יומא 74 — Soncino English Talmud

¹and in accord with R. Akiba, who said that a man may prohibit to himself anything in any quantity, however small. And if you would say that since it is permitted by the Torah, [the law relating to the] sacrifice for an oath is operative, surely we learned: An ‘oath of testimony’ applies only to those qualified to bear witness; and we raised the point: what does that mean to exclude, whereupon R. Papa said: This excludes a king, and R. Aha b. Jacob said: This excludes a professional dice-gambler. Now a dice-player, as far as Biblical law is concerned, is qualified to bear witness and only the Rabbis declared him unfit, and yet an oath does not apply to him? There it is different, for Scripture said: If he do not utter it, and this man cannot make a [valid] utterance. Now would you say that wherever the punishment is extirpation the term ‘forbidden’ is not used? Surely it was taught: Although the term ‘forbidden’ was used in connection with all of them, the punishment of extirpation applies only to him who eats or drinks, or engages in labour? — This is what is said: When the term ‘forbidden’ is used, it is applied but to less than the legal minimum, but where the legal minimum has been transgressed the punishment involved is extirpation; and also extirpation is the penalty, that is the case only with him who eats or drinks or engages in labour. Or, if you like, say: When [the Mishnah] uses the term ‘forbidden’, it refers to the rest [of the transgressions], for Rabbah and R. Joseph taught in the other books of the School of Rab: Whence do we know that it is forbidden on the Day of Atonement to anoint oneself, to wash, to put on shoes, and to have marital intercourse? Therefore the text reads: [It] is a Sabbath of solemn rest [unto you]. [To turn to] the main text: As for the matter of less than the legal minimum, R. Johanan said: It is forbidden by Biblical law, whilst Resh Lakish said: It is permitted by Biblical law. R.Johanan said, It is forbidden by Biblical law; since it could be joined [to form a minimum] it is forbidden food that he is eating. Resh Lakish said: It is permitted by Biblical law, for the Divine Law speaks of eating and this is not [eating]. — R. Johanan raised the following objection against Resh Lakish: I know only that whatsoever involves punishment is subject to a prohibition; but in the case of the koy, and what is less than the legal minimum, since they do not involve punishment, I might say that they are not subject to a prohibition either, therefore the text reads: No fat. — This is only Rabbinical and the text [adduced] is but a mere support. And that is also logical. For if one should assume that the prohibition is Biblical, surely [the status of] the koy is doubtful and no Scriptural text is necessary to cover a doubtful case! — Were it only for this there would be no argument, they would hold^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ

^ᵃnote:R. Akiba, on the other hand, holds that a legal minimum exists only in the case of foods etc. forbidden by the Torah, whereas a man who forbids himself by oath any kind of permitted food, implies that he would not partake of any quantity, however small, thereof.
^ᵇnote:Now, if Resh Lakish held that even less than the legal minimum is forbidden by Rabbinical decree, then how could he endeavour to explain the case of the man taking the oath as applying to one eating less than the legal minimum? For, since he is interdicted to eat by the law of Deut. XVII, 11: According to the law which they shall teach thee ... thou shalt do . . . thou shalt not turn aside... to the right hand or to the left, from eating food Rabbinically forbidden, his oath is inoperative, hence does not oblige him to offer a sacrifice for his transgression thereof.
^ᶜnote:Shebu. 30a. The answer of Resh Lakish would endeavour to make a distinction between things forbidden by the Torah, the oath re-forbidding the same to oneself would be considered inoperative and would free the swearer, in the case of transgression, from the obligation to offer up a sacrifice — and things permitted by the Torah, to which the oath could apply, so that if one swore not to eat less than the legal minimum which, because below the legal quantity, would be permitted by the law of the Torah and forbidden only by Rabbinic decree, the oath would operate, and in the case of transgression he would have to bring a sacrifice.
^ᵈnote:Lev. V, 1f.
^ᵉnote:V. Shebu. 30a.
^ᶠnote:The king can neither testify, nor be testified against, because of his exalted position; the gambler cannot testify, because his profession renders him, hence his statements or pledges, untrustworthy.
