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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 1, 2021 | 讻状讗 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 learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Yoma 81

Today’s daf is sponsored with love by Arlee and Kenny to Tamara Katz, “wishing you a very happy birthday. Thank you for providing us with the inspiration to learn the daf, which we can鈥檛 wait to pass on to our daughter Millie.”

Food and drink cannot combine for a requisite amount to obligate one. Is this only one person’s opinion? Why is there no warning on Yom Kippur, i.e. “do not eat”? If one needs to have a warning in order to get punished, where can we find a warning for fulfilling the commandment of affliction on Yom Kippur? Four different answers are brought. From where do we derive the commandment to add on extra time to Yom Kippur, Shabbat and other holidays? It is derived from Vaykikra 23:32 regarding the mention of the ninth of the month in the verse about Yom Kippur (which is on the tenth). A different way of understanding that verse is to learn there is a commandment to eat on erev Yom Kippur. What is the nature of that obligation? If one eats inedible food on Yom Kippur, one is not liable. What is considered inedible? What about drinks? Is vinegar allowed? Rav Gidal said one is not liable for vinegar and his words were misunderstood and people thought they were allowed to drink vinegar on Yom Kippur.

砖讻讜住住 砖注讜专讬诐 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 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

who chews on barley of teruma that has not been ground or baked pays the principal and not an extra fifth. The reason is that it states 鈥渆ats鈥 (Leviticus 22:14), which excludes one who harms himself. Consuming raw barley is considered self-harm, not eating.

讗诪专 专讘 砖讬讝讘讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讝专 砖讘诇注 砖讝驻讬谉 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讜讛拽讬讗谉 讜讗讻诇谉 讗讞专 专讗砖讜谉 诪砖诇诐 (讗转) 拽专谉 讜讞讜诪砖 砖谞讬 讗讬谉 诪砖诇诐 讗诇讗 讚诪讬 注爪讬诐 诇专讗砖讜谉 讘诇讘讚

Rav Sheizvi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: In the case of a non-priest who swallowed plums of teruma whole and vomited them out, whereupon another person ate them, the first one pays the principal plus a fifth. When the first one benefited from the plums, he acquired them and must therefore pay for them, and the second one must pay their worth to the first one. Since they are only fit for fuel after the first one vomited them out, the second person is considered to have damaged their value as fuel. Therefore, he pays only the price of wood, i.e., fuel, to the first person.

讛讗讜讻诇 讜讛砖讜转讛 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讘诪讞诇讜拽转 砖谞讜讬讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讻诇诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讻诇 砖讟讜诪讗转讜 讜砖讬注讜专讜 砖讜讛 诪爪讟专祝

搂 It was taught in the mishna that food and drink do not combine. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught this? Rav 岣sda said: This halakha is taught as a dispute, and the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua. As we learned in a mishna: Rabbi Yehoshua stated a general principle: Any item that is identical to another item in its type of ritual impurity, e.g., impurity that lasts only until evening, and its measure for impurity, e.g., an olive-bulk, combines with the other item to reach one measure to render other items impure. Therefore, two half olive-bulk pieces of two corpses or of two animal carcasses, or two half lentil-bulk pieces from two creeping animals all combine to render other items impure.

讟讜诪讗转讜 讜诇讗 砖讬注讜专讜 砖讬注讜专讜 讜诇讗 讟讜诪讗转讜 诇讗 讟讜诪讗转讜 讜诇讗 砖讬注讜专讜 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉

However, if one item is identical to another in its ritual impurity but not its measure, e.g., half a lentil-bulk of a creeping animal and half an olive-bulk of an animal carcass, which both impart impurity until nightfall; or if its measure is identical but not its type of ritual impurity, e.g., half an olive-bulk from a corpse, which imparts impurity for seven days, and half an olive-bulk from an animal carcass, which imparts impurity until nightfall; and all the more so, when neither its ritual impurity nor its measure are identical, then the items do not combine. Here, too, although both eating and drinking are prohibited on their own, they do not combine because they do not have the same measure that imparts impurity.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗 讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讛转诐 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讚砖诐 讟讜诪讗讛 讞讚 讛讬讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讬转讜讘讬 讚注转讗 讛讜讗 讜讛讗讬 诇讗 诪讬转讘讗 讚注转讬讛

Rav Na岣an said: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, until now we have heard the Rabbis say there that items with different measures combine only with respect to ritual impurity. Since the phenomenon of ritual impurity is one concept, different types combine. But here, in the case of Yom Kippur, the measure that determines liability is set due to settling the mind, and this combination of eating and drinking together does not settle the mind.

讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讘诪讞诇讜拽转 砖谞讜讬讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讻诇诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讻讜壮 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讛转诐 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讬转讜讘讬 讚注转讬讛 讛讜讗 讜讛讗讬 诇讗 拽讗 诪讬转讘讗 讚注转讬讛

And similarly, Reish Lakish said: This question of whether food and drink combine to reach a measure that determines liability on Yom Kippur is taught as a dispute. The approach brought in the mishna that states that they do not combine is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, as we learned in a mishna: Rabbi Yehoshua stated a general principle with regard to whether items with different types of impurity and measures combine, as Rav 岣sda explained above. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said in accordance with the opinion of Rav Na岣an: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, until now we have heard the Rabbis say there that items with different measures combine only with regard to ritual impurity. But here, in the case of Yom Kippur, the measure that determines liability is set due to settling the mind, and this combination of eating and drinking together does not settle the mind.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讻诇 讜砖转讛 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞讚 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讞讟讗转 讗讞转 讗讻诇 讜注砖讛 诪诇讗讻讛 讞讬讬讘 (砖谞讬) 讞讟讗讜转 讗讻诇 讗讜讻诇讬谉 砖讗讬谞谉 专讗讜讬谉 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讜砖转讛 诪砖拽讬谉 砖讗讬谞谉 专讗讜讬谉 诇砖转讬讛 讜砖转讛 爪讬专 讗讜 诪讜专讬讬住 驻讟讜专

MISHNA: If one ate and drank unwittingly within one lapse of awareness, e.g., he forgot that it is Yom Kippur, he is liable to bring only one sin-offering. However, if he ate and performed labor unwittingly, he is liable to bring two sin-offerings, as by doing so he violated two separate prohibitions. If he ate foods that are not fit for eating, or drank liquids that are not fit for drinking, or drank fish brine or the briny liquid in which fish are pickled, he is exempt, as that is not the typical manner of eating or drinking.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 诇讗 谞讗诪专讛 讗讝讛专讛 讘注讬谞讜讬 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 讛讬讻讬 谞讻转讜讘 谞讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讗讻讬诇讛 讘讻讝讬转 谞讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转注讜谞讛 拽讜诐 讗讻讜诇 诪砖诪注

GEMARA: Reish Lakish said: Why is there no warning stated about affliction; why did the Torah not state explicitly that it is prohibited to eat and drink on Yom Kippur? It is because it was not possible to write it that way. The Gemara explains: How could the Merciful One write it? Let the Merciful One write: One shall not eat on Yom Kippur. The term eat prohibits eating the amount of an olive-bulk, whereas on Yom Kippur the actual prohibited measure is a large date-bulk. Let the Merciful One write: Do not be afflicted. That indicates the opposite of affliction, and would mean: Get up and eat. Therefore, it is written: 鈥淔or whatsoever soul it be that shall not be afflicted on that same day, he shall be cut off from his people鈥 (Leviticus 23:29).

