THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
YOMA 59-88 have been dedicated to the memory of the late Dr. Simcha
Bekelnitzky (Simcha Gedalya ben Shraga Feibush) of Queens N.Y. by his wife
and daughters. Well known in the community for his Chesed and Tzedakah, he
will long be remembered.
1) ARE THE FIVE "INUYIM" OF YOM KIPUR MID'ORAISA OR MID'RABANAN?
QUESTION: The Mishnah (73b) lists the five Isurim of Inuy on Yom Kipur --
Achilah Shetiyah, Rechitzah, Sichah, Ne'ilas ha'Sandal, and Tashmish
ha'Mitah. The Beraisa says that even though all of these acts are Asur on
Yom Kipur, only Achilah and Shetiyah are punishable with Kares. The rest are
Asur, but without Kares.
2) "CHATZI SHI'UR" IS FORBIDDEN BECAUSE IT IS CAN COMBINE TO MAKE A FULL
The Beraisa implies that all of the Inuyim are Asur mid'Oraisa, but they are
just not punishable with Kares. If so, why does the Mishnah state that it is
permitted for a king and a Kalah to wash their faces, and for a woman who
just gave birth ("Chayah") to wear shoes, on Yom Kipur? If these acts are
Asur mid'Oraisa, how can the Rabanan make exceptions?
(a) RABEINU TAM in TOSFOS (77a, DH d'Tenan) says that the other Inuyim,
besides Achilah and Shetiyah, are only Asur mid'Rabanan and not mid'Oraisa.
When the Rabanan prohibited them, they only prohibited them when they give a
person pleasure. When they do not provide pleasure but they serve a basic
necessity as in the case of a king, Kalah and Chayah, the Rabanan did not
(b) RASHI (DH Shabason, and in Shabbos 114b, DH Talmud Lomar Shabason) seems
to say that the other Inuyim, in addition to Achilah and Shetiyah, are also
Asur mid'Oraisa. This is also the opinion of the RAMBAM (Hilchos Shevisas
Asor 1:4-5). If so, why are they permitted in the case of a king, Kalah, and
The SEFER YERE'IM explains that it is permitted for a king and Kalah to wash
their faces, because washing one's face alone is not an Isur d'Oraisa. The
Isur d'Oraisa of Rechitzah involves washing one's *entire body*. Washing
part of the body is only Asur mid'Rabanan, and in the case of a king and
Kalah, the Rabanan permitted it.
Why, though, is a Chayah permitted to wear shoes?
The TOSFOS YESHANIM suggests that perhaps according to those who hold that
the Inuyim are d'Oraisa, the Isur to wear shoes applies only to a "Min'al"
(a shoe that covers the entire foot). A "Sandal," though, is Mutar
(c) The RAN explains that the Inuyim may in fact be d'Oraisa, but the Torah
gave the power to the Chachamim to interpret what is prohibited as an Inuy.
The Chachamim determined (based on their understanding of the concept of
Inuy) that only an act which is considered pleasurable is Asur as an Inuy.
Consequently, it is permitted for a king and Kalah to wash their faces, and
for a Chayah to wear shoes, because those acts are not acts of pleasure, but
acts of necessity.
The Ran asks, though, that the Mishnah (82a) tells us that children are not
required to observe the other Isurim of Inuy. The Mishnah implies that an
adult is permitted to wash a child. We know, however, that it is forbidden
for an adult to feed an Isur d'Oraisa to a child or to help the child
perform what the Torah prohibits for adults. How, then, can an adult wash a
child on Yom Kipur? The child is certainly being washed for pleasure! (Rashi
actually makes this very point on 78b DH Inshi Avdu Lei.)
The Ran does not answer this question, but it could be suggested that the
Isurim of Rechitzah, Sichah, and Ne'ilas ha'Sandal are all secondary Isurim,
which are derived from the Torah's commandment to observe the primary Isurim
of Achilah and Shetiyah (which are punishable with Kares). Since it is
permitted for an adult to feed a child on Yom Kipur because of Piku'ach
Nefesh (it is dangerous for a child to fast), then it is also permitted for
an adult to give the child the secondary Isurim which are derived from
Achilah and Shetiyah. (See also KESEF MISHNAH, Hilchos Shevisas Asor 1:5 -
however, the Gemara on Daf 78b will have to be re-learned according to this
assumption, see Insights there.)
