜诇讗 讗讘讬讗 讗转 讛讞讜诇讬谉 砖讗讬谞谉 讘诇讗讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 转注谞讜 讜注谞讬转诐 讗转 谞驻砖讜转讬讻诐 专讬讘讛


The baraita continues: I will include an unslaughtered animal carcass, which is prohibited by a negative mitzva, but I will not include non-sacred, regular food, which is not prohibited by a negative mitzva. Therefore, the verse states both 鈥測ou shall afflict鈥 and 鈥渁nd you shall afflict your souls.鈥 Although non-sacred food is not prohibited in general, the Torah includes it in the prohibition of eating on Yom Kippur.


讗讘讬讗 讛讞讜诇讬谉 砖讗讬谞谉 讘拽讜诐 讗讻讜诇 讜诇讗 讗讘讬讗 讗转 讛转专讜诪讛 砖讛讬讗 讘拽讜诐 讗讻讜诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 转注谞讜 讜注谞讬转诐 讗转 谞驻砖讜转讬讻诐 专讬讘讛 讗讘讬讗 讗转 讛转专讜诪讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讘讘诇 转讜转讬专讜 讜诇讗 讗讘讬讗 讗转 讛拽讚砖讬诐 砖讛谉 讘讘诇 转讜转讬专讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 转注谞讜 讜注谞讬转诐 讗转 谞驻砖讜转讬讻诐 专讬讘讛


The baraita continues: I will include non-sacred food, which is not associated with any positive mitzva to arise and eat, i.e., there is no obligation to eat non-sacred food; but I will not include teruma, which one is required to arise and eat, as priests are commanded to eat teruma. Therefore, the verse states 鈥測ou shall afflict鈥 and 鈥渁nd you shall afflict your souls.鈥 The Torah includes teruma as well in the foods one is prohibited to eat on Yom Kippur. I will include teruma, which is not subject to the command: 鈥淵ou shall not leave over鈥 (Leviticus 22:30), since teruma need not be consumed within a specific time, but I will not include sacred food, which is subject to the command 鈥測ou shall not leave over鈥; it is prohibited to leave the meat uneaten after a certain amount of time. Therefore, the verse states 鈥測ou shall afflict鈥 and 鈥渁nd you shall afflict your souls,鈥 to include the category of sacred food in the prohibition of eating on Yom Kippur. Consequently, the Gemara has demonstrated that it is prohibited to eat any type of food on Yom Kippur.


讜讗诐 谞驻砖讱 诇讜诪专 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讛讗讘讚转讬 讗转 讛谞驻砖 讛讛讬讗 注谞讜讬 砖讛讜讗 讗讘讬讚转 讛谞驻砖 讜讗讬 讝讛 讝讛 讝讛 讗讻讬诇讛 讜砖转讬讛


And if it is your wish to say something to challenge this reasoning, the Gemara brings an additional proof: Surely, the verse states with regard to one who violates Yom Kippur: 鈥淚 will destroy that soul from among his people鈥 (Leviticus 23:30). Therefore, affliction is something that destroys a soul. And what is that? That is refraining from eating and drinking, since someone who does not eat and drink at all will die. The Torah is not referring to other afflictions that do not lead to death. These are the words of the baraita.


诪讗讬 讜讗诐 谞驻砖讱 诇讜诪专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讘注专讬讜转 拽讗 诪讬砖转注讬 拽专讗 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讛讗讘讚转讬 讛谞驻砖 注谞讜讬 砖讬砖 讘讜 讗讘讬讚转 谞驻砖 讜讗讬 讝讛 讝讛 讝讛 讗讻讬诇讛 讜砖转讬讛


The Gemara explains: What is meant by: And if it is your wish to say? What flaw did the first proof have? The Gemara explains: And if you say the verse is discussing relations with those with whom relations are forbidden, avoidance of which is also called affliction, and it is not discussing eating and drinking, the verse states: I will destroy that soul, meaning an affliction that can cause death. And what is that? That is refraining from eating and drinking.


讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 转谞讗 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 注谞讜讬 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 注谞讜讬 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 注谞讜讬 专注讘讜谉 讗祝 讻讗谉 注谞讜讬 专注讘讜谉


The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught the following concerning the nature of Yom Kippur: The word affliction is stated here with regard to Yom Kippur, and the word affliction is stated further on in a different place, concerning the Jews in the desert: 鈥淎nd He afflicted you and caused you to hunger鈥 (Deuteronomy 8:3). Just as further on the meaning of affliction is hunger, so too, here, the meaning of the word affliction is hunger.