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 谞讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讛砖诪专 驻谉 诇讗 转注讜谞讛 讗诐 讻谉 谞驻讬砖讬 诇讛讜 诇讗讜讬

Rav Hoshaya strongly objects to this: Let the Merciful One write it in this manner: Guard yourself lest you not be afflicted. The Gemara answers: If so, there would be too many negative mitzvot, as the following are all expressions of prohibition: Guard, lest, and not. One would then say that there are three prohibitions against eating.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讘专 讗讘讬讬 谞讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讛砖诪专 讘诪爪讜转 注讬谞讜讬 讗诐 讻谉 讛砖诪专 讚诇讗讜 诇讗讜 讛砖诪专 讚注砖讛 注砖讛 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 谞讻转讜讘 讗诇 转住讜专 诪谉 讛注讬谞讜讬 拽砖讬讗

Rav Beivai bar Abaye strongly objects to this: Let the Merciful One write: Guard yourself in the mitzva of affliction. The Gemara rejects this: If so, there is a principle: If the words guard yourself are written about a prohibition, it is considered to be a prohibition; if the words guard yourself are written about a positive mitzva, it is considered to be a positive mitzva. Had the Torah written it that way, one would understand that there is a positive mitzva of affliction, but there is no element of prohibition. Rav Ashi strongly objects to this: Let the Merciful One write: Do not stray from afflicting yourself, which would imply a negative mitzva. The Gemara says: Indeed, this is difficult. The Gemara concedes that it could have been written in this manner.

讜转谞讗 诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 诪讛讻讗 讜注谞讬转诐 讗转 谞驻砖讜转讬讻诐 讜讻诇 诪诇讗讻讛 诇讗 转注砖讜 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 注谞讜砖 注诇 转讜住驻转 诪诇讗讻讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻诇 讛谞驻砖 讗砖专 转注砖讛 讻诇 诪诇讗讻讛 讘注爪诐 讛讬讜诐 讛讝讛 注诇 注讬爪讜诪讜 砖诇 讬讜诐 注谞讜砖 讻专转 讜讗讬谞讜 注谞讜砖 讻专转 注诇 转讜住驻转 诪诇讗讻讛

搂 With regard to the prohibitions against eating and labor, the Gemara says: And a tanna cites the prohibitions relating to affliction on Yom Kippur from here: It is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall afflict your souls, you shall do no manner of labor鈥 (Numbers 29:7). The Gemara considers: One might have thought that performing labor during the extension of the period of prohibition of labor, added before Yom Kippur actually begins, is punishable by karet. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd whatsoever soul it be that does any manner of labor on that same day鈥 (Leviticus 23:30), which teaches that performing labor on that very day is punishable by karet, but labor performed during the extension of the period of prohibition of labor is not punishable by karet.

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讗 注谞讜砖 讻专转 注诇 转讜住驻转 诪诇讗讻讛 讗讘诇 讬讛讗 注谞讜砖 讻专转 注诇 转讜住驻转 注讬谞讜讬 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讬 讻诇 讛谞驻砖 讗砖专 诇讗 转注讜谞讛 讘注爪诐 讛讬讜诐 讛讝讛 讜谞讻专转讛 注诇 注讬爪讜诪讜 砖诇 讬讜诐 注谞讜砖 讻专转 讜讗讬谞讜 注谞讜砖 讻专转 注诇 转讜住驻转 注讬谞讜讬

The baraita continues: One might have thought that performing labor during the extension of the period of prohibition of labor is not punishable by karet, but not afflicting oneself during the extension of the period of affliction is punishable by karet. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淔or whatsoever soul it be that shall not be afflicted on that same day, he shall be cut off from his people鈥 (Leviticus 23:29), which teaches that not afflicting oneself on that very day is punishable by karet, but not afflicting oneself during the extension of the period of affliction is not punishable by karet.

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讗 讘讻诇诇 注讜谞砖 讗讘诇 讬讛讗 诪讜讝讛专 注诇 转讜住驻转 诪诇讗讻讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻诇 诪诇讗讻讛 诇讗 转注砖讜 讘注爪诐 讛讬讜诐 讛讝讛 注诇 注讬爪讜诪讜 砖诇 讬讜诐 讛讜讗 诪讜讝讛专 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讜讝讛专 注诇 转讜住驻转 诪诇讗讻讛

The baraita continues: One might have thought that one who performs labor during the extension would not be included in the punishment of karet, but he would be warned against performing labor during the extension of the period of prohibition of labor with a prohibition incurring the punishment of lashes; therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall do no manner of labor on that same day鈥 (Leviticus 23:28). That teaches that he is warned not to perform labor on that very day, but he is not warned against performing labor during the extension of the period of prohibition of labor, and therefore he is not liable to receive lashes for doing so.

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讗 诪讜讝讛专 注诇 转讜住驻转 诪诇讗讻讛 讗讘诇 讬讛讗 诪讜讝讛专 注诇 转讜住驻转 注讬谞讜讬 讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 诪诇讗讻讛 砖谞讜讛讙转 讘砖讘转讜转 讜讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讬谞讜 诪讜讝讛专 注诇讬讛 注讬谞讜讬 砖讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讘砖讘转讜转 讜讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 诪讜讝讛专 注诇讬讜

The baraita continues: One might have thought: He would not be warned with regard to performing labor during the extension of the period of prohibition of labor that it is a prohibition that incurs lashes; but he would be warned with regard to not being in a state of affliction during the extension of the period of affliction that it is a prohibition that incurs lashes. However, that is incorrect, and it is learned from a logical derivation that it is not so: Just as with regard to labor, whose prohibition is observed on both Shabbatot and Festivals, one is not warned about the extension added to the day, is it not logical that with regard to affliction, which is not observed on Shabbatot and Festivals, he should not be warned about or liable to receive lashes for the extension?

讗讘诇 讗讝讛专讛 诇注讬谞讜讬 砖诇 讬讜诐 注爪诪讜 诇讗 诇诪讚谞讜 诪谞讬讬谉 诇讗 讬讗诪专 注讜谞砖 讘诪诇讗讻讛 讚讙诪专 诪注讬谞讜讬 讜诪讛 注讬谞讜讬 砖讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讘砖讘转讜转 讜讬讜诐 讟讜讘 注谞讜砖 讻专转 诪诇讗讻讛 砖谞讜讛讙转 讘砖讘转讜转 讜讬诪讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 诪讜驻谞讛 诇讛拽讬砖 讜诇讚讜谉 诪诪谞讜 讙讝专讛 砖讜讛 谞讗诪专 注讜谞砖 讘注讬谞讜讬 讜谞讗诪专 注讜谞砖 讘诪诇讗讻讛 诪讛 诪诇讗讻讛 诇讗 注谞砖 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讝讛讬专 讗祝 注讬谞讜讬 诇讗 注谞砖 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讝讛讬专

The baraita comments: But the warning about lashes during the very day itself we have not learned. From where is it derived? The Torah need not state the punishment of karet for performing labor, since one can learn it by logical derivation from the punishment of not being in a state of affliction, as follows: Just as the requirement of affliction, which is not observed on Shabbatot and Festivals, is punishable by karet on Yom Kippur, with regard to the prohibition of labor, which is observed on all Shabbatot and Festivals, is it not all the more so? If so, why is the punishment for labor stated explicitly? It is available to compare and learn a verbal analogy from it: A punishment with regard to affliction is stated, and a punishment with regard to labor is stated. Just as with regard to labor one is punished only if he was warned first with a negative mitzva, so too, with regard to affliction, one is punished only if he was warned.

讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇注讬谞讜讬 砖诇讗 讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 转讗诪专 讘诪诇讗讻讛 砖讛讜转专讛 诪讻诇诇讛

The Gemara rejects this: This comparison can be refuted. How so? Whereas affliction has no permitted exceptions from its general prohibition, as the mitzva to afflict oneself applies to all the Jewish people, what can you say with regard to labor, which has permitted exceptions from its general prohibition? It is permitted to perform the Temple services on Yom Kippur, which include prohibited labors, e.g., slaughtering animals and offering incense. Consequently, there is no proof that the mitzva of affliction is more lenient than the prohibition of labor.

