Yoma — Daf 80a

כל השיעורין כולן בכזית חוץ מטומאת אוכלין ששינה הכתוב במשמען ושינו חכמים בשיעורן וראיה לדבר יוה"כ מאי שינה הכתוב במשמעו (ויקרא כג, כט) מלא תעונה ומאי שינו חכמים בשיעוריה ככותבת

ומאי ראיה לדבר יוה"כ דאי מהתם הוה אמינא אורחא דקרא הוא

טומאת אוכלין כביצה מנלן א"ר אבהו א"ר אלעזר דאמר קרא (ויקרא יא, לד) מכל האוכל אשר יאכל אוכל הבא מחמת אוכל ואיזה זה ביצת תרנגולת ואימא גדי מחוסר שחיטה ואימא בן פקועה טעון קריעה

ואימא ביצת בר יוכני תפסת מרובה לא תפסת תפסת מועט תפסת ואימא ביעתא דציפורתא דזוטר טובא

רבי אבהו דידיה אמר מכל האוכל אשר יאכל אוכל שאתה אוכלו בבת אחת ושיערו חכמים אין בית הבליעה מחזיק יותר מביצת תרנגולת

א"ר אלעזר האוכל חלב בזמן הזה צריך שיכתוב לו שיעור שמא יבא בית דין אחר וירבה בשיעורין

מאי ירבה בשיעורין אי נימא דמחייבי קרבן אכזית קטן והתניא (ויקרא ד, כב) אשר לא תעשינה בשגגה ואשם השב מידיעתו מביא קרבן על שגגתו

לא שב מידיעתו אין מביא קרבן על שגגתו

אלא דלא מחייבי קרבן עד דאיכא כזית גדול

ולמאי דסליק אדעתיה מעיקרא דמחייבי קרבן אכזית קטן מאי ירבה בשיעורין שמא ירבה בקרבנות מחמת שעורין

א"ר יוחנן שיעורין ועונשין הלכה למשה מסיני עונשין מכתב כתיבי אלא ה"ק (אמר רבי יוחנן) שיעורים של עונשין הלכה למשה מסיני

תניא נמי הכי שיעורין של עונשין הלכה למשה מסיני אחרים אומרים בית דינו של יעבץ תיקנום והכתיב (ויקרא כז, לד) אלה המצות שאין נביא רשאי לחדש דבר מעתה אלא שכחום וחזרו ויסדום

השותה מלא לוגמיו אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל לא מלא לוגמיו ממש אלא כל שאילו יסלקנו לצד אחד ויראה כמלא לוגמיו והא אנן תנן מלא לוגמיו אימא כמלא לוגמיו

מיתיבי כמה ישתה ויהא חייב בש"א רביעית ובה"א מלא לוגמיו רבי יהודה אומר משום ר"א כמלא לוגמיו רבי יהודה בן בתירא אומר כדי גמיעה

מי עדיפא ממתניתין דאוקימנא כדי שיראה הכי נמי כדי שיראה אי הכי היינו ר"א איכא בינייהו מלא לוגמיו דחוק

מתקיף לה רב הושעיא אם כן הוה ליה מקולי ב"ש ומחומרי ב"ה אמר ליה

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.1 What is the change in the usual expression in connection therewith? — [It follows] from: [For whatsoever soul it be that] shall not be afflicted.2 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?3 One could have replied: Here it is the usual Scriptural expression. 4 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,5 i.e., food6 derived from food, and that is an egg of a hen. But say it is a kid? That still requires slaughtering.7 But say it is an animal taken alive out of the slaughtered mother's womb?8 — That still requires cutting open.9 Then say: the egg of bar-yokani?10 — 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’.11 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,12 he must put down [make a note of] the quantity, because another Rabbinical Court may come and increase the measures.13 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.14 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.15 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 Jabetz16 fixed them. But Scripture said: These are the commandments,17 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.18 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? 19 — He replied to him: the normal measure, the olive, the legal minimum with every forbidden food. of food on the Day of Atonement. In both cases change in expression is responsible for change in measure. Wherein, then, lies the reason for the Day of Atonement text being chosen as a proof? change in the usual expression alluded to, v. infra) would not appear an unusual expression. But ‘that shall not be afflicted’ for ‘that shall eat’ is indeed, unusual and thus accounts best for the change in measure determined by the Rabbis. still was, was slaughtered in accord with the rite, is considered ready food, since it does not require ritual slaughtering. blood. might render such decision. Hence one who is conscious of having eaten tallow may well take the precaution of putting down the exact quantity so as to be sure that his transgression does, or does not, involve the obligation of a sin-offering, in accord with the new enactment of the revived court. him, hence, was below the minimum required for a transgression to be constituted, hence he has not ‘found out his transgression’, and is not required to offer up a sacrifice in atonement of his sin. Tem. 16a. one cheek; according to R. Eliezer the appearance of an exact mouthful is required. more lenient, and Beth Hillel the more severe, view. If our text were right it should have been enumerated as an additional exception, because here too the usual attitudes of these two conflicting schools of learning are reversed, since Beth Hillel make him liable for what appears like a mouthful, which is less than the minimum required by Beth Shammai.