Daf 73

1) R' Yochanan holds that eating a half of Shiur of Issur is forbidden from the Torah since they're fit to combine to a Shiur, and Reish Lakish says its only rabbinically forbidden since 'eating' is defined as no less than a Kazayis. (Therefore, when the Torah says "don't eat," it's only referring to not eating a Kazayis.) Although we have a Braisa that Darshens from a Pasuk that you can't eat a half Shiur of Issur (and that the fats of the animal 'Koy,' which is a Safeik if it's a Chaya or Beheima, are forbidden); we must say it's only an Asmachta. After all, why would you need to have the Drasha forbid the Koy's fats if it's only a Safeik. [Tosfos points out that you only can't have a Drasha for a Safeik that's always one way, like the Koy that's always either a Chaya or Beheima. Since Hashem is not in doubt of its status, it's included with the Halachos of what its true status. However, when you have a Safeik that's not always the same way, and it all depends on what happened, and you're in doubt what happened, then the Pasuk can come to permit, or forbid it.] R' Yochanan says that it's a true Drasha. [Tosfos explains: although R' Yochanan held that it's forbidden from logic that it could combine, but not from a Drasha, we need to say that you need the logic to say that the Drasha is not only on Koy, but that we should also Darshen it for half a Shiur.] He must hold that a Koy is not a Safeik to this Braisa, but it's definitely in its own category (and is neither a Chaya or Beheima). [Tosfos says: this is not like how R' Yossi explaining that its it's own category, since he really considers it as a Safeik when he uses that term. That's why he holds that you can't Shecht the Koy on Yom Tov because it raises a question about covering its blood. However, to our definition of "a category by itself," since it's definitely not a Chaya, it definitely doesn't need to have its blood covered.]

2) [Tosfos explains the question of the Koy's status, even though the Gemara in Chulin gives definite signs to identify a Chaya: since one of the signs is that there are scratched lines on the horns, and it has very little space between the lines that it looks as if they're absorbed in the other (and it doesn't have independent lines), it's a question if this is included in the sign, like we see the Gemara has a doubt by the Krucha goat. Even according to the opinion who permits the fats of that goat because it's a definite Chaya, it could be that the Koy's lines are closer together and is a greater Safeik.]

3) The Braisa says: if someone swears that he won't eat, and he ate a Neveila or a Treifa, he's Chayiv for transgressing his swearing. (R' Shimon holds he's exempt.) The reason we don't say he's exempt since he was already sworn not to eat those items from Mount Sinai; Reish Lakish says: according to the Rabanan who say that, when someone swears not to eat, we assume it to be a Kazayis; we must say here he swore explicitly not to eat a half of Kazayis. According to R' Akiva who says to assume he meant even the smallest amount, we can say he swore not to eat without any qualifications. After all, since half of a Shiur is not forbidden from the Torah, he hadn't already sworn at Mont Sinai not to eat this. Even though a gambler is exempt from swearing that he knows testimony, even though he's only a rabbinically invalid witness; that's because you're only Chayiv 'if you won't come to testify," and he's not someone who can anyhow come to testify. (However, Rav, Shmuel and R' Yochanan explain the Braisa that he's Chayiv since the swearing includes not to eat Kosher foods besides the non-Kosher foods, so, he didn't swear at Sinai on everything in this swearing so it takes effect for all foods.)

Daf 77

4) On Yom Kippur, it's forbidden to eat, drink, wash, wear sandals and have relations. [Tosfos quotes R' Tam: it's only forbidden to eat and drink from the Torah, but the rest are only rabbinic, and the Drashos to include them are only Asmachtas. The same for the prohibition of a non-Kohein smearing oil of Trumah, the Drasha is only an Asmachta. After all, if it would be from the Torah, we wouldn't allow to do it to wash off mud and dung, or to smear oil for medicinal reasons. Also the Kohein who smeared himself with Trumah oil wouldn't take his daughter's non-Kohein child and rub him against him, (and we find that it's permitted). Rather, since we don't find a prohibition to smear yourself by any other Issur that's not forbidden to partake pleasure from, it's only an exception by Yom Kippur because we want to forbid pleasures, and by Trumah because of the Asmachta. Therefore, it's permitted to smear Cheilev (forbidden fats) on your body that's permitted to partake pleasure from.]

