מפת הסוגיא — יומא ע״חSugya map — Yoma 78

הגמרא דנה בחציית מים לצורך מצוה. ניחא ביוה״כ שאין נועלים מנעל — אין חשש; אבל בשבת שנועלים מנעל, מהו לחצות מים — שמא יישמט המנעל ויטלנו ויעבור באיסור הוצאה? נחמיה חתן בית הנשיא: ראיתי את ר׳ אמי ור׳ אסי שהגיעו לבריכת מים ועברו אותה בשבת כשהם נעולים, דרך מלבוש.

§ The Gemara investigates the permissibility of crossing water in order to fulfill a mitzva: It works out well that on Yom Kippur it is permitted because there are no shoes, and there is no problem going through water barefoot. However, on Shabbat, when there are shoes, what is the halakha? Is one permitted to cross water wearing shoes? Is there a concern that his shoe might come off and he may pick it up, thereby violating the prohibition of carrying out? Neḥemya, the son-in-law of the Nasi, said: I saw Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi come to a pool of water that they had to cross on Shabbat, and they crossed it while wearing their shoes without removing them first.

ניחא מנעל הנקשר היטב; אבל סנדל שאינו מהודק לרגל — מהו? שמא יישמט במים. רב ריחומי: ראיתי את רבינא שעבר נהר דרך מלבוש בסנדל. רב אשי: בסנדל לכתחילה לא יעבור, שמא יישמט ויטלנו.

The Gemara asks: It works out well that shoes are permitted, since one can tie them tightly, but what is there to say about sandals? Since they do not fit tightly on the foot, they might come off in the water. Rav Riḥumi said: I saw Ravina cross a river while wearing sandals on his feet. Rav Ashi said: If he is wearing sandals, he should not cross the water ab initio, lest the sandal fall off his foot and he violate the prohibition of carrying on Shabbat by picking it up.

אגב כך: ריש גלותא בא לדרוש בהגרוניא בבית רב נתן; רפרם וכל החכמים באו לדרשה, אך רבינא לא בא. למחר ביקש רפרם להסיר את כעסו של הריש גלותא מרבינא, ושאלו: מדוע לא בא מר לפרקא? השיב: כאבה לי רגלי. אמר לו: היה לך לנעול מנעלים! השיב: גב הרגל כאב — ונעילה הייתה קשה.

Incidental to this, the Gemara reports: The Exilarch came to deliver a lecture in Rav Natan’s study hall in Hagronya. Rafram and all the Sages came to the lecture, but Ravina did not come. The next day, when he came, Rafram wanted to remove any anger towards Ravina from the mind of the Exilarch, for missing the lecture. Rafram therefore asked Ravina: What is the reason that the Master did not come to the lecture? He said to him: My foot hurt. He said to him: You should have put shoes on. Ravina answered him: It was the back of the foot that hurt, so wearing shoes would have been hard for me.

אמר לו: היה לך לנעול סנדל, שגבו פתוח. השיב: בריכת מים הייתה בדרך. אמר לו: היה לך לעוברה דרך מלבוש בסנדל. השיב: וכי אין מר סובר כדברי רב אשי — סנדל לכתחילה לא יעבור? מכאן הבין הריש גלותא שלא הייתה בהיעדרותו כל זלזול.

Rafram said to Ravina: You should have worn sandals, which leave the heel exposed. He said to him: There was a pool of water on the way that I would have had to cross. He said to him: You should have crossed it wearing the sandals. He said to him: Does the Master not hold with that which Rav Ashi said: One should not wear sandals when crossing a river on Shabbat, ab initio? From this conversation, the Exilarch understood that Ravina meant no disrespect in not attending the lecture.

יהודה בר גרוגרות שנה: אסור לישב על טינא (בוץ) ביוה״כ — משום עינוי. ר׳ יהושע בן לוי: דווקא בטינא לחה המרטיבה. אביי: לחה כדי שתרטיב דבר אחר. רב יהודה: מותר להצטנן בפירות, ואין זו רחיצה — וכך רב יהודה היה מצטנן בקרא (דלעת) כשסבל מן החום.

§ The Gemara continues to discuss the laws of Yom Kippur: Yehuda bar Gerogarot taught: It is prohibited to sit on damp clay on Yom Kippur. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: This prohibition applies only when the clay is dripping wet, when one feels its wetness when touching it. Abaye said in clarification: It must be dripping wet enough to make something else wet. Rav Yehuda said: One is permitted to cool off with fruit on Yom Kippur, and it is not considered bathing. Similarly, when Rav Yehuda suffered from the heat on Yom Kippur he cooled off by putting a squash on himself.

