## Yoma Daf 81a

###### Yoma 81a:1
[Yoma 81a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/81a:1)

שֶׁכּוֹסֵס שְׂעוֹרִים שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה — מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַחוֹמֶשׁ. ״כִּי יֹאכַל״ — פְּרָט לְמַזִּיק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**who chews on barley of *teruma*** that has not been ground or baked **pays the principal and not** an extra **fifth.** The reason is that it states **“eats”** (Leviticus 22:14), **which excludes one who harms** himself. Consuming raw barley is considered self-harm, not eating.


###### Yoma 81a:2
[Yoma 81a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/81a:2)

אָמַר רַב שֵׁיזְבִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: זָר שֶׁבָּלַע שִׁזְפִין שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה וֶהֱקִיאָן וַאֲכָלָן אַחֵר, רִאשׁוֹן — מְשַׁלֵּם (אֶת) קֶרֶן וָחוֹמֶשׁ. שֵׁנִי — אֵין מְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא דְּמֵי עֵצִים לָרִאשׁוֹן בִּלְבַד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheizvi said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** In the case of **a non-priest who swallowed plums of *teruma*** whole **and vomited them out,** whereupon **another** person **ate them, the first** one **pays the principal plus a fifth.** When the first one benefited from the plums, he acquired them and must therefore pay for them, and **the second** one must pay their worth to the first one. Since they are only fit for fuel after the first one vomited them out, the second person is considered to have damaged their value as fuel. Therefore, he **pays only the price of wood,** i.e., fuel, **to the first** person.


###### Yoma 81a:3
[Yoma 81a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/81a:3)

הָאוֹכֵל וְהַשּׁוֹתֶה אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין. מַאן תַּנָּא? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: בְּמַחְלוֹקֶת שְׁנוּיָה, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הִיא. דִּתְנַן, כְּלָל אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: כֹּל שֶׁטּוּמְאָתוֹ וְשִׁיעוּרוֹ שָׁוֶה — מִצְטָרֵף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It was taught in the mishna that **food and drink do not combine.** The Gemara asks: **Who** is the *tanna* who **taught** this? **Rav Ḥisda said:** This *halakha* **is taught as a dispute, and** the mishna **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehoshua. As we learned** in a mishna: **Rabbi Yehoshua stated a general principle: Any** item **that** is **identical** to another item in **its** type of **ritual impurity,** e.g., impurity that lasts only until evening, **and its measure** for impurity, e.g., an olive-bulk, **combines** with the other item to reach one measure to render other items impure. Therefore, two half olive-bulk pieces of two corpses or of two animal carcasses, or two half lentil-bulk pieces from two creeping animals all combine to render other items impure.


###### Yoma 81a:4
[Yoma 81a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/81a:4)

טוּמְאָתוֹ וְלֹא שִׁיעוּרוֹ, שִׁיעוּרוֹ וְלֹא טוּמְאָתוֹ, לֹא טוּמְאָתוֹ וְלֹא שִׁיעוּרוֹ — אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
However, if one item is identical to another in **its ritual impurity but not its measure,** e.g., half a lentil-bulk of a creeping animal and half an olive-bulk of an animal carcass, which both impart impurity until nightfall; **or if its measure** is identical **but not its** type of **ritual impurity,** e.g., half an olive-bulk from a corpse, which imparts impurity for seven days, and half an olive-bulk from an animal carcass, which imparts impurity until nightfall; and all the more so, when **neither its ritual impurity nor its measure** are identical, then the items **do not combine.** Here, too, although both eating and drinking are prohibited on their own, they do not combine because they do not have the same measure that imparts impurity.


###### Yoma 81a:5
[Yoma 81a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/81a:5)

רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, עַד כָּאן לָא קָא אָמְרִי רַבָּנַן הָתָם, אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן טוּמְאָה, דְּשֵׁם טוּמְאָה חַד הִיא. אֲבָל הָכָא, מִשּׁוּם יַתּוֹבֵי דַּעְתָּא הוּא, וְהַאי לָא מִיַּתְּבָא דַּעְתֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman said: Even** if **you say** that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis, until now we have** heard **the Rabbis say there** that items with different measures combine **only with respect to ritual impurity. Since the** phenomenon **of ritual impurity is one concept,** different types combine. **But here,** in the case of Yom Kippur, the measure that determines liability is set **due to settling the mind, and this** combination of eating and drinking together **does not settle the mind.**


