משנה: אָכַל וְשָׁתָה בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד אֵינוֹ חַייָב אֶלָּא חַטָּאת אַחַת. אָכַל וְשָׁתָה וְעָשָׂה מְלָאכָה חַייָב שְׁתֵּי חַטָּאוֹת. אָכַל אוֹכְלִין שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִין לַאֲכִילָה וְשָׁתָה מַשְׁקִין שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִין לִשְׁתִיָּה שָׁתָה צִיר אוֹ מוּרְיֵיס פָּטוּר׃ תִּינוֹקוֹת אֵין מְעַנִּין אוֹתָן בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים אֲבָל מְחַנְּכִין אוֹתָם קוֹדֶם שָׁנָה וְקוֹדֶם שְׁתַּיִם בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁיִּהוּ רְגִילִין לַמִּצְוֹת׃ MISHNAH: If one ate and drank in one forgetting he is liable only for one purification sacrifice59Since not eating and drinking are subsumed under fasting, only one biblical commandment was broken.. If he ate and drank, and worked, he is liable for two purification sacrifices60Since fasting is commanded in Lev,23:27 but work is forbidden in 23:28, two distinct commandments were broken and two sacrifices are due.. If he ate foods which are not edible or drank drinks which are not drinkable, drank fish sauce61Fluid squeezed out of raw fish. or muries62A Latin word denoting fish sauce treated with salt, water, and sometimes wine, used to dip one’s bread in but never used as a drink., he is not liable.
One does not let children fast but one educates them one year of two in advance63One lets girls aged 10 and boys aged 11 fast part of the day and at ages 11, respectively 12, a whole day, as education, not as biblical requirement. so they should be used to commandments.
הלכה: לָמָּה. שְׁתִייָה בִּכְלָל אֲכִילָה. אֵין אֲכִילָה בִכְלָל שְׁתִייָה. מָנַיִין שֶׁהַשְּׁתִייָה בִּכְלָל אֲכִילָה. רִבִּי יוֹנָה שָׁמַע לָהּ מִן הָדָא. עַל־כֵּ֤ן אָמַ֨רְתִּי֙ לִבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל כָּל־נֶ֥פֶשׁ מִכֶּ֖ם לֹא־תֹ֣אכַל דָּ֑ם. מָה נָן קַייָמִין. אִם בְּדָם שֶׁקָּרַשׁ. הָא תַנֵּי. דָם שֶׁקָּרַשׁ אֵינוֹ לֹא אוֹכֶל וְלֹא מַשְׁקֶה. אֶלָּא כִי נָן קָייָמִין. כָּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא. וְהַתּוֹרָה קָרָאת אוֹתוֹ אֲכִילָה. וְהָתַנֵּי. הִמְחָה אֶת הַחֵלֶב וּגְמָייוֹ. הִקְפָּה אֶת הַדָּם וַאֲכָלוֹ. [אִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ כְזַיִת] חַייָב. מָה עֲבַד לָהּ רִבִּי יוֹנָה. אֵינוֹ אוֹכֶל לְטַמְּאוֹ טוּמְאַת אוֹכְלִין וְלֹא מַשְׁקֶה לְטַמְּאוֹ טוּמְאַת מַשְׁקֶה. חָזַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה שָׁמַע לָהּ מִן הָדָא. וְנָֽתַתָּ֣ה הַכֶּ֡סֶף בְּכֹל֩ אֲשֶׁר־תְּאַוֶּ֨ה נַפְשְׁךָ֜. מָה נָן קַייָמִין. אִם בְּטוֹעֵם טַעַם יַיִן לְתוֹךְ הַתַּבְשִׁיל. וַהֲלֹא טַעַם יַיִן לִפְגָם הוּא. [אֶלָּא כִּי נָן קָייָמִין כָּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא. וְהַתּוֹרָה קָרָאת אוֹתוֹ אֲכִילָה.] רַבָּנִן דְּקַיסָרִין אָֽמְרֵי. תִּיפְתָּר בְּאִילֵּין אוֹרְזָנַייָא וְגּוֹמְנַנַּייָא. כָּל־הַטָּפֵל לָאֲכִילָה כָּאֲכִילָה הִיא. HALAKHAH: Why? 64This is a partial copy, in places completed by the corrector for the Venice edition and indicated by brackets, of a text in Maˋaser Šeni 2:1 (Notes 7–35), also partially reproduced in Ševuot 3:2 (Notes 26–36). It is clear that the original is in Maˋuser Šeni since the last paragraph has no connection with the rules of the Day of Atonement. Drinking is subsumed under eating but eating is not subsumed under drinking. From where that drinking is subsumed under eating? Rebbi Jonah understood if from the following: Therefore, I told the Children of Israel, none of you shall eat blood65Lev. 17:12.. Where do we hold? If about congealed blood, was it not stated that congealed blood is neither food nor drink? But we hold, as it is. And the Torah called it eating. And was it not stated: If one liquefied fat and drank it, or congealed blood and ate it, [if there is the volume of an olive] he is liable. What does Rebbi Jonah do with