יומא 80:1 — Soncino English Talmud

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:^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ

^ᵃnote:Where a change in expression on the part of the Bible involved a change in the fixed minimum standard.
^ᵇnote:Lev. XXIII, 29. The usual expression would be: Whosoever eateth on the day. The Rabbis, then, would have applied the normal measure, the olive, the legal minimum with every forbidden food.
^ᶜnote:There seems to be no difference between the law touching ritual impurity of foods and that covering the prohibition 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?
^ᵈnote:In the text relating to the uncleanness of foods the expression ‘All foods therein which may be eaten’ (which is the 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.
^ᵉnote:Lev. XI, 34.
^ᶠnote:Interpreted: that (coming) from food, which is also eatable.
^ᵍnote:Before it can be designated food.
^ʰnote:Lit., ‘the young one of an animal which is ripped open’. Such a young animal, where the mother in whose womb it still was, was slaughtered in accord with the rite, is considered ready food, since it does not require ritual slaughtering.
^ⁱnote:It is not considered ready food since it requires not, indeed, the ritual slaughter, but cutting open and removal of the blood.
^ʲnote:A bird of fabulous size, the eggs of which are very large, v. Bek. 57b.
^ᵏnote:A proverb: v. R.H. 4b. In the case of two possible interpretations, always choose the smaller as the more likely one.
^ˡnote:I.e., when the Temple is no longer in existence.
^ᵐnote:R. Eleazar suggested that if the Sanctuary be rebuilt in his days and a new Rabbinical Court were in session, they 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.
^ⁿnote:Lev. IV, 22.
^ᵒnote:As he became conscious of his transgression, the new enactment was still unknown, the quantity of a small olive to 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.
^ᵖnote:Identified with Othniel, the son of Kenaz; after the death of Moses he revived the forgotten portions of the law, v. Tem. 16a.
^ᵠnote:Lev. XXVII, 34: These are the laws, i.e., no others may ever be offered.
^ʳnote:According to the Hillelites who insist: a mouthful, it is enough if it looks like a generous mouthful when moved to one cheek; according to R. Eliezer the appearance of an exact mouthful is required.
^ˢnote:In the fourth chapter of ‘Ed. all cases are enumerated in which, as against the usual norm, Beth Shammai take the 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.