5) It's forbidden to wash even parts of your body unless you're dirtied with mire or dung. You also can't even smear oil over some of your body unless you're sick and have wounds on your scalp.

6) A woman can wash her hand in water and give bread to her child to avoid Shivsa. [Rashi says that this is the bad spirit that rests on someone's hands in the morning before washing it. Tosfos disagrees since washing to remove that bad spirit would be permitted even without giving bread, since you wouldn't be able to touch your orifices without washing, therefore, it would be no worse than being dirtied with mud. Rather, it's another bad spirit that rests on bread when you're giving it to a four or five year old unless you wash your hands. The reason we're not worried about it, since this bad spirit is not found in our countries. This is the same reason why we're not worried in these countries for uncovered liquid, and for drinking an even amount of cups of wine.]

7) If someone is going to visit his Rebbi, father, or anyone greater than him on Yom Kippur, he may pass through a body of water until his neck. (However, it's an unresolved inquiry whether a Rebbi can do this to visit a student). He may also return to his house afterwards, or else, by being stuck there until after Yom Kippur, it might prevent him from visiting his Rebbi next time so he wouldn't be stuck there.

8) Also, people who need to guard their fruit may also pass through the water to guard their fruit.

9) The one who's passing through the water can't stick his hands under his hem of his garment to lift it up so it shouldn't get wet, or else it would be considered carrying it, like it's considered carrying when wearing a folded Talis.

10) This is only permitted if it's calm waters, but he can't pass through rushing waters if the water is above his waist because it's dangerous.

Daf 78

11) You're allowed to pass through the water in shoes and we don't need to worry that you'll remove it to carry it, but R' Ashi says that you shouldn't L'chatchila pass through the waters wearing sandals that are not as well tightened on his feet.

12) It's forbidden to sit on moist mud if it's wet enough to make another object wet.

13) You're allowed to cool yourself off with cool fruit. You may also cool yourself with an empty silver cup. However, it's forbidden if it's full since it might spill on you. If it's half empty; it's forbidden by an earthenware cup since it's porous and it will leak water on you. If it's silver; Rav permits, but R' Pappa forbids since you might trip and spill the water on yourself.

14) On Erev Yom Kippur, you can soak a handkerchief in water and then let it dry out very much, and the next day you can use it to wipe your face, hands and feet. On Erev Tisha B'av, it's permitted even if you don't dry it out completely. [Rashi heard a second text: you need it dried out for Tisha B'av, and it's forbidden on Yom Kippur, and you can only use a towel that you wiped your hands on.] However, on Yom Kippur, it's forbidden since you might come to squeeze it out, [and according to this second text, even if you dry it out, it might be a problem that you might end up squeezing it.]

15) The Gemara inquires: can an elder who sits at the head of a Yeshiva Paskin to permit Shechting a blemished Bechor without asking permission from the Nassi, or not (since they gave this power of giving permission to the Nassi in order to have something to give him greatness). R' Tzadok b. Chulkia wants to prove it from the story that R' Yossi b. Zimra asked permission from the Nassi to permit Bechoros. However, R' Abba rejected the proof because that wasn't the exact story. Rather, since R' Yossi b. Zimra was a Kohein,and Kohanim are suspected to purposely make their Bechors blemished, he was asking if it's Halachaically permitted for him to Paskin. Is the Halacha like R' Meir that someone suspected to transgress something can't be a judge or witness in that matter, or like R' Shimon b. Gamliel who says he's believed for other people, but not for himself. They answered him: the Halacha is like R' Shimon b. Gamliel.

16) If the sandal is made from grass, you can wear it both by Yom Kippur and by a public fast.

17) The Gemara's conclusion: both R' Meir and R' Yossi hold that the 'Kav' worn by a quadriplegic has the status of a shoe, and therefore, can't be worn on Yom Kippur. They only argue by going out with it on Shabbos. R' Yossi forbids since we need to worry that it might snap and fall off and he'll come to carry it four Amos in a Reshus Harabim. [Tosfos points out: this is not like Rashi in Shabbos who says the reason for R' Yossi is that it's not a shoe, and it's carrying. The reason why R' Yossi held that you can't do Chalitza with it if he agrees that it's a shoe; the same way he's worried on Shabbos that it may fall from his foot, it's like a big shoe that you can't really walk in, which is not Kosher for Chalitza.]