OPINIONS: Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue concerning the Isur of
"Chatzi Shi'ur." Rebbi Yochanan says that the Torah forbids Chatzi Shi'ur,
and Reish Lakish says that the Torah permits it (and only the Rabanan
prohibit it). The Gemara explains that Rebbi Yochanan derives that Chatzi
Shi'ur is Asur mid'Oraisa from the verse, "Kol Chelev" (Vayikra 7:23). He
gives a logical explanation as well. Since a partial Shi'ur of Isur is able
to join another partial Shi'ur to make a complete Shi'ur which is certainly
Asur mid'Oraisa ("Chazi l'Itztarufei"), a partial Shi'ur is also Asur. This
logic would also explain why Chatzi Shi'ur is forbidden for all Isurim in
the Torah, and not just for those that involve eating (see Rashi, Shabbos
The Acharonim suggest a number of ways to understand the logic of "Chazi
(a) The most simple understanding is as follows. If one eats a Chatzi Shi'ur
and then eats another Chatzi Shi'ur, he will then transgress the Isur
d'Oraisa of eating a complete Shi'ur. The Torah therefore prohibits eating
the first Chatzi Shi'ur as a safeguard, lest one eat a second Chatzi Shi'ur
and transgress by eating a full Shi'ur.
According to this explanation, there would be reason to suggest that if a
person eats a Chatzi Shi'ur at the very last moment of the day on Yom Kipur,
that Chatzi Shi'ur will *not* be Asur mid'Oraisa. Since there is not enough
time to eat another Chatzi Shi'ur to add to the first Chatzi Shi'ur that he
ate, the logic of "Chazi l'Itztarufei" does not apply, as a number of
Acharonim point out (ACHIEZER 2:21 and others).
(b) The CHACHAM TZVI asserts that even according to Rebbi Yochanan, Chatzi
Shi'ur is only forbidden by the Torah for prohibitions against *eating*.
When one eats something, he gives it value and importance through the act of
eating it ("Achshevei"), and therefore it becomes forbidden by the Torah.
(That is, the amount of Isur that the Torah forbids is based on the amount
that is considered "significant.") The Isur d'Oraisa of Chatzi Shi'ur does
not apply to other types of Isurim, such as the Isurim of "Bal Yera'eh and
Bal Yimatzei" (not owning Chametz on Pesach), in which case a person does
not do any act to give the Isur significance.
The Rishonim, however, do apply the Isur of Chatzi Shi'ur to all types of
Isurim (see, for example, Rashi Shabbos 74a; Rambam, Perush ha'Mishnayos,
Shabbos, end of ch. 12).
(c) The SHA'AGAS ARYEH explains that the logic of "Chazi l'Itztarufei" means
that the prohibition of Chatzi Shi'ur is more than a safeguard against
eating a full Shi'ur. The reason for the prohibition is not just because it
brings a person closer to doing an Isur d'Oraisa. Rather, the act of eating
a *Chatzi Shi'ur itself* may end up becoming an act that was Asur
mid'Oraisa. That is, if one eats more of the Isur, then the first Chatzi
Shi'ur that he ate retroactively becomes a part of a full Shi'ur, which is
prohibited mid'Oraisa. At the time that he eats the Chatzi Shi'ur, it is
like eating a Safek Isur d'Oraisa (because he might eat more later), and
therefore it is Asur..
According to this explanation, in an Isur such as Bal Yera'eh and Bal
Yimatzei it is not possible for Chatzi Shi'ur to be forbidden, because in
order to transgress that Isur, the full Shi'ur of k'Zayis must be in one's
house all at one time (since that Isur does not involve doing an action with
the Isur). An Isur of Achilah can involve two acts done at two different
times (within Kedei Achilas Pras) with two partial Shi'urim which join
together to make one full Shi'ur, but when no action is involved, there is
no temporal element to join two partial Shi'urim. Therefore, Chatzi Shi'ur
should be Mutar d'Oraisa in the case of owning Chametz on Pesach, for the
Chatzi Shi'ur cannot turn into an Isur itself. (If another Chatzi Shi'ur of
Chametz is brought into the house at a later point, only then from that
point on has the first Chatzi Shi'ur become part of an Isur.) In that case,
it is certainly Mutar since and there is no question that the original act
of Chatzi Shiur may retroactively be an act that was prohibited. (See
Insights to Pesachim 45:1:e.)
The MINCHAS CHINUCH uses this explanation to answer a question on the
Rambam. The RAMBAM (Hilchos Chametz u'Matzah 1:7) rules that eating a Chatzi
Shi'ur of Chametz on Pesach is forbidden mid'Oraisa because of a separate
verse, "Lo Ye'achel." Why does he need to say that it is Asur because of
that verse? We know that Chatzi Shi'ur is Asur for *all* Isurim! (See Kesef
The Minchas Chinuch explains that perhaps the Rambam understood that the
normal Isur of Chatzi Shi'ur does not apply to the Isur of owning Chametz,
as the Sha'agas Aryeh says, because that partial Shi'ur will never be Asur
as a partial Shi'ur. For this reason the Rambam needs to cite a verse to
show that a Chatzi Shi'ur of Chametz is Asur to eat *in and of itself*, and
not just because of "Chazi l'Itztarufei." The prohibitions of Bal Yera'eh
and Bal Yimatzei were meant to keep a person from transgressing the
prohibition of eating Chametz (Avos d'Rebbi Nasan ch 1), and if it is
prohibited to eat even half a Shi'ur of Chametz then the prohibitions of Bal
Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei should also apply to half a Shi'ur of Chametz --
even without resorting to the logic of "Chazi l'Itztarufei." (Had the
prohibition of *eating* half a Shi'ur of Chametz been because of "Chazi
l'Itztarufei," which is a preventative measure but not an Isur in its own
right, than the prohibitions of Bal Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei should not
apply, since they would be a preventative measure to prevent the
transgression of what is itself only a preventative measure.)
(d) The MESHECH CHOCHMAH (Vayikra 7:23) and others explain that perhaps
"Chazi l'Itztarufei" means something entirely different. It does not mean
that perhaps one will eat a little more later and thereby transgress the
full Shi'ur of an Isur d'Oraisa. Rather, the logic of "Chazi l'Itztarufei"
means as follows.
When the Torah forbids eating a certain item, such as a non-kosher animal,
and the Isur depends on eating a minimal Shi'ur, it is not logical to assume
that if one eats less than that Shi'ur he is eating a permissible item. The
Torah would not permit the meat of a non-kosher animal if one eats less than
a k'Zayis, while forbidding the same meat if one eats a little bit more (and
making it punishable with Malkus!). If each bite until the Shi'ur of k'Zayis
was permitted, what changed at the last bite, at the point that he ate a
k'Zayis? Why should the last bite of meat be more Asur than the others?
Rather, says Rebbi Yochanan, Chatzi Shi'ur is also Asur mid'Oraisa, but one
is not liable for Malkus until he repeats the Isur many times by eating a
k'Zayis. "Chazi l'Itztarufei" means that if the Torah forbids a k'Zayis, it
must be that any amount of the item is also Asur, but a person is not
punished for it until he eats a Shi'ur of a k'Zayis. (We could say that the
Meshech Chochmah understands that the logic of "Chazi l'Itztarufei" provides
a *sign* that Chatzi Shi'ur is forbidden, and not a *reason* to forbid it.)
Until now, it was simple to understand how Reish Lakish refutes Rebbi
Yochanan's logic of "Chazi l'Itztarufei." He simple says that if eating less
than a k'Zayis is not considered an act of Achilah, who is to say that a
preventative measure should be taken and it should be prohibited. In
addition, since there is no reason to suspect that the person will eat more
of the prohibited food, thereby transgressing an Isur Torah, why should we
suspect that the first half-Shi'ur will retroactively become Asur? However,
according to the Meshech Chochmah's explanation, how does Reish Lakish
refute the logical argument of Rebbi Yochanan by saying that Chatzi Shi'ur
is not called Achilah? True, it is not Achilah, but an Achilah is necessary
only to be punished with Malkus, not to prohibit the food!
Reish Lakish apparently holds that the food itself is not inherently Asur.
Rather, the Torah prohibits *person* from performing an "action of Achilah"
with the food, and an action of Achilah is defined as consuming a k'Zayis
through the normal manner of consumption. Until that point, he has not done
a "Ma'aseh Achilah," and thus everything he ate until now was *Mutar*. Only
at the point when he eats a full k'Zayis has he done an action of Achilah,
and transgressed the Isur. (Rebbi Yochanan, on the other hand, holds that
eating a k'Zayis is no different from an act of eating than eating less than
a k'Zayis. The difference between the two is in the quantity of the Isur
that was consumed.) (M. Kornfeld)