讗诇讗 诇讗 讬讗诪专 注讜谞砖 讘注讬谞讜讬 讚讙诪专 诪诪诇讗讻讛 诪讛 诪诇讗讻讛 砖讛讜转专讛 诪讻诇诇讛 注谞讜砖 讻专转 注讬谞讜讬 砖诇讗 讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 诪讜驻谞讛 诇讛拽讬砖 讜诇讚讜谉 诪诪谞讛 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 谞讗诪专 注讜谞砖 讘注讬谞讜讬 讜谞讗诪专 注讜谞砖 讘诪诇讗讻讛 诪讛 诪诇讗讻讛 注谞砖 讜讛讝讛讬专 讗祝 注讬谞讜讬 注谞砖 讜讛讝讛讬专

Rather, say as follows: The Torah need not say the punishment for not being in a state of affliction, since one can learn it from the punishment for performing labor through an a fortiori inference. How so? Just as labor, for which exceptions from the general prohibition are permitted, e.g., performing the Temple service on Yom Kippur, and yet labor is punishable by karet, with regard to not being in a state of affliction, which has no permitted exceptions from its general prohibition, is it not all the more so that one who does not afflict himself should be liable to receive karet? If so, why is it nevertheless stated? It is available to compare and learn a verbal analogy: Punishment is stated with regard to affliction, and punishment is stated with regard to labor. Just as for labor the Torah punished and warned, so too, for affliction the Torah punished and warned.

讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇诪诇讗讻讛 砖讻谉 谞讜讛讙转 讘砖讘转讜转 讜讬诪讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐 转讗诪专 讘注讬谞讜讬 砖讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讘砖讘转讜转 讜讬诪讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐

The Gemara rejects this: This comparison can be refuted, and one might say the opposite: Whereas the prohibition of labor is observed on Shabbatot and Festivals, can you say the same about affliction, which is not observed on Shabbatot and Festivals?

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讛讗讬 转谞讗 注爪诐 注爪诐 讙诪专 诪讜驻谞讛 讚讗讬 诇讗 诪讜驻谞讛 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 讻讚驻专讻讬谞谉

Ravina said: We did not properly understand the teaching of this baraita, as this tanna derived a verbal analogy from the words 鈥渙n that same day鈥 (Leviticus 23:29) stated with regard to affliction, and 鈥渙n that same day鈥 (Leviticus 23:28) stated with regard to labor. The Gemara comments: We must say that it is available, meaning that in both places, the phrase 鈥渙n that same day鈥 is unnecessary within its own context and comes only to teach this verbal analogy; as, if it were not available, it could be refuted, as we refuted it above.

诇讗讬讬 讗驻谞讜讬讬 诪讜驻谞讛 讞诪砖讛 拽专讗讬 讻转讬讘讬 讘诪诇讗讻讛 讞讚 诇讗讝讛专讛 讚讬诪诪讗 讜讞讚 诇讗讝讛专讛 讚诇讬诇讬讗 讜讞讚 诇注讜谞砖 讚讬诪诪讗 讜讞讚 诇注讜谞砖 讚诇讬诇讬讗 讜讞讚 诇讗驻谞讜讬讬 诇诪讙诪专 注讬谞讜讬 诪诪诇讗讻讛 讘讬谉 讚讬诪诪讗 讘讬谉 讚诇讬诇讬讗

The Gemara responds: No, it is certainly available, and we may learn from it, as five verses are written with regard to the prohibition of labor on Yom Kippur. One to teach a warning with regard to the prohibition of labor on the day of Yom Kippur itself; and one for a warning with regard to labor on the night of Yom Kippur; and one for the punishment of karet for performing labor on the day; and one for the punishment for performing labor at night; and one verse to be available to derive the requirement of affliction from the prohibition of labor, both during the day and night, using a verbal analogy.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 转谞讗 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 注讬谞讜讬 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 注讬谞讜讬 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诇讗 注谞砖 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讝讛讬专 讗祝 讻讗谉 诇讗 注谞砖 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讝讛讬专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 讬诇讬祝 砖讘转 砖讘转讜谉 诪砖讘转 讘专讗砖讬转 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诇讗 注谞砖 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讝讛讬专 讗祝 讻讗谉 诇讗 注谞砖 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讝讛讬专

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught an alternative verbal analogy for the derivation: 鈥淎ffliction鈥 is stated here, with regard to Yom Kippur, and 鈥渁ffliction鈥 is stated later, with regard to a man who rapes a woman: 鈥淏ecause he has afflicted his neighbor鈥檚 wife鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:24). Just as there, in the case of rape, the Torah did not punish unless there was prior warning, so too here, in the case of Yom Kippur, the Torah did not punish unless there was prior warning. Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said a different proof: Derive a verbal analogy from the words 鈥淪habbat of solemn rest鈥 (Leviticus 16:31) written with regard to Yom Kippur from the words 鈥淪habbat of solemn rest鈥 (Exodus 31:15, 32:5; Leviticus 23:3) written with regard to the weekly Shabbat, which commemorates the Shabbat of Creation. Just as there, in the case of Shabbat, the Torah did not punish unless there was prior warning, so too here, in the case of Yom Kippur, the Torah did not punish unless there was prior warning.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专

Rav Pappa said:

讛讜讗 讙讜驻讬讛 砖讘转 讗讬拽专讬 讚讻转讬讘 转砖讘转讜 砖讘转讻诐 讘砖诇诪讗 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讚拽专讗 讚讻转讬讘 讘讙讜驻讬讛 注讚讬祝 讗诇讗 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘 驻驻讗

Yom Kippur itself is called 鈥淪habbat,鈥 as it is written: 鈥淔rom evening until evening, you shall rest on your Shabbat鈥 (Leviticus 23:32). The Gemara compares the various opinions. Granted, Rav Pappa did not say as Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov did because a verse that is written about the matter itself is preferable to a verbal analogy. But what is the reason that Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov did not state his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappa?

诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讜注谞讬转诐 讗转 谞驻砖讜转讬讻诐 讘转砖注讛 诇讞讜讚砖 讬讻讜诇 讬转讞讬诇 讜讬转注谞讛 讘转砖注讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘注专讘 讗讬 讘注专讘 讬讻讜诇 诪砖转讞砖讱 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘转砖注讛 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 诪转讞讬诇 讜诪转注谞讛 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 诪讻讗谉 砖诪讜住讬驻讬谉 诪讞讜诇 注诇 讛拽讜讚砖

The Gemara answers: He requires this verse of 鈥渒eep your Shabbat鈥 for that which was taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall afflict your souls on the ninth day of the month at evening, from evening until evening, you shall rest on your Shabbat鈥 (Leviticus 23:32). One might have thought that one should start to afflict oneself on the ninth of Tishrei; therefore, the verse states 鈥渁t evening.鈥 If the Torah had stated only 鈥渁t evening,鈥 one might have thought that the fast starts only when darkness falls; therefore, the verse states 鈥渙n the ninth,鈥 implying that one begins to fast on the ninth of Tishrei. How can these verses be reconciled? One begins to fast while it is still daytime; from here it is derived that one sanctifies and extends from the non-sacred weekday to the sacred day of Yom Kippur.

讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘讻谞讬住转讜 讘讬爪讬讗转讜 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪注专讘 注讚 注专讘 讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 (讬诪讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐) 诪谞讬讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 转砖讘转讜 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 (讬诪讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐 砖讘转讜转) 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖讘转讻诐 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 砖讘讜转 (诪讻讗谉 砖)诪讜住讬驻讬谉 诪讞讜诇 注诇 讛拽讜讚砖

I have derived only that one must add time at the beginning of Yom Kippur. From where do I derive that one adds time at the conclusion of Yom Kippur? The verse states: 鈥淔rom evening until evening鈥 (Leviticus 23:32),implying that one adds at the end as well, just as he does at the beginning. And I have derived only the mitzva of adding to Yom Kippur; from where is it derived that one must also sanctify and append time before and after Festivals? The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall rest鈥 (Leviticus 23:32), to teach that this rule applies even to Festivals, on which one is commanded to rest. I have derived only that one adds an extension to Festivals; from where do I derive that one must also sanctify and append to Shabbatot? The verse states: 鈥淵our Shabbat鈥 (Leviticus 23:32). How so? Every place the term: Rest [shevut] is stated, it teaches from here that one sanctifies and appends from the non-sacred weekday to the sacred.

讜转谞讗 讚注爪诐 注爪诐 讛讗讬 讘转砖注讛 诇讞讜讚砖 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 诪讚讬驻转讬 讚转谞讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 诪讚讬驻转讬 讜注谞讬转诐 讗转 谞驻砖讜转讬讻诐 讘转砖注讛 讜讻讬 讘转砖注讛 诪转注谞讬谉 讜讛诇讗 讘注砖讜专 诪转注谞讬谉 讗诇讗 诇讜诪专 诇讱 讻诇 讛讗讜讻诇 讜砖讜转讛 讘转砖讬注讬 诪注诇讛 注诇讬讜 讛讻转讜讘 讻讗讬诇讜 讛转注谞讛 转砖讬注讬 讜注砖讬专讬

The Gemara asks: And the tanna who learns a verbal analogy from the words 鈥渢hat same day,鈥 鈥渢hat same day,鈥 what does he do with the phrase: 鈥淥n the ninth day of the month鈥? The Gemara answers: He requires it, in accordance with that which 岣yya bar Rav of Difti taught. As 岣yya bar Rav of Difti taught: It states: 鈥淎nd you shall afflict your souls on the ninth day of the month鈥 (Leviticus 23:32). But does one afflict oneself on the ninth of Tishrei? Doesn鈥檛 one in fact afflict oneself on the tenth of Tishrei? Rather, the verse comes to tell you: Anyone who eats and drinks on the ninth of Tishrei and then fasts on the tenth, the verse ascribes him credit as though he fasted on both the ninth and the tenth. The verse alludes to this when it states that the fast is on the ninth.

讗讻诇 讗讜讻诇讬谉 砖讗讬谉 专讗讜讬谉 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻住 驻诇驻诇讬 讘讬讜诪讗 讚讻驻讜专讬 驻讟讜专 讻住 讝谞讙讘讬诇讗 讘讬讜诪讗 讚讻驻讜专讬 驻讟讜专

搂 It was taught in the mishna: If one ate food that is not fit for eating, he is exempt. Rava said: If one chews raw pepper on Yom Kippur, he is exempt, since this is not considered eating. Similarly, if one chews ginger [zangvila] on Yom Kippur, he is exempt.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 诪诪砖诪注 砖谞讗诪专 讜注专诇转诐 注专诇转讜 讗转 驻专讬讜 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 砖注抓 诪讗讻诇 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注抓 诪讗讻诇 注抓 砖讟注诐 注爪讜 讜驻专讬讜 砖讜讛 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 驻诇驻诇讬谉 诇诇诪讚讱 砖讛驻诇驻诇讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘注专诇讛 讜讗讬谉 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讞住专讛 讻诇讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 转讞住专 讻诇 讘讛

The Gemara raises an objection to this. Rabbi Meir would say about the verse: 鈥淎nd when you shall come into the land, and shall have planted all manner of trees for food, then you shall count the fruit of it as forbidden [orla]; three years it shall be forbidden to you, it shall not be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 19:23). From the implication of what is stated: 鈥淭hen you shall count the fruit of it as forbidden,鈥 do I not know that the verse is referring to 鈥渢rees for food,鈥 since it uses the word 鈥渇ruit鈥? Rather, what is the meaning when the verse states 鈥渢rees for food鈥? It includes a tree whose wood and fruit taste the same, i.e., a tree that is itself eaten in addition to its fruit. One must say that this is referring to pepper that grows on a tree, to teach you that even pepper is subject to the halakha of orla. And this also teaches that Eretz Yisrael lacks nothing, as even pepper can grow there, as it is stated among the listed praises of Eretz Yisrael: 鈥淵ou will not lack anything in it鈥 (Deuteronomy 8:9). In any event, it has been derived that pepper is called food, which contradicts Rava鈥檚 statement.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘专讟讬讘转讗 讜讛讗 讘讬讘讬砖转讗

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This statement about edible pepper is referring to fresh pepper, which is moist; and that halakha pertaining to Yom Kippur is referring to dry pepper, which is not considered food.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇诪专讬诪专 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讗讬 讛讬诪诇转讗 讚讗转讬 诪讘讬 讛谞讚讜讗讬 砖专讬讗 讜诪讘专讻讬谞谉 注诇讬讛 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛讗讚诪讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘专讟讬讘转讗 讜讛讗 讘讬讘讬砖转讗

Ravina said to Mareimar: But didn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an say that it is permitted to eat this cooked ginger [himalta] that comes from India, and there is no concern that gentiles may have cooked it. And we recite the blessing: Who creates the fruit of the ground, over it. Apparently, ginger is edible. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult: This statement is referring to wet ginger, which is considered food; and that earlier statement pertaining to Yom Kippur, which maintained that ginger is not food, is referring to dry ginger.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讻诇 注诇讬 拽谞讬诐 驻讟讜专 诇讜诇讘讬 讙驻谞讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讜 讛谉 诇讜诇讘讬 讙驻谞讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪讙讚诇讗讛 讻诇 砖诇讘诇讘讜 诪专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讜注讚 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讜专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 讻诇 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪讙讚诇讗讛 讗讻诇 注诇讬 拽谞讬诐 驻讟讜专 讜诇讜诇讘讬 讙驻谞讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讜 讛谉 诇讜诇讘讬 讙驻谞讬诐 讻诇 砖诇讘诇讘讜 诪专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讜注讚 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐

The Sages taught in a baraita: If one ate leaves of reeds on Yom Kippur, he is exempt, but if one ate grapevine shoots he is liable. The Gemara clarifies: What are these grapevine shoots? Rabbi Yitz岣k from the city of Migdal said: All shoots that sprouted between Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur and are still very soft are considered food. And Rav Kahana said: All shoots that sprouted up to thirty days before Yom Kippur are considered food. The Gemara comments: It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yitz岣k from Migdal: If one ate leaves of reeds he is exempt, but if one ate grapevine shoots he is liable. What are these grapevine shoots? They are all those that sprouted between Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur.

砖转讛 爪讬专 讗讜 诪讜专讬讬住 驻讟讜专 讛讗 讞讜诪抓 讞讬讬讘 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讞讜诪抓 诪砖讬讘 讗转 讛谞驻砖

It was taught in the mishna that if on Yom Kippur one drank fish brine or the briny liquid in which fish are pickled, he is exempt. The Gemara comments: From the language of the mishna it may be inferred that if one drank vinegar, he is liable. Who is the tanna of the mishna? It is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Vinegar revives the spirit and is therefore considered a beverage.

讚专砖 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讘专 诪谞砖讛 诪讘讬专讬 讚谞专砖 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 诇砖谞讛 谞驻拽讬 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪讝讙讜 讜砖转讜 讞诇讗 砖诪注 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讜讗讬拽驻讚 讗诪专 讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专讬 讗谞讗 讚讬注讘讚 诇讻转讞诇讛 诪讬 讗诪专讬 讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专讬 讗谞讗 驻讜专转讗 讟讜讘讗 诪讬 讗诪专讬 讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专讬 讗谞讗 讞讬 诪讝讜讙 诪讬 讗诪专讬

The Gemara relates: Rav Giddel bar Menashe from the town of Birei DeNeresh taught in a public lecture that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and vinegar is not considered a beverage. The next year everyone went out and mixed vinegar with water and drank vinegar on Yom Kippur. Rav Giddel heard this and became angry with them for their actions. He said: Say that I said one is not liable for drinking vinegar only after the fact; however, did I say it is permitted to drink it ab initio? Furthermore: Say that I said my statement with regard to one who drinks a little, but did I say it is permitted to drink a lot? Furthermore: Say that I said my statement in reference to pure vinegar, which is very strong, but did I say anything about diluted vinegar? That is certainly prohibited.