###### Yoma 81a:6
[Yoma 81a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/81a:6)

וְכֵן אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: בְּמַחְלוֹקֶת שְׁנוּיָה, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הִיא, דִּתְנַן: כְּלָל אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ כּוּ׳. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמְרִי רַבָּנַן הָתָם אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן טוּמְאָה, אֲבָל הָכָא, מִשּׁוּם יַתּוֹבֵי דַּעְתֵּיהּ הוּא, וְהַאי לָא קָא מִיַּתְּבָא דַּעְתֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And similarly, Reish Lakish said:** This question of whether food and drink combine to reach a measure that determines liability on Yom Kippur **is taught as a dispute.** The approach brought in the mishna that states that they do not combine is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehoshua, as we learned** in a mishna: **Rabbi Yehoshua stated a general principle** with regard to whether items with different types of impurity and measures combine, as Rav Ḥisda explained above. **And Rabbi Yoḥanan said** in accordance with the opinion of Rav Naḥman: **Even** if **you say** that the mishna is in accordance with **the** opinion of **the Rabbis, until now we have** heard **the Rabbis say there** that items with different measures combine **only with regard to ritual impurity. But here,** in the case of Yom Kippur, the measure that determines liability is set **due to settling the mind, and this** combination of eating and drinking together **does not** settle the mind.


###### Yoma 81a:7
[Yoma 81a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/81a:7)

**מַתְנִי׳** אָכַל וְשָׁתָה בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד — אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא חַטָּאת אַחַת. אָכַל וְעָשָׂה מְלָאכָה — חַיָּיב שְׁתֵּי חַטָּאוֹת. אָכַל אוֹכָלִין שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִן לַאֲכִילָה, וְשָׁתָה מַשְׁקִין שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִן לִשְׁתִיָּה, וְשָׁתָה צִיר אוֹ מוּרְיָיס — פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If **one ate and drank** unwittingly **within one lapse of awareness,** e.g., he forgot that it is Yom Kippur, **he is liable** to bring **only one sin-offering.** However, if **he ate and performed labor** unwittingly, **he is liable to bring two sin-offerings,** as by doing so he violated two separate prohibitions. If **he ate foods that are not fit for eating, or drank liquids that are not fit for drinking, or drank** fish **brine or** the briny **liquid** in which fish are pickled, **he is exempt,** as that is not the typical manner of eating or drinking.


###### Yoma 81a:8
[Yoma 81a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/81a:8)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: מִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא נֶאֶמְרָה אַזְהָרָה בְּעִינּוּי? מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר. הֵיכִי נִכְתּוֹב? נִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״לֹא יֵאָכֵל״ — אֲכִילָה בִּכְזַיִת! נִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״לֹא תְעוּנֶּה״ — קוּם אֱכוֹל מַשְׁמַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Reish Lakish said: Why is there no warning stated about affliction;** why did the Torah not state explicitly that it is prohibited to eat and drink on Yom Kippur? It is **because it was not possible** to write it that way. The Gemara explains: **How could** the Merciful One **write it? Let the Merciful One write: One shall not eat** on Yom Kippur. The term eat prohibits **eating the amount of an olive-bulk,** whereas on Yom Kippur the actual prohibited measure is a large date-bulk. **Let the Merciful One write: Do not be afflicted.** That indicates the opposite of affliction, and would **mean: Get up and eat.** Therefore, it is written: “For whatsoever soul it be that shall not be afflicted on that same day, he shall be cut off from his people” (Leviticus 23:29).


###### Yoma 81a:9
[Yoma 81a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/81a:9)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָא: נִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״הִשָּׁמֶר פֶּן לֹא תְעוּנֶּה״! אִם כֵּן נְפִישִׁי לְהוּ לָאוֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Hoshaya strongly objects to this: Let the Merciful One write** it in this manner: **Guard yourself lest you not be afflicted.** The Gemara answers: **If so, there would be** too **many negative mitzvot,** as the following are all expressions of prohibition: Guard, lest, and not. One would then say that there are three prohibitions against eating.


###### Yoma 81a:10
[Yoma 81a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/81a:10)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב בִּיבִי בַּר אַבָּיֵי: נִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״הִשָּׁמֶר בְּמִצְוַת עִינּוּי״! אִם כֵּן ״הִשָּׁמֶר״ דְּלָאו — לָאו, ״הִשָּׁמֶר״ דַּעֲשֵׂה — עֲשֵׂה! מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אָשֵׁי: נִכְתּוֹב: ״אַל תָּסוּר מִן הָעִינּוּי״! קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Beivai bar Abaye strongly objects to this: Let the Merciful One write: Guard yourself in the mitzva of affliction.** The Gemara rejects this: **If so,** there is a principle: If the words **guard yourself** are written **about a prohibition,** it is considered to be **a prohibition;** if the words **guard yourself** are written **about a positive mitzva,** it is considered to be **a positive mitzva.** Had the Torah written it that way, one would understand that there is a positive mitzva of affliction, but there is no element of prohibition. **Rav Ashi strongly objects to this: Let the Merciful One write: Do not stray from afflicting yourself,** which would imply a negative mitzva. The Gemara says: Indeed, this is **difficult.** The Gemara concedes that it could have been written in this manner.


