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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 30, 2021 | 讻壮 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 80

Today’s shiur is dedicated for a refuah shleima of Devora Shulamit bat Yocheved Chana.

Usually the requisite amount for eating is an olive bulk but the size for the impurity of food is an exception – the size of an egg. This is derived from a change in language in the verse. This idea is reinforced from Yom Kippur where also a change in language reflects and change in requisite amount.聽 聽How do you know that food impurity is the size of an egg? Rabbi Elazar states that we must write down the size of something forbidden that we ate in case a court in the future will change the definition of the requisite amounts and we may no longer be required to bring a sacrifice when the temple is rebuilt. Rabbi Yochanan holds that requisite amount are a halacha l’Moshe m’Sinai, however, others disagree. The requisite amount for drinking is “cheekfuls” – what does this mean? Is it subjective? If so, how does this differ from the requirement for food which is not subjective. Several questions are raised. Food can join with other foods and drinks with other drinks to get to the requisite amount but not food and drink together. What about gravy with meat? If one eats excessively, one is exempt. Likewise for a non-Kohen who eats teruma in that manner will have to pay the principle but not the extra fifth as one does not benefit from the act of eating in this manner.聽

讻诇 讛砖讬注讜专讬谉 讻讜诇谉 讘讻讝讬转 讞讜抓 诪讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 砖砖讬谞讛 讛讻转讜讘 讘诪砖诪注谉 讜砖讬谞讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘砖讬注讜专谉 讜专讗讬讛 诇讚讘专 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讗讬 砖讬谞讛 讛讻转讜讘 讘诪砖诪注讜 诪诇讗 转注讜谞讛 讜诪讗讬 砖讬谞讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘砖讬注讜专讬讛 讻讻讜转讘转


All the measures in the Torah connected to eating are the volume of an olive-bulk, except for the amount of food that renders objects impure, because the verse changed its expression in this case, and the Sages altered the measure accordingly. The proof of this, that the Sages gave it a different measure because the verse used different language for it, is from Yom Kippur. Also in the case of Yom Kippur the Sages assigned a different measure because the verse used a different phrase. The Gemara asks: How did the Sages learn that the verse changed its expression? They learned from: 鈥淎ny soul which shall not be afflicted鈥 (Leviticus 23:29). The verse does not state: Any soul that shall eat, but rather: 鈥淎ny soul which shall not be afflicted.鈥 How did the Sages change its measure? One does not violate the prohibition unless he has eaten the volume of a large date-bulk, as opposed to the usual olive-bulk.


讜诪讗讬 专讗讬讛 诇讚讘专 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讚讗讬 诪讛转诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗讜专讞讗 讚拽专讗 讛讜讗


The Gemara asks: And what does the baraita mean when it says: A proof for this is from Yom Kippur? Why is the verse pertaining to ritual impurity not sufficient to show that the Sages changed the measure based on the different words in the verse? The Gemara answers: If we learned it only from there, the case of impurity, I would have said that that is the style of the verse, and no halakha can be derived from it. Therefore, the verse pertaining to Yom Kippur teaches that whenever a verse deviates from the usual language, it implies a change in the halakha as well.


讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讻讘讬爪讛 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诪讻诇 讛讗讜讻诇 讗砖专 讬讗讻诇 讗讜讻诇 讛讘讗 诪讞诪转 讗讜讻诇 讜讗讬讝讛 讝讛 讘讬爪转 转专谞讙讜诇转 讜讗讬诪讗 讙讚讬 诪讞讜住专 砖讞讬讟讛 讜讗讬诪讗 讘谉 驻拽讜注讛 讟注讜谉 拽专讬注讛


搂 The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that the measure for impure foods is the volume of an egg-bulk? Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Elazar said that the verse states: 鈥淥f all food [okhel] which may be eaten [ye鈥檃khel], on which water comes shall be ritually impure鈥 (Leviticus 11:34). The double usage of the root akhal teaches that the ritual impurity of food applies even to the amount which can be described as food that comes on account of food, i.e., food that comes from another food. And which food is that? A chicken egg. The Gemara asks: And say it is referring to a kid, which comes from a mother goat, and is therefore also food that comes from another food. The Gemara answers: It lacks ritual slaughter. The young goat is not yet food, since it is not edible until it has been slaughtered. The Gemara asks further: And say it is referring to a ben pekua. Since the slaughter of its mother made it fit to eat, the fetus itself need not be slaughtered, even if it survives and continues to live independently of its mother. The Gemara answers: The calf still requires cutting, since it cannot be eaten live, but it does not require ritual slaughter.


讜讗讬诪讗 讘讬爪转 讘专 讬讜讻谞讬 转驻住转 诪专讜讘讛 诇讗 转驻住转 转驻住转 诪讜注讟 转驻住转 讜讗讬诪讗 讘讬注转讗 讚爪讬驻讜专转讗 讚讝讜讟专 讟讜讘讗


The Gemara asks: Even if we claim that the measure for impure foods is an egg-bulk, one could say it is referring to the giant eggbulk of the bird called bar yokhani. The Gemara answers: If you grasped many, you did not grasp anything; if you grasped few, you grasped something. This means that in a case of doubt, take the smaller number, as it is included in the larger number. Therefore, the correct measure is the volume of a chicken egg. The Gemara questions this: If so, say it is referring to a very small bird鈥檚 egg. Consequently, no proof can be brought from the verse that the volume of a chicken egg is the measure for ritual impurity.