רבה היה מצטנן ביָנוקא (תינוק, שגופו קר), רבא בכוס כסף. רב פפא: כוס כסף מלאה — אסור (שמא ישפך וירחץ), חסרה — מותר; אך של חרס — בין מלאה בין חסרה אסורה, שהמים נוטפים דרך הדופן. רב: אף כוס כסף חסרה אסורה, שמא תישמט מידו ותישפך.

Rabba cooled off by placing a baby [yanuka] next to him, because a baby’s body is cold. Rava cooled off with a silver cup. Rav Pappa said: If the silver cup is full, it is prohibited; however, if it is not full, it is permitted. With regard to a ceramic cup, both this and that are prohibited, since the water seeps through the cup, causing a violation of the prohibition of bathing. Rav Ashi said: A silver cup that is not full is also prohibited because it can slip [mizderiv] from his hand and spill.

זעירא בר חמא, מארחם של ר׳ אמי ור׳ אסי ור׳ יהושע בן לוי וחכמי קיסרי, אמר לרב יוסף בן ר׳ יהושע בן לוי: בן אריה! אספר לך מנהג נאה של אביך. מטפחת הייתה לו: בערב יוה״כ שורה אותה במים וסוחטה כמעט עד יובש, ולמחר מקנח בה פניו ידיו ורגליו. ובערב ט׳ באב שורה אותה (בלא סחיטה) ולמחר מעבירה על עיניו בלבד.

Ze’eira bar Ḥama, the host of the home where Rabbi Ami, and Rabbi Asi, and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, and all the Sages of Caesarea stayed, said to Rav Yosef, son of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: Son of a lion, come, I will tell you about a wonderful custom that your father used to perform. He had a cloth that he would prepare on the day before Yom Kippur by soaking it in water and wringing it out, making it almost like a dried cloth. And the next day he wiped his face, hands, and feet with it. On the day before the Ninth of Av, on which the prohibition of bathing is by rabbinic law and not Torah law, he would soak the cloth in water and the next day pass it over his eyes.

וכן כשבא רבה בר מרי מסר את המנהג — אך בהיפוך: בערב ט׳ באב שורה אותה (בלא סחיטה) ולמחר מקנח פניו ידיו ורגליו; בערב יוה״כ שורה וסוחט כעין יבש, ולמחר מעביר על עיניו בלבד. השיגו ר׳ יעקב לר׳ ירמיה בר תחליפא: היפך אמרת לנו, והקשינו עליך מאיסור סחיטה (שהרי ביוה״כ אסור לסחוט כבשבת).

Similarly, when Rabba bar Mari came from Eretz Yisrael he said: The day before the Ninth of Av they bring one a cloth, and he may soak it in water and place it under his head. The next day, when only some moisture remains, he may wipe his face, hands, and feet with it. On the day before Yom Kippur, they bring one a cloth, and he may soak it in water and wring it out to make it like a dried cloth. The next day, he may pass it over his eyes. Rabbi Ya’akov said to Rabbi Yirmeya bar Taḥlifa: You told us the opposite. What you told us about Yom Kippur was really what he did on the Ninth of Av, and we objected to you with regard to the prohibition of wringing, since Yom Kippur has the same prohibition of wringing that Shabbat has.

רב מנשיא בר תחליפא בשם רב עמרם בשם רבה בר בר חנה: שאלו את ר׳ אלעזר בן פדת — תלמיד חכם זקן היושב בישיבה, האם צריך ליטול רשות מן הנשיא כדי להתיר בכורות (לקבוע אם המום בבכור מתיר את אכילתו), כשאר המתירים, או אינו צריך?

§ Rav Menashya bar Taḥalifa said that Rav Amram said that Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: They asked Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat: Must an Elder who sits and studies Torah in a yeshiva receive permission from the Nasi to permit him to render firstborn animals permitted, like others who must get permission from the Nasi to render firstborn animals permitted, or not? A firstborn animal may not be eaten until it has a blemish. Knowing which blemishes are permanent and permit the animal to be eaten and which are temporary is specialized knowledge.

מה היה ספקם? כדברי רב אידי בר אבין: סמכות זו הונחה לבית הנשיא כדי שיתגדלו בה (יתפרסם כבודם) — ולכן אף זקן יושב בישיבה צריך רשות, שעצם הבקשה מכבדת את הנשיא; או שמא כיון שזקן ויושב בישיבה אין צריך. עמד ר׳ צדוק בן חקולא ואמר: ראיתי את ר׳ יוסי בן זימרא, שהיה זקן יושב בישיבה, שעמד לפני סבו של הנשיא הזה ונטל ממנו רשות להתיר בכורות.

