Parallel
יומא 81:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
who chews barley-corns of terumah must pay the principal, but not the additional fifth, for Scripture said: ‘If a man eat’, that excludes one causing harm. R. Shezbi said in the name of R. Johanan: If a non-priest swallowed jujubes of terumah, and spat them out, and another one ate them, then the first pays the principal, and the fifth, whereas the second does not pay more than their wood [fuel] value. BUT WHAT A MAN EATS AND DRINKS DOES NOT GO TOGETHER. Who is the Tanna [of this part of the Mishnah]? — R. Hisda said: This has been taught under a controversy of opinion, and it is in accord with R. Joshua, for we learned: R. Joshua pronounced with principle: All foods are equal regarding the [duration of] their uncleanness and the quantity of them [required to convey uncleanness] combine; if they be equal only concerning the [duration of] their uncleanness, but not concerning the quantity of them [required to convey uncleanness]; or only regarding quantity, but not in the duration of uncleanness; or if they be equal neither in respect of [duration of] uncleanness nor quantity, they do not combine [to make up the minimum quantity which constitutes the transgression]. R. Nahman said: You may even say that [this part of our Mishnah is] in accord with the Rabbis. For the Rabbis [opposing R. Joshua] hold their view only touching uncleanness, because all are designated as ‘uncleanness’, but here the point involved is ‘coming to’, and this does not enable one to come to. Thus also did Resh Lakish say: This has been taught under the controversy of an opinion and our Mishnah is in accord with R. Joshua, for we were taught: R. Joshua pronounced a principle etc. but R. Johanan said: You may even say that our Mishnah is in accord with the Rabbis: There the Rabbis present their view only in connection with uncleanness, but here ‘coming to’ is the point, and this does not enable one to come to. MISHNAH. IF A MAN ATE AND DRANK IN ONE STATE OF UNAWARENESS, HE IS NOT OBLIGED TO BRING MORE THAN ONE SIN-OFFERING, BUT IF HE ATE AND PERFORMED LABOUR WHILE IN ONE STATE OF UNAWARENESS HE MUST OFFER UP TWO SIN-OFFERINGS. IF HE ATE FOODS UNFIT FOR FOOD, OR DRANK LIQUIDS UNFIT FOR DRINKING, OR DRANK BRINE OR FISH-BRINE, HE IS NOT CULPABLE. GEMARA. Resh Lakish said: Why is no explicit warning mentioned in connection with the commandment to afflict oneself? — Because it is impossible. For how shall the Divine Law word it? Were the Divine Law to write: ‘He shall not eat’? But ‘eating’ implies [the minimum size of] an olive. Shall the Divine Law write: ‘He shall not afflict himself’? That would mean: Go and eat! — R. Hoshaiah asked a strong question: Let the Divine Law write: ‘Take heed, lest thou dost not afflict thyself’! — That would mean several prohibitions. To this R. Bibi b. Abaye demurred: Let the Divine Law write: Take heed concerning the commandment of affliction! ‘Take heed’ implies a command, if attached to a command, and a prohibition, if attached to a prohibition. R. Ashi asked a strong question: Let the Divine Law write: Do not depart from affliction! — This is a difficulty. The following Tanna derives it [the prohibition relating to affliction] from here: And ye shall afflict your souls: ye shall do no manner of work. One might have assumed that the punishment [of extirpation] is involved for one who disregarded the addition by doing a labour, therefore Scripture said: For whatsoever soul it be that doeth any manner of work in that same day he shall be cut off, i.e., only for the [disregard of] that day itself is one punished with extirpation, but for labour performed during the additional time one is not punished with extirpation. One might have assumed that one does not incur punishment of extirpation by doing labour during the additional time, but that one does incur punishment of extirpation for failure to afflict oneself during the additional time, therefore the text reads: For whatsoever soul it be that shall not be afflicted in that same day he shall be cut off; that means for [failure of] afflicting [oneself on] the day itself does the penalty of extirpation come, but the penalty of extirpation does not result from failure to afflict oneself during the additional time. One might have assumed that one is not included in the penalty, but that one is under a warning against performing work during the additional time, therefore the text reads: And ye shall do no manner of work in that same day, i.e., one is warned concerning the day itself but not concerning [work done] during the additional time. One might have assumed that one is not under a warning concerning labour performed during the additional time, but one is under a warning concerning [failure of] affliction during the additional time; but a logical inference cancels that. For if in the case of labour, the prohibition of which applies on Sabbath and festival days, one is not under a warning [concerning additional time] then with regard to [the commandment of] affliction, which does not apply on Sabbath and festival days, how much more should one not be under a warning against it [during the additional time]! But we have not learnt [so far] of any explicit warning with regard to the [obligation to] affliction on the day itself, whence then do we derive [that required ‘warning’]? [From the following]: There was no necessity for stating the penalty resulting from the performance of labour, for that is inferable from the [commandment of] affliction. If [for failure of] affliction, which is not commanded on the Sabbath and festival days, one is punished with extirpation, then for the performance of labour [the prohibition of] which does apply on Sabbath and festival days, how much more shall [one be punished with extirpation]! Why then was [the penalty] stated? It is free for interpretation, hence it serves for comparison, to derive thence an inference from analogy of expression: the penalty is stated in connection with [the commandment of] affliction, and the penalty is stated in connection with the [prohibition of] labour, hence just as the performance of labour was punished only after warning, so also is [failure of] affliction punished only after warning. But against this it may be objected: The specific condition with affliction [which attaches a penalty to it] lies in the fact that no exception against the general rule was made here; but would you apply [the same] to the performance of labour seeing that in its case exceptions from the general rule were made? Rather [argue thus]: Let Scripture not mention any penalty in connection with [failure of] affliction, inferring it from the [prohibition of] labour. If [the performance of] labour, from the general prohibition of which some exceptions were made, involves the penalty of extirpation, how much more must [failure of] affliction, from the general prohibition of which no exception was made, involve such penalty? Then why does Scripture mention it? It is free for interpretation, hence it serves for comparison, to derive thence an inference from analogy of expression: the penalty is mentioned in connection with [failure of] affliction, and the same penalty is mentioned in connection with [the performance of] labour, hence just as [performance of] labour is punished only after warning, so is [the failure of] affliction punished only after warning. Against this may be objected: There is a specific condition in connection with labour [to which a penalty is attached] in that it is forbidden on Sabbath and festival days, but would you apply the same to [the commandment of] affliction seeing that does not apply on Sabbath and festival days? Rabina said: This Tanna infers it from the word ‘self-same’. Now it must be free, for if it were not free, the objection as above could be raised against it. Hence it indeed must be free. [Consider] there are five Scriptural verses written in connection with labour: one indicating the prohibition for the day, one the prohibition for the night, one the warning for the day, one the warning for the night, one remains free for inference from [the prohibition of] labour for [the commandment of] affliction, touching both day and night. The School of R. Ishmael taught: Here the word ‘affliction’ is used and there the word ‘affliction’ is used; hence just as there the penalty is incurred only after warning, so here too the penalty is incurred only after warning. R. Aha b. Jacob said: One can infer that from the phrase ‘Shabbath Shabbathon’ [‘solemn day of rest’] which occurs in connection with the ordinary Sabbath, and just as there penalty is incurred only after warning, so here too, penalty is incurred only after warning. R. Papa said:
—