this? It is not food to become impure in the impurity of food, or fluid to become impure in the impurity of fluids. Rebbi Jonah changed and understood if from the following:: You shall spend the money for anything you desire66Deut. 14:26.. Where do we hold? If about one who gives the taste of wine into a cooked dish, is that not spoiling the taste of the wine? [But we hold as it is and the Torah called it “eating.”] The rabbis of Caesarea said, explain if about orzaraya and gomnany67Maˋaser Šeni 2:1, Note 16. The first word may denote cedar resin (J. Levy) or a derivative of אוֹרֶז “rice”. The readings for the second word, גמרייה, גמזוזיניה, גומננייא show that the scribe did not know what to do with it; it may be a derivative of “gum” (gummi, κόμμι) (E. G.) used in the preparation of liquors., since anything that is ancillary to food is like food.
רִבִּי יוֹסֵה שָׁמַע לָהּ מִן הָדָא. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל. וְאָכַל וְשָׁתָה. אֵינוֹ חַייָּב אֶלָּא אֶחָת. אָֽמְרוּן חֲבֵרַייָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. אָמוּר דְּבַתְרָהּ. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל וְשֶׁלֹּא אֶשְׁתֶּה וְאָכַל וְשָׁתָה. חַייָב שְׁתַּיִם. אָמַר לוֹן רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אִילּוּ מִי שֶׁהָיוּ לְפָנָיו שְׁנֵי כִכָּרִים. וְאָמַר. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל כִּכָּר זֹה. וְחָזַר וַאֲכַלָן [שְׁנֵיהֶן] כְּאַחַת. שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ חַייָב שְׁתַּיִם. Rebbi Yose understood all this from the following: “An oath that I shall not eat; when he ate and drank he is liable only once.68Mishnah Ševuot 3:1.” The colleagues said before Rebbi Yose, but it is said following this, “an oath that I shall not eat nor drink, when he ate and drank he is liable for two”! Rebbi Yose told them, if somebody had two loaves in front of him said, an oath that I shall not eat this loaf69Here a piece of text is missing, found in the other two sources: “and then he said, an oath that I shall not eat that one.”, when he ate [both of them] together would he not be guilty on two counts?
רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי פִינְחָס שָׁמַע לָהּ מִן הָדָא. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל. וְאָכַל אוֹכְלִין שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִין לַאֲכִילָה. וְשָׁתָה מַשְׁקִין שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִין לִשְׁתִייָה. פָּטוּר. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁשָּׁתָה מַשְׁקִין שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִין לִשְׁתִייָה. אֲבָל אִם [אָכַל אוֹכְלִין שֶׁהֵן רְאוּיִין לַאֲכִילָה.] שָׁתָה מַשְׁקִין שֶׁהֵן רְאוּיִין לִשְׁתִייָה חַייָב. לֹא שְׁבוֹעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל אָמַר. נִיחָא כְמַתְנִיתָן. דַּאֲנָן אָֽמְרִין. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל. כְּרִבִּי. דּוּ אָמַר. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל וְשֶׁלֹּא אֶשְׁתֶּה. Rebbi Ḥanania in the name of Rebbi Phineas understood it from the following: “An oath that I shall not eat; when he ate inedible food and drank undrinkable fluids, he is not liable.70Mishnah Ševuot 3: 5.” Because he ate inedible food and drank undrinkable fluids. Therefore if [he ate edible food,]71Corrector’s addition, added in error. drank drinkable fluids he is liable. Did he not say, an oath that I shall not eat? That is understandable following our Mishnah, where we are saying, “an oath that I shall not eat.” But for Rebbi72Obviously since Rebbi is the editor of the Mishnah, he cannot contradict his own text. With the text in Ševuot one has to read: “those rabbis who say, an oath that I shall not eat and I shall not drink.” These rabbis are quoted in the Babli, Ševuot 23a. who said, an oath that I shall not eat and shall not drink?