18) [Tosfos quotes R' Poras: this Kav is a false foot to give the appearance as if he has a foot. He doesn't use it for support, and that's the reason we say in Shabbos that it's not Tamai because of Medris. (The 'supports' brought there is what he leans on, which was attached to his thigh, and he leans back on it). This is not like what Rashi says that a Kav is what the quadriplegic leans on. After all, if so, why would we worry that it will fall off and he'll carry it if he can't walk without wearing it. Also, we should assume that it should definitely be susceptible to Tumas Medris. However, the Ri says that it's not so difficult, since he explains that he mainly leans on crutches (and these are the 'supports' brought in Shabbos, and not like Rashi their who explains that it's leather placed by the stump to make it comfortable.) Therefore, even if he sometimes leans on it, but it's mostly suspended in the air when he's walking with the crutches, it's not susceptible to Tumas Medris.

According to R' Poras, the reason why it doesn't say by the Kav whether you could enter the Mikdash with it like it explains by his 'supports'; we must say that it was simple that he can't enter because he doesn't need it too much. Alternatively, it's simple he could enter because it's usually lifted from the ground, it's not as dirty as shoes.]

19) [Tosfos says: according to Rashi, we can bring a proof that a quadriplegic may walk out on Shabbos on crutches. Even according to R' Poras, since he allows with those supports and he can't walk with them without crutches, it must be that he's allowed to walk out with crutches.]

20) You do not put the Yom Kippur deprivations on minors except for not putting shoes on him. However, eating, drinking, washing and smearing are needed for his rearing, so the rabbis didn't require it.

21) The Tanna Kama forbids a king and bride to wash their faces, and he forbids a woman who gave birth to wear shoes. R' Chanina b. Tradyan quoting R' Eliezer permits a king to wash his face, since he must be seen when he's nicely presentable, as the Pasuk says. He allows a bride for the first thirty days to wash her face so that she won't become repulsive to her husband. This is like we find by the case where the mother of the bride died on the day of the Chuppah, that they first have seven days of Sheva Brachos, and then seven days of Shiva. Still, she doesn't refrain from beautifying herself for the first thirty days in order that she doesn't repulse her new husband. He also permits a woman who just gave birth to wear shoes, since the cold is very detrimental to her. (We permit anyone to wear shoes if there is a danger of scorpions.)

Daf 79

22) The Mishna says that the Shiur to be Chayiv for eating food on Yom Kippur is the size of a big Koseves (dried date) and its pit. R' Pappa inquires: does a Koseves mean with its pit, or without its pit? [Rashi explains: when our Mishna says that the Shiur is a Koseves and its pit, maybe it means "or its pit," i.e., since their the same size, you can pick either one to measure. Tosfos disagrees since it's not probable that they're exactly the same size. Rather, the inquiry is what is the implications of Koseves? Does it usually mean without its pit, and the Mishna needs to explicitly explain that we refer here that you should measure it with its pit? Or, do we say that it means automatically to include its pit, and when the Mishna says to add a pit to the Koseves, it means to add a second pit to the Shiur? R' Nissan explains based on the Yerushalmi: there is a small space between the pit and the meat of the date. Therefore, do we say that we need to measure the date as it is with this space, or do we need to press the meat onto the pit to shrink the volume.] R' Ashi held it not to be an inquiry. After all, the Shiur is a "big dry date," which implies to make it the biggest Shiur possible.

23) However, R' Ashi held that there is a different inquiry by measurements. We say that a human bone the size of a S'orah, barleycorn, makes things Tamai. Is it a dried barley, or a moist barley? Is the peel included, or not? However, R' Pappa held this not to be a real inquiry, since a S'orah is only a dried one and with the peel, since a moist one is called a 'Shevoles' and a peeled one is called an 'Ushla.'

24) R' Yehuda held that this big Koseves is larger than an egg. Although we see that R' Gamliel ate two Koseves and drank a pail of water in the Sukka to go beyond the letter of the law, but really he could eat them outside the Sukka, even though the Shiur to be obligated in Sukka is the size of an egg which is less than even one Koseves; R' Yirmiya answers: two Koseves without their pits are smaller than a Koseves with its pit (since the meat is a lot smaller than the pit). Rava answers: even if what he ate was more than the size of an egg, he's still exempt from Sukka, since you're never obligated to eat fruit in a Sukka. After all, R' Eliezer (who holds that you must eat fourteen meals in the Sukka over Yom Tov), says you can make up a meal by adding a 'Targima,' which we assume is more filling than fruit, implying that you can't make it up with fruit since you never need to eat it in the Sukka. The Gemara rejects this proof. Perhaps the translation of 'Targima' is fruit. Alternatively, we refer to a city that fruit wasn't common.

[Tosfos points out: it seems that our Gemara assumes that Targima is not fruit. This is not like Rashi in Sukka who explains it as fruit. Even though R' Eliezer says that you can make up the Sukka meals with Targima, you can't extrapolate to say that you're Yoitza Shaalos Seudos with Targima. After all, the Pasuk we learn that you need three meals says three time 'Hayom' by the Mon, which represents bread. Even if you would extrapolate from here that you're Yoitza with Targima, you still can't be Yoitza with fruit according to everyone.]

25) However, R' Zvid holds that a Koseves is [Tosfos: a little bit] less than the size of an egg. A proof to that is what R' Yehuda holds that you need to eat an egg size of bread to be obligated to Bentch. As it says "you shall eat," which connotes a Kazayis, "and be satiated" which is an egg size. (R' Meir says "and be satiated" to include drinking after you ate the Kazayis.) Therefore, if an egg size satiates, he was definitely calmed down by the eating. Therefore, we must say that a Koseves is smaller, and he calms down when eating it, and becomes satiated afterwards when he reaches an egg size.

26) [Tosfos says: it seems to the Ri that the Halacha is like R' Meir that you make a Bracha Achrona on a Kazayis, as we see many Gemaras that bring that Shiur. The Yerushalmi says that you don't even need a Kazayis if you eat a complete entity, and that's why R' Yochanan made a Bracha Achrona on a salted olive even though it's less than a Kazayis when you remove the pit. However, the Bavli doesn't seem to hold that way since it says the reason was; he ate a large Kazayis that the meat without the pit is the size of a regular olive. However, it's possible that they don't argue, and they refer to two different stories, and the Bavli's case was that the olive wasn't intact to be a full entity. Therefore, if someone is eating a full entity, he should eat a Kazayis to take him out of a Safeik obligation to make a Bracha Achrona.]

27) [Tosfos says: You don't need a Shiur for a Bracha Rishona. The Shiur for a Bracha Achrona on wine is a Kazayis the same size for eating. You can't extrapolate from the Shiur of Yom Kippur that you need a Revious. After all, we don't say the Shiur for food is a Koseves, the same as it is for Yom Kippur.]

28) [Tosfos says: these Shiurim are rabbinic, but from the Torah, you need to eat a full satiation. Even though someone who ate a Kazayis can be Moitzie those who ate to satiation, and we usually say a rabbinical obligation can't be Moitzie a Torah obligation, like a minor can't be Moitzie his father in Bentching if the father ate to satiation; you need to differentiate that an adult is better than a minor (since he was commanded to Bentch when he's satiated). Since he's someone who has the same type of obligation, he doesn't even need to eat at all to be Moitzie his friend from the Torah, but only the rabbis required it.]

29) [Tosfos says: We see that the eaters of Trumah don't need a Netila, but they can eat the Trumah with unwashed hands through a handkerchief, and we're not afraid they'll come to touch the food. However, you can't do that for Chulin that you accepted to keep it at the same Taharah as Trumah. Since it's not as strict as Trumah itself, you might be more negligent and touch it, and therefore, he needs a Netila.]

Daf 80

30) If someone eats Cheilev (forbidden fats) these days; he needs to write the measurement of what he ate, since, when he will eventually bring his Korban, the Beis Din will give a different measurement for a Kazayis. It can't be that he ate something that he thinks is not a Kazayis, and the Beis Din comes out that it is a Kazayis. After all, to be Chayiv a Chatos, you need to "reverse your thought" (and immediately regret that you did an action that obligated you to bring a Chatos as soon as you found out you ate it), and he doesn't regret it (as much) since, even if he knew that it was Cheilev when he ate it, he would be convinced that it wasn't the Shiur to be Chayiv. Rather, even if you ate what you think is a Kazayis, you need to write down the measurements since the eventual Beis Din might consider it to be less than a Kazayis.

31) If someone drinks enough to fill his cheeks on Yom Kippur, he's Chayiv. However, it's not really his full cheeks, but just if he pushes it to one side and it looks as if both cheeks are full (according to the Rabanan, even if it looks larger and the cheek more stretched out, and according to R' Eliezer, only if it's very pushed and exact). (Beis Shammai says that the Shiur is a Revious, and R' Yehuda b. Beseira says it's a gulp of the liquid.)

32) Although the Shiur for eating is a universal Shiur for all, and the Shiur for drinking is dependent on how big every individual is; as this is how the rabbis assessed when the food calms people down. As less than a Koseves doesn't calm anyone down, and a Koseves calms everyone down. It calms regular people down a lot, and for a giant like Og king of Bashan, just a little bit. Succulent food like fatty meats calm people down a lot, and drab items like young vines calm them down a little. However, regarding drinking, it doesn't calm anyone if it's not the cheeks' worth of his own cheek size. [Tosfos says: therefore, when we say the the Shiur to drink the Kiddush wine is a cheeks' worth, we must say it's like here, that it's only when pushed to one side. After all, if it's not the amount that calms people down, why did they choose a Shiur that's not universal. Also, since the whole Kiddush wine only needs to be a Revious, and our Gemara implies that the Shiur of both cheeks together is larger than a Revious.]

33) Even though Issurim that have the Shiur of a Kazayis need to be eaten in the amount of time to eat a Pras to combine, and the same by this Koseves, (even though you should assume that they'll give more time for a larger Shiur); since this is part of how the rabbis assess that the eating will calm you down, that it won't work if it takes you more time to eat it than the amount that it takes to eat a Pras. Even though you need the same time, i.e., how long it takes to eat a Pras), to eat the half Pras (i.e., two eggs worth) of Tamai foods that make your body Tamai (even though it's a lot more food than the Kazayis); we're very lenient by it since it's only a rabbinic Tumah. [Tosfos quotes R' Tam: this is not the same Tumah like they decreed by the eighteen decrees of Beis Shammai. After all, there the problem of eating Tamai food is that you might drink Trumah while it's in your mouth, and it would be a problem even if it's one egg's worth and not two. Rather, this was an earlier decree for when each one is eaten separately, and someone will say that they're touching in the stomach. Therefore, it's not enough to eat an exact egg's worth, since some get stuck in the teeth or palate, and there won't be a full egg's worth in the stomach to make the Trumah Tamai. So, we're only concerned for the next Shiur, which is two eggs' worth. Therefore, this earlier decree doesn't make Trumah he touches Tamai, but only that he can't eat Trumah. However, the later decree makes him Tamai to forbid touching Trumah. Alternatively, really there was only one decree, and Beis Shammai didn't feel necessary to make him Tamai for less than two eggs' worth since that's the amount of food that will make him thirsty and tempted to drink from Trumah.]

34) If you eat meat with salt, they combine to a Koseves, even though salt by itself is not food. Also, if you eat a vegetable with brine on it, they combine to a Koseves. Although, usually, we don't combine food and drink for a Shiur; here we consider liquid that's coming to improve the food as food.

35) if someone eats by over stuffing himself (like eating Yom Kippur night immediately after eating his fill Erev Yom Kippur), he's exempt since it's not considered as eating. The same applies when a non-Kohein eats Trumah this way, he's exempt from paying an extra fifth, since it's not eating, but only damaging the food. The same applies to eating raw barley kernels of Trumah.

Daf 81

36) If a non-Kohein swallows a plum of Trumah and vomits it , and a second person eats it; then the first one needs to pay the principle and an extra fifth, and the second one is obligated to pay the first one, (since he already acquired it when he swallowed it), the worth of wood, since vomitted food is not fit for food, but ony for fuel.

37) Food and drink don't combine to a Shiur. Reish Lakish and R' Chisda want to say that it's R' Yehoshua's opinion, who says regarding Tumah: you only combine two Tumahs to a Shiur if their Shiurs are the same and their duration of Tumah is the same. [Tosfos says: although we see R' Akiva needs a Pasuk to combine blood from two corpse to a Shiur Revious, and the Rabanan argue, and nobody says that they should anyhow combine since they have the same Shiur; since they only argue about blood from two miscarriages, that each one doesn't have a Revious. However, nobody disagrees that blood from two regular corpse do combine.] However, if they have different Shiurim (like by Neveila, that's a Kazayis Shiur, and a Sheretz, that's a lentil Shiur) or if they don't have the same duration (like a Neveila and a corpse), they don't combine. So too food and drink on Yom Kippur, since they have different Shiurim, they don't combine.

38) However, R' Yochanan and R' Nachman hold that it could be even according to the Rabanan. After all, Tumah can combine in all cases since they have the same generic term of Tumah. However, by Yom Kippur, it all depends if such an eating will calm you down, and the rabbi assessed that food and drink won't combine to calm you down.

39) If you eat and drink on Yom Kippur in one time of forgetting, you're only Chayiv one Chatos, since it's one Lav. However, if you eat and do Melacha in one forgetting, you're Chayiv two Chatos.

40) You must add from weekday onto Yom Kippur. Also, all who eat on the ninth, the Torah considers it as if he fasted both days.

41) If you eat and drink items that are not fit for eating, you're exempt. Rava says that you're exempt for eating pepper and ginger on Yom Kippur [Tosfos: and you don't make a Bracha on it the year round.] However, that's only after it became dried out, but you're Chayiv if it's fresh. Therefore, when we see that the Torah says that pepper is Chayiv for Orlah, it refers to fresh pepper. Also, they permit a non-Jew's Himalsa (they fatten ground pepper with honey) and it's not a problem of Bishul Akum because it could be eaten raw, which must only refer to when it's fresh. (It's also not a problem that it was cooked in non-Kosher pots, since most pots weren't cooked within twenty four hours, which makes its absorptions not taste good, so, they don't forbid.)

42) [Tosfos says: the same way you're Chayiv for eating fresh pepper on Yom Kippur, they're Chayiv to remove Maasar. The rule is: all that is Chayiv in Maasar could become Tamai because of being a food. Although we find that pepper doesn't become Tamai because it's a food; that must refer to a case where it was dried out.]

43) [Tosfos adds: although we see in Eiruvin that the seeds of Girgur is Chayiv in Maasar since those who don't have pepper grind them up and dip their roasted meat in it, which implies that dried pepper would be definitely Chayiv in Maasar (since its substitute is Chayiv); it must only refer to pepper mixed in water that's made to dip the roasted meat that's edible as is, but not if it's in the ground pepper form. Alternatively, the Girgur seed is not only Tamai because it's used as a dip, but because it's edible by itself. It only says because it's used to dip since it's the main way to eat it.]

44 [Tosfos says: that, which we see, that there is a contradiction whether spices are Chayiv in Maasar; we must differentiate between spices that are only able to be used to give taste into other food, and onions and scallions that can be eaten by themself. Although the Gemara in Eiruvin says that you can't make an Eiruv with them since they're not edible, that's because it's like wheat and barley that; you can't make an Eiruv with them as is since they're not edible, but they are susceptible to Tumah and Chayiv in Maasar since you can prepare them to be edible.]

45) If you eat the leaves of reeds, you're exempt, but you're Chayiv for eating young vines. R' Yitzchok from Gadla holds that it's only when it grew from Rosh Hashana until Yom Kippur, but if it started growing earlier, it already became wood. However, R' Kehana holds that as long as it didn't grow longer than thirty days, you're Chayiv. We have a Braisa like R' Yitzchok.

46) Rebbi held: if you drink brine, you're exempt, but you're Chayiv for vinegar since it invigorates. However, R' Gidal b. Menashe holds that the Halacha is not like Rebbi, and you're exempt if you drink vinegar. However, it's only B'dieved, but it's not L'chatchila permitted. Also, it's only exempt if you drink a little bit, but not alot. Also, it's only exempt when drank undiluted, but not after you dilute it.

Daf 82

47) The Mishna says that you don't make minors fast, but you train them a year or two before in order to make them used to doing Mitzvos.

48) R' Nachman and R' Huna explain: it refers to a sick child (i.e., a weak child). Therefore, he starts to fast for a few hours two years before the one year before his Bar (or Bas) Mitzvah, where he rabbinically needs to fast the full day, which is two years before he needs to fast the full day from the Torah. Therefore, this means that you need to fast two years for hours, and a third year for the whole day, before he becomes Bar Mitzvah.

49) However, a well child fasts for four years before he becomes Bar (or Bas) Mitzvah). The first two for hours, and the last two for the whole day.

50) R' Yochanan explains the Mishna that it's not explaining how long you need to fast hours before the rabbinical full fast, but you need to fast hours one year before your Bar (or Bas) MItzvah if you're sick, and two years if you're well.

51) The "fast for hours" means that you don't feed the child until it's an hour past when he regularly eats.

52) If a pregnant lady smells food on Yom Kippur and she craves it; you whisper to her that it's Yom Kippur. If that doesn't do it, then you feed her until she's over the craving. This is also true when she smells Kodshim meat or pork. You first dip an object into the gravy and put it by her lips to taste. If that calms her, fine. If not, then yo feed her the gravy. if that doesn't work, you feed her the actual fatty meat. After all, there is no prohibitions that stand in the way of saving a life besides idolatry, killing, and immoral relations.

53) We learn that you must give up your life for idolatry from "with all your soul." We learn immoral relations since there is a Hekish to killing. We know you can't kill to save your life from the logic; "who says your blood is redder than your friend's blood." [Rashi explains: once one Jew will be killed, why do the prohibition?]

54) [Tosfos says: it seems that only a man, who is actively having relations, must give up his life before transgressing the immoral relations, but not the woman who is not doing an action, i.e., and just lays there immobile like a piece of land. After all, the source that it's prohibited is from this comparison to killing, and there the logic is that you can't actively kill someone to save yourself since your blood may not be redder. However, the logic is that you can passively save yourself by a killing, like if they give you an alternative to either allow yourself to be pushed on a baby and have it killed, or we'll kill you, you're allowed to have yourself pushed on the baby because "who says that the baby's blood is redder than yours." Also, the Pasuk we learn the Hekish from implies that we refer to an active killing, as the Pasuk says "like when a man goes up and murders his friend." Therefore, the Gemara in Sanhedrin only asks how come Esther didn't give up her life if she was publicly being Achashveirosh's wife (and everyone knows they're having relations) and it wasn't bothered that she's having immoral relations, which she should give up her life even in private. This is because: it was simple to them that she didn't need to give up her life for the prohibited relations since it's passive, but they didn't realize that it applies to public sins too until the Gemara answers that it's also the reason to permit it in public. Even Rava who gives another reason she didn't need to give up her life, since they're doing it for their own pleasure (and not to push us off our religion), he only argues that the reason of being passive "like a piece of land" is not a reason to allow public sins, but would agree that it applies to not having to give up your life for immoral relations. Alternatively, he doesn't disagree in principle that being passive is a reason even to not give up your life for a public sinning, but he just wanted to add another reason.]

55) [Tosfos quotes R' Tam who answers: you're not obligated to give up your life for a relations with a non-Jew. After all, since the Torah doesn't give credence to his lineage, it's like having relations with an animal, which we don't say that it forbids her to her husband, nor to the one who she had relations with (if he ever converts). However, the Rivam disagrees and brings many proofs that relations with a non-Jew forbids her to her husband, so we should assume that she's also forbidden to the non-Jew she had relations with. The Pasuk only consider them like an animal by not giving credence to their lineage.]

56) [However, Tosfos says: you can't answer that Esther didn't need to give up her life since she doesn't have pleasure from it since the non-Jew injects her with spiritually smelliness, just like we say by Yael. After all, we know you can't have relations even without pleasure, like analy. Also, it's impossible that she can't have any pleasure. Also, that wasn't Yael's Heter, since she was never in danger, since Sisro wanted her to hide him, and she did it willfully in order to save Klal Yisrael. The only reason the Gemara said that she didn't have pleasure is to explain why the P'sukim compare her to our matriarchs since a sin for the sake of Heaven is dear like a Mitzvah that's not done soly for the sake of Heaven (since they did it to beget families), if she had pleasure from the sin.]

