A Zar who consumes Terumah abnormally, pays the principle but not the Chomesh (he has damaged the grain, not eaten it).

Once food has been eaten (and the Zar has become liable in Keren and Chomesh), subsequent consumption of that food renders the user liable only to pay the firewood value to the first (and nothing to the Kohen).

Question: Who is the author of this non-Tziruf rule?

Answer: (R. Chisda): It is R. Yehoshua who taught that Tziruf (for Tum'ah) only occurs when two items have the identical time-frame and Shi'ur (whereas according to the Chachamim there is Tziruf even if there is an overlap in time-frame and Shiur).

Answer: (R. Nachman): Our Mishnah could even follow the opinion of the Chachamim, and their view of Tziruf by Tum'ah (where both items are called Tamei) may not apply on Yom Kipur (where, even combined, the less-than-Shi'ur amount of food and/or drink does not generate Yishuv ha'Da'as).

Resh Lakish taught like R. Chisda and R. Yochanan taught like R. Nachman.

If one ate and drank (the Shiur of each) in one He'elam, he brings only one Chatas (they are both parts of one Isur).

If one ate and did Melachah in one He'elam, he is Chayav two Chataos.

If one ate non-edibles he is Patur.

(Resh Lakish): There is no Lav in the Torah regarding Inuy because language is lacking to express such a Lav.

'Lo Yochal' would imply Achilah (bi'ke'Zayis).

'Lo Se'uneh' would imply that one must eat.

Question: The language could be 'Hishamer Pen Lo Se'uneh'!?

Answer: That would create two Lavin ('Hishamer' and 'Pen').

Question: The wording could be 'Hishamer be'Mitzvas Inuy'!?

Answer: That would create an Asei, not a Lav.

Question: Let it say 'Al Tasur Min ha'Inuy'!?

Answer: Good question.

The Beraisa derives the Azharah from "ve'Inisem... "

The Pasuk "ve'Chol ha'Nefesh" comes to restrict the Kareis to the day itself, and not to any additions to the day.

The Pasuk "ve'Chol Melachah ... " comes to restrict the Torah prohibition to the day itself, and not to Tosefes.

Logic dictates that there would not be a Lav on added Inuy (if Tosefes Melachah is not a Lav...).

The source of the Azharah regarding Inuy is the Torah's superfluous reference to Kareis by Melachah (which could have been derived logically from Melachah of Shabbos/Yom Tov) which serves to link Melachah (where the Azharah is explicit) to Inuy (where the Azharah is thus derived).

Question: But the difference between Melachah and Inuy should disrupt this connection (Inuy has no exceptions while Melachah is excepted in the Avodah)!?

Answer: Rather, the derivation is from the superfluous reference to Kareis by Inuy, which creates the link to Melachah.

Question: But Melachah is more frequent than Inuy!?

(Ravina): The Tana of the Beraisa in fact learns the Azharah from the link between Melachah and Inuy created by ""Etzem"".

This link is Mufneh, as analyzed below, and is hence not subject to the disruptions above.

There are five Pesukim, one is Mufneh for the link.

Another source for the Azharah by Yom Kipur is provided by Tana de'Bei R. Yishmael.

Inuy is written by Yom Kipur and by Oneis (of Eishes Ish).

Just as by Oneis there is no Onesh without an Azharah, so, too, by Yom Kipur.

Another source is provided by R. Acha b. Ya'akov.

The term "Shabbos Shabason" links Yom Kipur to Shabbos.

Just as there is no Onesh by Shabbos without an Azharah, so, too, by Yom Kipur.

(R. Papa): Since Yom Kipur itself is called 'Shabbos' ("Tishbesu Shabatchem"), it is like Shabbos in both Onesh and Azharah!

He prefers learning from the Pasuk itself than from a Gezeirah Shavah as did R. Acha b. Ya'akov.

Question: Why did R. Acha b. Ya'akov not do the same?

Answer: He uses "Tishbesu Shabatchem" to learn Tosefes Shabbos and Yom Tov from Yom Kipur (as in the Beraisa).

Question: What will the Tana who uses ""Etzem"" to restrict Kareis to the day itself and not to Tosefes (he must already know Tosefes as a Lav) do with "be'Sish'ah la'Chodesh" (which this Beraisa uses as the source for Tosefes)?

Answer: To teach that if one eats on the ninth, he is considered to have fasted on both the ninth and tenth.

(Rava): One who eats spices as though they were food (pepper or ginger) on Yom Kipur is Patur.

Question: But we have learned that not only the pepper, but even the bush of the pepper is considered an edible food!?

Answer: That refers to moist pepper (edible), while Rava is speaking about dried pepper (edible only as a condiment).

Question: But R. Nachman taught that ginger is edible!?

Answer: Again, that speaks where the ginger is moist.

One is Patur for consuming the leaves of trees and vines, but Chayav for the leaves of a grapevine (Lulvei Gefanim).

(R. Yitzhok Magdela'ah): This refers to young, soft leaves while leaves older than Rosh ha'Shanah would be Patur.

(R. Kehanah): The cutoff is 30 days.

A Beraisa supports R. Yitzhok Magdela'ah.

By inference, vinegar would be Chayav.

Question: Who is the Tana of our Mishnah?

Answer: It is Rebbi who taught that vinegar satisfies.

R. Gidel b. Menashe taught that the Halachah is not like Rebbi.

The following year people diluted vinegar and drank it.

R. Gidel objected, stating that the discussion only revolved around being Patur or Chayav, not Mutar!

Further, we only spoke of a small quantity of vinegar, but surely a large quantity is satisfying!

Further, we only spoke of undiluted vinegar, never of diluted vinegar (which certainly may satisfy)!