专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讚讬讚讬讛 讗诪专 诪讻诇 讛讗讜讻诇 讗砖专 讬讗讻诇 讗讜讻诇 砖讗转讛 讗讜讻诇讜 讘讘转 讗讞转 讜砖讬注专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛 诪讞讝讬拽 讬讜转专 诪讘讬爪转 转专谞讙讜诇转


Rabbi Abbahu himself said: The verse states: 鈥淥f all food which may be eaten.鈥 This is referring to food that you can eat at one time. The Sages estimated: The esophagus cannot hold more than the volume of a chicken鈥檚 egg, and therefore this is the measure used for the ritual impurity of foods.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讗讜讻诇 讞诇讘 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 爪专讬讱 砖讬讻转讜讘 诇讜 砖讬注讜专 砖诪讗 讬讘讗 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讞专 讜讬专讘讛 讘砖讬注讜专讬谉


Incidental to the discussion on Torah measures, Rabbi Elazar said: One who unwittingly eats forbidden fat even today must write down the exact measure that he ate, lest another court come in the future and increase the measure.


诪讗讬 讬专讘讛 讘砖讬注讜专讬谉 讗讬 谞讬诪讗 讚诪讞讬讬讘讬 拽专讘谉 讗讻讝讬转 拽讟谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗砖专 诇讗 转注砖讬谞讛 讘砖讙讙讛 讜讗砖诐 讛砖讘 诪讬讚讬注转讜 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注诇 砖讙讙转讜


The Gemara asks: What does it mean to increase the measure? If we say that a future court will obligate him to bring an offering even for the bulk of a small olive, which is less than what is considered an olive-bulk today, he would not be liable to bring a guiltoffering. Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: It was said with regard to guilt-offerings: 鈥淎nd if any one of the common people sin through error, in doing any of the things which the Lord has commanded not to be done, and be guilty鈥 (Leviticus 4:27)? This teaches that one who repents due to his awareness, i.e., one who repents following becoming aware that he performed a transgression, brings an offering for his unwitting transgression.


诇讗 砖讘 诪讬讚讬注转讜 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注诇 砖讙讙转讜


However, one who does not repent due to his awareness that he sinned does not bring an offering for his unwitting action. Similarly, if one eats less than an olive-bulk, based on the current measures, he will not be obligated to bring a guilt-offering in the future if the measures change, even if the amount that he ate equals the volume of a revised olive-bulk. This is because the individual would not be bringing his offering because he became aware he had sinned, but because the Torah measures had been changed.


讗诇讗 讚诇讗 诪讞讬讬讘讬 拽专讘谉 注讚 讚讗讬讻讗 讻讝讬转 讙讚讜诇


Rather, it should be explained as follows: It is possible that in the future a court will not obligate one to bring an offering until he has eaten the bulk of a large olive, which is more than today鈥檚 amount. One should write down how much he ate, since in the future a court might rule that the amount he ate is less than the size of an olive, and therefore he will not be obligated to bring an offering.


讜诇诪讗讬 讚住诇讬拽 讗讚注转讬讛 诪注讬拽专讗 讚诪讞讬讬讘讬 拽专讘谉 讗讻讝讬转 拽讟谉 诪讗讬 讬专讘讛 讘砖讬注讜专讬谉 砖诪讗 讬专讘讛 讘拽专讘谞讜转 诪讞诪转 砖讬注讜专讬谉


The Gemara returns to its first suggestion: According to what entered his mind initially, that in the future a court might obligate him to bring an offering for the bulk of a small olive, what is the meaning of increase the measure? Rabbi Elazar should have said decrease the measure. The Gemara answers: The statement may have meant that perhaps there will be an increase in offerings that are brought due to the smaller measure for liability.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖讬注讜专讬谉 讜注讜谞砖讬谉 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬 注讜谞砖讬谉 诪讻转讘 讻转讬讘讬 讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 (讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉) 砖讬注讜专讬诐 砖诇 注讜谞砖讬谉 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬


With regard to this topic, Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Measures and punishments are halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. The Gemara expresses surprise at this: The punishments for all transgressions are written explicitly in the Torah, and therefore are not part of an oral transmission from Moses. Rather, this is what was said: Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Measures that determine liability for punishments are halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai.


转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 砖讬注讜专讬谉 砖诇 注讜谞砖讬谉 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讬转 讚讬谞讜 砖诇 讬注讘抓 转讬拽谞讜诐 讜讛讻转讬讘 讗诇讛 讛诪爪讜转 砖讗讬谉 谞讘讬讗 专砖讗讬 诇讞讚砖 讚讘专 诪注转讛 讗诇讗 砖讻讞讜诐 讜讞讝专讜 讜讬住讚讜诐


The Gemara comments: This was also taught in a baraita: Measures of punishments are halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. Others say: These measures were instituted by the court of Jabez. The Gemara questions this: How can this be? Isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淭hese are the mitzvot which the Lord commanded Moses for the children of Israel at Mount Sinai鈥 (Leviticus 27:34). The word 鈥渢hese鈥 underscores that a prophet is not permitted to introduce any new element related to the Torah and its mitzvot from here on. Rather, over the course of time, the people forgot the measures; subsequently the prophets reestablished the measures and taught them to the masses.