The Gemara asks: What are they asking? What is the basis of the question? The Gemara explains: This is what they are asking, like this statement of Rav Idi bar Avin, who said: This matter, the authority of the Nasi to grant permission, was given to the house of the Nasi to raise its stature. Therefore, must permission be received, since the request itself honors the Nasi? Or, perhaps because the individual in question is an Elder who sits and studies Torah in a yeshiva, there is no need. Rav Tzadok ben Ḥaluka rose to his feet and said: I saw Rabbi Yosei ben Zimra, who was an Elder who sat in the yeshiva and who stood before the grandfather of this current Nasi, ask permission from him to permit firstborn animals.

השיב ר׳ אבא: לא כך היה המעשה, אלא: ר׳ יוסי בן זימרא כהן היה (וכהנים חשודים על הטלת מום בבכור), וזו הייתה שאלתו — הלכה כר׳ מאיר שהחשוד בדבר אינו דנו ואינו מעידו, או כרשב״ג שנאמן על של חבירו ואינו נאמן על של עצמו? ופשט לו: הלכה כרשב״ג.

Rabbi Abba said to him: The way you described it was not how the incident was. Rather this was the incident: Rabbi Yosei ben Zimra was a priest, and he raised the following dilemma: Is the halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said: One who is suspect in a certain area may not judge it and may not testify about it? Priests are suspected of inflicting blemishes on firstborn animals because after the destruction of the Temple, even priests may not benefit from a firstborn animal until it becomes blemished. The question was not one of seeking permission from the Nasi, but it was a question of halakha. Are priests who are Torah scholars also suspected of inflicting blemishes? Or perhaps the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who said: One who is suspect is believed about his fellow but is not believed about himself. He resolved the question for him: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

ועוד שאלו אותם החכמים שאלה: מהו לצאת בסנדל של… (הקטע נמשך בעמוד הבא: ״שעם״ — שעם/פקק עץ).

§ They raised another dilemma before them, the same Sages mentioned: What is the halakha with regard to going out in sandals made of

…שעם (פקק עץ) ביוה״כ? עמד ר׳ יצחק בר נחמני והעיד: ראיתי את ריב״ל שיצא בסנדל של שעם ביוה״כ; שאלתיו על תענית ציבור, ואמר: לא שנא (מותר). רבה בר בר חנה: ראיתי את ר׳ אלעזר מנינוה שיצא בו בתענית ציבור, ולשאלתי על יוה״כ אמר: לא שנא. רב יהודה היה יוצא בשל קני־סוף, אביי בשל סיב הדקל, רבא בשל קליעת קנים, ורבה בר רב הונא כורך סודר על רגלו ויוצא — שכל אלו אינם מנעל.

cork on Yom Kippur? Is it considered a shoe, and therefore it may not be worn on Yom Kippur, or not? Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Naḥmani stood on his feet to testify and said: I saw that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi went out on Yom Kippur in cork sandals, and I said to him: What is the law on a communal fast that is decreed in a time of drought, when shoes are similarly prohibited? Are reed sandals permitted? He said to me: It is no different, and such sandals are permitted even on a communal fast day. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: I saw Rabbi Elazar from Nineveh go out in cork sandals on a communal fast day, and I said to him: What is the law on Yom Kippur? He said to me: It is no different, and it is permitted. The Gemara reports: Rav Yehuda went out on Yom Kippur in reed sandals. Abaye went out in sandals made of palm fiber. Rava went out in sandals braided with reeds. None of these sandals are considered to be shoes. Rabba bar Rav Huna wrapped a scarf around his feet and went out.

הקשה רמי בר חמא: שנינו — הקיטע (קטוע רגל) יוצא בשבת בקב שלו (רגל עץ), כר׳ מאיר, ור׳ יוסי אוסר; ושנו עליה: ושוין ששניהם מודים שאסור לצאת בו ביוה״כ. משמע שאף רגל עץ אסורה — ואם כן גם דברי האמוראים לעיל קשים? תירץ אביי: שם איסורו משום שיש בו כתיתין (רכים) ומשום תענוג, ולא משום מנעל.

Rami bar Ḥama raised an objection: We learned that an amputee may go out with his wooden prosthetic leg on Shabbat, since it is like a shoe; these are the words of Rabbi Meir. But Rabbi Yosei prohibits it. And a baraita was taught in that regard as an addendum to that mishna: And they agree that it is prohibited to go out wearing it on Yom Kippur. As this indicates that even wooden shoes are prohibited, the materials worn by the aforementioned amora’im should also be prohibited. Abaye said: There, in the case of Yom Kippur, it is prohibited because there are rags in the prosthesis. The prohibition is not due to the shoes but due to the pleasure of the comfort, which is prohibited on Yom Kippur.

