ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafYoma 74
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) According to the Mishnah in Shavu'os, the Korban Shevu'ah for Shevu'as
ha'Eidus is restricted to someone who is fit to testify. According to Rav
Papa, this comes to preclude a king - according to Rav Acha bar Ya'akov, a
(b) A gambler is disqualified from testifying mi'de'Rabbanan - because (due
to the fact that he did not actually steal his winnings) he is only a
(c) In spite of the fact that, according to Resh Lakish, Shevu'as *Bituy*
applies in a case of less than a Shiur of Isur (since it is not Asur min
ha'Torah), Shevu'as *ha'Eidus* does not apply even by an Isur de'Rabbanan)
- since the Torah writes there "Im Lo Yagid" (and what is the difference
whether he cannot testify mi'd'Oraysa or mi'de'Rabbanan)?
(a) The Beraisa explains that although Chazal said 'Asur' by all the Isurim
on Yom Kipur, only three of them are actually Chayav Kares: - eating,
drinking and Melachah.
(b) We amend the Beraisa to read that 'Asur' only pertains to Chatzi Shiur,
but a full Shiur is subject to Kares; even by a full Shiur however, only
the three above-mentioned cases receive Kares.
(c) Alternatively, 'Asur' pertains to the other cases - i.e. washing
anointing and wearing shoes, which we learn from the Pasuk "Shabason".
(d) It is not really d'Oraysa - it is an Asmachta (a de'Rabbanan, which
Chazal supported with a Pasuk).
(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan, Chatzi Shiur is logically forbidden -
because every Shiur is made up of half-Shiurim, of which each part is fit
to combine with the rest to make up the full Shiur (so it is illogical to
say that the Torah would permit it outright).
(b) Chatzi Shiur is permitted (min ha'Torah) according to Resh Lakish -
because the Torah does not consider eating less than the Shiur, 'Achilah'.
(a) There is no punishment for eating less than a Shiur. The Beraisa
nevertheless learns from the Pasuk "Kol Cheilev" - that even eating less
than the Shiur is forbidden. Rebbi Yochanan proves from here that Chatzi
Shiur is Asur min ha'Torah.
(b) Resh Lakish explains that the Tana really holds that 'Chazti Shiur
Mutar min ha'Torah' - and the Pasuk is merely an Asmachta.
(c) Resh Lakish attempts to prove this from the Beraisa, which includes
the Cheilev of a Coy (a species of deer which we currently think is a Safek
Chayah, Safek Beheimah) in the prohibition from "*Kol* Cheilev". Now, if
the Beraisa was speaking about an Isur d'Oraysa (like Rebbi Yochanan
learns), why would we need a Pasuk to include a Coy, asks Resh Lakish? Does
Hashem really not know whether a Coy is a Beheimah or a Chayah?
(d) Rebbi Yochanan refutes Resh Lakish's proof - on the grounds that a Coy
is not a Safek at all, but a new breed (which is neither a Beheimah nor a
Chayah), and which therefore requires a Pasuk to forbid it.
(a) We prove that a Coy must be a breed on its own from a statement by Rav
Idi bar Avin, who includes the blood of a Coy in the prohibition of blood
from the Pasuk in Acharei Mos "*Kol* Dam Lo Socheilu". Why would we need a
Pasuk to include a Safek Beheimah, Safek Chayah - both of which are
forbidden? It is therefore clear that a Coy is not just a Safek, but a new
(b) The reason there, cannot be because a Coy is a Safek, like Resh Lakish
learns by the Beraisa of Cheilev - because whether it is a Beheimah or a
Chayah, its blood will be forbidden.
(a) "Te'anu es Nafshoseichem" cannot mean that one should go and sit in the
sun or in the cold - because the Torah compares Inuy to Melachah (since
they appear in the same Pasuk): just as one fulfills the latter through
non-action (i.e. not working), so too, does one fulfill the former through
non-action (by not eating).
(b) Neither can it mean that we tell someone who is already in the sun or
in the cold to remain there - because we do not find such a distinction by
working (which is forbidden in all cases).
(a) In the second Beraisa, the Tana writes that affliction, like Melachah,
speaks when it is forbidden elsewhere - i.e. on Shabbos.
(b) So we establish "Te'anu" by Pigul and Nosar, and "ve'Inisem es
Nafshosiechem" (both in Acharei-Mos) by Tevel - we would not be able to
learn Tevel, which is *not* a Chiyuv Kares, from Pigul and Nosar, which
(c) We ultimately include from "ve'Inisem es Nafshoseichem" - Neveilah
(which is not even Chayav Misah - like Tevel is), Chulin, which is not even
subject to a La'av (though it is not clear how the Ribuy can over-ride the
Hekesh with which the Sugya began), Terumah, which it is even a Mitzvah
(for Kohanim) to eat, and Kodshim, which are even forbidden to leave over.
All of these are included in the Mitzvah of Inuy on Yom Kipur.
(a) The Beraisa however, concludes, by learning that Inuy refers to not
eating, from another source. And we need that source - because otherwise,
we might have thought that "Te'anu" and ve'Inisem" pertain to Inuy from
Tashmish (which is also called 'Inuy', as we shall see shortly).
De'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learns it from a 'Gezeirah Shavah' "Inuy" "Inuy" from
"va'Ye'ancha va'Yay'ivecha" (Eikev). He prefers to learn it from the Inuy
of the Man rather than from ...
(b) The Beraisa's source that Inuy means to refrain from eating - is the
Pasuk in Emor "ve'Ha'avadti es ha'Nefesh ha'Hi" - from which we learn that
it must be an Inuy which leads to 'Ha'avadas Nefesh' i.e. fasting (though
this is strange, since "ve'Ha'avadti ... " is written with regard to
Melachah, and not Inuy).
1. ... "Im Te'aneh es Benosai"(Vayeitzei) of Lavan - because the latter
refers to a private individual (Ya'akov), and not to the whole of K'lal
Yisrael, as both the Inuy of Yom Kipur and that of the Man do.
2. ... "Vayar es Onyeinu" (Sh'mos) of Egypt (which refers to the Egyptians
forcing the Jewish men to keep apart from their wives) - because that was a
man-induced Inuy, and not one that was purely Divine, like that of Yom
Kipur and the Man.
(a) Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi argue over what the Inuy of the Man comprised.
According to one of them, it was the fact that they could not see what they
were eating - because someone who cannot see his food, does not fully enjoy
it, and Yisrael did not see what they were eating, because the Man always
looked the same, not like the variety of foods that they actually tasted.
(b) We learn from here that ...
1. ... a blind man does not become satisfied (because satisfaction is
linked to the extent that one enjoys one's food - unless the Gemara is
merely saying that he does not enjoy his food).
(c) The other opinion explains the Inuy of the Man - to mean that (except
for Shabbos) they never had Man for the next day - and one cannot compare
someone who has bread in his basket to someone who hasn't.
2. ... to get the best out of a meal - one should eat it by day (or at
least with a light, making it like day - see 75b).
(a) Resh Lakish explains the Pasuk in Koheles "Tov Mar'eh Einayim me'Halach
Nafesh" - to mean that looking at a woman gives a person more pleasure than
having relations with her (see Tosfos Yeshanim).
(b) Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi also argue over the interpretation of the Pasuk
in Mishlei "Ki Yiten be'Kos Eino, Yis'halech be'Meisharim" - One explains
that anyone who loves drinking will think that all forbidden women are
permitted. The other, that it is everyone's money that he will consider