###### Yoma 81a:11
[Yoma 81a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/81a:11)

וְתַנָּא מַיְיתֵי לַהּ מֵהָכָא: ״וְעִנִּיתֶם אֶת נַפְשׁוֹתֵיכֶם וְכׇל מְלָאכָה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ״. יָכוֹל יְהֵא עָנוּשׁ עַל תּוֹסֶפֶת מְלָאכָה — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְכׇל הַנֶּפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשֶׂה כׇּל מְלָאכָה בְּעֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה״ — עַל עִיצּוּמוֹ שֶׁל יוֹם עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת, וְאֵינוֹ עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת עַל תּוֹסֶפֶת מְלָאכָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ With regard to the prohibitions against eating and labor, the Gemara says: **And a *tanna* cites** the prohibitions relating to affliction on Yom Kippur **from here:** It is stated: **“And you shall afflict your souls, you shall do no manner of labor”** (Numbers 29:7). The Gemara considers: One **might** have thought that performing labor during the **extension** of the period of prohibition **of labor,** added before Yom Kippur actually begins, **is punishable** by *karet*. Therefore, **the verse states: “And whatsoever soul it be that does any manner of labor on that same day”** (Leviticus 23:30), which teaches that performing labor **on that very day is punishable by *karet*, but** labor performed during **the extension** of the period of prohibition **of labor is not punishable by *karet*.**


###### Yoma 81a:12
[Yoma 81a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/81a:12)

יָכוֹל לֹא יְהֵא עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת עַל תּוֹסֶפֶת מְלָאכָה, אֲבָל יְהֵא עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת עַל תּוֹסֶפֶת עִינּוּי — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כִּי כׇל הַנֶּפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר לֹא תְעוּנֶּה בְּעֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה וְנִכְרְתָה״. עַל עִיצּוּמוֹ שֶׁל יוֹם עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת, וְאֵינוֹ עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת עַל תּוֹסֶפֶת עִינּוּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: One **might** have thought that performing labor during the **extension** of the period of prohibition **of labor is not punishable by *karet*,** but not afflicting oneself during the **extension** of the period **of affliction is punishable by *karet*.** Therefore, **the verse states: “For whatsoever soul it be that shall not be afflicted on that same day, he shall be cut off** from his people” (Leviticus 23:29), which teaches that not afflicting oneself **on that very day** is **punishable by *karet*, but** not afflicting oneself during **the extension** of the period **of affliction is not punishable by *karet*.**


###### Yoma 81a:13
[Yoma 81a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/81a:13)

יָכוֹל לֹא יְהֵא בִּכְלַל עוֹנֶשׁ, אֲבָל יְהֵא מוּזְהָר עַל תּוֹסֶפֶת מְלָאכָה — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְכׇל מְלָאכָה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ בְּעֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה״. עַל עִיצּוּמוֹ שֶׁל יוֹם הוּא מוּזְהָר, וְאֵינוֹ מוּזְהָר עַל תּוֹסֶפֶת מְלָאכָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: One **might** have thought **that** one who performs labor during the extension would **not be included in the punishment** of *karet*, **but he would be warned against** performing labor during the **extension** of the period of prohibition **of labor** with a prohibition incurring the punishment of lashes; therefore, **the verse states: “And you shall do no manner of labor on that same day”** (Leviticus 23:28). That teaches that **he is warned** not to perform labor on **that very day,** but **he is not warned against** performing labor during the **extension** of the period of prohibition **of labor,** and therefore he is not liable to receive lashes for doing so.


###### Yoma 81a:14
[Yoma 81a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/81a:14)

יָכוֹל לֹא יְהֵא מוּזְהָר עַל תּוֹסֶפֶת מְלָאכָה, אֲבָל יְהֵא מוּזְהָר עַל תּוֹסֶפֶת עִינּוּי — וְדִין הוּא: וּמָה מְלָאכָה שֶׁנּוֹהֶגֶת בְּשַׁבָּתוֹת וְיוֹם טוֹב אֵינוֹ מוּזְהָר עָלֶיהָ, עִינּוּי, שֶׁאֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג בְּשַׁבָּתוֹת וְיוֹם טוֹב — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא מוּזְהָר עָלָיו?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: One **might** have thought: **He would not be warned with regard to** performing labor during the **extension** of the period of prohibition **of labor** that it is a prohibition that incurs lashes; **but he would be warned with regard to** not being in a state of affliction during the **extension** of the period **of affliction** that it is a prohibition that incurs lashes. However, that is incorrect, **and** it is learned from **a logical derivation** that it is not so: **Just as** with regard to **labor, whose** prohibition **is observed on** both ***Shabbatot* and Festivals, one is not warned about** the extension added to the day, **is it not logical that** with regard to **affliction, which is not observed on *Shabbatot* and Festivals, he should not be warned about** or liable to receive lashes for the extension?