讛砖讜转讛 诪诇讗 诇讜讙诪讬讜 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 诪诇讗 诇讜讙诪讬讜 诪诪砖 讗诇讗 讻诇 砖讗讬诇讜 讬住诇拽谞讜 诇爪讚 讗讞讚 讜讬专讗讛 讻诪诇讗 诇讜讙诪讬讜 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 诪诇讗 诇讜讙诪讬讜 讗讬诪讗 讻诪诇讗 诇讜讙诪讬讜


搂 We learned in the mishna that one who drinks a cheekful on Yom Kippur is liable. Rabbi Yehuda said that Shmuel said: This does not mean two cheeks actually full. Rather, the measure that determines liability is the volume of liquid if one pushes the drink to one side of his mouth, and it appears as though his cheek were full. The Gemara questions this: Didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: A cheekful, in the plural form, meaning two cheeks full? The Gemara answers: Say: Like two cheeks full in appearance. If viewed from only one side, one whose cheek is full appears as if his entire mouth is full.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讻诪讛 讬砖转讛 讜讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 专讘讬注讬转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪诇讗 诇讜讙诪讬讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讻诪诇讗 诇讜讙诪讬讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗讜诪专 讻讚讬 讙诪讬注讛


The Gemara raises an objection to this from a baraita: How much does one need to drink on Yom Kippur to be liable? Beit Shammai say: A quarter-log, and Beit Hillel say: Two cheeks full. Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: Like two cheeks full in appearance from the side, i.e. a single cheekful. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: The amount that one can swallow in one gulp. In this baraita, Beit Hillel鈥檚 opinion is that the measure for drinking on Yom Kippur is a cheekful. This implies that a cheekful means an actual cheekful.


诪讬 注讚讬驻讗 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讻讚讬 砖讬专讗讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讻讚讬 砖讬专讗讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪诇讗 诇讜讙诪讬讜 讚讞讜拽


The Gemara expresses surprise: Is the baraita preferable to the mishna? Since it was established that the measure in the mishna is so that it appears like a cheekful, so too, the baraita can be explained as meaning an amount that looks like two cheeks full. The Gemara questions further: If so, Beit Hillel require an amount that appears like two cheeks full; this is identical with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says: Like two cheeks full. The Gemara answers: We could say that the practical difference between them is evident in the case of a paltry cheekful, which is not a complete mouthful but slightly less. According to Beit Hillel, one is not liable unless he drinks a full cheekful; but according to Rabbi Eliezer, one is liable even for a paltry mouthful.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪拽讜诇讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜诪讞讜诪专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛


Rav Hoshaya strongly objects to this understanding: If so, if Beit Hillel鈥檚 measure is a single cheekful, then this is an instance of Beit Shammai鈥檚 leniencies and Beit Hillel鈥檚 stringencies, since the measure of a quarter-log is larger than a single cheekful. If so, why isn鈥檛 this debate listed in tractate Eduyyot, which lists all the cases where Beit Shammai are more lenient than Beit Hillel? He said to him:


讻讬 讗转砖讬诇 讘注讜讙 诪诇讱 讛讘砖谉 讗转砖讬诇 讚讛讜讜 诇讬讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讞讜诪专讗


When this question with regard to the measure of liquid was asked, it was not asked about an average-sized person, for whom a mouthful is smaller than a quarter-log. Rather, the question was asked even about Og, king of Bashan, in which case, it is Beit Shammai who are stringent, for Og鈥檚 cheekful is much more than a quarter-log.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讗讻讬诇讛 讚讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 讘讻讻讜转讘转 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 砖转讬讛 讚讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 讘讚讬讚讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 拽讬诐 诇讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 讘讻讻讜转讘转 讚讘讛讻讬 诪讬转讘讗 讚注转讬讛 讘爪讬专 诪讛讻讬 诇讗 诪讬转讘讗 讘砖转讬讛 讘讚讬讚讬讛 诪讬转讘讗 讚注转讬讛 讘讚讞讘专讬讛 诇讗 诪讬转讘讗 讚注转讬讛


Rabbi Zeira strongly objects to this halakha with regard to the measure for liability for drinking: What is different with regard to eating, in that all people have the same measure, the volume of a large date; and what is different with regard to drinking, where each and every person is liable according to his own measure, i.e., every individual鈥檚 measure depends on the size of his own mouth? Abaye said to him: The Sages have an accepted tradition with regard to the volume of the large date, that eating this amount settles his mind, but less than this amount does not settle his mind. However, with regard to drinking, his mind is settled with the amount of his own cheekful, but his mind is not settled with the cheekful of his fellow who is smaller than him.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 讻讜诇讜 讘讻讻讜转讘转 讜注讜讙 诪诇讱 讛讘砖谉 讘讻讻讜转讘转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 拽讬诐 诇讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 讚讘讛讻讬 诪讬转讘讗 讚注转讬讛 讘爪讬专 诪讛讻讬 诇讗 诪讬转讘讗 讚注转讬讛 诪讬讛讜 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讟讜讘讗 讜注讜讙 诪诇讱 讛讘砖谉 驻讜专转讗


Rabbi Zeira strongly objects to this for a different reason: Is everyone of average size satisfied with eating the volume of a large date, and even Og, king of Bashan, is also satisfied with the volume of a large date? If not, there should also be relative measures for eating. Abaye said to him: The Sages have an accepted tradition that this amount settles his mind, but less than this amount does not settle his mind. However, everyone of average size has his mind greatly settled, whereas Og, king of Bashan, has his mind only a little settled. But even so, this measure settles the mind of any person and relieves his affliction.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讘砖专 砖诪谉 讘讻讻讜转讘转 讜诇讜诇讘讬 讙驻谞讬诐 讘讻讻讜转讘转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 拽讬诐 诇讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 讚讘讛讻讬 诪讬转讘讗 讚注转讬讛 讘爪讬专 诪讛讻讬 诇讗 诪讬转讘讗 讚注转讬讛 诪讬讛讜 讘砖专 砖诪谉 讟讜讘讗 诇讜诇讘讬 讙驻谞讬诐 驻讜专转讗