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 learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 81

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yoma 81

砖讻讜住住 砖注讜专讬诐 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 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

who chews on barley of teruma that has not been ground or baked pays the principal and not an extra fifth. The reason is that it states 鈥渆ats鈥 (Leviticus 22:14), which excludes one who harms himself. Consuming raw barley is considered self-harm, not eating.

讗诪专 专讘 砖讬讝讘讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讝专 砖讘诇注 砖讝驻讬谉 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讜讛拽讬讗谉 讜讗讻诇谉 讗讞专 专讗砖讜谉 诪砖诇诐 (讗转) 拽专谉 讜讞讜诪砖 砖谞讬 讗讬谉 诪砖诇诐 讗诇讗 讚诪讬 注爪讬诐 诇专讗砖讜谉 讘诇讘讚

Rav Sheizvi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: In the case of a non-priest who swallowed plums of teruma whole and vomited them out, whereupon another person ate them, the first one pays the principal plus a fifth. When the first one benefited from the plums, he acquired them and must therefore pay for them, and the second one must pay their worth to the first one. Since they are only fit for fuel after the first one vomited them out, the second person is considered to have damaged their value as fuel. Therefore, he pays only the price of wood, i.e., fuel, to the first person.

讛讗讜讻诇 讜讛砖讜转讛 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讘诪讞诇讜拽转 砖谞讜讬讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讻诇诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讻诇 砖讟讜诪讗转讜 讜砖讬注讜专讜 砖讜讛 诪爪讟专祝

搂 It was taught in the mishna that food and drink do not combine. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught this? Rav 岣sda said: This halakha is taught as a dispute, and the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua. As we learned in a mishna: Rabbi Yehoshua stated a general principle: Any item that is identical to another item in its type of ritual impurity, e.g., impurity that lasts only until evening, and its measure for impurity, e.g., an olive-bulk, combines with the other item to reach one measure to render other items impure. Therefore, two half olive-bulk pieces of two corpses or of two animal carcasses, or two half lentil-bulk pieces from two creeping animals all combine to render other items impure.

讟讜诪讗转讜 讜诇讗 砖讬注讜专讜 砖讬注讜专讜 讜诇讗 讟讜诪讗转讜 诇讗 讟讜诪讗转讜 讜诇讗 砖讬注讜专讜 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉

However, if one item is identical to another in its ritual impurity but not its measure, e.g., half a lentil-bulk of a creeping animal and half an olive-bulk of an animal carcass, which both impart impurity until nightfall; or if its measure is identical but not its type of ritual impurity, e.g., half an olive-bulk from a corpse, which imparts impurity for seven days, and half an olive-bulk from an animal carcass, which imparts impurity until nightfall; and all the more so, when neither its ritual impurity nor its measure are identical, then the items do not combine. Here, too, although both eating and drinking are prohibited on their own, they do not combine because they do not have the same measure that imparts impurity.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗 讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讛转诐 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讚砖诐 讟讜诪讗讛 讞讚 讛讬讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讬转讜讘讬 讚注转讗 讛讜讗 讜讛讗讬 诇讗 诪讬转讘讗 讚注转讬讛

Rav Na岣an said: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, until now we have heard the Rabbis say there that items with different measures combine only with respect to ritual impurity. Since the phenomenon of ritual impurity is one concept, different types combine. But here, in the case of Yom Kippur, the measure that determines liability is set due to settling the mind, and this combination of eating and drinking together does not settle the mind.

讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讘诪讞诇讜拽转 砖谞讜讬讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讻诇诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讻讜壮 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讛转诐 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讬转讜讘讬 讚注转讬讛 讛讜讗 讜讛讗讬 诇讗 拽讗 诪讬转讘讗 讚注转讬讛

And similarly, Reish Lakish said: This question of whether food and drink combine to reach a measure that determines liability on Yom Kippur is taught as a dispute. The approach brought in the mishna that states that they do not combine is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, as we learned in a mishna: Rabbi Yehoshua stated a general principle with regard to whether items with different types of impurity and measures combine, as Rav 岣sda explained above. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said in accordance with the opinion of Rav Na岣an: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, until now we have heard the Rabbis say there that items with different measures combine only with regard to ritual impurity. But here, in the case of Yom Kippur, the measure that determines liability is set due to settling the mind, and this combination of eating and drinking together does not settle the mind.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讻诇 讜砖转讛 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞讚 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讞讟讗转 讗讞转 讗讻诇 讜注砖讛 诪诇讗讻讛 讞讬讬讘 (砖谞讬) 讞讟讗讜转 讗讻诇 讗讜讻诇讬谉 砖讗讬谞谉 专讗讜讬谉 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讜砖转讛 诪砖拽讬谉 砖讗讬谞谉 专讗讜讬谉 诇砖转讬讛 讜砖转讛 爪讬专 讗讜 诪讜专讬讬住 驻讟讜专

MISHNA: If one ate and drank unwittingly within one lapse of awareness, e.g., he forgot that it is Yom Kippur, he is liable to bring only one sin-offering. However, if he ate and performed labor unwittingly, he is liable to bring two sin-offerings, as by doing so he violated two separate prohibitions. If he ate foods that are not fit for eating, or drank liquids that are not fit for drinking, or drank fish brine or the briny liquid in which fish are pickled, he is exempt, as that is not the typical manner of eating or drinking.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 诇讗 谞讗诪专讛 讗讝讛专讛 讘注讬谞讜讬 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 讛讬讻讬 谞讻转讜讘 谞讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讗讻讬诇讛 讘讻讝讬转 谞讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转注讜谞讛 拽讜诐 讗讻讜诇 诪砖诪注

GEMARA: Reish Lakish said: Why is there no warning stated about affliction; why did the Torah not state explicitly that it is prohibited to eat and drink on Yom Kippur? It is because it was not possible to write it that way. The Gemara explains: How could the Merciful One write it? Let the Merciful One write: One shall not eat on Yom Kippur. The term eat prohibits eating the amount of an olive-bulk, whereas on Yom Kippur the actual prohibited measure is a large date-bulk. Let the Merciful One write: Do not be afflicted. That indicates the opposite of affliction, and would mean: Get up and eat. Therefore, it is written: 鈥淔or whatsoever soul it be that shall not be afflicted on that same day, he shall be cut off from his people鈥 (Leviticus 23:29).

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 谞讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讛砖诪专 驻谉 诇讗 转注讜谞讛 讗诐 讻谉 谞驻讬砖讬 诇讛讜 诇讗讜讬

Rav Hoshaya strongly objects to this: Let the Merciful One write it in this manner: Guard yourself lest you not be afflicted. The Gemara answers: If so, there would be too many negative mitzvot, as the following are all expressions of prohibition: Guard, lest, and not. One would then say that there are three prohibitions against eating.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讘专 讗讘讬讬 谞讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讛砖诪专 讘诪爪讜转 注讬谞讜讬 讗诐 讻谉 讛砖诪专 讚诇讗讜 诇讗讜 讛砖诪专 讚注砖讛 注砖讛 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 谞讻转讜讘 讗诇 转住讜专 诪谉 讛注讬谞讜讬 拽砖讬讗

Rav Beivai bar Abaye strongly objects to this: Let the Merciful One write: Guard yourself in the mitzva of affliction. The Gemara rejects this: If so, there is a principle: If the words guard yourself are written about a prohibition, it is considered to be a prohibition; if the words guard yourself are written about a positive mitzva, it is considered to be a positive mitzva. Had the Torah written it that way, one would understand that there is a positive mitzva of affliction, but there is no element of prohibition. Rav Ashi strongly objects to this: Let the Merciful One write: Do not stray from afflicting yourself, which would imply a negative mitzva. The Gemara says: Indeed, this is difficult. The Gemara concedes that it could have been written in this manner.

讜转谞讗 诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 诪讛讻讗 讜注谞讬转诐 讗转 谞驻砖讜转讬讻诐 讜讻诇 诪诇讗讻讛 诇讗 转注砖讜 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 注谞讜砖 注诇 转讜住驻转 诪诇讗讻讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻诇 讛谞驻砖 讗砖专 转注砖讛 讻诇 诪诇讗讻讛 讘注爪诐 讛讬讜诐 讛讝讛 注诇 注讬爪讜诪讜 砖诇 讬讜诐 注谞讜砖 讻专转 讜讗讬谞讜 注谞讜砖 讻专转 注诇 转讜住驻转 诪诇讗讻讛

搂 With regard to the prohibitions against eating and labor, the Gemara says: And a tanna cites the prohibitions relating to affliction on Yom Kippur from here: It is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall afflict your souls, you shall do no manner of labor鈥 (Numbers 29:7). The Gemara considers: One might have thought that performing labor during the extension of the period of prohibition of labor, added before Yom Kippur actually begins, is punishable by karet. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd whatsoever soul it be that does any manner of labor on that same day鈥 (Leviticus 23:30), which teaches that performing labor on that very day is punishable by karet, but labor performed during the extension of the period of prohibition of labor is not punishable by karet.

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讗 注谞讜砖 讻专转 注诇 转讜住驻转 诪诇讗讻讛 讗讘诇 讬讛讗 注谞讜砖 讻专转 注诇 转讜住驻转 注讬谞讜讬 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讬 讻诇 讛谞驻砖 讗砖专 诇讗 转注讜谞讛 讘注爪诐 讛讬讜诐 讛讝讛 讜谞讻专转讛 注诇 注讬爪讜诪讜 砖诇 讬讜诐 注谞讜砖 讻专转 讜讗讬谞讜 注谞讜砖 讻专转 注诇 转讜住驻转 注讬谞讜讬

The baraita continues: One might have thought that performing labor during the extension of the period of prohibition of labor is not punishable by karet, but not afflicting oneself during the extension of the period of affliction is punishable by karet. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淔or whatsoever soul it be that shall not be afflicted on that same day, he shall be cut off from his people鈥 (Leviticus 23:29), which teaches that not afflicting oneself on that very day is punishable by karet, but not afflicting oneself during the extension of the period of affliction is not punishable by karet.

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讗 讘讻诇诇 注讜谞砖 讗讘诇 讬讛讗 诪讜讝讛专 注诇 转讜住驻转 诪诇讗讻讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻诇 诪诇讗讻讛 诇讗 转注砖讜 讘注爪诐 讛讬讜诐 讛讝讛 注诇 注讬爪讜诪讜 砖诇 讬讜诐 讛讜讗 诪讜讝讛专 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讜讝讛专 注诇 转讜住驻转 诪诇讗讻讛

The baraita continues: One might have thought that one who performs labor during the extension would not be included in the punishment of karet, but he would be warned against performing labor during the extension of the period of prohibition of labor with a prohibition incurring the punishment of lashes; therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall do no manner of labor on that same day鈥 (Leviticus 23:28). That teaches that he is warned not to perform labor on that very day, but he is not warned against performing labor during the extension of the period of prohibition of labor, and therefore he is not liable to receive lashes for doing so.

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讗 诪讜讝讛专 注诇 转讜住驻转 诪诇讗讻讛 讗讘诇 讬讛讗 诪讜讝讛专 注诇 转讜住驻转 注讬谞讜讬 讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 诪诇讗讻讛 砖谞讜讛讙转 讘砖讘转讜转 讜讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讬谞讜 诪讜讝讛专 注诇讬讛 注讬谞讜讬 砖讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讘砖讘转讜转 讜讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 诪讜讝讛专 注诇讬讜

The baraita continues: One might have thought: He would not be warned with regard to performing labor during the extension of the period of prohibition of labor that it is a prohibition that incurs lashes; but he would be warned with regard to not being in a state of affliction during the extension of the period of affliction that it is a prohibition that incurs lashes. However, that is incorrect, and it is learned from a logical derivation that it is not so: Just as with regard to labor, whose prohibition is observed on both Shabbatot and Festivals, one is not warned about the extension added to the day, is it not logical that with regard to affliction, which is not observed on Shabbatot and Festivals, he should not be warned about or liable to receive lashes for the extension?

讗讘诇 讗讝讛专讛 诇注讬谞讜讬 砖诇 讬讜诐 注爪诪讜 诇讗 诇诪讚谞讜 诪谞讬讬谉 诇讗 讬讗诪专 注讜谞砖 讘诪诇讗讻讛 讚讙诪专 诪注讬谞讜讬 讜诪讛 注讬谞讜讬 砖讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讘砖讘转讜转 讜讬讜诐 讟讜讘 注谞讜砖 讻专转 诪诇讗讻讛 砖谞讜讛讙转 讘砖讘转讜转 讜讬诪讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 诪讜驻谞讛 诇讛拽讬砖 讜诇讚讜谉 诪诪谞讜 讙讝专讛 砖讜讛 谞讗诪专 注讜谞砖 讘注讬谞讜讬 讜谞讗诪专 注讜谞砖 讘诪诇讗讻讛 诪讛 诪诇讗讻讛 诇讗 注谞砖 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讝讛讬专 讗祝 注讬谞讜讬 诇讗 注谞砖 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讝讛讬专

The baraita comments: But the warning about lashes during the very day itself we have not learned. From where is it derived? The Torah need not state the punishment of karet for performing labor, since one can learn it by logical derivation from the punishment of not being in a state of affliction, as follows: Just as the requirement of affliction, which is not observed on Shabbatot and Festivals, is punishable by karet on Yom Kippur, with regard to the prohibition of labor, which is observed on all Shabbatot and Festivals, is it not all the more so? If so, why is the punishment for labor stated explicitly? It is available to compare and learn a verbal analogy from it: A punishment with regard to affliction is stated, and a punishment with regard to labor is stated. Just as with regard to labor one is punished only if he was warned first with a negative mitzva, so too, with regard to affliction, one is punished only if he was warned.

讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇注讬谞讜讬 砖诇讗 讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 转讗诪专 讘诪诇讗讻讛 砖讛讜转专讛 诪讻诇诇讛

The Gemara rejects this: This comparison can be refuted. How so? Whereas affliction has no permitted exceptions from its general prohibition, as the mitzva to afflict oneself applies to all the Jewish people, what can you say with regard to labor, which has permitted exceptions from its general prohibition? It is permitted to perform the Temple services on Yom Kippur, which include prohibited labors, e.g., slaughtering animals and offering incense. Consequently, there is no proof that the mitzva of affliction is more lenient than the prohibition of labor.

