יומא 81 — Soncino English Talmud

¹who 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:^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ

^ᵃnote:‘Chewing’ which is the term. techn. for irregular eating.
^ᵇnote:The first, having eaten them, must pay both principal and fine, a complete offence having been committed by him; but not the second, who ate something which could have been used only as fuel.
^ᶜnote:Two half olives from two corpses, or two pieces of the size each of one half of a lentil, coming from a dead creeping thing, share the duration of uncleanness and the minimum quantity; a creeping thing and the carcase of an animal that died a natural death, are alike with regard to duration of the uncleanness they cause (in each case up to the evening of the day), but differ as to the minimum quantity which causes defilement; the former has the standard of an olive, the latter that of a lentil. A human corpse and the carcase of an animal again are alike in the minimum required for defiling a person, viz., an olive, but are different with regard to the duration of the uncleanness caused: the former causing one lasting seven days, the latter one lasting up to the evening only; v. Me'il. 17a.
^ᵈnote:The quantity of a big date, composed of food and drink does not enable one to come to, whereas food alone of that quantity would. The only matter in connection with the minimum required on the Day of Atonement is that it enables one to come to, hence the Rabbis could agree here, whilst disputing R. Joshua in the matter of the combination of various unclean foods.
^ᵉnote:He did not know all the time that it was the Day of Atonement. Because whereas two offences took place, both belong to one head: eating includes drinking.
^ᶠnote:But eating and working are two different forms of activities prohibited on the Day of Atonement, derived from two Scriptural verses, Num. XXIX, 7 and Lev. XXIII, 29.
^ᵍnote:The usual form of which is: ‘Thou shalt not’.
^ʰnote:The usual minimum (to render one culpable of having eaten forbidden food) is the quantity of an olive. Had the Torah therefore used the phrase ‘He shall not eat’, the inference would have been that one who ate the quantity of an olive had thereby transgressed the law; whereas the quantity on the Day of Atonement is dependent on one's coming to, which is the result of having eaten as much as the size of a big date.
^ⁱnote:The form would be negative, but the meaning just the opposite of what is required!
^ʲnote:‘Take heed’ and ‘lest’ are phrases each implying a separate negative command, v. ‘Er. 96a.
^ᵏnote:Deut. XXIV, 8: ‘Take heed in the plague of leprosy’ implies the prohibition of cutting off the bright spot (Lev. XIII, 2) whereas ‘Take heed that you do a certain thing’, i.e., not neglect it, has affirmative exhortatory meaning. The phrase here would therefore imply a positive command.
^ˡnote:Num. XXIX, 7.
^ᵐnote:Reading with Bah.
^ⁿnote:The prohibitions and positive commandments in connection with the Day of Atonement become valid some time before the actual commencement of the day — before the night of the tenth of Tishri, and extend for some minutes after the end of the Day of Atonement — the night of the eleventh day. The validity for this additional time of the laws governing the Day of Atonement is Biblical, v. infra 81b.
^ᵒnote:Lev. XXIII, 30.
^ᵖnote:Lev. XXIII, 29.
^ᵠnote:Ibid. v. 28.
^ʳnote:Lit., ‘being free’, or ‘vacated’, here unnecessary for the context, hence available for hermeneutical purposes.
^ˢnote:Lev. XXIII, 28.
^ᵗnote:The comparison is superficial, because in spite of similarity of expression, basic difference of prevailing conditions render the comparison unjustified, and but for an explicit statement of penalty in the case of ‘labour’ one would not be able to derive it from ‘affliction’.
^ᵘnote:None is exempted from the affliction, whereas as regards labour the priests in the Sanctuary were permitted to perform all work in connection with the ceremonial of the Day of Atonement.
^ᵛnote:This word occurs both with the prohibition of labour in Lev. XXIII, 30 and with the commandment of affliction in v. 29 ibid., hence appears available for inference from analogy of expression.
^ʷnote:V. p. 397. n. 3.
^ˣnote:So Bah.
^ʸnote:Lev. XVI, 29; XXIII, 28, 29, 30 and Num. XXIX, 7.
^ᶻnote:In connection with the rape of a betrothed maiden, Deut. XXII, 24.
^ᵃᵃnote:Lev. XXIII, 32.
^ᵃᵇnote:Lit., ‘with the Sabbath of creation’,i.e., the Sabbath, the observance of which is due to the first Sabbath, a tech. term. for any ordinary seventh day Sabbath, as against other days of rest, viz.,the Holy Days.