דחה רבא את אביי: אם אין הקב מנעל, וכי הכתיתין הופכים אותו למנעל? ועוד: כל תענוג שאינו דרך נעילת מנעל אינו אסור ביוה״כ — והרי רבה בר רב הונא כרך סודר ויצא! ועוד, מדשנינו בסיפא ״אם יש לו בית קיבול כתיתין — טמא״, מכלל שהרישא עוסקת בקב שאין בו כתיתין — ובכל זאת אסרוהו ביוה״כ; הרי שאיסורו משום מנעל.

Rava said to him: And if the prosthetic leg is not a garment, meaning that it is not a shoe, do the rags make it into a garment? Only shoes are forbidden, not other garments. And furthermore, any other kind of pleasure that is not the pleasure of wearing shoes, is it prohibited on Yom Kippur? Only certain afflictions are mandated on Yom Kippur; activities that are not specifically restricted by those afflictions are permitted. And Rabba bar Rav Huna would wrap a scarf on his feet and go out, demonstrating that the comfort provided by rags is permitted on Yom Kippur. Furthermore, the continuation of the baraita contradicts your explanation that the prohibition is due to the comfort provided by the rags. From the fact that it teaches in the latter clause: If the prosthetic leg has a receptacle designed for rags it is susceptible to ritual impurity like all wooden utensils which have receptacles, it may be inferred that in the first clause we are not dealing with a prosthetic leg that has a hollow space designed for rags. Abaye’s position is thereby rejected.

אלא אמר רבא: לעולם הקב מנעל הוא לכל הדעות (ולכן אסור ביוה״כ), ובשבת נחלקו: ר׳ יוסי סבר גוזרים שמא יישמט הקב ויבוא להוליכו ארבע אמות ברה״ר, ור׳ מאיר סבר אין גוזרים.

Rather, Rava said: Actually, according to everyone, a prosthetic leg is considered to be a shoe, and with regard to Shabbat this is what they disagree about: One Sage, Rabbi Yosei holds that we decree a prohibition of wearing a prosthetic leg on Shabbat lest the leg slip off and one come to carry it four cubits in the public domain; and one Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds that we do not decree such a rule.

ת״ר: תינוקות מותרים בכל עינויי יוה״כ, חוץ מנעילת הסנדל. ושואלת הגמרא: מה שונה נעילת הסנדל? הטעם שאם ילבישוהו יאמרו הבריות ״גדולים עשו לו״ (וייראה כעובר על יוה״כ) — אך גם בשאר (רחיצה וסיכה) יאמרו כן! ומשיבה: ברחיצה וסיכה אפשר לומר שעשו לו מאתמול.

§ The Sages taught: Young children are permitted to perform all of the prohibited activities on Yom Kippur, except for wearing shoes. The Gemara asks: What is different about wearing shoes? It is because observers who see a child wearing shoes will say that adults did this for him, i.e., put them on for him, since he cannot do it for himself. But if that is the reason, with regard to those other prohibitions also, like bathing and smearing oil, they will say that adults did this for him, and children should be prohibited from those activities as well. The Gemara explains: With regard to bathing and smearing oil, they could say that they did this for him yesterday, since one cannot be certain when the child was bathed.

הגמרא מקשה: אף בסנדל נאמר שעשו לו מאתמול! ומשיבה: בסנדל אי אפשר לומר זאת, שהרי לא ילין נעול — כדברי שמואל: הרוצה לטעום טעם מיתה — ינעל מנעליו וישכב לישון בהם.

The Gemara asks: If so, we could say this with regard to shoes as well. They could say that they did this for him yesterday. The Gemara answers: In the case of shoes, it is impossible to say an adult did it for him yesterday, since the child would not have worn shoes at night. As Shmuel said: He who desires a taste of death should put on shoes and go to sleep.

הגמרא דוחה: הברייתא שנתה ״מותרין לכתחילה״ — משמע שמותר אף לגדולים לעשות להם בעצם היום! אלא: גזרו חכמים רק במה שאינו צורך גידול התינוק, ובמה שהוא צורך גידולו לא גזרו. כדברי אביי בשם אמו: גידולו של תינוק — מים חמים ושמן; גדל מעט — ביצה בכותח; גדל עוד — לשבור כלים (להנאתו), כרבה שקנה כלי חרס סדוקים לבניו והם שוברים אותם.