讗诇讗 诇讗 讬讗诪专 注讜谞砖 讘注讬谞讜讬 讚讙诪专 诪诪诇讗讻讛 诪讛 诪诇讗讻讛 砖讛讜转专讛 诪讻诇诇讛 注谞讜砖 讻专转 注讬谞讜讬 砖诇讗 讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 诪讜驻谞讛 诇讛拽讬砖 讜诇讚讜谉 诪诪谞讛 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 谞讗诪专 注讜谞砖 讘注讬谞讜讬 讜谞讗诪专 注讜谞砖 讘诪诇讗讻讛 诪讛 诪诇讗讻讛 注谞砖 讜讛讝讛讬专 讗祝 注讬谞讜讬 注谞砖 讜讛讝讛讬专

Rather, say as follows: The Torah need not say the punishment for not being in a state of affliction, since one can learn it from the punishment for performing labor through an a fortiori inference. How so? Just as labor, for which exceptions from the general prohibition are permitted, e.g., performing the Temple service on Yom Kippur, and yet labor is punishable by karet, with regard to not being in a state of affliction, which has no permitted exceptions from its general prohibition, is it not all the more so that one who does not afflict himself should be liable to receive karet? If so, why is it nevertheless stated? It is available to compare and learn a verbal analogy: Punishment is stated with regard to affliction, and punishment is stated with regard to labor. Just as for labor the Torah punished and warned, so too, for affliction the Torah punished and warned.

讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇诪诇讗讻讛 砖讻谉 谞讜讛讙转 讘砖讘转讜转 讜讬诪讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐 转讗诪专 讘注讬谞讜讬 砖讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讘砖讘转讜转 讜讬诪讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐

The Gemara rejects this: This comparison can be refuted, and one might say the opposite: Whereas the prohibition of labor is observed on Shabbatot and Festivals, can you say the same about affliction, which is not observed on Shabbatot and Festivals?

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讛讗讬 转谞讗 注爪诐 注爪诐 讙诪专 诪讜驻谞讛 讚讗讬 诇讗 诪讜驻谞讛 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 讻讚驻专讻讬谞谉

Ravina said: We did not properly understand the teaching of this baraita, as this tanna derived a verbal analogy from the words 鈥渙n that same day鈥 (Leviticus 23:29) stated with regard to affliction, and 鈥渙n that same day鈥 (Leviticus 23:28) stated with regard to labor. The Gemara comments: We must say that it is available, meaning that in both places, the phrase 鈥渙n that same day鈥 is unnecessary within its own context and comes only to teach this verbal analogy; as, if it were not available, it could be refuted, as we refuted it above.

诇讗讬讬 讗驻谞讜讬讬 诪讜驻谞讛 讞诪砖讛 拽专讗讬 讻转讬讘讬 讘诪诇讗讻讛 讞讚 诇讗讝讛专讛 讚讬诪诪讗 讜讞讚 诇讗讝讛专讛 讚诇讬诇讬讗 讜讞讚 诇注讜谞砖 讚讬诪诪讗 讜讞讚 诇注讜谞砖 讚诇讬诇讬讗 讜讞讚 诇讗驻谞讜讬讬 诇诪讙诪专 注讬谞讜讬 诪诪诇讗讻讛 讘讬谉 讚讬诪诪讗 讘讬谉 讚诇讬诇讬讗

The Gemara responds: No, it is certainly available, and we may learn from it, as five verses are written with regard to the prohibition of labor on Yom Kippur. One to teach a warning with regard to the prohibition of labor on the day of Yom Kippur itself; and one for a warning with regard to labor on the night of Yom Kippur; and one for the punishment of karet for performing labor on the day; and one for the punishment for performing labor at night; and one verse to be available to derive the requirement of affliction from the prohibition of labor, both during the day and night, using a verbal analogy.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 转谞讗 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 注讬谞讜讬 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 注讬谞讜讬 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诇讗 注谞砖 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讝讛讬专 讗祝 讻讗谉 诇讗 注谞砖 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讝讛讬专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 讬诇讬祝 砖讘转 砖讘转讜谉 诪砖讘转 讘专讗砖讬转 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诇讗 注谞砖 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讝讛讬专 讗祝 讻讗谉 诇讗 注谞砖 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讝讛讬专

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught an alternative verbal analogy for the derivation: 鈥淎ffliction鈥 is stated here, with regard to Yom Kippur, and 鈥渁ffliction鈥 is stated later, with regard to a man who rapes a woman: 鈥淏ecause he has afflicted his neighbor鈥檚 wife鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:24). Just as there, in the case of rape, the Torah did not punish unless there was prior warning, so too here, in the case of Yom Kippur, the Torah did not punish unless there was prior warning. Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said a different proof: Derive a verbal analogy from the words 鈥淪habbat of solemn rest鈥 (Leviticus 16:31) written with regard to Yom Kippur from the words 鈥淪habbat of solemn rest鈥 (Exodus 31:15, 32:5; Leviticus 23:3) written with regard to the weekly Shabbat, which commemorates the Shabbat of Creation. Just as there, in the case of Shabbat, the Torah did not punish unless there was prior warning, so too here, in the case of Yom Kippur, the Torah did not punish unless there was prior warning.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专

Rav Pappa said:

讛讜讗 讙讜驻讬讛 砖讘转 讗讬拽专讬 讚讻转讬讘 转砖讘转讜 砖讘转讻诐 讘砖诇诪讗 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讚拽专讗 讚讻转讬讘 讘讙讜驻讬讛 注讚讬祝 讗诇讗 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘 驻驻讗

Yom Kippur itself is called 鈥淪habbat,鈥 as it is written: 鈥淔rom evening until evening, you shall rest on your Shabbat鈥 (Leviticus 23:32). The Gemara compares the various opinions. Granted, Rav Pappa did not say as Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov did because a verse that is written about the matter itself is preferable to a verbal analogy. But what is the reason that Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov did not state his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappa?

诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讜注谞讬转诐 讗转 谞驻砖讜转讬讻诐 讘转砖注讛 诇讞讜讚砖 讬讻讜诇 讬转讞讬诇 讜讬转注谞讛 讘转砖注讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘注专讘 讗讬 讘注专讘 讬讻讜诇 诪砖转讞砖讱 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘转砖注讛 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 诪转讞讬诇 讜诪转注谞讛 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 诪讻讗谉 砖诪讜住讬驻讬谉 诪讞讜诇 注诇 讛拽讜讚砖

The Gemara answers: He requires this verse of 鈥渒eep your Shabbat鈥 for that which was taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall afflict your souls on the ninth day of the month at evening, from evening until evening, you shall rest on your Shabbat鈥 (Leviticus 23:32). One might have thought that one should start to afflict oneself on the ninth of Tishrei; therefore, the verse states 鈥渁t evening.鈥 If the Torah had stated only 鈥渁t evening,鈥 one might have thought that the fast starts only when darkness falls; therefore, the verse states 鈥渙n the ninth,鈥 implying that one begins to fast on the ninth of Tishrei. How can these verses be reconciled? One begins to fast while it is still daytime; from here it is derived that one sanctifies and extends from the non-sacred weekday to the sacred day of Yom Kippur.

讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘讻谞讬住转讜 讘讬爪讬讗转讜 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪注专讘 注讚 注专讘 讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 (讬诪讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐) 诪谞讬讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 转砖讘转讜 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 (讬诪讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐 砖讘转讜转) 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖讘转讻诐 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 砖讘讜转 (诪讻讗谉 砖)诪讜住讬驻讬谉 诪讞讜诇 注诇 讛拽讜讚砖

I have derived only that one must add time at the beginning of Yom Kippur. From where do I derive that one adds time at the conclusion of Yom Kippur? The verse states: 鈥淔rom evening until evening鈥 (Leviticus 23:32),implying that one adds at the end as well, just as he does at the beginning. And I have derived only the mitzva of adding to Yom Kippur; from where is it derived that one must also sanctify and append time before and after Festivals? The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall rest鈥 (Leviticus 23:32), to teach that this rule applies even to Festivals, on which one is commanded to rest. I have derived only that one adds an extension to Festivals; from where do I derive that one must also sanctify and append to Shabbatot? The verse states: 鈥淵our Shabbat鈥 (Leviticus 23:32). How so? Every place the term: Rest [shevut] is stated, it teaches from here that one sanctifies and appends from the non-sacred weekday to the sacred.