^ᵍnote:By Biblical law one is considered a robber only if one actually robs from one's hand, as in II Sam. XXIII, 21 where the technical term ‘gazal’, rob, is used: He (plucked — lit.,’robbed’) the spear out of his hand; v. also B.K. 79b. So that, if the oath does not apply to a gambler, although by Biblical law, he is not prevented from testifying, the proposed distinction is unjustified.
^ʰnote:Lev. V, 1.
^ⁱnote:It means: One whose utterance not merely means speech, but words of meaning, words to be trusted, whereas this gambler's words, since he is untrustworthy, are, legally speaking, no utterance at all.
^ʲnote:As insufficient, hence misleading; this being the reason for the first question here in the Gemara.
^ᵏnote:All the things forbidden, as enumerated in our Mishnah.
^ˡnote:Not eating and drinking.
^ᵐnote:From the School of Rab emanated halachical commentaries not only on Leviticus, but on Numbers and Deuteronomy as well.
^ⁿnote:Lev. XVI,31 interpreted here as solemn rest not only from work, but from the usual occupations, such as eating, drinking, washing, anointing and having marital intercourse. Just as the term ‘solemn day of rest’ in connection with the Sabbath is, by the Sages, interpreted as including all manner of work, even not employed in connection with the building of the Sanctuary, so does that term here imply affliction by rest, as above.
^ᵒnote:Since below the minimum it may be nibbling, but it is eating that is forbidden.
^ᵖnote:A kind of bearded deer or antelope (Jast.). It is left undecided as to whether it belongs to the genus of cattle, the tallow of which is forbidden, or to beasts of chase, the tallow of which is permitted.
^ᵠnote:Lev. VII, 23. This proves that less than a legal minimum is prohibited by the Torah.
^ʳnote:Since there is no doubt before the Divine Lawgiver, no Scriptural text would be necessary to cover a doubtful situation.

²the koy is a creature by itself. For if you were not to say so, how could R. Idi b. Abin say: ‘Also all’ includes the koy, since the koy is a doubtful case and surely no Scriptural text is necessary to cover doubtful cases. Hence [what you must say is] a ‘creature by itself’ is a different case, thus also here [say] ‘a creature by itself’ is a different case. Our Rabbis taught: Ye shall afflict your souls. One might assume that one must sit in heat or cold in order to afflict oneself, therefore the text reads: And ye shall do no manner of work; just as the [prohibition of] labour [means]: sit and do nothing, so does [the enjoinment of] affliction [signify]: sit and do nothing. But say perhaps: If one sit in the sun and is warm, one may not say unto him: rise and sit in the shade; or, when he sits in the shade and is cool, one may not tell him: rise and sit in the sun? — It is as with labour: Just as you have made no distinction with regard to labour, so in connection with the [prescribed] affliction is no distinction to be made. Another [Baraitha] taught: ‘Ye shall afflict your souls’. One might assume that one must sit in heat or cold to afflict oneself, therefore Scripture said: ‘And ye shall do no manner of work’. Just as in connection with work [the reference is to] something for which one may become culpable also in another connection, so with affliction it is to something for which one might become culpable in another connection, and what is that? ‘An abhorred thing’, or that which remaineth. I shall then include only ‘the abhorred thing’ or that which remaineth, because the penalty there is extirpation but not include tebel, since the penalty involved therein is not extirpation, therefore the text reads: ‘Ye shall afflict’, ‘and ye shall afflict your souls’, which is inclusive. I might then include tebel, the punishment in connection with which is death, but not include carrion, the penalty for eating which is not death, therefore the text reads: ‘Ye shall afflict’, ‘and ye shall afflict your souls’, which is inclusive. I might then include the [eating of] carrion, which involves a [transgression of a] prohibition, but not profane food, [the eating of] which is not prohibited at all, therefore Scripture said: ‘Ye shall afflict’, ‘and ye shall afflict your souls’, which is inclusive. I might then include profane food, the eating of which is not commanded, but exclude terumah, the eating of which is commanded, therefore Scripture said: ‘Ye shall afflict’, ‘and ye shall afflict your souls’, which is inclusive. I might then include terumah, which is not subject to the law concerning remaining over, but exclude holy sacrifices, in connection with which the law concerning remaining over applies, therefore the text reads: ‘Ye shall afflict’, ‘and ye shall afflict your souls’, which is inclusive. And if you should have any remark [in objection thereto], [I can reply], Behold Scripture said: And I will destroy that soul, i.e., an affliction which causes a destruction of life, and what is that but [the denial of] eating and drinking? What is [meant by]: And if you should have any remark [in objection thereto]? — One might have said Scripture speaks here of marital intercourse, therefore the text reads: ‘And I will destroy that soul’, i.e., an affliction which causes the destruction of life, and that is [the abstention from] eating and drinking. The School of R. Ishmael taught: Here the phrase ‘affliction’ is used, and there the term ‘affliction’ is used; just as there an affliction through hunger is meant, so is here an affliction through hunger meant. But let us infer from: ‘If thou shalt afflict my daughters’? — One should infer concerning the affliction of a community from another affliction of a community, but not for the affliction of a community from the affliction of an individual. But let us infer it from the ‘affliction’ in Egypt, as it is said: And [the Lord] saw our affliction, and in connection with which we said: This is the enforced abstinence from marital intercourse? — Rather [answer thus]: One infers for a heavenly affliction from another heavenly affliction, but one should not infer concerning a heavenly affliction from an affliction through human beings. Who fed thee in the wilderness with manna . . . that He might afflict thee. R. Ammi and R. Assi [are disputing], one said, You cannot compare one who has bread in his basket with one who has none, the other said: You cannot compare one who sees what he eats with one who does not see what he is eating. R. Joseph said: This is an allusion to [the reason] why blind people eat on without becoming satisfied. Abaye said: Therefore let him who has a meal eat only in daylight. R. Zera said: What Scriptural verse intimates that? Better is the seeing of the eyes than the wandering of the desire. Resh Lakish said: Better is the pleasure of looking at a woman than the act itself as it is said: ‘Better is the seeing of the eyes than the wandering of the desire’. When it giveth its colour in the cup, when it glideth down smoothly. R. Ammi and R. Assi [dispute concerning it], one said: Whosoever fixes^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ

^ˢnote:V. Hul. 21a with reference to the blood of the koy.
^ᵗnote:Lev. XVI, 29.
^ᵘnote:The affliction enjoined is negative; deny to yourself certain things, abstain from them. It does not demand self-affliction by specific activity, such as sitting in the sun on a hot day.
^ᵛnote:In this case affliction would take the negative form of abstaining from comfort, in accord with the proposition suggested.
^ʷnote:Labour, in any form, is prohibited. Just as one is not obliged to engage in positive work of affliction, the negative form of abstention from getting comfort. Hence, just as one need not go out of comfortable shade into the sun for the purpose of afflicting oneself, so need one not abstain from a change into shade in order to be afflicted in the sun.
^ˣnote:Namely on the Sabbath.
^ʸnote:A sacrifice rejected in consequence of an improper intention in the mind of the sacrificing priest, v. Lev. VII, 18.
^ᶻnote:Portions of sacrifices left over beyond the legal time.
^ᵃᵃnote:Produce forbidden until the priestly gifts have been separated.
^ᵃᵇnote:Lev. XVI, 31.
^ᵃᶜnote:At the hands of heaven.
^ᵃᵈnote:The priest's share of the crop, one fiftieth of the dough, Num. XVIII, 8, 25.
^ᵃᵉnote:Lev. XXIII, 30.
^ᵃᶠnote:The term ‘affliction’ is used for the abstention therefrom, as well as for rape, in the Talmud (infra 77a) as well as in the Bible, Deut. XXII, 24 and elsewhere.
^ᵃᵍnote:Ibid. VIII, 3.
^ᵃʰnote:Gen. XXXI, 50.
^ᵃⁱnote:Deut. XXVI, 7.
^ᵃʲnote:It was God who afflicted Israel in the wilderness, Who bids them afflict themselves — thus may be said to afflict them Himself- on the Day of Atonement, whereas in Egypt it was Pharaoh who afflicted them.
^ᵃᵏnote:Deut. VIII, 16.
^ᵃˡnote:V. Supra 18b.
^ᵃᵐnote:The taste of the manna according to tradition varied according to one's liking (v. infra), so that he who ate it did not see actually the thing which he was tasting].
^ᵃⁿnote:Eccl. VI, 9.
^ᵃᵒnote:Prov. XXIII, 31.