The Gemara asks: But the mishna is teaching that they are permitted to wear shoes ab initio. If so, it is permitted for an adult to perform these acts for a child even on the day of Yom Kippur, and the observer will not think that the adult has done anything wrong. Rather, we must explain the mishna as follows: The Sages decreed against performing those actions that are not necessary for the child’s growth, but the Sages did not decree against performing those actions that are necessary for the child’s growth. As Abaye said: My mother told me: A child’s growth requires hot water and oil for smearing. When he grows a little, he must eat egg with kutaḥa, a pickled dip made with milk. When he grows a little more, he must have vessels to break, since he will enjoy breaking them. This is like Rabba who bought cracked ceramic vessels for his children, and they broke them for their enjoyment.

משנתנו התירה למלך ולכלה לרחוץ פניהם ביוה״כ (כר׳ אליעזר). מי שנאה המשנה? ר׳ חנניא בן תרדיון, כברייתא: ת״ק — מלך וכלה לא ירחצו פניהם; ר׳ חנניא בן תרדיון משום ר׳ אליעזר — ירחצו. וכן בחיה (יולדת): ת״ק — לא תנעול סנדל; ר׳ חנניא בן תרדיון משום ר׳ אליעזר — תנעול.

§ We learned in the mishna that according to Rabbi Eliezer, the king and the bride may wash their faces on Yom Kippur. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna of the mishna? The Gemara answers: It is the opinion of Rabbi Ḥananya ben Teradyon, as it was taught in a baraita: The king and the bride may not wash their faces on Yom Kippur. Rabbi Ḥananya ben Teradyon says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: A king and a bride may wash their faces. The Rabbis said: A new mother may not wear shoes on Yom Kippur. Rabbi Ḥananya ben Teradyon says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: A new mother may wear shoes.

מה הטעם? מלך — שנאמר ״מלך ביפיו תחזינה עיניך״, שצריך להיראות נאה. כלה — כדי שלא תתגנה על בעלה בתחילת נישואיה. שאל רב את ר׳ חייא: עד כמה נחשבת אישה ככלה? השיבו: כברייתא — אין מונעים תכשיטים מן הכלה כל שלושים יום.

The Gemara asks: According to Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion, what is the reason that the king may wash his face? Because it is written: “Your eyes shall see the king in his beauty” (Isaiah 33:17). A king should always look regal before his nation. What is the reason that a bride may wash her face? So that she should not appear repulsive to her husband. Since it is only the beginning of their marriage, her husband may be disgusted at seeing her otherwise. Rav said to Rabbi Ḥiyya: For how long after her wedding is a woman considered a bride? He said to him: As it was taught in a baraita: If she becomes a mourner, we do not prevent the bride from wearing perfumes during the entire first thirty days of her marriage. This shows that for the first thirty days, her appearance is most critical.

החיה (יולדת) תנעול את הסנדל ביוה״כ — מפני הצינה, שמא תצטנן ותסתכן, שהיא חלשה מן הלידה.

A new mother may wear shoes. What is the reason for this? Due to the cold there is concern that she will become ill, as she is weak from the birth.

אמר שמואל: אף אדם רגיל — אם חושש ללכת יחף מחמת סכנת עקרב, מותר לו לנעול מנעליו ביוה״כ, שאין לאדם להכניס עצמו לסכנה.

Shmuel said: If a man is worried about walking barefoot on Yom Kippur due to the danger of scorpions, he is permitted to wear shoes, since one need not put himself in danger.

המשנה: ״האוכל ככותבת הגסה (תמר גדול) ביוה״כ — חייב״. בעי רב פפא: (הקטע נמשך) — האם השיעור עם הגרעין או בלעדיו?

§ We learned in the mishna: On Yom Kippur, one who eats food the volume of a large date is liable. Rav Pappa asked:

בעיית רב פפא: ״ככותבת״ — עם גרעינתה או בלא גרעינתה? בעיית רב אשי (במשנה אחרת): ״עצם כשעורה״ המטמא — עם קליפתה או בלעדיה, לחה או יבשה? רב אשי לא הסתפק בשל פפא: ״גסה״ נאמר — כל כמה שהיא גסה, ובכלל זה הגרעין. רב פפא לא הסתפק בשל אשי: שעורה לחה ״שיבולת״ נקראת, ובלא קליפה ״אושלא״ — אם כן מדובר ביבשה שבקליפתה.