讜转谞讗 讚注爪诐 注爪诐 讛讗讬 讘转砖注讛 诇讞讜讚砖 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 诪讚讬驻转讬 讚转谞讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 诪讚讬驻转讬 讜注谞讬转诐 讗转 谞驻砖讜转讬讻诐 讘转砖注讛 讜讻讬 讘转砖注讛 诪转注谞讬谉 讜讛诇讗 讘注砖讜专 诪转注谞讬谉 讗诇讗 诇讜诪专 诇讱 讻诇 讛讗讜讻诇 讜砖讜转讛 讘转砖讬注讬 诪注诇讛 注诇讬讜 讛讻转讜讘 讻讗讬诇讜 讛转注谞讛 转砖讬注讬 讜注砖讬专讬

The Gemara asks: And the tanna who learns a verbal analogy from the words 鈥渢hat same day,鈥 鈥渢hat same day,鈥 what does he do with the phrase: 鈥淥n the ninth day of the month鈥? The Gemara answers: He requires it, in accordance with that which 岣yya bar Rav of Difti taught. As 岣yya bar Rav of Difti taught: It states: 鈥淎nd you shall afflict your souls on the ninth day of the month鈥 (Leviticus 23:32). But does one afflict oneself on the ninth of Tishrei? Doesn鈥檛 one in fact afflict oneself on the tenth of Tishrei? Rather, the verse comes to tell you: Anyone who eats and drinks on the ninth of Tishrei and then fasts on the tenth, the verse ascribes him credit as though he fasted on both the ninth and the tenth. The verse alludes to this when it states that the fast is on the ninth.

讗讻诇 讗讜讻诇讬谉 砖讗讬谉 专讗讜讬谉 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻住 驻诇驻诇讬 讘讬讜诪讗 讚讻驻讜专讬 驻讟讜专 讻住 讝谞讙讘讬诇讗 讘讬讜诪讗 讚讻驻讜专讬 驻讟讜专

搂 It was taught in the mishna: If one ate food that is not fit for eating, he is exempt. Rava said: If one chews raw pepper on Yom Kippur, he is exempt, since this is not considered eating. Similarly, if one chews ginger [zangvila] on Yom Kippur, he is exempt.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 诪诪砖诪注 砖谞讗诪专 讜注专诇转诐 注专诇转讜 讗转 驻专讬讜 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 砖注抓 诪讗讻诇 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注抓 诪讗讻诇 注抓 砖讟注诐 注爪讜 讜驻专讬讜 砖讜讛 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 驻诇驻诇讬谉 诇诇诪讚讱 砖讛驻诇驻诇讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘注专诇讛 讜讗讬谉 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讞住专讛 讻诇讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 转讞住专 讻诇 讘讛

The Gemara raises an objection to this. Rabbi Meir would say about the verse: 鈥淎nd when you shall come into the land, and shall have planted all manner of trees for food, then you shall count the fruit of it as forbidden [orla]; three years it shall be forbidden to you, it shall not be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 19:23). From the implication of what is stated: 鈥淭hen you shall count the fruit of it as forbidden,鈥 do I not know that the verse is referring to 鈥渢rees for food,鈥 since it uses the word 鈥渇ruit鈥? Rather, what is the meaning when the verse states 鈥渢rees for food鈥? It includes a tree whose wood and fruit taste the same, i.e., a tree that is itself eaten in addition to its fruit. One must say that this is referring to pepper that grows on a tree, to teach you that even pepper is subject to the halakha of orla. And this also teaches that Eretz Yisrael lacks nothing, as even pepper can grow there, as it is stated among the listed praises of Eretz Yisrael: 鈥淵ou will not lack anything in it鈥 (Deuteronomy 8:9). In any event, it has been derived that pepper is called food, which contradicts Rava鈥檚 statement.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘专讟讬讘转讗 讜讛讗 讘讬讘讬砖转讗

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This statement about edible pepper is referring to fresh pepper, which is moist; and that halakha pertaining to Yom Kippur is referring to dry pepper, which is not considered food.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇诪专讬诪专 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讗讬 讛讬诪诇转讗 讚讗转讬 诪讘讬 讛谞讚讜讗讬 砖专讬讗 讜诪讘专讻讬谞谉 注诇讬讛 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛讗讚诪讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘专讟讬讘转讗 讜讛讗 讘讬讘讬砖转讗

Ravina said to Mareimar: But didn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an say that it is permitted to eat this cooked ginger [himalta] that comes from India, and there is no concern that gentiles may have cooked it. And we recite the blessing: Who creates the fruit of the ground, over it. Apparently, ginger is edible. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult: This statement is referring to wet ginger, which is considered food; and that earlier statement pertaining to Yom Kippur, which maintained that ginger is not food, is referring to dry ginger.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讻诇 注诇讬 拽谞讬诐 驻讟讜专 诇讜诇讘讬 讙驻谞讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讜 讛谉 诇讜诇讘讬 讙驻谞讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪讙讚诇讗讛 讻诇 砖诇讘诇讘讜 诪专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讜注讚 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讜专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 讻诇 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪讙讚诇讗讛 讗讻诇 注诇讬 拽谞讬诐 驻讟讜专 讜诇讜诇讘讬 讙驻谞讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讜 讛谉 诇讜诇讘讬 讙驻谞讬诐 讻诇 砖诇讘诇讘讜 诪专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讜注讚 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐

The Sages taught in a baraita: If one ate leaves of reeds on Yom Kippur, he is exempt, but if one ate grapevine shoots he is liable. The Gemara clarifies: What are these grapevine shoots? Rabbi Yitz岣k from the city of Migdal said: All shoots that sprouted between Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur and are still very soft are considered food. And Rav Kahana said: All shoots that sprouted up to thirty days before Yom Kippur are considered food. The Gemara comments: It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yitz岣k from Migdal: If one ate leaves of reeds he is exempt, but if one ate grapevine shoots he is liable. What are these grapevine shoots? They are all those that sprouted between Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur.

砖转讛 爪讬专 讗讜 诪讜专讬讬住 驻讟讜专 讛讗 讞讜诪抓 讞讬讬讘 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讞讜诪抓 诪砖讬讘 讗转 讛谞驻砖

It was taught in the mishna that if on Yom Kippur one drank fish brine or the briny liquid in which fish are pickled, he is exempt. The Gemara comments: From the language of the mishna it may be inferred that if one drank vinegar, he is liable. Who is the tanna of the mishna? It is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Vinegar revives the spirit and is therefore considered a beverage.

讚专砖 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讘专 诪谞砖讛 诪讘讬专讬 讚谞专砖 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 诇砖谞讛 谞驻拽讬 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪讝讙讜 讜砖转讜 讞诇讗 砖诪注 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讜讗讬拽驻讚 讗诪专 讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专讬 讗谞讗 讚讬注讘讚 诇讻转讞诇讛 诪讬 讗诪专讬 讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专讬 讗谞讗 驻讜专转讗 讟讜讘讗 诪讬 讗诪专讬 讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专讬 讗谞讗 讞讬 诪讝讜讙 诪讬 讗诪专讬

The Gemara relates: Rav Giddel bar Menashe from the town of Birei DeNeresh taught in a public lecture that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and vinegar is not considered a beverage. The next year everyone went out and mixed vinegar with water and drank vinegar on Yom Kippur. Rav Giddel heard this and became angry with them for their actions. He said: Say that I said one is not liable for drinking vinegar only after the fact; however, did I say it is permitted to drink it ab initio? Furthermore: Say that I said my statement with regard to one who drinks a little, but did I say it is permitted to drink a lot? Furthermore: Say that I said my statement in reference to pure vinegar, which is very strong, but did I say anything about diluted vinegar? That is certainly prohibited.

Scroll To Top