###### Yoma 81a:15
[Yoma 81a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/81a:15)

אֲבָל אַזְהָרָה לְעִינּוּי שֶׁל יוֹם עַצְמוֹ לֹא לָמַדְנוּ מִנַּיִין. לֹא יֹאמַר עוֹנֶשׁ בִּמְלָאכָה, דְּגָמַר מֵעִינּוּי: וּמָה עִינּוּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג בְּשַׁבָּתוֹת וְיוֹם טוֹב עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת, מְלָאכָה שֶׁנּוֹהֶגֶת בְּשַׁבָּתוֹת וְיָמִים טוֹבִים — לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן? לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר — מוּפְנֶה לְהַקִּישׁ וְלָדוּן מִמֶּנּוּ גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה: נֶאֱמַר עוֹנֶשׁ בְּעִינּוּי וְנֶאֱמַר עוֹנֶשׁ בִּמְלָאכָה, מָה מְלָאכָה — לֹא עָנַשׁ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הִזְהִיר, אַף עִינּוּי — לֹא עָנַשׁ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הִזְהִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* comments: **But the warning** about lashes **during the very day itself we have not learned. From where** is it derived? The Torah **need not state the punishment** of *karet* for performing **labor, since one can learn it** by logical derivation **from** the punishment of not being in a state of **affliction,** as follows: **Just as** the requirement of **affliction, which is not observed on *Shabbatot* and Festivals, is punishable by *karet*** on Yom Kippur, with regard to the prohibition of **labor, which is observed on** all ***Shabbatot* and Festivals,** is it **not all the more so?** If so, **why** is the punishment for labor **stated** explicitly? **It is available to compare and learn a verbal analogy from it: A punishment** with regard to **affliction is stated, and a punishment** with regard to **labor is stated. Just as** with regard to **labor one is punished only if he was warned** first with a negative mitzva, **so too,** with regard to **affliction, one is punished only if he was warned.**


###### Yoma 81a:16
[Yoma 81a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/81a:16)

אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְעִינּוּי שֶׁלֹּא הוּתַּר מִכְּלָלוֹ, תֹּאמַר בִּמְלָאכָה שֶׁהוּתְּרָה מִכְּלָלָהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **This** comparison can **be refuted.** How so? **Whereas affliction** has **no permitted** exceptions **from its general** prohibition, as the mitzva to afflict oneself applies to all the Jewish people, what can **you say with regard to labor, which** has **permitted** exceptions **from its general** prohibition? It is permitted to perform the Temple services on Yom Kippur, which include prohibited labors, e.g., slaughtering animals and offering incense. Consequently, there is no proof that the mitzva of affliction is more lenient than the prohibition of labor.


###### Yoma 81a:17
[Yoma 81a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/81a:17)

אֶלָּא: לֹא יֵאָמֵר עוֹנֶשׁ בְּעִינּוּי, דְּגָמַר מִמְּלָאכָה. מָה מְלָאכָה שֶׁהוּתְּרָה מִכְּלָלָהּ — עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת, עִינּוּי שֶׁלֹּא הוּתַּר מִכְּלָלוֹ — לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן. לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר — מוּפְנֶה, לְהַקִּישׁ וְלָדוּן מִמֶּנּוּ גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה: נֶאֱמַר עוֹנֶשׁ בְּעִינּוּי וְנֶאֱמַר עוֹנֶשׁ בִּמְלָאכָה, מָה מְלָאכָה עָנַשׁ וְהִזְהִיר — אַף עִינּוּי עָנַשׁ וְהִזְהִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** say as follows: The Torah need **not say the punishment for** not being in a state of **affliction, since one can learn it from** the punishment for performing **labor** through an *a fortiori* inference. How so? **Just as labor, for which** exceptions **from the general** prohibition **are permitted,** e.g., performing the Temple service on Yom Kippur, and yet labor **is punishable by *karet*,** with regard to not being in a state of **affliction, which has no permitted** exceptions **from its general** prohibition, is it **not all the more so** that one who does not afflict himself should be liable to receive *karet*? If so, **why is it** nevertheless **stated? It is available to compare and learn a verbal analogy: Punishment is stated with regard to affliction, and punishment is stated with regard to labor. Just as for labor** the Torah **punished and warned, so too, for affliction** the Torah **punished and warned.**


