Yoma 80a — the Talmud in English

It was taught: Rabbi says ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page location")

all the measures

of foods—

all of them are an olive-bulk.

Except for the ritual impurity of food,

whose measure is an egg-bulk.

According to

that Scripture changed its meaning,

in the wording concerning the ritual impurities of foods, for Scripture wrote, “of all food that may be eaten,” and Scripture did not suffice with the words “of all food,” as will be explained below,

and

therefore

the Sages changed their measures

of these ritual impurities.

And proof of the matter

that a change in the meaning in Scripture brings about a change in the measure is the measure of eating on

Yom Kippur.

And the Gemara explains:

What did Scripture change in its meaning

on Yom Kippur?

We must learn the change

from

the wording of Scripture, “For every soul that

shall not afflict itself,”

for Scripture used this wording instead of saying plainly, with regard to eating on Yom Kippur: “For every soul that shall not eat.”

And what did the Sages change in its measure,

of Yom Kippur?

That its measure of eating is

the size of a large date.

And why,

why were we required to bring

proof,

and what greater proof is there

of the matter

than

Yom Kippur?

But the change in the ritual impurity of food itself is sufficient to change the measure of the ritual impurity of food, as on Yom Kippur?

For if it were from there,

from the change in the meaning concerning the ritual impurity of food alone,

I would have said: It is the way of Scripture

to say “of all food that may be eaten,” and there is no proof from here for a change in the measure. Therefore we brought proof from Yom Kippur, since there the change in the wording is more significant.

And now the Gemara explains:

The ritual impurity of food,

which is with the measure

of an egg-bulk—

from where do we know it?

Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Elazar: For Scripture says

with regard to the ritual impurity of food [Leviticus 11],

“of all food that may be eaten,”

and its meaning is that there is in the food a measure of

“food that comes on account of food”!

And what is this

food that comes on account of food? This is

a chicken’s egg.

And we inquire:

And perhaps

the measure is that of

a kid,

which also is food that comes on account of food.

And we answer: A kid is not called “food,” for it is

in need of slaughter.

And we challenge:

And perhaps

the measure is that of

a fetus found in a slaughtered animal [a fetus found alive in its mother’s womb after she has been slaughtered, which is permitted for eating without slaughter]!?

And we answer: It is still

in need of

tearing open,

in order to remove its blood, and it is forbidden to eat it alive as it is; therefore it is not called food.

And again we challenge:

And perhaps

the measure is that of a larger egg, like

the egg

of a bird called

the bar yokhni,

which is a larger measure than the egg of an ordinary bird!?

And we answer: This is the rule when that matter is to be learned in two possibilities:

You have grasped much—

you have not grasped.

You have grasped little—

you have grasped.

And now we challenge according to this rule:

And perhaps

a smaller measure, that of

the egg

of

a small bird,

of a small bird,

which is exceedingly small,

whose measure is extremely small. Rashi did not have this version.

And it follows that the Gemara answered the exposition of Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Elazar with an answer that cannot be resolved.

And the Gemara adds that

Rabbi Abbahu himself,

personally,

said,

he expounded this differently:

“Of all food that may be eaten”—

food that you eat all at once!

And the Sages measured

that

the throat cannot hold more than a chicken’s egg.

Rabbi Elazar said: One who eats forbidden fat

unintentionally

at this time,

when he cannot bring a sin-offering for his eating,

must write down for himself

the

measure

of his eating. For

perhaps another court will come and increase the measures,

as the Gemara explains.

And we inquire:

What does “increase the measures” mean?

If you say that they obligate

the court in the future

to bring a sacrifice for an olive-bulk

that is

smaller

than the average olive-bulk [called “aguri”] that we hold by today.

He need not be concerned about this! Since he will not be obligated in the future to bring a sin-offering.

For

it was taught:

It is said concerning the obligation of a sin-offering [Leviticus 4],

“which one should not do unintentionally, and he bears guilt.”

And we expound: A person

who returns through knowledge,

whose sin is only because of lack of knowledge, and when he knows he returns from his sin,

brings a sacrifice for his inadvertence.

But if he

does not return through knowledge,

that is, even if he had known what he was doing, he would also have sinned—

he does not

bring

a sacrifice for his inadvertence.

And a person nowadays, who knows that the punishment of excision for eating forbidden fat is only for eating an average olive-bulk [“aguri”], as the court rules in our time, will not refrain [because of the severity of the punishment of excision] from eating forbidden fat in a measure smaller than this, knowing that one is not liable to excision for a measure less than an average olive-bulk [“aguri”].