The large date-bulk that they said is the measure that determines liability for eating on Yom Kippur, does this refer to the volume of a large date with its pit or without its pit? Rav Ashi asked a similar question: The mishna that states that a bone that is a barley-grain-bulk imparts ritual impurity, does this refer to the volume of a barley grain with its husk or without its husk? And is that referring to a wet kernel or a dry one? The Gemara clarifies: Rav Ashi did not ask the question that Rav Pappa asked, regarding the size of the date-bulk on Yom Kippur because the answer was clear to him. Since it is stated in the mishna: Large, it means as large as possible, which must include the pit. Conversely, Rav Pappa did not ask the question that Rav Ashi asked regarding the size of the barley-grain-bulk because the answer was clear to him. Wet barley is called shibbolet and not barley; without its shell it is no longer called barley but is called ushla. Therefore, the mishna must be referring to dry barley within its shell.

רב יהודה: ״כותבת הגסה״ גדולה מכביצה — וקבלה בידי חכמים שבשיעור זה דעתו של אדם מתיישבת (יוצא מכלל עינוי), ובפחות מכך אינה מתיישבת. מיתיבי: מעשה שהביאו לריב״ז לטעום תבשיל, ולרבן גמליאל שתי כותבות ודלי מים, ואמרו ״העלום לסוכה״ — ושנו עליה שלא משום שכך ההלכה אלא שרצו להחמיר.

Rava said that Rav Yehuda said: The volume of a large date that they said is larger than an egg-bulk. The Sages have an accepted tradition that with this amount of food, the mind of the one who eats is settled, and he is not afflicted. Less than this amount, the mind is not settled. The Gemara raises an objection from what we have learned: An incident happened on the festival of Sukkot. They brought a cooked dish to Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai to taste, and they brought to Rabban Gamliel two dates and a tankard of water. Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai and Rabban Gamliel said to them: Bring them up to the sukka, and we will eat there. And a baraita was taught in that regard: They did not act this way because that is the halakha, that such food must be eaten in the sukka. Rather, they wished to be stringent upon themselves and not eat anything outside of the sukka.

ומאידך: כשנתנו לר׳ צדוק אוכל פחות מכביצה — נטלו במפה ואכלו חוץ לסוכה, ולא בירך אחריו (ברכת המזון) — שפחות מכביצה אינו טעון סוכה ולא ברכה.

On the other hand, the Gemara reports: And when they gave Rabbi Tzadok food that was less than an egg-bulk to eat, he held it in a cloth and did not wash his hands. And he ate it outside of the sukka and did not recite Grace after Meals afterward.

הדיוק: אבל כביצה טעונה סוכה. ואם תאמר שכותבת גדולה מכביצה — והרי שתי כותבות בלא גרעין אינן כביצה, וכי כותבת אחת עם גרעינה גדולה מכביצה?! תירץ ר׳ ירמיה: כן! שתיים בלא גרעין אינן כביצה, אך אחת עם גרעינה (הגדול) כן. אמר רב פפא: זהו שאומרים הבריות — בשני קבים תמרים קב אחד גרעינים וריקבון.

The Gemara clarifies: Food that has the volume of an egg-bulk is required to be eaten in a sukka. If it should enter your mind to say that the volume of the large date that they spoke of is larger than the volume of an egg-bulk, there is a contradiction. Now, comparing the two episodes, it seems that two dates without their pits are not the volume of an egg. If so, can the volume of a large date and its pit be greater than that of an egg-bulk? Rav Yirmeya said: Yes, although two dates without their pits are not equal to an egg-bulk, the volume of a large date and its pit are larger than an egg-bulk, since date pits are very large. Rav Pappa said: This explains the folk saying that people say: In two kav of dates there is one kav and more of pits, meaning that the volume of the pit is larger than that of the fruit itself.

רבא: שם טעם אחר — שתי הכותבות פירות הן, ופירות אין טעונים סוכה; ואין ראיה לשיעור. מיתיבי על רבא: רבי אמר — כשלמדנו אצל ר׳ אלעזר בן שמוע הביאו לפנינו תאנים וענבים ואכלנום אכילת עראי חוץ לסוכה. משמע עראי אין, קבע לא — ופירות בקבע טעונים סוכה! ומשיבים: אמור ״אכלנום כאכילת עראי״ — שאכילת פירות לעולם עראי.

Rava said: This entire line of questioning has no basis: There, in the incident of the sukka, this is the reasoning that the halakha permits eating the dates outside of the sukka, due to the fact that dates are fruit, and fruit need not be eaten in a sukka but may be eaten outside of a sukka. The Gemara raises an objection. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: When we would learn Torah with Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua, they brought before us figs and grapes, and we ate them as a casual meal outside of the sukka. The Gemara analyzes this: This implies that in the case of a casual meal, yes, it may be eaten outside of a sukka; but a fixed meal may not be eaten outside of a sukka. Therefore, a meal consisting of fruit must be eaten in a sukka. The Gemara rejects this: That is the wrong inference. Instead, say we ate them as if they were a casual meal, which may be eaten outside of the sukka, meaning that eating fruit is always considered a snack.