רִבִּי חִינְנָה שָׁמַע לָהּ מִן הָדָא. [הָאוֹכֵל וְשׁוֹתֶה בְּהֶעְלֵם אַחַת אֵינוֹ חַייָב אֶלָּא אַחַת. Rebbi Ḥinena understood it from the following73Mishnah 3.: [“If he ate and drank in one forgetting he is liable only once.”
רִבִּי אַבָּא מָרִי שָׁמַע לָהּ מִן הָדָא.] לֹֽא־אָכַ֨לְתִּי בְאוֹנִי. אֶלָּא שָׁתִיתִי. Rebbi Abba Mari understood it from the following:] I did not eat from it in my mourning,74Deut. 26:14. but I drank?
נִיחָא כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל. וְשָׁתָה. בְּרַם כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֶשְׁתֶּה. וְאָכַל. שְׁתִייָה בִּכְלָל אֲכִילָה. אֵין אֲכִילָה בִכְלָל שְׁתִייָה. It is understandable for him who said, “{I swear} an oath that I shall not eat”, and he drank. Drinking is subsumed under eating. But for him who said, “an oath that I shall not drink”, and he ate? Is eating subsumed under drinking? Eating is not subsumed under drinking75The preceding arguments show that drinking is subsumed under eating. Nobody holds that a mention of drink includes solid food. Babli Ševuot 23a..
וְאִית דְּבָעֵי מִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. לֹֽא־תוּכַ֞ל לֶֽאֱכוֹל בִּשְׁעָרֶ֗יךָ וגו׳. תִּירוֹשְׁךָ זֶה הַיַּיִן. יִצְהָרֶ֔ךָ זוֹ סִיכָה. וְהַתּוֹרָה קָרָאת אוֹתוֹ אֲכִילָה. וְאֵינוֹ מְחוּוָר. אִין תֵּימַר. מְחוּוָר הוּא. יִלְקוּ עָלָיו חוּץ לַחוֹמַה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בֶּן חֲנִינָה. אֵין לוֹקִין חוּץ לַחוֹמַה אֶלָּא עַל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי טָהוֹר שֶׁנִּכְנַס לִירוּשָׁלִַם וְיָצָא. וּמִנַּיִין שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחוּוָר. כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי. בַּשַּׁבָּת בֵּין סִיכָה שֶׁהִיא שֶׁלַּתַּעֲנוּג. גָרַשׂ בְּהִילְכָתָא קַדְמִייָתָא. Some want to understand it from this: You may not eat in your gates76Deut. 12:17. etc. Your cider’, that is the wine. And your shining oil’ refers to anointing and the Torah called it ‘eating’. But this is not clear. If you could say that it is clear one should be whipped because of it outside the walls77If the verse were a formal identification of anointing and eating as far as Second Tithe is concerned, the use of impure heave oil for anointing should be a criminal offense.! Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, one is whipped outside the walls only for pure Second Tithe which entered Jerusalem and left. From where that it is not clear? From what was stated: “On the Sabbath, both anointing for pleasure”, one reads this in Halakhah One78Notes 24 ff..
מִנַּיִין שֶׁהִיא מְחוּוָר בַּעֲשֵׂה. רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר בְשֵׁם רִבִּי סִימַיי. לֹא נָתַ֥תִּי מִמֶּ֖נּוּ לְמֵ֑ת. מָה נָן קַייָמִין. אִם לְהָבִיא לוֹ אָרוֹן וְתָכְרִיכִין דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר לַחַי. לַחַי הוּא אָסוּר. לֹא כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן לַמֵּת. אֵי זֶהוּ דָבָר שֶׁהוּא מוּתָּר לַחַי וְאָסוּר לַמֵּת. הֲוֵי אוֹמֵר. זֹה סִיכָה. From where that it is clear as a positive commandment79While illegitimate use of Second Tithe oil for anointing is prohibited, it is mentioned in the context of the farmer’s declaration in the Temple, which is a positive commandment. Therefore overstepping the prohibition is violating a positive commandment not under the scope of criminal law.? Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Simai: Nor did I give from it to the dead74Deut. 26:14.. Where do we hold? If it were to bring a casket and shrouds for him, that were also forbidden for a living person80Since only consuming Second Tithe is permitted.! If something is forbidden for the living, not so much more for the dead? What is something which is permitted for the living but prohibited for the dead? That is anointing!
אַזְהָרָה לִמְלֵאכֵת הַיּוֹם כָּל־מְלָאכָה֙ לֹ֣א תַֽעֲשׂ֔וּ. עוֹנֶשׁ וְהַֽאֲבַדְתִּ֛י אֶת־הַנֶּ֥פֶשׁ הַהִיא. אַזְהָרָה לְעִינּוּי הַיּוֹם כִּ֤י כָל־הַנֶּ֙פֶשׁ֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר לֹֽא־תְעוּנֶּה. עוֹנֶשׁ וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִיא. אַזְהָרָה לִמְלֶאכֶת הַלַּיְלָה לֵית כָּאן. עוֹנֶשׁ לֵית כָּאן. אַזְהָרָה וְעוֹנֶשׁ לְעִינּוּי הַלַּיְלָה לֵית כְּתִיב. 81Sifra Emor Pereq 14(3). Babli 81 a.“Warning about work on the day: Any work you shall not do82Lev. 16:29.. Punishment, and I shall destroy this person83.Lev. 23:30.. Warning about deprivation on the day, for any person who will not be deprived84Lev. 23:29.; punishment, and this person will be extirpated84Lev. 23:29..” There is no warning about work in the night, there is no punishment. There is no warning nor punishment written for deprivation in the night85In both verses quoted from Lev. 23 it is stressed בְּעֶ֖צֶם הַיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֑ה which in general in interpreted “in full daylight” (Mekhilta dR. Ismael Bo 9.) Since the night is forbidden as is the day (Lev. 23:32), there is an obvious contradiction to be resolved..
רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בָּעֵי. מָה הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵימַר בֵּיהּ. לֹֽא־תְעוּנֶּה. אֶלָּא לֹא תֹאכַל. כָּל־אֲכִילוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה כְּזַיִת. וְכָאן כְּכוֹתֶבֶת. אָמַר רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָה. הִשָּׁמֵר פֶּן וְלֹא תְעוּנֶּה. הַא תְלַת אַזְהָרָן. אָמַר רִבִּי חוּנָה. הִשָּׁמֵר בְּאוֹתָהּ הָאֲמִירָה שֶׁאָמַרְתִּי לָךְ. הִשָּׁ֧מֶר בְּנֶֽגַע־הַצָּרַ֛עַת לִשְׁמוֹר מְאֹ֖ד וְלַעַ֧שׂ֑וֹת וגו׳. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִייָה. [לֹא] יֵאָמֵר עוֹנֶשׁ בִּמְלָאכָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ. הָיִיתִי לָמֵד מִן הָעִינּוּי. [מַה אִם הָעִינּוּי] הַקַּל חַייָבִין כָּרֵת. מְלָאכָה הַחֲמוּרָה אֶינוֹ דִין שֶׁיְּהוּ חַייָבִין עָלֶיהָ כָרֵת. הָא לֹא נֶאֲמַר עוֹנֶשׁ בִּמְלָאכָה אֶלָּא לִיתֵּן אַזְהָרָה לְפָנָיו. מָה עוֹנֶשׁ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בִּמְלָאכָה אַזְהָרָה לְפָנָיו. אַף עוֹנֶשׁ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּעִינּוּי אַזְהָרָה לְפָנָיו. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעוּרָה. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה. לְמֵידִין גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה אֲפִילוּ מוּפְנֶה מִצַּד אֶחָד. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. וְלֹא דְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה הִיא. דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אָמַר. לְמֵידִין מִגְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׂאֵינָהּ מוּפְנָה. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, what could He have said instead of will not be deprived? “Shall not eat”? All eating in the Torah is by the volume of an olive, but here by the volume of a date86Since it was established earlier that of the six kinds of deprivation required on the Day of Atonement only not fasting is biblically punishable, the question arises why instead of the generic expression “be deprived” the verse does not directly prescribe “do not eat.” The answer is that in the latter case already eating the volume of an olive would be punishable.. Rav Hoshaia said, “watch yourself, lest, not be deprived,” would be three warnings87This now addresses the problem from where could one infer that all prohibitions of the Day of Atonement also apply to the preceding night. He suggests that since there are several expressions biblically used to indicate prohibitions, there could have been different expressions used for the warnings which would have been interpreted as applying to different times.. Rebbi Ḥuna said, watch yourself regarding the saying which I said to you, watch yourself in matters of skin disease to be very careful and act88Deut. 24:8. This is a side remark noting that הִשָּׁמֵר is used only in reference to rules spelled out on other occasions. In this particular case it is noted that the rules of the impurity of skin disease (Lev. 13–14) do not include prohibitions; the prohibition implied by Deut. 24:8 is interpreted (cf. Pseudo-Jonathan ad loc.) to mean that it is forbidden to eliminate the impurity of skin