(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Yoma 80

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.



(a) The Shiur of most Isurim to do with food is a k'Zayis. The Shiur of Tum'as Ochlin however, is a k'Beitzah - because the Torah in Shemini uses the unusual Lashon of "mi'Kol ha'Ochel Asher Ye'achel".

(b) Rebbi Elazar initially interprets this to mean 'food that comes from food' (i.e. an egg, that comes from a chicken). He explains like this because of the precedent by Yom Kipur, where we also learn a new Shiur from the fact that the Torah changes from "Lo Sochlu" to "Te'anu es Nafshoseichem".

(c) If not for the precedent from Yom Kipur, we would have thought that "mi'Kol ha'Ochel Asher Ye'achel" is the regular way to write it, and we would not have made such a Derashah.

(a) The Shiur of Tum'as Ochlin cannot be ...
1. ... a kid-goat (which is also food that comes from food) - because, since it still requires Shechitah, it is not yet considered food.
2. ... a Ben Peku'ah (a live baby animal that one finds inside its Shechted mother)? - because it too, must first be killed.
3. ... the egg of a *large* bird called a Bar Yochni - because of the principle 'Tafasta Merubeh Lo Tafasta' (we always take on the minimum implication).
(b) We retract from Rebbi Elazar's original explanation - because who says that the Shiur should be a *chicken's* egg? Perhaps it is the egg of *smaller* bird?

(c) Rebbi Avahu himself finally learns the Shiur of a k'Beitzah by Tum'as Ochlin from the same Pasuk ("mi'Kol ha'Ochel Asher Ye'achel") - which he explains to mean food that can be eaten in one go, and Chazal have assessed that the maximum that the human throat can hold is a chicken's egg.

(a) Rebbi Elazar obligates someone who eats Cheilev nowadays to record how much he ate, because Beis-Din might add to the Shiurim. This cannot mean that if he ate less than a k'Zayis, he should record it, in case Beis-Din reduce the Shiur of a k'Zayis, for which he is now *obligated* to bring a Korban (even though, according to the original interpretation of the Shiur at the time when he ate the Cheilev, he was *not*) - because a transgressor be'Shogeg, who would not have retracted at the time when he performed the sin, even if he had been aware of the sin, because for example, he would not have been Chayav anyway, is Patur from a Korban. So how can a later institution, render him Chayav.

(b) Had we understood Rebbi Elazar like that, we would have explained his words 'Shema ... Yarbeh be'Shiurin' - to mean that they may increase the amount of Korbanos that are brought because of the change of Shiur.

(c) What Rebbi Elazar really meant was that someone who ate an average size k'Zayis should record it - in case the Chachamim change the Shiur to a larger one, which will render him Patur, and, should he now bring a Chatas, he will be bringing Chulin to the Azarah.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan said 'Shiurin *ve'Onshin* Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai'. This statement cannot be correct the way it stands - because the punishments are written explicitly in the Torah, so how can they be Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai?

(b) What Rebbi Yochanan meant was 'Shiurin shel Onshin' - which are not written.

(c) According to Acheirim in a Beraisa, it was Ya'avetz - alias Osniel ben K'naz (Kalev ben Yefuneh's half brother, and Yehoshua's successor) who taught us the Shiurin. This does not mean that he initiated them, but that he reinstated them (with his Pilpul) after they had been forgotten.

(a) Our Mishnah gives the Shiur for drinking on Yom Kipur as 'Me'lo Lugmav' (two cheeks-full) - which really means one cheek-full.

(b) The Tana writes 'Me'lo Lugmav' - because he is referring to an amount that is slightly more than one ordinary cheek-full, so that, when all the liquid is moved to one side of the mouth, it gives the impression of being two cheeks-full.

(c) In a Beraisa, Beis Shamai gives the Shiur as a Revi'is, Beis Hillel as a Me'lo Lugmav and Rebbi Yehudah quoting Rebbi Eliezer, as ki'Me'lo Lugmav. Beis Hillel too, means ki'Me'lo Lugmav, like we explained our Mishnah - only according to them, the Shiur is the amount that resembles two *large* cheeks-full; whereas according to Rebbi Yehudah quoting Rebbi Eliezer, it is two *average* cheeks-full.

(d) According to Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah - the Shiur on Yom Kipur is as much as one can swallow in one gulp.

(a) The problem with saying that (with regard to the Shiur of eating on Yom Kipur) Beis Shamai gives the Shiur of a Revi'is and Beis Hillel as a ki'Me'lo Lugmav - is that, in that case, Beis Shamai is more lenient than Beis Hillel, and it ought to have been included in Iduyos, together with all the other cases where Beis Shamai is more lenient than Beis Hillel?

(b) The answer to this is that strange as may sound, the Tana'im are discussing a case of Og Melech ha'Bashan (which was what the questioner asked them). Consequently, Beis Hillel, who gives the Shiur as 'Me'Lo Lugmav' - Og's Me'lo Lugmav, is the more lenient of the two.




(a) That the Shiur for drink on Yom Kipur (a Me'lo Lugmav) differs from person to person - is perfectly natural; and as far as food is concerned, Chazal assessed that a Koseves ha'Gasah stills a person's, irrespective of his size.

(b) It is an established fact that a Koseves ha'Gasah is sufficient to still the hunger of Og Melech ha'Bashan, just as it does for a small person.

(c) It is also a fact that a Koseves ha'Gasah of edible vine-sprouts stills someone's hunger more or less in the same way as the same Shiur of a juicy stake.

(a) The time-limit within which one must eat ...
  1. ... a k'Zayis of forbidden foods in order to be Chayav - is a 'k'Dei Achilas Peras' (four egg-volumes)
  2. ... a Koseves ha'Gasah on Yom Kipur - a 'k'Dei Achilas Peras'.
(b) It may seem strange that the time limit for the *large* Koseves ha'Gasah should be equivalent to that of the *small* k'Zayis - but it is nevertheless true.
(a) Chatzi P'ras refers to a Kohen who ate half a Peras of Tamei food. He becomes Tamei and is forbidden to eat Terumah (though he does not render anything Tamei by touching it). Rava asked whether it is possible that a 'Chatzi Peras' should have the same time limit (a 'k'Dei Achilas Peras') as the much smaller 'k'Zayis'?

(b) Rav Papa answered that it is not d'Oraysa anyway - meaning that 'Tum'as Gevi'ah' (the body becoming Tamei - in the case of Chatzi Peras) is only mi'de'Rabbanan, and the Rabbanan were therefore lenient - despite its large size.

(c) When Rav Papa learnt elsewhere, from "Lo Sitam'u Bahem ve'Nitmeisem Bam", that P'sul Gevi'ah is d'Oraysa - he did not mean that it is really d'Oraysa, but that it is an Asmachta.

(d) We actually learn from that Pasuk - that when someone is Metamei himself a little, they cause him from Heaven to become Tamei a lot (i.e. one Aveirah leads to another) - as we learned above on Daf 39a.)

(a) We would have thought that the salt on a raw piece of meat will not combine with the meat to make up a Koseves ha'Gasah - because it is not a food.

(b) It does in fact, combine - because people eat it like that.

(c) We have thought that brine on top of vegetables should not combine to make up the Shiur on Yom Kipur - because, as we have learnt in our Mishnah, food and drink do not combine.

(d) The reason that it *does* - is because, whatever comes to improve the food (like a sauce) has the Din of a food (and not a liquid).

(a) 'Achilah Gasah' on Yom Kipur - is defined as eating after one is already full.

(b) One is not Chayav - because eating in this way is destroying the food and damaging himself, and is not in conflict with Inuy.

(c) Resh Lakish exempts a Zar who eats Terumah be'Shogeg, Achilah Gasah, from having to pay the extra fifth - because a Zar is only Chayav Me'ilah for *eating* Terumah, but not, for *destroying* it.

(d) He is nevertheless obligated to pay the principle - because a Zar who damages Terumah is also obligated to pay the principle.

12) A Zar who chews a raw barley kernel of Terumah be'Shogeg, is not Chayav to pay the extra fifth - because that is not called *Achilah*.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,