ואם תרצה, תירוץ אחר: אכלנו את הפירות אכילת קבע, ואכלנו עמהם פת אכילת עראי חוץ לסוכה (להמתיק את מתיקותם) — ולכן יצאנו חוץ לסוכה.

If you wish, say instead that it can be understood in this way: We ate that fruit as a fixed meal, and we ate bread as a casual meal with the fruit, to temper their sweetness, outside of the sukka.

לימא מסייע לרבא: ״לפיכך אם השלים (סעודת סוכה) במיני תרגימא — יצא״; ואם פירות טעונים סוכה, היה לו לשנות ״פירות״! ודוחים: מאי ״מיני תרגימא״ — פירות (אך לא ראיה). ואי בעית אימא: הברייתא במקום שאין פירות מצויים.

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this baraita supports Rava. It teaches: Therefore, if one completed consuming the amount that one is required to eat in the sukka with types of sweets, he has fulfilled his obligation of sitting in the sukka. If it should enter your mind to say that fruit is required to be eaten in a sukka, then it should not say sweets; let it teach fruit. The Gemara rejects this proof: What do the words types of sweets mean? It means fruit. Therefore, this baraita is not a support for Rava’s opinion. And if you wish, say that this baraita is referring to a place where fruits are uncommon, and therefore other sweet foods are eaten, but fruit can similarly complete the requirement. Consequently, no support can be brought from here.

רב זביד חולק: ״כותבת הגסה״ קטנה מכביצה. ראיה ממשנה (ביצה): בית שמאי — שיעור שאור (להתחייב בבל ייראה) בכזית, וחמץ בכותבת.

Until now, the Gemara has assumed that the volume of a large date is more than that of an egg. Rav Zevid disagreed with what was mentioned earlier and said: This is not so. Rather, the volume of a large date that they spoke of is less than an egg-bulk, as we learned in a mishna: Beit Shammai say: With regard to leaven, the sourdough used to make dough rise, ownership of the volume of an olive-bulk violates the prohibitions in the following verses stated regarding Passover: “And no leavened bread shall be seen with you” (Exodus 13:7) and “Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses” (Exodus 12:19). However, the amount of leavened bread that must be owned to violate the prohibition is the volume of a large date.

ודנו בה: מה טעם בית שמאי? יכתוב הכתוב ״חמץ״ ואשמע שאור מק״ו — ומה חמץ שחימוצו רך אסור בכזית, שאור שחימוצו קשה לא כל שכן? מדפלגם הכתוב, לימד ששיעוריהם שונים: שאור בכזית וחמץ בכותבת — משמע שכותבת גדולה מכזית.

The Gemara continues. And we discussed it: What is the reason for the opinion of Beit Shammai? If both leaven and leavened bread had the same measure that determines liability, let the Merciful One write only: “Leavened bread,” and He would not need to write: “Leaven.” I would say, based on logic: If leavened bread, whose leavening ability is not as strong, is prohibited at an olive-bulk, all the more so should not leaven, whose leavening ability is strong because it causes dough to rise, be also prohibited at an olive-bulk? Since the Merciful One distinguishes between them and states both “leaven” and “leavened bread,” this taught you that the measure for one is not the same as the measure for the other. The measure that determines liability for leaven is an olive-bulk, like in the case of most prohibitions from the Torah, and the measure that determines liability for leavened bread, whose leavening ability is weaker, is the volume of a large date.

ואם תאמר כותבת גדולה מכביצה — והרי בית שמאי מחפשים שיעור גדול מכזית, אם כן יִשנו ״כביצה״ (המצוי); ואף אם שווים, יִשנו ״כביצה״! אלא שמע מינה: כותבת קטנה מכביצה.

The Gemara clarifies: And if it should enter your mind to say: The volume of the large date that they spoke of is greater than an egg-bulk, since Beit Shammai are searching for the measure one size larger than an olive-bulk, as they proved that leavened bread must have a larger measure than an olive-bulk, and if the measure one size larger than an olive-bulk is an egg-bulk, then let them teach an egg-bulk and not a date. Alternatively, if they are exactly the same volume, and the volume of a large date has the same volume as an egg-bulk, they should have taught an egg-bulk, which is the more commonly used measure. Rather, must one not conclude from here that the volume of a large date is less than an egg-bulk?

הגמרא דוחה: מנין? שמא לעולם כותבת הגסה גדולה מכביצה, אך כותבת סתם (רגילה) כביצה — ובה דיברו ב״ש; ואי נמי שוות הן, ונקטו אחת מהן. אין ראיה.

