Yoma 74b — the Talmud in English

Since

he held

that the tanna in the beraita held that

the kוי —

is a creature in its own category.

And therefore a special amplification is needed to prohibit its fat.

For if you do not say so,

if you do not say that the amplification is needed for the kוי only because it is a creature in its own category, it will be difficult for you from

that which Rav Idi bar Avin said in Tractate Keritot [21a]:

The Gemara there cites a beraita that explains the verse, “You shall not eat any blood, whether of bird or of animal. Any person who eats any blood—that person shall be cut off,” as containing a generalization, a specification, and a generalization.

And we derive: Just as bird and animal, which have within them lesser impurity and severe impurity, one is liable to karet for their blood, so too, anything that has within it lesser impurity and severe impurity, one is liable to karet for eating its blood.

And Rav Idi bar Avin said concerning this: That which the beraita said,

“

even every

thing that has within it lesser impurity and severe impurity” —

to include

in order to prohibit the blood of

the kוי.

And if you say that

the kוי is a doubt

whether it is a wild animal or livestock, this will be difficult for you: Is it so that

a verse was needed to include a doubt!?

After all, whether it is a wild animal or whether it is livestock, its blood is prohibited!

Rather,

a verse was needed to include the blood of the kוי, because since it is

a creature

in its own category,

it is different,

it differs from a wild animal and from livestock.

And

so too,

with regard to the prohibition against eating fat, a verse was needed to include the kוי, because

it is a creature

in its own category,

it is different.

And now the Gemara explains the matter of affliction on Yom Kippur.

The Sages taught: [Leviticus 16]

“

You shall afflict your souls.”

One might have thought

that the affliction is through an action, for example, that he

sit in the sun or in the cold so that he will suffer?

The verse says: “And you shall not perform any labor.”

Just as labor —

by sitting and refraining from action, so too affliction of the soul —

by sitting and refraining from action,

something that nullifies the affliction; but you have no obligation to afflict yourself. And you have no matter involving affliction through sitting and refraining from action except the five afflictions in the Mishna.

And we raised a difficulty:

But say

that the affliction is indeed through sitting and refraining from action, and nevertheless there is an affliction of heat and cold, as, for example:

Where he sits in the sun and it is hot for him,

if he is sitting in the sun and it is hot for him,

we do not say to him: Get up, return to the shade;

we do not tell him to get up and sit in the shade; rather, he must afflict himself in the heat of the sun.

And likewise, if

he sits in the shade and it is cold for him,

if he is sitting in the shade and it is cold for him,

we do not say to him: Get up, return to the sun,

that he should not go to sit in the heat of the sun; rather, he must afflict himself in the cold, in the place of the shade.

And we answer: The affliction mentioned in the verse is

similar to the prohibition of

labor,

labor,

which is written afterward.

Just as labor —

you did not divide it

by saying that it has a side on which it is permitted and a side on which it is prohibited.

So too affliction —

you shall not divide it

between one who is sitting in the sun, so as to say that he is obligated to afflict himself with the affliction of heat, and one who is not sitting in the sun, who is not obligated to sit and afflict himself in the heat of the sun; rather, in every case one is not to afflict oneself through heat. And likewise with cold.

Another [teaching] was taught: “You shall afflict your souls.”

One might have thought: Let him sit in the sun or in the cold and suffer?

The verse says: “And you shall not perform any labor.”

Just as labor,

it is

a matter for which one is liable

to karet

elsewhere,

such as on Shabbat,

so too affliction of the soul

is a matter of eating

for which one is liable

to karet

elsewhere.

And what is this?

What matter of eating is one liable for karet for elsewhere?

This

is the karet for eating

pigul and notar.

Lest you say, if so,

I will bring

only

pigul and notar, which are subject to karet,

and say that the mitzva of affliction from eating on Yom Kippur applies only to them, and that one becomes liable for eating them on Yom Kippur to lashes in addition to the lashes for eating pigul and notar,

and I will not bring

the eating of

tevel, which is not subject to karet,

but only to death at the hands of Heaven.

The verse says: “On the tenth of the month,”

“

you shall afflict

your souls.”

And the verse repeated and said, “It shall be a sabbath of solemn rest for you,

and you shall afflict your souls.”

The verse included

the eating of tevel as well.

And lest you say,

I will bring

only the eating of

tevel,

because

it is subject to death

at the hands of Heaven,

and I will not bring the carcass, which is not subject to death

but only to a negative commandment,

the verse says: “You shall afflict”

“and you shall afflict your souls” —

it included [it].

I will bring the carcass, which is subject to a negative commandment, and I will not bring

the eating of ordinary food,

ordinary food, which is not subject to a negative commandment,

for they are permitted to be eaten throughout all the days of the year.