###### Yoma 81a:18
[Yoma 81a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/81a:18)

אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לִמְלָאכָה — שֶׁכֵּן נוֹהֶגֶת בְּשַׁבָּתוֹת וְיָמִים טוֹבִים. תֹּאמַר בְּעִינּוּי — שֶׁאֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג בְּשַׁבָּתוֹת וְיָמִים טוֹבִים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: This comparison **can be refuted,** and one might say the opposite: **Whereas** the prohibition of **labor is observed on *Shabbatot* and Festivals,** can **you say** the same **about affliction, which is not observed on *Shabbatot* and Festivals?**


###### Yoma 81a:19
[Yoma 81a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/81a:19)

אָמַר רָבִינָא: הַאי תַּנָּא, ״עֶצֶם״ ״עֶצֶם״ גָּמַר. מוּפְנֶה, דְּאִי לָא מוּפְנֶה — אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ כִּדְפָרְכִינַן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said:** We did not properly understand the teaching of this *baraita*, as **this *tanna* derived** a verbal analogy from the words “on that **same** day” (Leviticus 23:29) stated with regard to affliction, and “on that **same** day” (Leviticus 23:28) stated with regard to labor. The Gemara comments: We must say that **it is available,** meaning that in both places, the phrase “on that same day” is unnecessary within its own context and comes only to teach this verbal analogy; **as, if it were not available, it could be refuted, as we refuted it** above.


###### Yoma 81a:20
[Yoma 81a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/81a:20)

לָאיֵי, אִפְּנוֹיֵי מוּפְנֶה. חַמְשָׁה קְרָאֵי כְּתִיבִי בִּמְלָאכָה, חַד לְאַזְהָרָה דִימָמָא, וְחַד לְאַזְהָרָה דְלֵילְיָא, וְחַד לְעוֹנֶשׁ דִּימָמָא, וְחַד לְעוֹנֶשׁ דְּלֵילְיָא, וְחַד לְאַפְנוֹיֵי לְמִגְמַר עִינּוּי מִמְּלָאכָה, בֵּין דִּימָמָא בֵּין דְּלֵילְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **No, it is certainly available,** and we may learn from it, as **five verses are written** with regard to the prohibition of **labor** on Yom Kippur. **One** to teach **a warning** with regard to the prohibition of labor **on the day** of Yom Kippur itself; **and one for a warning** with regard to labor **on the night** of Yom Kippur; **and one for the punishment** of *karet* for performing labor **on the day; and one for the punishment** for performing labor **at night; and one** verse **to be available to derive** the requirement of **affliction from** the prohibition of **labor, both during the day and night,** using a verbal analogy.


###### Yoma 81a:21
[Yoma 81a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/81a:21)

רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל תָּנָא: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן עִינּוּי, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן עִינּוּי. מָה לְהַלָּן — לֹא עָנַשׁ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הִזְהִיר, אַף כָּאן — לֹא עָנַשׁ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הִזְהִיר. רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב אָמַר: יָלֵיף ״שַׁבַּת שַׁבָּתוֹן״ מִשַּׁבַּת בְּרֵאשִׁית: מָה לְהַלָּן — לֹא עָנַשׁ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הִזְהִיר, אַף כָּאן — לֹא עָנַשׁ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הִזְהִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught** an alternative verbal analogy for the derivation: **“Affliction” is stated here,** with regard to Yom Kippur, **and “affliction” is stated later,** with regard to a man who rapes a woman: “Because he has afflicted his neighbor’s wife” (Deuteronomy 22:24). **Just as there,** in the case of rape, the Torah **did not punish unless there was** prior **warning, so too here,** in the case of Yom Kippur, the Torah **did not punish unless there was** prior **warning. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said** a different proof: **Derive** a verbal analogy from the words **“Shabbat of solemn rest”** (Leviticus 16:31) written with regard to Yom Kippur **from** the words “Shabbat of solemn rest” (Exodus 31:15, 32:5; Leviticus 23:3) written with regard to the weekly Shabbat, which commemorates the **Shabbat of Creation. Just as there,** in the case of Shabbat, the Torah **did not punish unless there was** prior **warning, so too here,** in the case of Yom Kippur, the Torah **did not punish unless there was** prior **warning.**


###### Yoma 81a:22
[Yoma 81a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/81a:22)

רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said:**