Rabbi Zeira strongly objects to this further: If it is on account of settling one鈥檚 mind, the following question can be raised: If one ate fatty meat, his mind would be settled with the volume of a large date, but if he ate edible grapevine shoots, would his mind similarly be settled with the volume of a large date? Abaye said to him: The Sages have an accepted tradition that with this measure one鈥檚 mind is settled, but with less than this measure his mind is not settled. However, with fatty meat, his mind is greatly settled; if one ate the same measure of grapevine shoots, his mind is only a little settled.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讗 讻讝讬转 讘讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住 讜讻讜转讘转 讘讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 拽讬诐 诇讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 讚讘讛讻讬 诪讬转讘讗 讚注转讬讛 讘讟驻讬 诪讛讻讬 诇讗 诪讬转讘讗 讚注转讬讛


Rava strongly objects to this: For all prohibitions of eating, the measure that determines liability is the volume of an olive-bulk consumed within the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread. All forbidden food eaten within that period combines to the measure of an olive-bulk. However, one who eats an olive-bulk over a longer period is exempt. Yet, on Yom Kippur one who eats the volume of a large date, which is a larger measure, is culpable if this amount is eaten within the time it would take to eat a half-loaf of bread. This appears to be a leniency, since one must eat a larger measure in the same time period of time. Why is there not a longer period of time for liability on Yom Kippur, to reflect the larger measure? Abaye said to him: The Sages have an accepted tradition that one who eats within this duration of time, his mind is settled; but one who eats within a longer duration of time, his mind is not settled, and he remains in a state of affliction.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讗 (讘讻讜转讘转) 讘讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住 讞爪讬 驻专住 讘讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讛谞讞 诇讟讜诪讗转 讙讜讜讬讛 讚诇讗讜 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讬讗


Rava strongly objects to this: The measure for liability for eating on Yom Kippur is the volume of a large date consumed within the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread; but the measure for eating impure foods that render one ritually impure is half of a half-loaf, which is two egg-bulks, a much larger volume, and this must also be consumed within the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread. Rav Pappa said to him: Do not raise a challenge from here. Leave aside ritual impurity of the body contracted through consuming impure foods because that is not by Torah law but by rabbinic law. The Sages were lenient in this matter. If one does not consume that amount of impure food within this time period, he is not rendered impure.


讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讻讬 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜诇讗 转讟诪讗讜 讘讛诐 讜谞讟诪转诐 讘诐 讜讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诪讻讗谉 砖讟讜诪讗转 讙讜讜讬讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讚专讘谞谉 讜拽专讗 讗住诪讻转讗 讘注诇诪讗


The Gemara challenges this: But did Rav Pappa actually say that the rendering of ritual impurity of the body through the consumption of impure foods is by rabbinic law? But he appears to say the opposite in another statement: Isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淵ou shall not make yourselves detestable with any creeping thing that creeps, neither shall you make yourselves impure with them, that you should be impure thereby鈥 (Leviticus 11:43). And Rav Pappa said: From here, from the Torah鈥檚 usage of the word 鈥渋mpure鈥 with regard to the prohibition of eating, we learn that ritual impurity of the body is by Torah law. The Gemara answers: Rav Pappa did not mean that the law is actually Torah law. The law is indeed rabbinic law, and the verse brought as proof is a mere support.


讻诇 讛讗讜讻诇讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讻诇 讗讜诪爪讗 讜诪讬诇讞讗 诪爪讟专祝 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗讜 讗讻讬诇讛 讛讬讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讻诇讬 讗讬谞砖讬 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 爪讬专 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讬专拽 诪爪讟专祝 诇讻讻讜转讘转 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪砖拽讛 讛讜讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻诇 讗讻砖讜专讬 讗讜讻诇讗 讗讜讻诇讗 讛讜讗


搂 We learned in the mishna: All types of foods combine to form a measure of liability with regard to eating on Yom Kippur. Rav Pappa said: If one ate meat and the salt that was on it, these combine to make the volume of a large date. Although consuming salt alone is not considered eating, since people do eat meat with salt together, they combine into one measure. Similarly, Reish Lakish said: Brine on a vegetable combines with the vegetable to make the volume of a large date with regard to the prohibition of eating on Yom Kippur. The Gemara expresses surprise at this: It is obvious. Why should the brine not combine with the vegetable, considering that it is itself food? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that brine is a beverage, and food and drinks do not combine, it teaches us that any item that prepares food for eating is considered a food.


讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讗讜讻诇 讗讻讬诇讛 讙住讛 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗砖专 诇讗 转注讜谞讛 讻转讬讘 驻专讟 诇诪讝讬拽


Reish Lakish said: One who eats in an excessive manner on Yom Kippur, to the degree that he forces himself to continue eating even when full is exempt, e.g., one who ate beyond being satiated on Yom Kippur eve and then ate something else as soon as the fast began. What is the reason for that? Because the Torah does not mention the prohibition of eating on Yom Kippur, but it was written 鈥渁ny soul which shall not be afflicted in that same day, he shall be cut off from his people鈥 (Leviticus 23:29), excluding one who harms himself, e.g., one who does not enjoy his food at all.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讝专 砖讗讻诇 转专讜诪讛 讗讻讬诇讛 讙住讛 诪砖诇诐 讗转 讛拽专谉 讜讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 讗转 讛讞讜诪砖 讻讬 讬讗讻诇 驻专讟 诇诪讝讬拽 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讝专


Similarly, Rabbi Yirmeya said that Reish Lakish said: A non-priest who ate teruma in an excessive manner pays the principal, that which he took, and does not pay the additional fifth, which one who illegally eats teruma pays to the priest as a penalty. This is because it states about one who eats teruma: 鈥淎nd if a man eat of the sacred thing in error, then he shall add a fifth to it, and give the priest the sacred thing鈥 (Leviticus 22:14). The word 鈥渆at鈥 excludes one who is not eating but harming himself. He does, however, pay the principal, since he caused a loss to the priest. The fifth is only paid by one who eats normally, not excessively. Similarly, Rabbi Yirmeya said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: A non-priest

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Yoma 80-88 + Siyum – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will continue learning about the amounts one is liable for eating and drinking on Yom Kippur. The...

Yoma 80

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yoma 80

讻诇 讛砖讬注讜专讬谉 讻讜诇谉 讘讻讝讬转 讞讜抓 诪讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 砖砖讬谞讛 讛讻转讜讘 讘诪砖诪注谉 讜砖讬谞讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘砖讬注讜专谉 讜专讗讬讛 诇讚讘专 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讗讬 砖讬谞讛 讛讻转讜讘 讘诪砖诪注讜 诪诇讗 转注讜谞讛 讜诪讗讬 砖讬谞讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘砖讬注讜专讬讛 讻讻讜转讘转


All the measures in the Torah connected to eating are the volume of an olive-bulk, except for the amount of food that renders objects impure, because the verse changed its expression in this case, and the Sages altered the measure accordingly. The proof of this, that the Sages gave it a different measure because the verse used different language for it, is from Yom Kippur. Also in the case of Yom Kippur the Sages assigned a different measure because the verse used a different phrase. The Gemara asks: How did the Sages learn that the verse changed its expression? They learned from: 鈥淎ny soul which shall not be afflicted鈥 (Leviticus 23:29). The verse does not state: Any soul that shall eat, but rather: 鈥淎ny soul which shall not be afflicted.鈥 How did the Sages change its measure? One does not violate the prohibition unless he has eaten the volume of a large date-bulk, as opposed to the usual olive-bulk.


讜诪讗讬 专讗讬讛 诇讚讘专 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讚讗讬 诪讛转诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗讜专讞讗 讚拽专讗 讛讜讗


The Gemara asks: And what does the baraita mean when it says: A proof for this is from Yom Kippur? Why is the verse pertaining to ritual impurity not sufficient to show that the Sages changed the measure based on the different words in the verse? The Gemara answers: If we learned it only from there, the case of impurity, I would have said that that is the style of the verse, and no halakha can be derived from it. Therefore, the verse pertaining to Yom Kippur teaches that whenever a verse deviates from the usual language, it implies a change in the halakha as well.


讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讻讘讬爪讛 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诪讻诇 讛讗讜讻诇 讗砖专 讬讗讻诇 讗讜讻诇 讛讘讗 诪讞诪转 讗讜讻诇 讜讗讬讝讛 讝讛 讘讬爪转 转专谞讙讜诇转 讜讗讬诪讗 讙讚讬 诪讞讜住专 砖讞讬讟讛 讜讗讬诪讗 讘谉 驻拽讜注讛 讟注讜谉 拽专讬注讛


搂 The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that the measure for impure foods is the volume of an egg-bulk? Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Elazar said that the verse states: 鈥淥f all food [okhel] which may be eaten [ye鈥檃khel], on which water comes shall be ritually impure鈥 (Leviticus 11:34). The double usage of the root akhal teaches that the ritual impurity of food applies even to the amount which can be described as food that comes on account of food, i.e., food that comes from another food. And which food is that? A chicken egg. The Gemara asks: And say it is referring to a kid, which comes from a mother goat, and is therefore also food that comes from another food. The Gemara answers: It lacks ritual slaughter. The young goat is not yet food, since it is not edible until it has been slaughtered. The Gemara asks further: And say it is referring to a ben pekua. Since the slaughter of its mother made it fit to eat, the fetus itself need not be slaughtered, even if it survives and continues to live independently of its mother. The Gemara answers: The calf still requires cutting, since it cannot be eaten live, but it does not require ritual slaughter.


讜讗讬诪讗 讘讬爪转 讘专 讬讜讻谞讬 转驻住转 诪专讜讘讛 诇讗 转驻住转 转驻住转 诪讜注讟 转驻住转 讜讗讬诪讗 讘讬注转讗 讚爪讬驻讜专转讗 讚讝讜讟专 讟讜讘讗


The Gemara asks: Even if we claim that the measure for impure foods is an egg-bulk, one could say it is referring to the giant eggbulk of the bird called bar yokhani. The Gemara answers: If you grasped many, you did not grasp anything; if you grasped few, you grasped something. This means that in a case of doubt, take the smaller number, as it is included in the larger number. Therefore, the correct measure is the volume of a chicken egg. The Gemara questions this: If so, say it is referring to a very small bird鈥檚 egg. Consequently, no proof can be brought from the verse that the volume of a chicken egg is the measure for ritual impurity.


专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讚讬讚讬讛 讗诪专 诪讻诇 讛讗讜讻诇 讗砖专 讬讗讻诇 讗讜讻诇 砖讗转讛 讗讜讻诇讜 讘讘转 讗讞转 讜砖讬注专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛 诪讞讝讬拽 讬讜转专 诪讘讬爪转 转专谞讙讜诇转


Rabbi Abbahu himself said: The verse states: 鈥淥f all food which may be eaten.鈥 This is referring to food that you can eat at one time. The Sages estimated: The esophagus cannot hold more than the volume of a chicken鈥檚 egg, and therefore this is the measure used for the ritual impurity of foods.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讗讜讻诇 讞诇讘 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 爪专讬讱 砖讬讻转讜讘 诇讜 砖讬注讜专 砖诪讗 讬讘讗 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讞专 讜讬专讘讛 讘砖讬注讜专讬谉


Incidental to the discussion on Torah measures, Rabbi Elazar said: One who unwittingly eats forbidden fat even today must write down the exact measure that he ate, lest another court come in the future and increase the measure.


