(Mishnah): If one ate and drank in one Helam, he is liable only one Chatas. If he ate and drank and did Melachah, he is Chayav two Chata'os.

If he ate foods that are not proper to eat, or drank liquids that are not proper to drink, e.g. brine or fish oil, he is exempt.

We do not afflict minors on Yom Kipur, but we train them before a year or before two years, so they will be used to Mitzvos.

(Gemara) Question: (A Mishnah in Shevu'os teaches that if one swore not to eat, and he ate and drank, he is liable once. If one swore not to eat and not to drank, and he ate and drank, he is liable twice.) What is the reason? Drinking is included in eating, but eating is not included in drinking.

Question: What is the source that drinking is included in eating?

Answer #1 (R. Yonah) Question: "Al Ken Amarti li'Vnei Yisrael Kol Nefesh Michem Lo Sochal Dam'' - what is the case?

[You cannot say that] it is congealed blood, for it was taught (Beraisa #1) that congealed blood is not a food and not a drink!

Answer: Rather, the case is, [he consumed it] as it is (a liquid), and the Torah calls this eating!

Objection: [Another] Beraisa teaches that if one melted Chelev and swallowed it, or congealed blood and ate it, if it is a k'Zayis, he is liable. How can R. Yonah explain this? (He exempts for congealed blood!)

Answer: [Beraisa #1 must mean that] it is not a food to be Metamei Tum'as Ochlim, and it is not a drink to be Metamei Tum'as Maskim.

Answer #2 (R. Yonah): We learn from "v'Nasata ha'Kesef b'Chol Asher Te'aveh Nafshecha [... ba'Yayin uv'Shechar v'Achalta]'' - what is the case?

If he tastes wine in a Tavshil (cooked food), this harms the taste! (One may not use Ma'aser Sheni for this - HA'GAON RAV C. KANIEVSKY, SHLITA.)

Rather, the case is, [he consumed it] as it is (a liquid), and the Torah calls this eating!

Rebuttal (Rabanan of Kisarin): [Really, he tastes wine in a Tavshil] of mushrooms (this improves the taste). Anything secondary to eating is like eating.

Answer #3 (R. Yosah - Mishnah): If one swore "I will not eat'', and he ate and drank, he is liable only once. (If not that drinking is included in eating, there is no need to teach this!)

Question (Talmidim, to R. Yosah): The Seifa [of the Mishnah] teaches oppositely! If one swore "I will not eat, and I will not drink'', and he ate and drank, he is liable twice! (If drinking were included in eating, the first Shevu'ah already forbids it, so the second Shevu'ah would not take effect!)

Answer (R. Yosah): If one had two loaves in front of him, and he said "I swear, I will not eat this loaf. I swear, I will not eat this loaf'', and he ate both of them at once, is he not liable twice?! (Also here, the second Shevu'ah takes effect of the other kind of eating, i.e. drinking.)

Answer #4 (R. Chananyah citing R. Pinchas): If one swore "I will not eat'', and he ate foods that are not proper to eat, or drank liquids that are not proper to drink, he is exempt.

Inference: This is because he drank liquids that are not proper to drink, but if he drank liquids that are proper to drink, he is liable! Did he not say "I swear, I will not eat''?! (Rather, drinking is included in eating.)

Limitation (R. Chinena): This is fine according to our text of the Mishnah (Shevu'os 3:4, that he swore only "I will not eat.'') However, according to Rebbi, who says that he swore "I will not eat, and I will not drink'' [we cannot infer that eating is included in drinking].

Answer #5 (R. Chinena): We learn from [our Mishnah] - if one ate and drank [on Yom Kipur] in one Helam, he is liable only once.

Answer #6 (R. Aba Mari): We learn from "Lo Achalti b'Oni'' - [will you say] rather, I drank?! (Surely, an Onen may not drink Ma'aser Sheni, just like he may not eat it.)

Limitation: [He is liable] when he swore "I will not eat'' and he drank. However, if he swore "I will not drink'', and he ate [he is exempt, for] drinking is included in eating, but eating is not included in drinking.

Answer #7: Some want to learn from "Lo Suchal Le'echol bi'She'arecha... [v'Siroshcha v'Yitzharecha]'' - Siroshcha is wine, and Yitzharecha is anointing [with oil], and the Torah called it eating!

Rebuttal: This is wrong [regarding anointing]. If it were correct, one would be lashed for [anointing with Ma'aser Sheni] outside of the wall [of Yerushalayim! The Mishnah (Makos 3:1) mentions only for eating, and we can say that drinking is included, but it did not mention anointing.

(R. Yosah ben Chaninah): One is lashed outside the wall only for Tahor Ma'aser Sheni that entered Yerushalayim and left.

Question: What is the source that it is wrong [regarding anointing]?

Answer: It is like was taught - regarding Shabbos, both Sichah of pleasure (the following was taught above, and was not repeated in standard texts of the Yerushalmi here) and Sichah that is not of pleasure is permitted. On Yom Kipur, both Sichah of pleasure and Sichah that is not of pleasure is forbidden. On Tish'ah b'Av and a Ta'anis Tzibur, Sichah of pleasure is forbidden, and what is not of pleasure is permitted.

