Parallel
יומא 80
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
All the legal standards [for foods] are the size of an olive, with the exception of that of the ritual defilement of foods, because there Scripture has used a different expression and the Sages accordingly have altered the standard. The proof for this view is furnished by the Day of Atonement. What is the change in the usual expression in connection therewith? — [It follows] from: [For whatsoever soul it be that] shall not be afflicted. And what is the change in the usual quantity the Sages have decreed here? — ‘As much as a date’. And what constitutes the proof from the Day of Atonement? One could have replied: Here it is the usual Scriptural expression. Whence do we know that the minimum for the ritual uncleanness of foods is the size of an egg? — Said R. Abbahu in the name of R. Eleazar: Scripture says, All food therein which may be eaten, i.e., food derived from food, and that is an egg of a hen. But say it is a kid? That still requires slaughtering. But say it is an animal taken alive out of the slaughtered mother's womb? — That still requires cutting open. Then say: the egg of bar-yokani? — If you take hold of too large a thing, you may lose your hold, but if you take hold of the lesser thing, you will retain your hold’. But say: the egg of a little bird, that is very small? — R. Abbahu said in his own name: ‘All food there in which may be eaten’, i.e.,food which you may eat in one swallowing; and the Sages measured that the esophagus cannot hold more than the size of a hen's egg. R. Eleazar said: If one has eaten tallow in these times, he must put down [make a note of] the quantity, because another Rabbinical Court may come and increase the measures. What does increase the measures mean? Would say you that they would declare one obliged to bring a sin-offering for having eaten the size of a small olive, but it was taught: When a ruler sinneth, and doeth through error any one of all the things [which the Lord his God hath commanded] not to be done, and is guilty. i.e., only he who repents when he finds out his transgression must bring a sacrifice, because of his error, but he who does not repent when he finds out his transgression, does not bring a sacrifice for his error. Rather, therefore, must [‘increase the measures’] signify that they would declare a sacrifice obligatory only when he had eaten a quantity as large as a large olive. But according to the first view, viz., that they could impose a sacrifice even for the quantity of a small olive, what does ‘increase the measure’ mean? — It might mean increase the number of sacrifices’ required because of the reduced minimum of the quantities. R. Johanan said: Standard measures and penalties are fixed by laws [communicated] to Moses on Sinai. But the penalties are written out in Scripture? — Rather: The minimum required for penalties is fixed by laws [communicated] to Moses on Sinai. It was also taught thus: The minima required for penalties are fixed by laws [communicated] to Moses on Sinai. Others say: The Court of Jabetz fixed them. But Scripture said: These are the commandments, which means that no prophet is permitted to introduce any new law from then on? — Rather: They were forgotten and then they established them anew. OR IF HE DRANK A MOUTHFUL. Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: Not really a mouthful, but so much that if he moves it to one side it looks like a mouthful. But we learned: A MOUTHFUL. — Say: ‘As much as A MOUTHFUL’! An objection was raised: ‘How much must one have drunk to become culpable? Beth Shammai say: One fourth [of a log], Beth Hillel say: One mouthful. R. Judah in the name of R. Eliezer says: As much as a mouthful. R. Judah b. Bathyra says: As much as can be swallowed at a time! Is this one better than our Mishnah which we explained as meaning: ‘That it look like a mouthful’, and this, too, we can explain: That it look like a mouthful. But if so, it is the same opinion as that of R. Eliezer? — There is a difference in the case of an exact mouthful. R. Hoshaiah demurred to this: If so, there would be a [another] case in which Beth Shammai took the more lenient view, and Beth Hillel the severer one? — He replied to him:
—
When this came up for discussion, it came up in connection with ‘Og, king of Bashan’, so that Beth Shammai will be found to take the severer view. — R. Zera asked a strong question: To what difference is it due that, with regard to eating, the minimum of a date was fixed for every one, whereas in the case of drinking each has [his minimum] in accord with his own [mouthful]? — Abaye replied to him: Regarding food the Rabbis established that with [the quantity of] a date a person may come to, but with a smaller quantity he will not come to; but with regard to drinking [they have found] that a man will come to with the quantity of his own [mouthful], but not with less than that. — R. Zera then asked another strong question: ‘All the world’ with a date and Og, the king of Bashan, also with a date? — Abaye replied: The Rabbis have ascertained that [touching food] the quantity [of a date] helps one to come to, but with a smaller quantity he will not come to; but, whereas all the world [can come to] more so, Og, king of Bashan, [only] somewhat so. R. Zera again asked another strong question: Fat meat in the quantity of one date and wine-branches also in the quantity of one date? — Abaye replied: The Rabbis have ascertained that one comes to with so much, but not with less; with [this quantity of] fat meat one becomes, however, more satisfied, whilst with the same quantity of wine-branches one becomes less so. Raba asked a strong question: The quantity of an olive, during the time one could eat a peras, — and the quantity of a date during the time required for eating a peras! — Abaye replied: The Rabbis have ascertained that if it [the eating of the quantity of a date] takes so long [as one could eat a peras] a person will come to, but if longer he will not come to. Raba asked another strong question: The quantity of a date, during the time required for the eating of a peras, and half a peras during the time required for the eating of a peras? — R. Papa answered: Leave alone the uncleanness of the body, which is not determined by Biblical law. But could R. Papa have answered thus? Is it not written: Neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby. and R. Papa said that from here is derived the Biblical origin of the [laws concerning] the body's becoming defiled [through unclean foods]? — It is really Rabbinical, and Scripture is quoted only as mere [mnemotechnical] aid. ALL FOODS COMPLEMENT ONE ANOTHER IN MAKING UP THE BULK OF A DATE. R. Papa said: If one ate a piece of raw meat with salt, they are joined; and although [salt] in itself is no food, since people eat [the two] together, they are joined. Resh Lakish said: The juice on the green [vegetables] joins so as to make up [with the vegetable] the [quantity of a] date in connection with the Day of Atonement. But that is self-evident? You might have said: It is drink, therefore he informs us that whatever is used for seasoning food is considered as food. Resh Lakish said: If one eats an excessive meal on the Day of Atonement, he is free from punishment. Why? Scripture said: That shall not be afflicted, and that excludes whatever causes harm. R. Jeremiah said in the name of Resh Lakish: If a non-priest eats excessively of terumah, he need pay but the principal, but not the [fine of the] additional fifth, for Scripture says: And if a man eat, which excluded one causing harm. R. Jeremiah said in the name of R. Johanan: A non-priest
—