诪讗讬 讬专讘讛 讘砖讬注讜专讬谉 讗讬 谞讬诪讗 讚诪讞讬讬讘讬 拽专讘谉 讗讻讝讬转 拽讟谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗砖专 诇讗 转注砖讬谞讛 讘砖讙讙讛 讜讗砖诐 讛砖讘 诪讬讚讬注转讜 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注诇 砖讙讙转讜


The Gemara asks: What does it mean to increase the measure? If we say that a future court will obligate him to bring an offering even for the bulk of a small olive, which is less than what is considered an olive-bulk today, he would not be liable to bring a guiltoffering. Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: It was said with regard to guilt-offerings: 鈥淎nd if any one of the common people sin through error, in doing any of the things which the Lord has commanded not to be done, and be guilty鈥 (Leviticus 4:27)? This teaches that one who repents due to his awareness, i.e., one who repents following becoming aware that he performed a transgression, brings an offering for his unwitting transgression.


诇讗 砖讘 诪讬讚讬注转讜 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注诇 砖讙讙转讜


However, one who does not repent due to his awareness that he sinned does not bring an offering for his unwitting action. Similarly, if one eats less than an olive-bulk, based on the current measures, he will not be obligated to bring a guilt-offering in the future if the measures change, even if the amount that he ate equals the volume of a revised olive-bulk. This is because the individual would not be bringing his offering because he became aware he had sinned, but because the Torah measures had been changed.


讗诇讗 讚诇讗 诪讞讬讬讘讬 拽专讘谉 注讚 讚讗讬讻讗 讻讝讬转 讙讚讜诇


Rather, it should be explained as follows: It is possible that in the future a court will not obligate one to bring an offering until he has eaten the bulk of a large olive, which is more than today鈥檚 amount. One should write down how much he ate, since in the future a court might rule that the amount he ate is less than the size of an olive, and therefore he will not be obligated to bring an offering.


讜诇诪讗讬 讚住诇讬拽 讗讚注转讬讛 诪注讬拽专讗 讚诪讞讬讬讘讬 拽专讘谉 讗讻讝讬转 拽讟谉 诪讗讬 讬专讘讛 讘砖讬注讜专讬谉 砖诪讗 讬专讘讛 讘拽专讘谞讜转 诪讞诪转 砖讬注讜专讬谉


The Gemara returns to its first suggestion: According to what entered his mind initially, that in the future a court might obligate him to bring an offering for the bulk of a small olive, what is the meaning of increase the measure? Rabbi Elazar should have said decrease the measure. The Gemara answers: The statement may have meant that perhaps there will be an increase in offerings that are brought due to the smaller measure for liability.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖讬注讜专讬谉 讜注讜谞砖讬谉 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬 注讜谞砖讬谉 诪讻转讘 讻转讬讘讬 讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 (讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉) 砖讬注讜专讬诐 砖诇 注讜谞砖讬谉 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬


With regard to this topic, Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Measures and punishments are halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. The Gemara expresses surprise at this: The punishments for all transgressions are written explicitly in the Torah, and therefore are not part of an oral transmission from Moses. Rather, this is what was said: Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Measures that determine liability for punishments are halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai.


转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 砖讬注讜专讬谉 砖诇 注讜谞砖讬谉 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讬转 讚讬谞讜 砖诇 讬注讘抓 转讬拽谞讜诐 讜讛讻转讬讘 讗诇讛 讛诪爪讜转 砖讗讬谉 谞讘讬讗 专砖讗讬 诇讞讚砖 讚讘专 诪注转讛 讗诇讗 砖讻讞讜诐 讜讞讝专讜 讜讬住讚讜诐


The Gemara comments: This was also taught in a baraita: Measures of punishments are halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. Others say: These measures were instituted by the court of Jabez. The Gemara questions this: How can this be? Isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淭hese are the mitzvot which the Lord commanded Moses for the children of Israel at Mount Sinai鈥 (Leviticus 27:34). The word 鈥渢hese鈥 underscores that a prophet is not permitted to introduce any new element related to the Torah and its mitzvot from here on. Rather, over the course of time, the people forgot the measures; subsequently the prophets reestablished the measures and taught them to the masses.


讛砖讜转讛 诪诇讗 诇讜讙诪讬讜 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 诪诇讗 诇讜讙诪讬讜 诪诪砖 讗诇讗 讻诇 砖讗讬诇讜 讬住诇拽谞讜 诇爪讚 讗讞讚 讜讬专讗讛 讻诪诇讗 诇讜讙诪讬讜 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 诪诇讗 诇讜讙诪讬讜 讗讬诪讗 讻诪诇讗 诇讜讙诪讬讜


搂 We learned in the mishna that one who drinks a cheekful on Yom Kippur is liable. Rabbi Yehuda said that Shmuel said: This does not mean two cheeks actually full. Rather, the measure that determines liability is the volume of liquid if one pushes the drink to one side of his mouth, and it appears as though his cheek were full. The Gemara questions this: Didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: A cheekful, in the plural form, meaning two cheeks full? The Gemara answers: Say: Like two cheeks full in appearance. If viewed from only one side, one whose cheek is full appears as if his entire mouth is full.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讻诪讛 讬砖转讛 讜讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 专讘讬注讬转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪诇讗 诇讜讙诪讬讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讻诪诇讗 诇讜讙诪讬讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗讜诪专 讻讚讬 讙诪讬注讛


The Gemara raises an objection to this from a baraita: How much does one need to drink on Yom Kippur to be liable? Beit Shammai say: A quarter-log, and Beit Hillel say: Two cheeks full. Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: Like two cheeks full in appearance from the side, i.e. a single cheekful. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: The amount that one can swallow in one gulp. In this baraita, Beit Hillel鈥檚 opinion is that the measure for drinking on Yom Kippur is a cheekful. This implies that a cheekful means an actual cheekful.


