## Yoma Daf 74a

###### Yoma 74a:1
[Yoma 74a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/74a:1)

וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּאָמַר: אָדָם אוֹסֵר עַצְמוֹ בְּכׇל שֶׁהוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and** the mishna is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva,** who **said: A man prohibits himself from any amount.** If a man swears that he will not eat, he thereby prohibits himself from eating even the smallest amount of food. Therefore, Reish Lakish himself maintains that eating a half-measure does not constitute a prohibition.


###### Yoma 74a:2
[Yoma 74a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/74a:2)

וְכִי תֵּימָא: כֵּיוָן דְּאִית לֵיהּ הֶיתֵּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה, קָא חָיֵיל קׇרְבַּן שְׁבוּעָה, וְהָתְנַן: שְׁבוּעַת הָעֵדוּת אֵינָהּ נוֹהֶגֶת אֶלָּא בִּרְאוּיִין לְהָעִיד. וְהָוֵינַן בַּהּ: לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: לְמַעוֹטֵי מֶלֶךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you say:** Perhaps Reish Lakish **maintains** that **since** a half-measure **is permitted by Torah** law, despite the fact that it is prohibited by rabbinic law, one is **liable** to **bring an offering** for violating **an oath,** then there is the following problem: **Didn’t we learn** in a mishna: **An oath of testimony** where one is sworn to give testimony on something that he saw or knew, **applies only to those who are eligible to give testimony.** If one who is ineligible to testify swears an oath to give testimony, the oath is invalid even if he does not testify. **And we discussed it:** The statement: Those who are eligible to give testimony, comes **to exclude what?** After all, it was already said that the oath does not apply to women, relatives, and other disqualified people. **Rav Pappa said:** It comes **to exclude a king.** A king is not disqualified from giving testimony, but he does not testify before a court, due to the requirement to give respect to a king.


###### Yoma 74a:3
[Yoma 74a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/74a:3)

רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב אָמַר: לְמַעוֹטֵי מְשַׂחֵק בְּקוּבְיָא. וְהָא מְשַׂחֵק בְּקוּבְיָא — מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא מִיחְזֵי חֲזֵי, וְרַבָּנַן הוּא דְּפַסְלוּהוּ, וְלָא קָא חָיְילָא עֲלֵיהּ שְׁבוּעָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said:** It comes **to exclude one who plays with dice,** whom the Sages disqualified from giving testimony. **But surely one who plays with dice is eligible by Torah law** to give testimony, **and** it is **the Sages** who **disqualified him.** Despite this, **an oath of testimony does not apply to him** by Torah law, even though the prohibition on his testifying is rabbinic.


###### Yoma 74a:4
[Yoma 74a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/74a:4)

שָׁאנֵי הָתָם דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״אִם לֹא יַגִּיד״, וְהַאי לָאו בַּר הַגָּדָה הוּא כְּלָל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this by distinguishing between the two cases: **It is different there,** in the case of testimony, where **the verse states: “If he does not utter it,** then he shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 5:1), i.e., a man who can testify but doesn’t do so should be punished. **But this person cannot ever give testimony** since the court will not accept his testimony. The Torah makes liability for an oath of testimony contingent on one’s ability to testify. Therefore, an oath of testimony would not apply to someone unable to testify. However, one who takes an oath not to eat is liable if he breaks that oath, notwithstanding the rabbinic prohibition against eating less than a measure of forbidden food. Consequently, this rejection does not stand, and the first explanation remains.


###### Yoma 74a:5
[Yoma 74a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/74a:5)

וְכׇל הֵיכָא דְּתָנֵי עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת, לָא תָּנֵי אָסוּר? וְהָתַנְיָא: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ אָסוּר בְּכוּלָּן — לֹא אָמְרוּ עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת אֶלָּא עַל הָאוֹכֶל וְשׁוֹתֶה וְעוֹשֶׂה מְלָאכָה בִּלְבַד. הָכִי קָאָמַר: כְּשֶׁאָמְרוּ אָסוּר — לָא אָמְרוּ אֶלָּא בְּכַחֲצִי שִׁיעוּר, אֲבָל כְּשִׁיעוּר — עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת — אֵין עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת אֶלָּא אוֹכֵל וְשׁוֹתֶה וְעוֹשֶׂה מְלָאכָה בִּלְבַד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara’s initial assumption is that the mishna’s use of the word prohibited is referring to a transgression not punishable by *karet*. The Gemara asks: **And anywhere that it teaches** that transgressing is **punishable by *karet*,** does it never **teach** using the word **prohibited? Was it not taught** in a *baraita*: **Although they said** the word **prohibited with all of the** five Yom Kippur afflictions, **they said** that the **punishment of *karet*** applies **only to one who eats, or drinks, or performs** prohibited **labor.** This means that the word prohibit is used with transgressions punishable by *karet* as well. The Gemara rejects this. **This is** what the *baraita* **is saying: When they said** that those five activities are **prohibited, they said that only** with regard to **a half-measure; but** a full **measure is punishable by *karet*. And although** a violation **is punishable by *karet*, it is punishable by *karet* only** if one **eats, or drinks, or performs** prohibited **labor;** these **alone** are the cases where *karet* is incurred.


###### Yoma 74a:6
[Yoma 74a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/74a:6)

וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: כִּי קָתָנֵי אָסוּר — אַשְּׁאָרָא. דְּתָנוּ רַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף בִּשְׁאָר סִיפְרֵי דְבֵי רַב: מִנַּיִין לְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים שֶׁאָסוּר בִּרְחִיצָה בְּסִיכָה וּבִנְעִילַת הַסַּנְדָּל וּבְתַשְׁמִישׁ הַמִּטָּה, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״שַׁבָּתוֹן״ — שְׁבוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead that **when it is taught** in the mishna using the language of **prohibited,** it is referring to **the other** transgressions, which do not incur *karet*. **As Rabba and Rav Yosef taught this in other books** of **Rav’s school,** i.e., the *Sifrei*, the halakhic midrash on Numbers and Deuteronomy: **From where** is it derived **that** it is **prohibited** to engage **in bathing, and in smearing** oil on one’s body, **and in wearing shoes, and in having relations on Yom Kippur? The verse states: “*Shabbaton*”** (Leviticus 16:31), meaning **resting** and refraining from certain activities. Therefore, the word prohibit is used with these activities, but they are not punishable by *karet*.


###### Yoma 74a:7
[Yoma 74a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/74a:7)

גּוּפָא. חֲצִי שִׁיעוּר, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אָסוּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה, רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: מוּתָּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר אָסוּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה: כֵּיוָן דַּחֲזִי לְאִיצְטְרוֹפֵי, אִיסּוּרָא קָא אָכֵיל. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר מוּתָּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה: אֲכִילָה אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלֵיכָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Apropos the dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish, the Gemara deals with **the** matter **itself:** What is the law with regard to **a half-measure? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is prohibited by Torah** law. **Reish Lakish said: It is permitted by Torah** law. The Gemara elaborates: **Rabbi Yoḥanan said it is prohibited by Torah** law **because it is fit to combine** with another half-measure. If one continues to eat more, he will eat a whole measure, which is punishable by Torah law. Therefore, even when he eats the first half-measure **he is eating forbidden** food. **Reish Lakish said it is permitted by Torah** law. His reason is as follows: With regard to all forbidden foods, **the Merciful One states** in the Torah: **“Eat,”** for example in the verse: “You shall eat neither fat nor blood” (Leviticus 3:17). Eating is defined as consuming a minimum of an olive-bulk, **and there is no** prohibition if one eats less than an olive-bulk.


###### Yoma 74a:8
[Yoma 74a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/74a:8)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: אֵין לִי אֶלָּא כֹּל שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ בְּעוֹנֶשׁ יֶשְׁנוֹ בְּאַזְהָרָה, כּוֹי וַחֲצִי שִׁיעוּר, הוֹאִיל וְאֵינוֹ בְּעוֹנֶשׁ — יָכוֹל אֵינוֹ בְּאַזְהָרָה, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כׇּל חֵלֶב״! מִדְּרַבָּנַן, וּקְרָא — אַסְמַכְתָּא בְּעָלְמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to** the opinion of **Reish Lakish** from what was taught in a *baraita* with regard to the prohibition of forbidden fat: **I have** derived **only** that **anything that is included in the punishment** of *karet* **is included in the prohibition.** However, one **might** have thought that **there is no prohibition** to eat fat of **a *koy*, or a half-measure** of forbidden fat, **since there is no punishment** for those. Therefore, **the verse states: “All fat”** (Leviticus 7:23), indicating that there is a prohibition to eat any kind of fat, including fat of uncertain status and a half-measure of fat. Therefore, a half-measure of fat is prohibited by Torah law. Reish Lakish rejects this argument: This prohibition is **rabbinic, and the verse** brought as a proof is **a mere support.** It cannot be claimed that there is such a prohibition by Torah law.


###### Yoma 74a:9
[Yoma 74a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/74a:9)

הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, כּוֹי סְפֵיקָא הוּא, אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְאֵתוֹיֵי סְפֵיקָא? אִי מִשּׁוּם הָא — לָא אִירְיָא, קָסָבְרִי

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **So too, it is reasonable** to say that the *baraita* cites only the verse as a support and not as a source to prove the prohibition. **For if it could enter your mind** that this teaching constitutes a prohibition **by Torah law,** there is **uncertainty** whether **a *koy*** is a wild beast or a domestic animal. Is **a verse necessary to include an uncertainty?** There is no doubt before God and therefore no purpose in writing a case of doubt in the Torah. Consequently, the *baraita* cites the verse only as a support. The Gemara answers: **If that is the reason, there is no** conclusive **argument.** The Sages of the *baraita* might **have thought**