Yoma 81a (פא.) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Yirmeya said that Rabbi Yohanan said: A non-priest

who bites barley

which he eats in an abnormal manner—

pays the principal but does not pay the additional fifth.

As it is stated with regard to teruma [Leviticus 22]: “When a man eats a sacred thing unwittingly, he shall add its fifth to it, and give the sacred thing to the priest.” And we expound:

“When he eats”—

excluding one who damages.

Rav Shizvi said that Rabbi Yohanan said: A non-priest who swallowed

despite the fact that he did not chew

teruma plums, vomited them, and another

person

ate them—

The

first pays the principal and the additional fifth,

because swallowing plums is also considered normal eating.

And the

second,

who ate them after they had been vomited, when they were no longer fit for eating and were fit only to be used as fuel in an oven,

pays only “the value of wood” to the first person,

and pays nothing to the priest, since the first acquired them through his eating and became liable for their value to the priest.

We learned in the Mishna:

One who eats and one who drinks are not combined.

Who is the tanna?

Rav Hisda said:

Our Mishna

was taught as part of a dispute,

and

it is

according to

Rabbi Yehoshua.

As we learned

in tractate Me’ila 17a:

Rabbi Yehoshua stated a general principle

with regard to combining impure substances to reach the measure of impurity:

Any

matter

whose

period of

impurity and its measure

for impurity

are equal

to the period of impurity and the measure of impurity of the matter with which it is combined—

the two combine,

the one impure matter with the other impure matter, to reach the measure of impurity.

But if it is equal to the other only with regard to the period of

its impurity and not

with regard to

its measure

for impurity, or is equal to it with regard to

its measure

for impurity

but not

with regard to the period of

its impurity, or

if it

is not

equal to it with regard to the period of

its impurity and not

with regard to

its measure—

they do not combine.

That is, they do not combine even to impart impurity for the short period during which they are both equal, and according to the measure in which they are both equal.

But according to the statement of the Sages, they do combine to impart impurity for the short period during which they are both equal, and according to the measure in which they are equal.

And according to the statement of the Sages, the same applies to eating and drinking on Yom Kippur: Although their measures differ, they can combine to reach the measure in which they are both equal—that is, the larger of the two measures].

Rav Naḥman said:

Our Mishna

can even be explained as being according to the Sages,

since a distinction must be made between combining for purposes of impurity and combining for Yom Kippur.

For

the Sages said only this there, with regard to impurity,

that two types of impurity possessing two different measures can combine, since

“the category of impurity”—

is one.

But here,

his liability

is due to settling the mind, and this one,

who eats part of the measure of eating and part of the measure of drinking, although together they constitute the requisite measure, nevertheless

does not have his mind settled

by this until he eats a complete measure of eating or drinking independently.

And Reish Lakish likewise said

in accordance with Rav Hisda: Our Mishna

was taught as part of a dispute, and it is Rabbi Yehoshua. As we learned: Rabbi Yehoshua stated a general principle

and

so on.

And Rabbi Yohanan said

in accordance with Rav Naḥman:

It can even be explained as being according to the Sages; the Sages said only this there, with regard to impurity, but here it is due to settling his mind—

and this one does not have his mind settled.

Mishna:

a.

If one ate

the measure of eating

and drank

the measure of drinking

with one lapse of awareness,

without becoming aware of the sin between the eating and the drinking—

he is liable to bring only one sin-offering,

because it is a single prohibition.

But if

he ate and performed labor—

he is liable to bring two sin-offerings,

because these are two separate prohibitions.

b.

If one ate foods unfit for eating, or drank beverages unfit for drinking,

because they were bitter,

and

likewise if

he drank fish brine,

the liquid that seeps from fish,

or mores,

the fat that seeps from the fish, which are not fit for drinking in themselves but are fit only for dipping food into them—

he is exempt.

Gemara:

Reish Lakish said: Why was no warning stated

of “do not perform”

with regard to the mitzva of

the

affliction

on Yom Kippur, but only as a positive mitzva: “You shall afflict your souls”?

Because it is impossible

to formulate the affliction in the language of a warning.

For

how shall we write

the verse?

Let the Merciful One write: “He shall not eat”—

eating

is

an olive-bulk,

whereas the affliction is measured by the bulk of a large date.

Let the Merciful One write: “You shall not afflict”—

it implies: Get up and eat.

Rav Hoshaya raised an objection: Let the Merciful One write: “Take heed, lest

you afflict.”

Such wording means: Do not perform the act.

And we answer:

If so,

if “take heed” and “lest” were written in the verse,

there would be many prohibitions.

Every instance of “take heed” and “lest” functions as a prohibition, and it would emerge that there were two prohibitions, whereas the Torah’s intention was to prohibit the affliction through one prohibition.

Rav Bibi bar Abaye raised an objection: Let the Merciful One write: “Take heed with regard to the mitzva of affliction,”

and this would constitute one prohibition!?