²This day itself is also called Sabbath, for Scripture said: [In the ninth day of the month, from even to even], shall ye keep your Sabbath. R. Papa did not [well] interpret as R. Aha b. Jacob, because it is preferable to use a Scriptural text mentioned in connection with the subject itself. But why did not R. Aha b. Jacob expound as R. Papa did? — That is necessary for the following teaching: And ye shall afflict your souls, in the ninth day of the month. One might have assumed that such affliction commences on the ninth of the month already. Therefore the text reads: ‘At even’. If from ‘at even’, one might have inferred that one must afflict oneself only after it gets dark, therefore the text reads: ‘In the ninth’. How is [this to be explained]? He should commence to afflict himself whilst it is yet day. From here we learn that we add from the profane time to the sacred one. Thus I know it only at its beginning. Whence do I know it at its end? Therefore Scripture said: ‘From even unto even’. Thus I know it only for the Days of Atonement, whence do I learn the same for the Sabbath days? Therefore the text reads: ‘Your Sabbath’. How is that? Wherever the word ‘shebuth’ [rest] is mentioned, we add from the profane time to the sacred one. How does the Tanna who infers from the word-analogy of ‘self-same’, ‘self-same’ interpret the words: ‘In the ninth of the month’? — He uses it in accord with what Hiyya, the son of Rab, of Difti taught, for Hiyya, the son of Rab, of Difti learned: ‘And you shall afflict your souls in the ninth [day of the month]’. But is one fasting on the ninth? Do we not fast on the tenth? Rather, it comes to indicate that, if one eats and drinks on the ninth, Scripture accounts it to him as if he had fasted on the ninth and the tenth. IF HE ATE FOODS UNFIT FOR FOOD. Raba said: If one chewed pepper on the Day of Atonement, he is not culpable. If one chewed ginger on the Day of Atonement, he is not culpable. An objection was raised: R. Meir used to say: By mere implication from the text: Then you shall count the fruit thereof as forbidden. I could understand that fruit trees are meant. Why then does Scripture say: ‘trees for food’? It means a tree the taste of whose wood and fruit are alike. Say: This is pepper. That teaches you that the plant of pepper is subject to the law of ‘orlah, and that the land of Israel lacks nothing, as it is said: Thou shalt not lack anything in it. — That is no difficulty; The one case deals with green pepper, the other with dry pepper. Rabina said to Meremar: But R. Nahman has said that preserved ginger coming from India is permitted, and the blessing . . . Who createst the fruit of the ground’ is obligatory [before eating it]. — This is no difficulty: The one case deals with fresh one, the other with dry one. Our Rabbis have taught: If one ate the leaves of calamus, he is culpable. If he ate the leaves of vine, he is culpable. What vines are meant here? — R. Isaac of Magdala said: Such as sprouted forth between New Year and the Day of Atonement. R. Kahana said: During the first thirty days, it was taught in accord with R. Isaac of Magdala: If one ate the leaves of calamus, he is not culpable. If he ate the leaves of vines, he is culpable. The vines meant here are those that sprouted forth between New Year and the Day of Atonement. IF HE DRANK BRINE OR FISH-BRINE HE IS NOT CULPABLE. But [if he drank] vinegar, he is culpable — according to whom is our Mishnah? — According to Rabbi. For it was taught: Rabbi said, Vinegar restores the soul. R. Giddal b. Menasseh of Bari of Naresh reported that the halachah is not in accord with Rabbi, whereupon in the following year all went forth to drink [on the Day of Atonement] vinegar [mixed with water]. When R. Giddal heard that he became angry and said: I spoke only of a de facto case, did I say at all that one may do so at the outset? I referred only to a small quantity, did I speak at all of a large one? I spoke only of raw vinegar, did I refer at all to [vinegar] mixed [with water]? [^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ

^ᵃᶜnote:The Scriptural text adduced by R. Papa.
^ᵃᵈnote:Who infers the additional time from the words of the text, which are free for interpretation (v. supra). To him the words ‘And ye shall afflict yourself on the ninth’, which to us suggest the additional time, must convey a different meaning.
^ᵃᵉnote:The feasting on the ninth of Tishri helps to emphasize the solemnity and the self-affliction due on the morrow, indeed, starting at the eve of the same day. The more feasting on the eve of the Day of Atonement, the more pronounced the affliction on the day itself.
^ᵃᶠnote:Lev. XIX, 23.
^ᵃᵍnote:Which forbids for the first three years the fruit of trees, v. ibid.
^ᵃʰnote:Deut. VIII, 9. Hence pepper is considered fruit, and as such should involve the eater thereof on the Day of Atonement in the penalty of extirpation, whereas Raba had taught that one who ate thereof is not culpable. R. Meir speaks of green pepper which can be eaten, hence subject to the law of ‘orlah, whereas Raba speaks of dry pepper, which cannot be considered a food, hence one who has eaten thereof, in the best case has not partaken of eatables, in the worst case has harmed himself, in either case is not culpable.
^ᵃⁱnote:Preserved ginger therefore is considered a food. The blessing due emphasizes that it is considered such.
^ᵃʲnote:But if they sprouted forth before the New Year, they are considered stale and ‘even as wood’, i.e., no food.
^ᵃᵏnote:The same principle, though in different terms.
^ᵃˡnote:I.e., has the effect of satisfying one, of helping one to come to, on the Day of Atonement.
^ᵃᵐnote:I.e., Bari, which was near Naresh, north of Sura. V. Obermeyer, p.308.