讜谞讬诇祝 诪讗诐 转注谞讛 讗转 讘谞讜转讬 讚谞讬谉 注谞讜讬 讚专讘讬诐 诪注谞讜讬 讚专讘讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 注谞讜讬 讚专讘讬诐 诪注谞讜讬 讚讬讞讬讚


The Gemara asks: And let us derive it not from the verse that indicates affliction of hunger but from the verse where Laban warns Jacob: 鈥淚f you shall afflict my daughters鈥 (Genesis 31:50), which is referring not to hunger but to marital relations. The Gemara answers: We derive affliction commanded to the public on Yom Kippur from affliction relating to the public, i.e., the Jewish people in the desert, and we do not derive affliction of the public from affliction of an individual, as in the case of Jacob鈥檚 wives.


讜谞讬诇祝 诪注谞讜讬 讚诪爪专讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬专讗 讗转 注谞讬谞讜 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 讝讜 驻专讬砖讜转 讚专讱 讗专抓 讗诇讗 讚谞讬谉 注谞讜讬 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 诪注谞讜讬 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 注谞讜讬 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 诪注谞讜讬 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐


The Gemara continues to challenge the view of Rabbi Yishmael: And let us derive it from affliction stated with regard to Egypt, as it is written: 鈥淎nd He saw our affliction鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:7). We say that this verse is referring to abstinence from conjugal relations. The Egyptians prevented the Jewish people from having relations. This affliction is an example of public affliction that is not abstention from eating or drinking. Rather, the prohibition to eat or drink on Yom Kippur should not be learned as stated previously, but as follows: We derive affliction by the hand of God from affliction by the hand of God, i.e., affliction caused directly by God or through His mitzvot; and we do not derive affliction by the hand of God from affliction by the hand of man.


讛诪讗讻讬诇讱 诪谉 讘诪讚讘专 诇诪注谉 注谞讜转讱 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 讞讚 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 讚讜诪讛 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 驻转 讘住诇讜 诇诪讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 驻转 讘住诇讜 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 讚讜诪讛 诪讬 砖专讜讗讛 讜讗讜讻诇 诇诪讬 砖讗讬谞讜 专讜讗讛 讜讗讜讻诇


搂 Apropos the verse: 鈥淎nd he afflicted you and caused you to hunger, and fed you with manna鈥 (Deuteronomy 8:3), the Gemara expounds related verses. The Torah states: 鈥淲ho feeds you manna in the desert which your fathers did not know, in order to afflict you鈥 (Deuteronomy 8:16). What affliction was there in eating the manna? Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi disagreed on the matter. One said: There is no comparison between one who has bread in his basket and one who does not have bread in his basket. The affliction in eating the manna lay in there being no leftover food for the next day. Each day the people worried that they might not have any food to eat the next day. And one said: There is no comparison between one who sees the food and eats it and one who does not see the food and eats it. Though the manna could taste like anything, it always looked the same and did not look as it tasted. Being unable to see the food that they tasted was an affliction.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讻讗谉 专诪讝 诇住讜诪讬谉 砖讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜讗讬谉 砖讘注讬谉 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛诇讻讱 诪讗谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 住注讜讚转讗 诇讗 诇讬讻诇讛 讗诇讗 讘讬诪诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪讗讬 拽专讗 讟讜讘 诪专讗讛 注讬谞讬诐 诪讛诇讱 谞驻砖 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讟讜讘 诪专讗讛 注讬谞讬诐 讘讗砖讛 讬讜转专 诪讙讜驻讜 砖诇 诪注砖讛 砖谞讗诪专 讟讜讘 诪专讗讛 注讬谞讬诐 诪讛诇讱 谞驻砖


Rav Yosef said: From here there is an allusion to the idea that blind people eat but are not fully satisfied when they eat because they cannot see their food. Seeing the food contributes to the enjoyment of eating. Abaye said: Therefore, from what we have just learned, one who has a meal should eat it only during daytime, when there is light to see the food that is being eaten. Rabbi Zeira said: What is the verse that alludes to this? 鈥淏etter is the seeing of the eyes than the wandering of the desire鈥 (Ecclesiastes 6:9). On the same verse, Reish Lakish said: The sight of a woman is better than the actual act of relations, as it is stated: 鈥淏etter is the seeing of the eyes than the wandering of the desire.鈥


讻讬 讬转谉 讘讻讜住 注讬谞讜 讬转讛诇讱 讘诪讬砖专讬诐 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 讞讚 讗诪专 讻诇 讛谞讜转谉


搂 Apropos the dispute between Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi, the Gemara continues with another dispute they had with regard to the correct interpretation of a verse. It is stated: 鈥淒o not look upon the wine when it is red, when it gives its color in the cup, when it glides down smoothly [bemeisharim]鈥 (Proverbs 23:31). Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi disagreed. One said: Whoever casts

Scroll To Top