And it was taught that [for Ma'aser Sheni and Terumah,] Sichah and drinking are the same for Isur and payment (e.g. if a Zar anointed with or drank Terumah), but not for punishment. On Yom Kipur, [they are the same] for Isur, but not for punishment;

Contradiction (Beraisa #2): "V'Lo Yechalelu'' includes one who anoints and one who drinks. (They are the same for punishment!)

Answer (R. Yochanan): [The correct text of Beraisa #2] does not mention Sichah.

Objection (R. Avmari): If it does not mention Sichah, it does not mention drinking! If you would not say so (rather, the verse includes only drinking) - do things that comes from two Lavim ("v'Chol Zar Lo Yochal Kodesh'' forbids eating, and v'Lo Yechalelu forbids drinking) join?! (We explained this according to PNEI MOSHE.)

Question: What is the source that it is correct regarding an Aseh (forbidding anointing outside of the wall)?

Answer (R. Lazar citing R. Samyei) Question: "V'Lo Nasati Mimenu l'Mes'' - what is the case (that he did not spend Kesef Ma'aser for the dead)?

If it is to bring for him a coffin or shrouds, which is forbidden for a Chai (live person) - it is forbidden for a Chai, and all the more so for a Mes!

Answer: What is permitted for a live person, and forbidden for a Mes? It is Sichah.

What is the Lav forbidding Melachah of the day (Yom Kipur)? "Kol Melachah Lo Sa'asu.'' What is the punishment? "V'Ha'avadti Es ha'Nefesh ha'Hi.'' What is the Lav forbidding Melachah of the night? "V'Chol Melachah Lo Sa'asu'';

What is the punishment for [not fulfilling] Inuy of the day? "V'Chol ha'Nefesh Asher Lo Se'uneh b'Etzem ha'Yom ha'Zah v'Nichresah.'' What is the punishment for Melachah of the night? Nothing [is written]. A Lav for Inuy of the day and night - nothing [is written]. Punishment for Inuy of the night - nothing [is written].

(Reish Lakish): [There is no Lav for Inuy, for] what should it have said - Lo Se'uneh?! (This implies that one should not fast!) Rather, [let it say] Lo Sochal. [If so, we would think that the Shi'ur to be liable is a k'Zayis, for] all Achilos in the Torah are a k'Zayis, and here [the Shi'ur] is k'Koseves!

Question (R. Hoshayah): [It could have written] 'Hishamer Pen Lo Se'uneh'!

Rejection: If so, there would be three Lavim!

Question (Rav Huna): It could have written 'Hishamer' about that what I told you [e.g. Hishamer b'Mitzvas Inuy - MASA D'YERUSHALAYIM, like it says] "Hishamer b'Nega ha'Tzara'as Lishmor Me'od v'La'asos...''

R. Chiyah: The Torah did not need to write a punishment for Melachah. I would have learned from Inuy. Inuy, which is lenient, one is Chayav Kares for it. Melachah, which is stringent, all the more so one is Chayav Kares for it!

The Torah wrote a punishment for Melachah only to teach a warning for Inuy. Just like the punishment said about Melachah, there is a Lav before it, also the punishment said about Inuy, there is a Lav before it.

(Beraisa - R. Eliezer ben Yakov): It says "b'Etzem ha'Yom ha'Zeh'' about Melachah, and it says b'Etzem ha'Yom ha'Zeh about Inuy. Just like b'Etzem ha'Yom ha'Zeh about Melachah, you do not distinguish between day and night, whether for a Lav or for punishment, also b'Etzem ha'Yom ha'Zeh about Inuy, we do not distinguish between day and night, whether for a Lav or for punishment.

Inference (R. Ze'irah): We learn from a Gezeirah Shavah, even if it is Mufneh from [only] one side (one of the words in it was written superfluously, in this case the Onesh for Melachah).

Rebuttal (R. Yudan): Is this not like R. Akiva? R. Akiva says that we learn from a Gezeirah Shavah, even if it is not Mufneh [at all! You cannot infer according to the opinion that requires a Gezeirah Shavah to be Mufneh.]

Until here is like R. Akiva. According to R. Yishmael, it was taught "v'Haysah Lachem l'Chukas Olam ba'Chodesh ha'Shevi'i'' equates Melachah to Inuy. Just like Melachah that I forbade to you, is Melachah for which one is Chayav Kares and a Lav forbids it, also Inuy that I forbade to you is Inuy for which one is Chayav Kares and a Lav forbids it.

(R. Avahu citing R. Yochanan): One who eats Kil'ai ha'Kerem is lashed [even though there is no explicit Lav, just it says "Pen Tukdash'', and we expound "Pen Tukad Esh.'' One is lashed for Hana'ah from it. We explained this entire Sugya like SHA'AREI TORAS ERETZ YISRAEL.)

(R. Avahu citing R. Yochanan): One who ingests Terumah wheat is lashed.

(R. Avahu citing R. Yochanan): One who swallows Terumah vinegar is lashed. One who swallows Terumah vinegar (a Zar, b'Shogeg) pays the principal, but does not pay the Chomesh;

(Beraisa): One who ingests Terumah wheat pays the principal, but does not pay the Chomesh. Rebbi says, I say that he pays the principal and Chomesh.

(R. Yirmeyah citing R. Ami): Chachamim agree to Rebbi about one who swallows Terumah vinegar after [he ate something] dipped in it, that he pays the principal and Chomesh, for [then] vinegar revives a person.