Yoma 74b (עד:) — the Talmud in English

Since

the tanna held in the

beraita that

the koy

is a creature in its own right,

a special amplification is therefore required to prohibit its fat.

For if you do not say so,

if you do not say that the amplification is needed for the koy only because it is a creature in its own right, you will find it difficult to reconcile this with

that which Rav Idi bar Avin said in tractate Keritot [21a].

The Gemara there cites a beraita explaining the verse, “You shall not eat any blood, of bird or of animal. Any person who eats any blood shall be cut off,” which contains a generalization, a specification, and a generalization.

And we derive: Just as bird and animal, which possess both a lesser form of ritual impurity and a severe form of ritual impurity, are liable to karet for their blood, so too, every creature that possesses both a lesser form of ritual impurity and a severe form of ritual impurity entails liability to karet for eating its blood.

And Rav Idi bar Avin said concerning this: The beraita’s statement

“

even every

creature that possesses both a lesser form of ritual impurity and a severe form of ritual impurity” means:

to include

and prohibit the blood of

the koy.

And if you say that

the koy is a case of uncertainty,

whether it is a wild animal or a domesticated animal, you will find it difficult: Is it so that

a verse is needed to include a case of uncertainty!?

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

Rather,

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

a creature

in its own right,

it is different;

it differs from both a wild animal and a domesticated animal.

And

here too,

with regard to the prohibition against eating fat, a verse is needed to include the koy, because

it is a creature

in its own right and

is different.

The Gemara now explains the nature of affliction on Yom Kippur.

The Sages taught: [Leviticus 16]

“

“You shall afflict your souls.”

One might have thought

that the affliction is to be brought about through an action—for example, that one should

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

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

Just as labor is

refraining from action, so too the affliction of the soul is

refraining from action:

one must refrain from an act that would eliminate the affliction, but one is not obligated to afflict oneself. And there is no form of affliction achieved through refraining from action other than the five forms of affliction listed in the Mishna.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

But say

that the affliction is indeed achieved through refraining from action, and nevertheless there is a form of affliction through heat and cold, as in the following cases:

Where one is sitting in the sun and it is hot for him,

if he is sitting in the sun and feels hot,

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

rather, he must afflict himself in the heat of the sun.

And likewise, if

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

if he is sitting in the shade and feels cold,

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

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

And we answer: The affliction mentioned in the verse is

analogous to the prohibition of

labor,

labor,

which is written immediately afterward.

Just as labor—

you make no distinction in it,

saying that one aspect of it is permitted and another aspect is prohibited,

so too, affliction—

you make no distinction within it

between one who is sitting in the sun, such that one might say that he is obligated to afflict himself through the heat, and one who is not sitting in the sun, who is not obligated to sit there and afflict himself through the heat of the sun. Rather, in every case one may not afflict himself through heat. And the same applies to cold.

Another beraita was taught: “You shall afflict your souls.”

One might have thought that he should sit in the sun or in the cold and suffer.

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

Just as labor 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

that

entails liability

to karet

elsewhere.

And what is this?

What matter of eating entails liability to karet elsewhere?

This is

the liability to karet for eating

piggul and notar.

Lest you say, if so,

I will include

only

pigul and notar, which entail karet,

and say that the mitzva of affliction through abstaining from food on Yom Kippur applies only to them, so that one would incur lashes for eating them on Yom Kippur in addition to the lashes for eating piggul and notar.

And I will not include

the eating of

tevel, which does not entail karet,

but only death at the hands of Heaven.

The verse states: “On the tenth day of the month,

“

you shall afflict

your souls.”

And the verse repeats and says: “It is a Shabbat, a Shabbat of solemn rest for you,

and you shall afflict your souls.”

The second verse includes

also the eating of tevel.

And lest you say,

I will include

only the eating of

tevel,

because

it entails death

at the hands of Heaven,

and I will not include carrion, which does not entail death,

but only a prohibition.

The verse states: “You shall afflict”

“and you shall afflict your souls”—

it includes it.

