POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
by Rabbi Ephraim Becker
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous dafYoma 81
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) NON-STANDARD ACHILAH (R. Yochanan)
(a) A Zar who consumes Terumah abnormally pays the principle but
not the Chomesh (he has "damaged" the grain, not eaten it).
2) FOOD AND DRINK DO NOT COMBINE ON YOM KIPUR
(b) Once food has been eaten (and the Zar has become liable in
Keren and Chomesh), subsequent consumption of that food
renders the user liable only to pay the firewood value to
the first (and nothing to the Kohen).
(a) Question: Who is the author of this non-Tziruf rule?
3) MISHNAH: COMBINING CHIYUVIM OF YOM KIPUR
(b) Answer: (R. Chisda) It is R. Yehoshua who taught that Tziruf
(for Tumah) only occurs when two items have the identical
Zman and Shiur (whereas according to Chachamim there is
Tziruf so long as there is overlap in Zman and Shiur).
(c) Answer: (R. Nachman) Our Mishnah could even follow the
opinion of the Chachamim and their view of Tziruf by Tumah
(where both items are called Tameh) may differ on Yom Kipur
(where, even combined, the less-then-Shiur amount of food
and/or drink does not generate Yishuv HaDa'as).
(d) Resh Lakish taught like R. Chisda and R. Yochanan taught
like R. Nachman.
(a) If one ate and drank (the Shiur of each) in one He'elem, he
brings only one Chatas (they are both parts of one Isur).
4) A LAV IN THE TORAH FOR THE MITZVAH OF INUI
(b) If one ate and did Melachah in one He'elem, he is Chayav two
(c) If one ate non-edibles he is Patur.
(a) (Resh Lakish) There is no Lav in the Torah regarding Inui
because language is lacking to express such a Lav.
5) DERIVING THE AZHARAH FROM THE BERAISA
1. Lo Yochal would imply Achilah (BeKezayis).
(b) Question: The language could be Hishamer Pen Lo SeUneh!?
2. Lo SeUneh would imply one *must* eat.
(c) Answer: That would create *two* Lavin (Hishamer and Pen).
(d) Question: The wording could be Hishamer BeMitzvas Inui!?
(e) Answer: That would create an Aseh, not a Lav.
(f) Question: Let it say Al Tasur Min HaInui!?
(g) Answer: Good question.
(a) The Beraisa derives the Azharah from VeInisem...
1. The Pasuk VeChol HaNefesh comes to restrict the Kares
to the day itself, and not to any additions to the day.
(b) The source of the Azharah regarding Inui is the Torah's
superfluous reference to Kares by Melachah (which could have
been derived logically from Melachah of Shabbos/Yom Tov)
which serves to link Melachah (where the Azharah is
explicit) to Inui (where the Azharah is thus derived).
2. The Pasuk VeChol Melachah comes to restrict the Torah
prohibition to the day itself, and not to Tosefes.
3. Logic dictates that there would not be a Lav on added
Inui (if Tosefes Melachah is not a Lav...).
(c) Question: But the difference between Melachah and Inui
should disrupt this connection (Inui has no exceptions while
Melachah is excepted in the Avodah)!?
(d) Answer: Rather, the derivation is from the superfluous
reference to Kares by *Inui*, which creates the link to
(e) Question: But Melachah is more frequent than Inui!?
(f) (Ravina) The Tana of the Beraisa in fact learns the Azharah
from the link between Melachah and Inui created by Etzem.
1. This link is Mufneh, as analyzed below, and is hence
not subject to the disruptions above.
(g) Another source for the Azharah by Yom Kipur is provided by
D'Vei R. Yishmael.
2. There are five Pesukim, one is Mufneh for the link.
1. Inui is written by Yom Kipur and by Ones (Eishes Ish).
(h) Another source is provided by R. Acha b. Yakov.
2. Just as by Ones there is no Onesh without an Azharah,
so, too, by Yom Kipur.
1. The term Shabbos Shabason links Yom Kipur to Shabbos.
2. Just as there is no Onesh by Shabbos without an
Azharah, so, too, by Yom Kipur.
(i) (R. Papa) Since Yom Kipur itself is called Shabbos (Tishbesu
Shabatchem), it is like Shabbos in both Onesh and Azharah!
6) NON-NORMAL EATING
1. He prefers learning from the Pasuk itself than from a
Gezeirah Shavah as did R. Acha b. Yakov.
2. Question: Why did R. Acha b. Yakov not do the same?
3. Answer: He uses Tishbesu Shabatchem to learn Tosefes
Shabbos and Yom Tov from Yom Kipur (as in the Beraisa).
4. Question: What will the Tana who uses Etzem to restrict
Kares to the day itself and not to Tosefes (he must
already know Tosefes as a Lav) do with BeSish'ah
LaChodesh (which this Beraisa uses as the source for
5. Answer: To teach that if one eats on the Ninth, he is
considered to have fasted on both the Ninth and Tenth.
(a) (Rava) One who eats spices as though they were food (pepper
or ginger) on Yom Kipur is Patur.
(b) Question: But we have learned that not only the pepper, but
even the bush of the pepper is considered an edible food!?
(c) Answer: That refers to moist pepper (edible), while Rava is
speaking of dried pepper (edible only as a condiment).
(d) Question: But R. Nachman taught that ginger *is* edible!?
(e) Answer: Again, that speaks where the ginger is moist.
(a) One is Patur for consuming the leaves of trees and vines,
but Chayav for the leaves of a grapevine (Lulavei Gefanim).
8) DRINKING BRINE IS PATUR
(b) (R. Yitzhok Magdela'ah) This refers to young, soft leaves
while leaves older than Rosh HaShanah would be Patur.
(c) (R. Kehanah) The cutoff is 30 days.
(d) A Beraisa supports R. Yitzhok Magdela'ah.
(a) By inference, vinegar would be Chayav.
(b) Question: Who is the Tana of our Mishnah?
(c) Answer: It is Rebbi who taught that vinegar satisfies.
(d) R. Gidel b. Menashe taught that the Halachah is not like
1. The following year people diluted vinegar and drank it.
2. R. Gidel objected, stating that the discussion only
revolved around being Patur or Chayav, not Mutar!
3. Further, we only spoke of a small quantity of vinegar,
but surely a large quantity is satisfying!
4. Further, we only spoke of undiluted vinegar, never of
diluted vinegar (which certainly may satisfy)!