诪讬 注讚讬驻讗 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讻讚讬 砖讬专讗讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讻讚讬 砖讬专讗讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪诇讗 诇讜讙诪讬讜 讚讞讜拽


The Gemara expresses surprise: Is the baraita preferable to the mishna? Since it was established that the measure in the mishna is so that it appears like a cheekful, so too, the baraita can be explained as meaning an amount that looks like two cheeks full. The Gemara questions further: If so, Beit Hillel require an amount that appears like two cheeks full; this is identical with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says: Like two cheeks full. The Gemara answers: We could say that the practical difference between them is evident in the case of a paltry cheekful, which is not a complete mouthful but slightly less. According to Beit Hillel, one is not liable unless he drinks a full cheekful; but according to Rabbi Eliezer, one is liable even for a paltry mouthful.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪拽讜诇讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜诪讞讜诪专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛


Rav Hoshaya strongly objects to this understanding: If so, if Beit Hillel鈥檚 measure is a single cheekful, then this is an instance of Beit Shammai鈥檚 leniencies and Beit Hillel鈥檚 stringencies, since the measure of a quarter-log is larger than a single cheekful. If so, why isn鈥檛 this debate listed in tractate Eduyyot, which lists all the cases where Beit Shammai are more lenient than Beit Hillel? He said to him:


讻讬 讗转砖讬诇 讘注讜讙 诪诇讱 讛讘砖谉 讗转砖讬诇 讚讛讜讜 诇讬讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讞讜诪专讗


When this question with regard to the measure of liquid was asked, it was not asked about an average-sized person, for whom a mouthful is smaller than a quarter-log. Rather, the question was asked even about Og, king of Bashan, in which case, it is Beit Shammai who are stringent, for Og鈥檚 cheekful is much more than a quarter-log.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讗讻讬诇讛 讚讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 讘讻讻讜转讘转 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 砖转讬讛 讚讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 讘讚讬讚讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 拽讬诐 诇讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 讘讻讻讜转讘转 讚讘讛讻讬 诪讬转讘讗 讚注转讬讛 讘爪讬专 诪讛讻讬 诇讗 诪讬转讘讗 讘砖转讬讛 讘讚讬讚讬讛 诪讬转讘讗 讚注转讬讛 讘讚讞讘专讬讛 诇讗 诪讬转讘讗 讚注转讬讛


Rabbi Zeira strongly objects to this halakha with regard to the measure for liability for drinking: What is different with regard to eating, in that all people have the same measure, the volume of a large date; and what is different with regard to drinking, where each and every person is liable according to his own measure, i.e., every individual鈥檚 measure depends on the size of his own mouth? Abaye said to him: The Sages have an accepted tradition with regard to the volume of the large date, that eating this amount settles his mind, but less than this amount does not settle his mind. However, with regard to drinking, his mind is settled with the amount of his own cheekful, but his mind is not settled with the cheekful of his fellow who is smaller than him.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 讻讜诇讜 讘讻讻讜转讘转 讜注讜讙 诪诇讱 讛讘砖谉 讘讻讻讜转讘转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 拽讬诐 诇讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 讚讘讛讻讬 诪讬转讘讗 讚注转讬讛 讘爪讬专 诪讛讻讬 诇讗 诪讬转讘讗 讚注转讬讛 诪讬讛讜 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讟讜讘讗 讜注讜讙 诪诇讱 讛讘砖谉 驻讜专转讗


Rabbi Zeira strongly objects to this for a different reason: Is everyone of average size satisfied with eating the volume of a large date, and even Og, king of Bashan, is also satisfied with the volume of a large date? If not, there should also be relative measures for eating. Abaye said to him: The Sages have an accepted tradition that this amount settles his mind, but less than this amount does not settle his mind. However, everyone of average size has his mind greatly settled, whereas Og, king of Bashan, has his mind only a little settled. But even so, this measure settles the mind of any person and relieves his affliction.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讘砖专 砖诪谉 讘讻讻讜转讘转 讜诇讜诇讘讬 讙驻谞讬诐 讘讻讻讜转讘转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 拽讬诐 诇讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 讚讘讛讻讬 诪讬转讘讗 讚注转讬讛 讘爪讬专 诪讛讻讬 诇讗 诪讬转讘讗 讚注转讬讛 诪讬讛讜 讘砖专 砖诪谉 讟讜讘讗 诇讜诇讘讬 讙驻谞讬诐 驻讜专转讗


Rabbi Zeira strongly objects to this further: If it is on account of settling one鈥檚 mind, the following question can be raised: If one ate fatty meat, his mind would be settled with the volume of a large date, but if he ate edible grapevine shoots, would his mind similarly be settled with the volume of a large date? Abaye said to him: The Sages have an accepted tradition that with this measure one鈥檚 mind is settled, but with less than this measure his mind is not settled. However, with fatty meat, his mind is greatly settled; if one ate the same measure of grapevine shoots, his mind is only a little settled.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讗 讻讝讬转 讘讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住 讜讻讜转讘转 讘讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 拽讬诐 诇讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 讚讘讛讻讬 诪讬转讘讗 讚注转讬讛 讘讟驻讬 诪讛讻讬 诇讗 诪讬转讘讗 讚注转讬讛