Rather,

therefore he must write down the measure of his eating, lest in the future it happen

that they do not obligate

the court that will then exist

in a sacrifice—

until there is a large olive-bulk,

and not for an average olive-bulk.

Therefore, a person nowadays who eats forbidden fat in the measure of an average olive-bulk should not write for himself that he is obligated in a sin-offering; rather, he should write down the measure of his eating. For perhaps he will be exempt from it according to the ruling of the court that will exist in those days, and if he nevertheless brings a sin-offering, it is found that he brings non-sacred food into the Temple courtyard!

And now the Gemara clarifies the initial assumption:

And according to what initially entered one’s mind, that they obligate

the court in the future

in a sacrifice for a small olive-bulk—

what

could we have understood from what Rabbi Elazar said, that one must be concerned lest the court in the future

“increase the measures”?

And the Gemara explains: According to the initial assumption, we understood that he must write down the measure of his eating and not suffice with writing down his obligation in a sin-offering, because

perhaps he will increase in sacrifices,

more than he presently thinks,

because of

the reduction of the

measures.

For it is possible that he is obligated for this eating in two sin-offerings, for eating two olive-bulks, and not one sin-offering for eating only one olive-bulk [for example, where there is something that divides the unawareness between the two small olive-bulks into two obligations of sin-offerings].

Rabbi Yohanan said: Measures and punishments—

a halakha given to Moses at Sinai.

And the Gemara wonders: Are

“punishments”

only from a halakha given to Moses at Sinai? But

they are written in Scripture

explicitly in the Torah!?

And we answer:

Rather, this is what he said: The measures of punishments—

a halakha given to Moses at Sinai.

It was taught likewise: The measures of punishments—

a halakha given to Moses at Sinai.

Others say: The measures of punishments—

The measures for punishments were

the court of Jabez

[Othniel son of Kenaz, who was the first judge in the days of the Judges]

established them.

And the Gemara wonders:

But it is written

[Leviticus 27]

“These are the mitzvot

that the Lord commanded at Mount Sinai”—Scripture teaches

that a prophet is not permitted to introduce anything from now on!

And how is it possible to say that the court of Jabez established the measures of punishments?

And we answer: Indeed, the measures were transmitted as a halakha given to Moses at Sinai.

Rather, they forgot them

during the days of mourning for Moses [see Temura 16a],

and

the court of Jabez

reestablished them.

We learned in the Mishna:

One who drinks a cheekful.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: Not literally “a cheekful,” but

with such a measure:

any amount that, if he moves it to one side, and it appears to be a cheekful,

he is liable for drinking it.

And we inquire:

But we learned in the Mishna, “a cheekful,”

and it implies literally!?

And we answer:

Say: like a cheekful.

We challenge

Shmuel from what was taught in a beraita:

How much must one drink

on Yom Kippur

to be liable?

Beit Shammai say: A quarter-log.

And Beit Hillel say: A cheekful.

Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: Like a cheekful.

Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: Enough for a swallow!

But surely the halakha is according to Beit Hillel, and they obligate for a full cheekful literally.

And we answer:

Is it superior

the wording of the beraita

to the Mishna, which we interpreted

as meaning that the Mishna’s intention is not literally a full cheekful but

enough

that he moves it to one side,

so that it appears

to be a full cheekful, and he is liable?

So too here,

in the beraita, say that the intention of the beraita is:

enough that it appears

to be a full cheekful when he moves it to one side, and not literally a full cheekful.

And we ask:

If so—

this is Rabbi Eliezer,

who disputes Beit Hillel and says, “like a cheekful”!

And we answer:

There is a difference between them,

between Beit Hillel and Rabbi Eliezer—

a constrained full cheekful.

For Beit Hillel, who say “a full cheekful,” a constrained measure is not sufficient to make him liable; rather, a full cheekful must appear on one side with room to spare.

But according to Rabbi Eliezer, “like a cheekful” is sufficient even with a constrained measure.

Rav Hoshaya challenges

Shmuel:

If so,

according to your words, that a literal full cheekful is not necessary to make him liable, this measure is less than a quarter-log.

And if so,

it becomes

this law

one of the leniencies of Beit Shammai and the stringencies of Beit Hillel,

for Beit Shammai obligate only for a quarter-log, whereas Beit Hillel obligate for less.

But we learned in tractate Eduyot all the cases in which Beit Shammai are lenient compared with Beit Hillel, and this law does not appear there!?