I will include carrion, which is prohibited by a prohibition, and I will not include

the eating of non-sacred food,

non-sacred food, which is not prohibited by a prohibition,

as it is permitted to eat throughout the year.

The verse states: “You shall afflict”

“and you shall afflict your souls”—

it includes it.

I will include non-sacred food, which is not subject to “rise and eat,”

but I will not include teruma, which is subject to

a mitzva of

“rise and eat.”

The verse states: “You shall afflict”

“and you shall afflict your souls”—

it includes it.

I will include teruma, which is not subject to “do not leave it over,”

but I will not include sacrificial foods, which are

subject to

“do not leave it over.”

The verse states: “You shall afflict”

“and you shall afflict your souls”—

it includes it.

And if you are inclined

to reject this and

say

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

It states

with regard to Yom Kippur in the portion of Emor [Leviticus 23]:

“And I shall destroy that soul”—

an affliction that involves the destruction of the soul.

This verse speaks of the punishment for performing labor on Yom Kippur, and not of the punishment for failing to afflict oneself. See Torah Temima, Leviticus 16, note 127, which demonstrated that the text here should read as in the version of the Jerusalem Talmud: It states, “You shall afflict your souls”—a matter that is an affliction involving the destruction of the soul.

And what is this,

the affliction upon which the destruction of the soul depends?

This

is the affliction through

eating and drinking.

The Gemara now explains why the second derivation is necessary:

What does “and if you are inclined”

to reject this and

say

that one cannot derive this from the redundancy of the verses mean?

This is what it is saying:

But if you say: With regard to forbidden sexual relations,

with regard to the affliction of abstaining from sexual relations,

the verse is speaking

of

a matter

that is called affliction, as will be explained shortly, and for which one is liable to karet elsewhere, in the case of forbidden sexual relations,

it states: “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” [“He afflicted you and let you hunger, and He fed you the manna”].

Just as there

Just as there

the

affliction

is

hunger,

so too here

the

affliction

means

hunger.

And we challenge this:

Let us derive

that this is an affliction through abstaining from sexual relations

from

Laban’s words to Jacob:

“If you afflict my daughters”

[Genesis 31], where, as will be explained below, the affliction mentioned refers to abstention from sexual relations.

And we answer:

We derive the affliction

of Yom Kippur, which is an affliction

affecting the many, from an affliction affecting the many,

the affliction mentioned with regard to the hunger that preceded the falling of the manna for all of Israel.

And we do not derive an affliction affecting the many from an affliction affecting 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 suffering.

And we say: This refers to abstention from sexual relations!

Rather, we derive the affliction

of Yom Kippur, which is

at the hands of Heaven

[as its mitzva is from the Almighty],

from an affliction at the hands of Heaven

through hunger in the wilderness.

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

as in the case of the Egyptians.

Since we have discussed the affliction that is hunger, derived 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

offered different explanations of the meaning of this verse: Although the manna was eaten, the person remained hungry.

One said:

Because

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

Here, the Israelites had no bread in their baskets apart from the food they needed to eat that very day. Therefore, despite eating, they experienced hunger because they were anxious 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.

This is because the form of the manna remained fixed, and they did not see any change in it corresponding to the various tastes they experienced in it.

Rav Yosef said: From here there is an indication 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

during the day

except in the daytime,

when there is light and he can see the food.

Rabbi Zeira said: What is the verse,

where is this matter stated in Scripture?

As it is stated [Ecclesiastes 6]:

“Better is the sight of the eyes

than the wandering of the soul”

[that is, a sensation without seeing].

The Gemara offers an additional explanation of this verse:

Reish Lakish said: The sight of the eyes with regard to a woman is better than the act itself.

As it is stated: “Better is the sight of the eyes than the wandering of the soul.”

The Gemara cites several disputes among the amoraim concerning the interpretation of verses:

[Proverbs 23]

“For he puts his eye to the cup

and walks on upright paths.”

How so?

They disputed the interpretation of this verse:

Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi.