(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 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.



(a) A Zar who swallows whole plums of Terumah, will have to pay the extra fifth - because this is considered Derech Achilah.

(b) If he then ejected them and a second Zar ate them, Rebbi Yochanan rules that the second Zar must pay the first one the plums' value as fuel. The reason that he ...

1. ... pays the first Zar and not a Kohen - is because the first Zar acquired them through 'Shinuy' (changing them - as we shall now see).
2. ... pays only their value as *fuel* and not their *full value* - is because what he ate, was no longer fit to eat, only to be used as fuel.
(a) In a Mishnah in Me'ilah, Rebbi Yehoshua holds that two half-Shiurim whose Tum'ah and Shiur are the same, combine to make up a Shiur Tum'ah. An example of this - is two half k'Zeisim from two corpses or from two Neveilos.

(b) If either the Tum'ah or the Shiur of two half-Shiurim differ - they do not combine.

(c) An example of a case ...

1. ... where their Tum'os are the same but their Shiurim differ - is a Sheretz (whose Shiur is a k'Adashah), and a Neveilah (whose Shiur is a k'Zayis), even though both render Tamei those who touch them until night- time.
2. ... where their Shiurim are the same but their Tum'os differ - is a piece of corpse (which renders those who touch them Tamei for seven days) and a piece of Neveilah (which is Metamei only until night-time), even though the Shiur of both is a k'Zayis.
(d) The author of our Mishnah (which holds that half a Shiur of food and half a Shiur of drink do not combine) can be the Rabbanan of Rebbi Yehoshua (who hold that by Tum'ah, two half Shiurim combine in all cases) - because on Yom Kipur it is a question of stilling one's hunger, and food and drink do not combine, seeing as they do not perform that function.
(a) If, in one He'elam (i.e. without remembering in between) a person were to ...
  1. ... eat and drink on Yom Kipur, he would be Chayav *one* Chatas - because both eating and drinking derive from the same Pasuk.
  2. ... he ate and performed a Melachah, he would be Chayav *two* Chata'os - because eating and performing a Melachah derive from two Pesukim.
(b) One is not Chayav for eating on Yom Kipur ...
  1. ... something that is not normally edible.
  2. ... brine or fish-juice - because they are not edible.
(c) Resh Lakish attributes the fact that there is no *La'av* for Inuy on Yom Kipur, to the fact that there is no way for the Torah to convey it.
The Torah could not have written ...
  1. ... "Lo Yochal" - because that implies a k'Zayis.
  2. ... "Hishamer Pen Lo Se'uneh" - because that would imply *two* La'avin, and the Torah only wants to present *one*.
  3. ... "Hishamer be'Mitzvas Inuy" - because there are those who hold that 'Hishamer of an Asei is an Asei'.
(d) Rav Ashi asks that the Torah could have written "Al Tasur min ha'Inuy" - a Kashya to which Resh Lakish does not seem to have an answer.
(a) The Tana learns from the Pasuk in Emor ...
1. ... "ve'Chol ha'Nefesh Asher Ta'aseh Melachah *be'Etzem ha'Yom ha'Zeh"* ve'Nichresah - that Kares for Melachah is confined to Yom Kipur itself and not to Tosefes Yom Kipur (the short time before nightfall that one is obligated to add to Yom Kipur).
2. ... "*Ki Chol ha'Nefesh Asher Lo Se'uneh be'Etzem ha'Yom ha'Zeh ve'Nichresah* ... " - that one is Chayav Kares for eating on Yom Kipur.
3. ... "Ki Chol ha'Nefesh Asher Lo Se'uneh *be'Etzem ha'Yom ha'Zeh* ve'Nichresah ... " - that that Kares is confined to Yom Kipur itself and not to Tosefes Yom Kipur (like the Chiyuv Kares for Melachah).
4. ... ve'Chol Melachah Lo Sa'asu "be'Etzem ha'Yom ha'Zeh" - that there is not even a La'av for Melachah on Tosefes Yom Kipur.
(b) It should not be necessary to write the punishment of Kares ("ve'Nichresah") by Melachah - because we could learn it from a Kal va'Chomer from Inuy, which does not apply on Shabbos or Yom-Tov, as *it* does.

(c) From the fact that the Torah *does* write it - we try to learn a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "ve'Nichresah" "ve'Nichresah", to learn an Azharah (a warning - in the form of a La'av) by Inuy (where no warning is mentioned) from Melachah (where it is). The fact that it mentions "ve'Nichresah" unnecessarily, renders it 'Mufneh' (superfluous).

5) We refute the previous Limud on the grounds that Inuy also has a stringency over Melachah - because some Melachos are permitted even on Shabbos (i.e. those that are needed for the Avodah in the Beis Hamikdash), a leniency that does not exist by Inuy on Yom Kipur. Consequently, Kares needs to be written by Melachah, after all.


(a) The Tana finally learns the La'av for Inuy on Yom Kipur from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "be'Etzem" "be'Etzem" from Melachah. It is essential for at least the "be'Etzem" by Melachah to be redundant - because it is only when at least one of the two words of the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' is redundant that a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' becomes viable.

(b) The Torah writes five Pesukim with regard to the prohibition of Melachah on Yom Kipur: one as a warning by day and one as a warning by night; the third as a punishment by day and the fourth by night. The fifth Pasuk is to render the above 'Gezeirah-Shavah' viable, as we just explained.


1. Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learns the La'av by Inuy from a 'Gezeirah- Shavah' "Inuy" "Inuy" from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "al Devar Asher Inah es Eishes Re'eihu", from which he learns that just as by adultery, the punishment is accompanied by a warning, so too, is the case by the Inuy on Yom Kipur.
2. Rav Acha bar Ya'akov derives it from the 'Gezeirah Shavah' of "Shabbatchem" "Shabbason" from Shabbos - in exactly the same way as Tana de'Bei Yishmael learned it from adultery.
(d) Rav Papa learns this directly from the Pasuk of "Tishbesu Shabbatchem" without a 'Gezeirah Shavah'. This Pasuk teaches us, he explains, that Yom Kipur is also called Shabbos. Consequently, the Azharah that is written by Shabbos incorporates Yom Kipur, too.



(a) It is easy to understand why Rav Papa prefers to learn the La'av of Inuy directly, without a 'Gezeirah Shavah'. Rav Acha bar Ya'akov, for his part, refutes Rav Papa's Derashah - on the grounds that "Tishbesu" and "Shabbatchem" comes, not to teach us that Yom Kipur is called Shabbos, but that Shabbos (from "Tishbesu") and Yom-Tov (from "Shabbatchem") are also included in the Din of Tosefes (just like Yom Kipur).

(b) The Tana learns from ...

1. ... "ve'Inisem es Nafshoseichem *be'Tish'ah la'Chodesh*" and *ba'Erev*" - that one fasts on the ninth (from "be'Tish'ah la'Chodesh"), but only as an addition to the tenth (from "ba'Erev"), and not the entire day.
2. ... "me'Erev ad Erev" - that Tosfos Yom Kipur applies after the termination of Yom Kipur, as well.
(c) The Tana who learns the 'Gezeirah Shavah' of "Etzem" "Etzem" not need this Derashah - because from the fact that we need to preclude Inuy from Tosefes Yom Kipur, it is clear that it must be included in the Asei of "Te'anu" (otherwise why would it be necessary to preclude it from the La'av).

(d) From the Pasuk "ve'Inisem es Nafshoseichem be'Tish'ah" - he learns that anyone who eats and drinks on the ninth, is considered as if he had fasted on the ninth and the tenth (i.e. he receives reward for fasting forty-eight hours).

(a) One is not Chayav for eating raw pepper-corns or raw ginger on Yom Kipur - because they are not edible.

(b) Rebbi Meir learns from the Pasuk by Orlah (Eitz Ma'achal" (after having already written "va'Araltem Orlaso es Piryo" - that this refers to a tree whose wood shares the taste of the fruit (i.e. a pepper-corn tree).

(c) This teaches us that a pepper-corn tree is Chayav Orlah, and that Eretz Yisrael lacks nothing - not even pepper-corn trees).

(d) Rava establishes ...

1. ... Rebbi Meir by *wet* pepper-corns, whereas the peppercorns that he considers to be inedible, are *dry* ones.
2. ... Rav Nachman, who permitted Indian 'Himlesa' (a kind of ginger) prepared with honey (from the point of view of Bishul Akum), and fixed its Berachah as 'Borei P'ri ha'Adamah' - in exactly the same way (i.e. by *wet* ginger (whereas *he* was referring to *dry* ginger).
(a) The Tana exempts someone who eats sugar-cane leaves on Yom Kipur, but obligates him if he eats vine-sprouts. According to Rebbi Yitzchak Magdela'a, these sprouts grew between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kipur - if they grew earlier, they will have already become hard and inedible by Yom Kipur (in which case he will be Patur).

(b) Rav Kahana holds that as long as it is still within thirty days of their growth (i.e. the tenth of Elul), they are still edible.

(c) A Beraisa supports Rebbi Yitzchak Magdela'a's opinion.

(a) We infer from the fact that our Mishnah exempted *brine* and *fish- juice* exclusively - that someone who drinks *vinegar* on Yom Kipur is Chayav.

(b) The author of our Mishnah will then be Rebbi - who says that vinegar stills a person's thirst.

(c) The following year, when Rav Gidal bar Menasheh from Biri declared that the Halachah was not like Rebbi - everyone went and diluted vinegar on Yom Kipur and drank it.

(d) Rav Gidal was cross because he only meant *Bedi'eved*, but not Lechatchilah; he also meant only *a little*, but not a lot, and *undiluted*, but not diluted.

Next daf


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