The verse says: “You shall afflict”

“and you shall afflict your souls” —

it included [it].

I will bring ordinary food, which is not subject to “rise up and eat,”

and I will not bring the teruma, which is subject to

a mitzva of

“rise up and eat.”

The verse says: “You shall afflict”

“and you shall afflict your souls” —

it included [it].

I will bring the teruma, which is not subject to “do not leave over,”

and I will not bring the sacred offerings, which are

subject to

“do not leave over.”

The verse says: “You shall afflict”

“and you shall afflict your souls” —

it included [them].

And if your mind

is inclined to reject and

to say

that from these verses one cannot learn that the affliction is from eating and drinking [for the reason that will be explained below], you can learn that the affliction is from eating and drinking from this teaching:

For it says

concerning Yom Kippur in the portion of Emor [Leviticus 23]:

“And I shall destroy that soul” —

an affliction that is the destruction of the soul.

[This verse speaks of punishment for labor on Yom Kippur and not of punishment for refraining from affliction. See the “Torah Temima,” Leviticus 16, note 127, which proved that here one must read in accordance with the version of the Jerusalem Talmud: For it says, “You shall afflict your souls,” a matter that is an affliction involving the destruction of the soul.]

And what is this?

An affliction upon which the destruction of the soul depends —

this

is the affliction from

eating and drinking.

And now the Gemara explains why the second teaching is needed:

What is the meaning of “And if your mind”

being inclined to reject and

to say

that one cannot learn from the redundancy of the verses?

This is what it is saying:

And should you say: With regard to forbidden sexual relations

in the affliction of refraining from intercourse,

the verse is speaking

about

the verse,

for this matter is called affliction, as will be explained shortly, and one is liable for it to karet elsewhere, in the matter of forbidden sexual relations.

For it says, “And I shall destroy the soul.”

The verse is speaking

of an affliction that involves the destruction of the soul

.

And what is this? —

This is eating and drinking.

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: It is stated here

on Yom Kippur

affliction.

And it is stated there

in the portion of Ekev [chapter 8], the expression

affliction [“And He afflicted you and let you hunger, and He fed you the manna”].

Just as there

the

affliction

is

is

hunger —

so too here

the

affliction

means

hunger.

And we challenge this:

Let us derive

that this is affliction from refraining from intercourse

from

the words of Laban to Jacob:

“If you afflict my daughters”

[Genesis 31], as will be explained below, that the affliction mentioned here is refraining from intercourse.

And we answer:

We derive affliction

of Yom Kippur, which is an affliction

of the many, from an affliction of the many

stated with regard to the hunger before the descent of the manna for all Israel.

And we do not derive the affliction of the many from the affliction of an individual.

And we challenge this:

Let us derive it from the affliction of Egypt, as it is written

[Deuteronomy 26]

“And He saw our affliction,”

which means our affliction.

And we say: This is abstention from sexual relations!

Rather, we derive the affliction

of Yom Kippur, which is

at the hands of Heaven

[for its mitzva is from the Almighty],

from an affliction at the hands of Heaven

through hunger in the wilderness.

And we do not derive affliction at the hands of Heaven from affliction at the hands of man

of the Egyptians.

And since we have occupied ourselves with the matter of affliction, which is hunger, learned from the portion of Ekev, the Gemara explains the verse there:

[Deuteronomy 8]

“Who fed you manna in the wilderness

in order to afflict you.”

Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi

said different explanations in elucidating the meaning of this verse: Although one ate the manna, the person would remain hungry.

One said:

Because

one who has bread in his basket is not comparable to one who does not have bread in his basket.

And here the Israelites had no bread in their baskets, apart from the food that was needed for them to eat each day. Therefore, although they ate, they had a feeling of hunger because of worry about the following day.

And one said: One who sees

the food

and eats

it is not comparable

to one who does not see and eats.

Because the form of the manna was fixed, and they did not see a change in it according to the tastes that they tasted in it.

Rav Yosef said: From here there is a hint concerning the blind, who eat but are not satiated,

because they do not see the food.

Abaye said: Therefore, one who has a meal —

should not eat it

but should eat it

only during the day,

at a time when there is light and he sees the foods.

Rabbi Zeira said: What is the verse,

where is this matter stated in Scripture?

As it is stated [Ecclesiastes 6]:

“Better is the seeing of the eyes

than the wandering of the soul”

[that is, a feeling without seeing].

And the Gemara brings another explanation of this verse:

Reish Lakish said: Better is the seeing of the eyes with a woman than the body of the act.

As it is stated, “Better is the seeing of the eyes than the wandering of the soul.”

And the Gemara brings several disputes of amoraim in explaining verses:

[Proverbs 23]

“When he gives his eye to the cup

he goes about in upright ways.”

How so?

They disputed the explanation of this verse,

Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi.