Yoma 81a — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Yirmeya said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: A non-priest ![](

exact page location)

who bites barley of teruma,

who eats it not in the usual manner of eating—

pays the principal but does not pay the fifth.

Since it is stated concerning teruma [Leviticus 22]: “If a man eats a sacred thing inadvertently, he shall add its fifth to it, and he shall give the sacred thing to the koen.” And we expound:

“If he eats”—

excluding one who causes damage.

Rav Shizbi said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: A non-priest who swallowed

despite the fact that he did not chew

plums of teruma, and vomited them, and another

person

ate them—

The

first pays the principal and the fifth.

For swallowing plums is also considered the usual manner of eating.

And the

second,

who ate them after the vomiting, when they were then fit for eating only to be used as fuel in an oven,

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

and does not pay anything to the koen, since the first acquired them through his eating and became liable for their value to the koen.

We learned in the Mishna:

One who eats and one who drinks do not combine.

Who is the tanna?

Rav Hisda said:

Our Mishna

was taught in a dispute,

and

and it is

according to

Rabbi Yehoshua.

As we learned

in tractate Me'ila 17a:

Rabbi Yehoshua stated a principle

concerning combining impure things to reach the measure of impurity:

Every

thing

that

the period of

its impurity and its measure

for impurity

is equal

to the period of its impurity and to the measure of the impurity of the thing with which it is being combined—

combines,

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

But if it is equal to the other only in the period of

its impurity and not

equal to it in

its measure

for impurity, or equal to it in

its measure

for impurity

but not

equal to it in the period of

its impurity, or if it

is not

equal to it in the period of

its

impurity and not

in

its measure—

they do not combine.

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

But according to the words of the Sages, they do combine to render impure—for the short period in which they are both equal, and according to the measure in which they are equal.

And according to the words of the Sages, the same is true concerning eating and drinking on Yom Kippur: although their measures are different, they can combine to reach the measure in which they are both equal [that is, the larger of them].

Rav Naḥman said:

Our Mishna

can even be said to be according to the Sages,

since one must distinguish between combining for impurity and combining for Yom Kippur.

For

the Sages said there only with regard to impurity,

that two impurities possessing two different measures can combine, since

“the designation of impurity”

is one.

But here,

his liability

is because of settling the mind, and this

one who eats part of the measure of eating and part of the measure of drinking, although together they contain a measure, nevertheless

his mind is not settled

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

And so said Resh Lakish

like Rav Hisda: Our Mishna

was taught in a dispute, and it is Rabbi Yehoshua. As we learned: Rabbi Yehoshua stated a principle

and

so on.

And Rabbi Yohanan said

in accordance with the words of Rav Naḥman:

It can even be said to be according to the Sages; the Sages said there only with regard to impurity, but here it is because of settling his mind—

and this one, his mind is not settled.

Mishna:

a.

If one ate

the measure of eating

and drank

the measure of drinking

in one lapse of awareness,

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

he is liable for only one sin-offering,

since it is one prohibition.

But if he

ate and performed labor—

he is liable for two sin-offerings,

since they are two separate prohibitions.

b.

If one ate foods that are unfit for eating, and drank liquids that are unfit for drinking,

because they are bitter.

And

likewise if he

drank fish brine,

the water that flows from fish,

or fish sauce,

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

he is exempt.

Gemara:

Resh Lakish said: Why was no warning stated

of “do not perform”

for

the mitzva of

affliction

on Yom Kippur, but only the positive commandment “You shall afflict your souls”?

Because it is not possible

to write 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

with an olive-sized portion,

whereas affliction is with the measure of a date-sized portion.

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

it implies: Arise and eat.

Rav Hoshaya raised an objection to it: Let the Merciful One write: “Take care, lest

you afflict.”

Such wording means: do not perform.

And we answer:

If so,

if “take care” and “lest” were written in the verse—

there would be many prohibitions.

Every “take care” and “lest” functions as a prohibition, and it would emerge that there would be two prohibitions, whereas the Torah’s intention is to prohibit the affliction with one prohibition.

Rav Bibi bar Abaye raised an objection to it: Let the Merciful One write, “Take care concerning the mitzva of affliction,”

and this would be one prohibition!?

And we answer:

If so,

there would not be any prohibition at all in this wording, according to the principle that

“take care concerning a prohibition”

is

a prohibition,

but

“take care concerning a positive commandment”

is

a positive commandment.

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

And we conclude:

It is difficult.

And the tanna

in the beraita

brings it—

he brings the warning concerning affliction

from here:

Numbers 29:

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

One might think that he would be punished

even with karet

for the addition

of time that they add from the profane to the sacred in the prohibition of

labor?

The verse therefore says

Leviticus 23:

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

For the essence of the day—

he is punished with karet, but he is not punished with karet for the addition of labor.

One might think that he will not be punished with karet for the addition of labor, but he will be punished with karet for

eating or drinking during the

addition

from the profane to the sacred, for violating the

affliction?

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

and he shall be cut off.”

For the essence of the day—

he is punished with karet, but he is not punished with karet for the addition of affliction.

One might think that this time will not be included

in

the punishment

of karet,

but he will be warned about the addition of labor

with a prohibition?

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

For the essence of the day he is warned, but he is not warned concerning the addition of labor.

One might think that he will not be warned concerning the addition of labor, but he will be warned

with a prohibition

concerning the addition of affliction.

And it is a logical inference

that he should not be warned concerning the addition of affliction:

For,

just as labor, which applies on Shabbatot and Festivals,

he is not warned concerning it

in the addition,

affliction, which does not apply on Shabbatot and Festivals—

is it not logical that he should not be warned concerning it!

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

From where?

Let the punishment not be stated for labor—

for it can be derived from affliction.

And just as affliction, which does not apply on Shabbatot and Festivals,

is punished with karet,

labor, which applies on Shabbatot and Festivals—

is it not all the more so

that he is punished with karet for it!

And if so,

why is

the punishment of karet stated for labor?

In order that this passage should be

available,

free for exposition—

to compare and derive from it a gzera shava:

A punishment

of karet

is stated for affliction, and a punishment

of karet

is stated for labor.

Just as with labor—

he did not punish unless he warned, so too with affliction—

he did not punish unless he warned

about it.

And the Gemara says:

There is room to refute: What is special about affliction— \-

that it was not permitted in any respect,

since everyone is obligated in it,

can you say this concerning labor—

which was permitted

in part

of its general category

through the Temple service!

Rather, let the punishment not be stated for affliction, for it can be derived

from labor: Just as labor, which was permitted in part of its general category, is punished with karet,

affliction, which was not permitted in any respect—

is it not all the more so!

And if so,

why is

the punishment stated for affliction?

In order that this verse should be

available

for exposition—

to compare and derive from it a gzera shava:

A punishment is stated for affliction, and a punishment is stated for labor.

Just as with labor—

he punished and warned, so too with affliction—

he punished and warned.

There is room to refute: What is special about labor—

for it applies on Shabbatot and Festivals; can you say this concerning affliction—

which does not apply on Shabbatot and Festivals?

Ravina said: This tanna

in the gzera shava of

“essence—

essence”,

“the essence of this day,” which is stated both concerning affliction and concerning labor,

derived it.

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

available,

free for the exposition of the gzera shava.

For if it is not available—

there is room to refute, as we refuted.

And the Gemara explains:

Indeed,

how is it

made available?

Since

five verses are written concerning labor.

One for the warning by day, and one for the warning at night.

And one for the punishment by day, and one for the punishment at night.

And one

the fifth verse

to make available: to derive

by gzera shava the warning of

affliction

from the warning of

labor, both by day and at night.

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: It is stated here

on Yom Kippur

“affliction,” and it is stated there

in the case of the rape of a betrothed maiden

“affliction.”

Just as there—

the verse did not punish

unless it

warned,

with a prohibition warning.

So too here—

the verse did not punish

for affliction on Yom Kippur

unless it warned.

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said: He derives “a sabbath of solemn rest” from the Sabbath of Creation.

Just as there—

he did not punish unless he warned, so too here—

he did not punish unless he warned.