Rava strongly objects to this: For all prohibitions of eating, the measure that determines liability is the volume of an olive-bulk consumed within the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread. All forbidden food eaten within that period combines to the measure of an olive-bulk. However, one who eats an olive-bulk over a longer period is exempt. Yet, on Yom Kippur one who eats the volume of a large date, which is a larger measure, is culpable if this amount is eaten within the time it would take to eat a half-loaf of bread. This appears to be a leniency, since one must eat a larger measure in the same time period of time. Why is there not a longer period of time for liability on Yom Kippur, to reflect the larger measure? Abaye said to him: The Sages have an accepted tradition that one who eats within this duration of time, his mind is settled; but one who eats within a longer duration of time, his mind is not settled, and he remains in a state of affliction.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讗 (讘讻讜转讘转) 讘讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住 讞爪讬 驻专住 讘讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讛谞讞 诇讟讜诪讗转 讙讜讜讬讛 讚诇讗讜 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讬讗


Rava strongly objects to this: The measure for liability for eating on Yom Kippur is the volume of a large date consumed within the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread; but the measure for eating impure foods that render one ritually impure is half of a half-loaf, which is two egg-bulks, a much larger volume, and this must also be consumed within the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread. Rav Pappa said to him: Do not raise a challenge from here. Leave aside ritual impurity of the body contracted through consuming impure foods because that is not by Torah law but by rabbinic law. The Sages were lenient in this matter. If one does not consume that amount of impure food within this time period, he is not rendered impure.


讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讻讬 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜诇讗 转讟诪讗讜 讘讛诐 讜谞讟诪转诐 讘诐 讜讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诪讻讗谉 砖讟讜诪讗转 讙讜讜讬讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讚专讘谞谉 讜拽专讗 讗住诪讻转讗 讘注诇诪讗


The Gemara challenges this: But did Rav Pappa actually say that the rendering of ritual impurity of the body through the consumption of impure foods is by rabbinic law? But he appears to say the opposite in another statement: Isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淵ou shall not make yourselves detestable with any creeping thing that creeps, neither shall you make yourselves impure with them, that you should be impure thereby鈥 (Leviticus 11:43). And Rav Pappa said: From here, from the Torah鈥檚 usage of the word 鈥渋mpure鈥 with regard to the prohibition of eating, we learn that ritual impurity of the body is by Torah law. The Gemara answers: Rav Pappa did not mean that the law is actually Torah law. The law is indeed rabbinic law, and the verse brought as proof is a mere support.


讻诇 讛讗讜讻诇讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讻诇 讗讜诪爪讗 讜诪讬诇讞讗 诪爪讟专祝 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗讜 讗讻讬诇讛 讛讬讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讻诇讬 讗讬谞砖讬 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 爪讬专 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讬专拽 诪爪讟专祝 诇讻讻讜转讘转 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪砖拽讛 讛讜讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻诇 讗讻砖讜专讬 讗讜讻诇讗 讗讜讻诇讗 讛讜讗


搂 We learned in the mishna: All types of foods combine to form a measure of liability with regard to eating on Yom Kippur. Rav Pappa said: If one ate meat and the salt that was on it, these combine to make the volume of a large date. Although consuming salt alone is not considered eating, since people do eat meat with salt together, they combine into one measure. Similarly, Reish Lakish said: Brine on a vegetable combines with the vegetable to make the volume of a large date with regard to the prohibition of eating on Yom Kippur. The Gemara expresses surprise at this: It is obvious. Why should the brine not combine with the vegetable, considering that it is itself food? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that brine is a beverage, and food and drinks do not combine, it teaches us that any item that prepares food for eating is considered a food.


讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讗讜讻诇 讗讻讬诇讛 讙住讛 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗砖专 诇讗 转注讜谞讛 讻转讬讘 驻专讟 诇诪讝讬拽


Reish Lakish said: One who eats in an excessive manner on Yom Kippur, to the degree that he forces himself to continue eating even when full is exempt, e.g., one who ate beyond being satiated on Yom Kippur eve and then ate something else as soon as the fast began. What is the reason for that? Because the Torah does not mention the prohibition of eating on Yom Kippur, but it was written 鈥渁ny soul which shall not be afflicted in that same day, he shall be cut off from his people鈥 (Leviticus 23:29), excluding one who harms himself, e.g., one who does not enjoy his food at all.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讝专 砖讗讻诇 转专讜诪讛 讗讻讬诇讛 讙住讛 诪砖诇诐 讗转 讛拽专谉 讜讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 讗转 讛讞讜诪砖 讻讬 讬讗讻诇 驻专讟 诇诪讝讬拽 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讝专


Similarly, Rabbi Yirmeya said that Reish Lakish said: A non-priest who ate teruma in an excessive manner pays the principal, that which he took, and does not pay the additional fifth, which one who illegally eats teruma pays to the priest as a penalty. This is because it states about one who eats teruma: 鈥淎nd if a man eat of the sacred thing in error, then he shall add a fifth to it, and give the priest the sacred thing鈥 (Leviticus 22:14). The word 鈥渆at鈥 excludes one who is not eating but harming himself. He does, however, pay the principal, since he caused a loss to the priest. The fifth is only paid by one who eats normally, not excessively. Similarly, Rabbi Yirmeya said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: A non-priest

Scroll To Top