The Gemara rejects this: From where is your proof? Perhaps I could actually say to you that the measure of the volume of a large date that they said is larger than an egg-bulk; however, the volume of a date of normal size is the same as an egg-bulk, and Beit Shammai were referring to a normal-sized date. Alternatively, say that the volume of a large date and an egg-bulk are equal, and the mishna chose to use one of them. Either way, there is no proof from here that the volume of a large date is greater than an egg-bulk.

אלא ראיה מכאן: עד כמה (שיעור אכילה) מזמנין? ר׳ מאיר — עד כזית; ר׳ יהודה — עד כביצה. במאי פליגי? ר׳ מאיר דורש ״ואכלת״ זו אכילה, ״ושבעת״ זו שתייה — ואכילה בכזית. ר׳ יהודה דורש ״ואכלת ושבעת״ אכילה שיש בה שביעה, וזו כביצה.

Rather, it cannot be proven from here. Proof can be found from here: How much must one eat to obligate those with whom he ate in an invitation [zimmun] for Grace After Meals? An olive-bulk of food suffices to obligate those with whom they ate in a zimmun; these are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: An egg-bulk is the minimum measure to obligate those with whom they ate in a zimmun. The Gemara clarifies: With regard to what do they disagree? Rabbi Meir holds that the verse “And you shall eat and be satisfied and bless the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 8:10) should be understood as follows: “And you shall eat”; this is referring to eating. “And be satisfied”; this is referring to drinking. The definition of eating throughout the Torah is consuming an olive-bulk. Rabbi Yehuda holds: “And you shall eat and be satisfied” is referring to eating that causes satisfaction, and what is that? The volume of an egg-bulk. Less than that amount of food is not satisfying.

ואם תאמר כותבת גדולה מכביצה — והרי כביצה משׂביעה ממש, וכי ייתכן שלא תיישב את הדעת (ביוה״כ)?! אלא שמע מינה: כותבת הגסה קטנה מכביצה — כביצה משׂביעה, וכותבת רק מיישבת את הדעת.

And if it should enter your mind to say that the volume of the large date that they spoke of is larger than an egg-bulk, the following question can be asked: Now that we have said that the volume of an egg-bulk satisfies, can we say that it does not settle the mind, and thereby remove the affliction of Yom Kippur? Rather, must one not conclude from this that the volume of a large date that they said is less than the size of an egg-bulk? Eating the larger amount of an egg-bulk satisfies a person, but eating the volume of a large date only settles his mind.

תניא, רבי אומר: (פתיחת ברייתא הנמשכת בעמוד הבא בעניין שיעורי האכילה).

It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says:

רבי: כל שיעורי האכילה שבתורה בכזית, חוץ מטומאת אוכלין — ששינה הכתוב בלשונו, ולכן שינו חכמים בשיעורם (כביצה). וראיה לדבר — יוה״כ. במה שינה הכתוב? ב״לא תעונה״ (במקום ״לא תאכל״). ובמה שינו חכמים? בשיעור ״ככותבת״ (במקום כזית).

All the measures in the Torah connected to eating are the volume of an olive-bulk, except for the amount of food that renders objects impure, because the verse changed its expression in this case, and the Sages altered the measure accordingly. The proof of this, that the Sages gave it a different measure because the verse used different language for it, is from Yom Kippur. Also in the case of Yom Kippur the Sages assigned a different measure because the verse used a different phrase. The Gemara asks: How did the Sages learn that the verse changed its expression? They learned from: “Any soul which shall not be afflicted” (Leviticus 23:29). The verse does not state: Any soul that shall eat, but rather: “Any soul which shall not be afflicted.” How did the Sages change its measure? One does not violate the prohibition unless he has eaten the volume of a large date-bulk, as opposed to the usual olive-bulk.

ומדוע הוצרך להביא ראיה מיוה״כ? שאילו רק מטומאת אוכלין, הייתי אומר ״אורחא דקרא״ — כך דרך הכתוב לדבר, ואין ללמוד ממנו הלכה. לכן יוה״כ מלמד שכל שינוי לשון שבכתוב גורר שינוי בהלכה.

The Gemara asks: And what does the baraita mean when it says: A proof for this is from Yom Kippur? Why is the verse pertaining to ritual impurity not sufficient to show that the Sages changed the measure based on the different words in the verse? The Gemara answers: If we learned it only from there, the case of impurity, I would have said that that is the style of the verse, and no halakha can be derived from it. Therefore, the verse pertaining to Yom Kippur teaches that whenever a verse deviates from the usual language, it implies a change in the halakha as well.