And we answer:

If so,

there would be no prohibition at all in this wording, according to the principle that

“take heed” with regard to a prohibition

is

a prohibition,

but

“take heed” with regard to a positive mitzva

is

a positive mitzva.

Rav Ashi raised an objection: Let the verse write: “Do not turn away from the affliction.”

And we conclude:

The matter remains difficult.

And the tanna

in the baraíta

derives it

bringing the warning concerning the affliction

from here:

Numbers 29:

“And you shall afflict your souls, and you shall not perform any labor.”

One might have thought that one would be liable

to karet even

for the addition

of time that is added from the ordinary day to the sacred day with regard to the prohibition of

labor?

The verse states

Leviticus 23:

“And any person who performs any labor on the essence of this very day.”

For the essence of the day—

one is liable to karet, but one is not liable to karet for the addition of labor.

One might have thought that one would not be liable to karet for the addition of labor, but one would be liable to karet for

eating or drinking during the

addition

from the ordinary day to the sacred day, for violating the

affliction?

The verse states: “For any person who is not afflicted on the essence of this very day—

and that soul shall be cut off.”

For the essence of the day—

one is liable to karet, but one is not liable to karet for the addition of affliction.

One might have thought that this time would not be included in the punishment

of karet,

but one would nevertheless be warned against the addition of labor

by karet

as a prohibition?

The verse states: “And you shall not perform any labor on the essence of this very day.”

For the essence of the day one is warned, but one is not warned with regard to the addition of labor.

One might have thought that one is not warned with regard to the addition of labor, but one is warned

by a prohibition

with regard to the addition of affliction.

And it is a logical inference

that one should not be warned with regard to the addition of affliction:

For

,

labor, which applies on Shabbat and Festivals,

one is not warned against

it during the addition.

Affliction, which does not apply on Shabbat and Festivals—

is it not logical that one should not be warned against it!

But we have not learned the warning concerning the affliction of the day itself.

From where?

It should not state the punishment with regard to labor—

as it could be derived from affliction.

And as for affliction, which does not apply on Shabbat and Festivals—

one is liable to karet.

Labor, which applies on Shabbat and Festivals—

is it not all the more so

that one should be liable to karet for it!

And if so,

why is it stated

the punishment of karet with regard to labor?

In order that this verse be

available,

free for exposition—

to juxtapose and derive a gzera shava from it:

A punishment

of karet

is stated

with regard to affliction, and

a punishment

of karet

is stated

with regard to labor.

Just as with labor—

the verse does not impose punishment unless it issued a warning, so too with affliction—

the verse does not impose punishment unless it issued a warning

concerning it.

And the Gemara says:

There is a refutation: What can be said about affliction— \-

which has no permitted exception,

as everyone is obligated in it;

can you say the same with regard to labor—

which has a permitted exception

from its general rule

through the Temple service!

Rather, the punishment for affliction should not be stated, as it could be derived

from labor: Just as labor, which has a permitted exception, is subject to karet—

affliction, which has no permitted exception—

is it not all the more so!

And if so,

why is the punishment

with regard to affliction stated?

In order that this verse be

available

for exposition—

to juxtapose and derive a gzera shava from it:

A punishment is stated with regard to affliction, and a punishment is stated with regard to labor.

Just as with labor—

the verse imposed punishment and issued a warning, so too with affliction—

the verse imposed punishment and issued a warning.

There is a refutation: What can be said about labor—

which applies on Shabbat and Festivals; can you say the same with regard to affliction—

which does not apply on Shabbat and Festivals?

Ravina said: This tanna

inferred it through the gzera shava of

“essence”—

“essence,”

“the essence of this very day,” which is stated both with regard to affliction and with regard to labor,

and derived it.

And the Gemara says that this gzera shava can be stated only when this verse is

available,

free for the exposition.

For if it were not available—

there is room to refute it, as we refuted

above.

And the Gemara explains:

How is it available?

Since

five verses are written with regard to labor.

One is for the warning concerning the day, and one is for the warning concerning the night.

And one is for the punishment concerning the day, and one is for the punishment concerning the night.

And one

the fifth verse

is for making it available: to derive

by means of a gzera shava the warning concerning

affliction

from the warning concerning

labor, both for the day and for the night.

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: It is stated here

on Yom Kippur

“affliction,” and it is stated there

with regard to the rape of a betrothed maiden

“affliction.”

Just as there—

the verse did not impose punishment

unless it issued a warning

through a prohibition,

so too here—

the verse did not impose punishment

with regard to affliction on Yom Kippur

unless it issued a warning.

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said: He derives “a Shabbat of complete rest” from the Shabbat of Creation.

Just as there—

the verse did not impose punishment unless it issued a warning, so too here—

the verse did not impose punishment unless it issued a warning.