disease by surgically eliminating the diseased tissue., etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Punishment could [not]89Necessary addition by the corrector. have been said about work since it is unnecessary. I could have inferred it from deprivation. [Since for deprivation]90Corrector’s addition which seems to be unnecessary. which is minor one is liable to extirpation, for work which is major91“Major” means that prohibitions of work are frequent, applying to the Sabbath as capital crimes and to holidays as misdemeanors; deprivation is “minor” since it applies only to the day of Atonement. it should be logical that one should be liable for extirpation. Therefore punishment was spelled out for work only to imply a warning preceding it92The argument of Rav Hoshaia is essentially correct but has to be realized differently. Since the warning spelled out for work on the Day of Atonement is shown to be unnecessary, it has to be applied as if it were written twice; supplying the desired additional warning to be read as referring to the preceding night.. Since the punishment indicated for work is preceded by a warning, also the punishment indicated for deprivation is preceded by a warning. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that one may infer about an “equal cut” even if it is free only on one side93He reads the argument of R. Ḥiyya not as a conclusion de minore ad majus but as “equal cut” meaning that the expression בְּעֶ֖צֶם הַיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֑ה appearing in Lev. 23:29,30 implies that the rules indicated in both verses are the same. In general one requires that an expression used for “equal cut” not be used for any other inference; but here the entire v. 29 is needed both for warning and punishment (Note 84). There remains the problem that since now it is shown that בְּעֶ֖צֶם הַיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֑ה does not mean “during daylight only”, the expression is not used for any other deduction and therefore the “equal cut” is between two identical expressions not otherwise needed and therefore valid according to everybody, even R. Ismael. One has to say that since the day is defined in Lev. 23:32 as from evening to evening, בְּעֶ֖צֶם הַיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֑ה means that while one has to start fasting and refraining from work somewhat earlier and finish sometime after nightfall the next day, the biblical penalties do not apply to these additional periods and therefore one mention of “on this very day” is needed for this legal implication.
Noted as opinion in dispute, Babli Šabbat 64a, Niddah 22b.. Rebbi Yudan said, Is that not Rebbi Aqiba’s? And Rebbi Aqiba said, one infers about an “equal cut” even if it is not free94The Babli would reject the entire argument of R. Zeˋira since it permits the use of “equal cut” only based on an oral tradition. It still would recognize R. Ḥiyya’s argument but it categorically rejects extending the scope of punishments by hermeneutical arguments..
תַּנֵּי. רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקב אוֹמֵר. נֶאֱמַר בְּעֶ֖צֶם הַיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֑ה בִּמְלָאכָה. וְנֶאֱמַר בְּעֶ֖צֶם הַיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֑ה בְּעִינּוּי. מַה בְּעֶ֖צֶם הַיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֑ה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בִּמְלָאכָה לֹא חִלַּקְתָּה בוֹ בֵּין יוֹם לַלַּיְלָה. בֵּין עוֹנֵשׁ לָאַזְהָרָה. אַף בְּעֶ֖צֶם הַיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֑ה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּעִינּוּי לֹא נַחֲלוֹק בּוֹ בֵּין יוֹם לַלַּיְלָה בֵּין עוֹנֵשׁ לָאַזְהָרָה. עַד כְדוֹן כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. It was stated: Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, it is said on this very day about work and it is said on this very day about deprivation. Since in regard of on this very day said about work you did not differentiate between day and night95As argued by R. Ḥiyya., between punishment and warning96Which are written in one and the same verse., so in regard of on this very day said about deprivation we shall not differentiate between day and night, between punishment and warning. So far following Rebbi Aqiba.
כְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. וְהָֽיְתָ֥ה לָכֶ֖ם לְחֻקַּ֣ת עוֹלָ֑ם בַּחֹ֣דֶשׁ הַ֠שְּׁבִי֠עִי. הִקִּישׁ מְלָאכָה לְעִינּוּי. מַה מְלָאכָה שֶׁאָסַרְתִּי לָךְ מְלָאכָה שֶׁחַייָבִין עָלֶיהָ כָרֵת. אַף עִינּוּי שֶׁאָסַרְתִּי לָךְ עִינּוי שֶׁחַייָבִין עָלָיו כָרֵת. Following Rebbi Ismael? It shall be for you an eternal law, in the Seventh Month97Lev. 16:29. He joined work and deprivation. Since the work which I forbade to you is work for which one is liable to extirpation, also deprivation which I forbade to you is deprivation for which one is liable to extirpation98As required by Rav Hoshaia..
רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן הָאוֹכֵל כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם לוֹקֶה. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן הַכּוֹסֵס חִיטֵּי תְרוּמָה לוֹקֶה. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הַמְגַמֵּא חוֹמֶץ שֶׁלְּתְּרוּמָה לוֹקֶה. הַמְגַמֵּע חוֹמֶץ שֶׁלִּתְרוּמָה מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַחוֹמֶשׁ. הַכּוֹסֵס חִיטֵּי תְרוּמָה מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַחוֹמֶשׁ. רִבִּי אוֹמֵר. אוֹמֵר אֲנִי שֶׁהוּא מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וְחוֹמֶשׁ. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אִמִּי. מוֹדִין חֲכָמִים לְרִבִּי בִּמְגַמֵּע חוֹמֶץ שֶׁלִּתְרוּמָה לְאַחַר טִיבֻּלוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וְחוֹמֶשׁ. שֶׁהַחוֹמֶץ מֵשִׁיב אֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ. 100The main source of this paragraph are Terumot 6:1, Notes 16–19, Šabbat 14, Notes 83–89.. Babli Yoma 80b/81a. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, he who eats of kilaim in a vineyard101Any non-vine produce in a vineyard is prohibited for usufruct. is whipped102If there are witnesses to the act, since he broke a biblical commandment. This corresponds to the term “is liable” used for Sabbath violations.. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, he who chews wheat grain103A pure Cohen who is entitled to eat heave may not spit out the grain after chewing. of heave is whipped. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, he who sips vinegar of heave is whipped; he who sips vinegar of heave pays the principal but he does not pay the fifth104The fifth computed from the top which is a quarter from the bottom, due for use of heave by people not entitled to its use.; he who chews wheat grain of heave pays the principal but he does not pay the fifth. Rebbi says, I am saying that he pays principal and fifth. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Immi: The rabbis agree with Rebbi about one who sips heave vinegar from his dipping that he pays principal and fifth since vinegar refreshes105Even though vinegar in itself is neither food nor drink, when it was absorbed by bread it becomes food and stays food. For heave it remains subject to the fine, on the Day of Atonement it remains forbidden drink, but on the Šabbath it may be used for a toothache..
תִּינוֹקוֹת אֵין מְעַנִּין אוֹתָן בְּיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים. רַב חוּנָה פָתַר מַתְנִיתָה. תִּינוֹקוֹת אֵין מְעַנִּין אוֹתָן בְּיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים. וְלֹא מְחַנְּכִין אוֹתָן קוֹדֶם לְשָׁנָה. קוֹדֶם לִשְׁנָתַיִם מְחַנְּכִין. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן פָתַר מַתְנִיתָה. תִּינוֹקוֹת אֵין מְעַנִּין אוֹתָן בְּיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים. אֲבָל מְחַנְּכִין קוֹדֶם לְשָׁנָה. קוֹדֶם לִשְׁתַּיִם מַשְׁלִימִין. עַד אֵיכָן. רִבִּי אָחָא רִבִּי חִינְנָה רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן חֲלַפְתָּא. כְּבֶן תַּשַׁע וּכְבֶן עֶשֶׂר. “One does not let children fast on the Day of Atonement.” Rav Ḥuna explained the Mishnah: One does not let children fast on the Day of Atonement, and does not train them106One tells them to fast part of the day., but one or two years before one trains them107One does not let minor children fast the entire day.. Rebbi Joḥanan explained the Mishnah: One does not let children fast on the Day of Atonement, but one does train them108Younger than 10 for girls and 11 for boys., and one or two years before they complete the fast. Until when? Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena, Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Halaphta: At age nine or age ten109According to the Babli 82a age nine refers to healthy children and age ten to sickly ones. Since the Yerushalmi gives no indication of this one might read this as 9 for girls, 10 for boys, in each case 3 years before they become obligated to fast as adults.