57) [Tosfos says: although we say that "there is no Onneis by sinful relations since someone can't have an erection without his thoughts; the Shiltas explains that our Gemara who says that there is an Onnes only refers to having the relations to heal himself. However, if he's giving an alternative to either have the relations or get killed, then it's not included since it's not an Onneis. However, Tosfos disagrees. After all, then our Gemara should have said "you should die instead of having relations" instead of "you should get killed." Rather, the Ri explains that there is no Onnes in relations: even if the non-Jew forces you physically by attaching your body over onto the Ervah, we don't consider it as only passively transgressing it since this is not an Onness, since your erection can only be made by you. Although there is an opinion that you can have a relations with a "dead organ" (i.e., without an erection, and thus the erection wouldn't be a factor to the sin), still, we can say he holds like the opinion that there's no sin with a "dead organ." Alternatively, even if there is a sin with a dead organ, he's Chayiv again for his extra pleasure that comes from his erection. As we see that someone is Chayiv if he's having relations with his wife and she becomes a Niddah in the middle, if he separates while he still has an erection because of the extra pleasure he gets by that.]

58) [Tosfos says: the reason why Mordichai didn't just divorce Esther to save her from the prohibition, or why he didn't do it to make sure that Esther didn't become prohibited to him indefinitely at the end; since he would be afraid that the word will go out that she was his wife, and it would become known to the king.]

59) [Tosfos says: however if someone transgressed these sins and didn't give up his life, they're exempt from the death penalty since it was an Onnes, and it's included in what the Torah says "and the girl (who was raped) didn't do anything." After all, it refers to all cases, even a case where she's forced to move during the relations and she wouldn't just be a piece of land.]

Daf 83

60) If a sick person says that he needs to eat, you feed him even if a doctor says that he doesn't need. After all, the "heart understands its soul's sorrow," and we don't say that the doctor knows better.

61) If the doctor says he needs to eat, and the sick person says that he doesn't, you feed him. After all, it's possible that the reason the patient doesn't feel he needs to eat is because a 'craziness' grabs him (that he doesn't feel his pain)

62) If a doctor and the patient say that he doesn't need to eat, and a second doctor says that he must eat; he's not fed unless a second doctor's opinion insists that he needs to eat. Once you have two doctors saying that he must eat, even if three doctors say that he doesn't need to eat, we feed him. After all, we only follow most opinions when assessing the worth of property, but not assessing someone's health.

63) Although we say that you listen to the sick person that he needs to eat if there are no doctors there, [Tosfos: which implies that we only rely on the sick person when there is no doctors, and of course, he's not believed to contradict a doctor]; the Gemara answers: it means to say: if two doctors aren't contradicting him, but only one, then you're allowed to feed him on his word. Mar b. R' Ashi answers: it means to say; whenever the patient says that he needs to eat, there are no doctors (to be taken into account). Therefore, even if a hundred doctors say that he doesn't need, we listen to the patient since the "heart understands its soul's sorrow." [Tosfos says: there is an argument among the earlier generations what's the rule of Psak regarding Mar b. R' Ashi. Was it said that the Halacha is only like him by the cases of 'swearing' and 'admitting,' but not by any other case, or is the Halacha like him in all cases besides those that were listed.]

64) If someone is taken over by the sickness of Bulmus (where his eyes become dim, and you need to feed him to heal him), you feed him until his eyes start lighting up again. You can tell if his eyes can see normally when he can differentiate again between a good stew and a horrible one.

65) You feed this person the lightest prohibition before a stricter one. Therefore, if it's a choice between Tevel and Neveila, you give him Neveila that's a regular Lav, and not Tevel since it's punishment is "death from Heaven." The same if you have the choice between Shvious after Biur and Tevel, you feed the Shvious since it's only an Asei. If you have a choice between Tevel and Trumah to a non-Kohein, where the punishment for both are "death from Heaven," and even if you separate the Trumah and Maasar from the Tevel, you won't have enough of the Chulin to feed the sick, and you have no other Chulin to add to it; the Tanna Kama says that it's better to feed the Tevel since it's a lighter sin since you could fix it to make it permitted. However, Ben Teima says to separate the Trumah and feed the Trumah, which is a lighter sin since it's at least permitted to a Kohein.

66) If the sick person will have enough to eat from the Chulin, you separate the Tevel even on Shabbos, which is a rabbinical prohibition, even if the Tevel grew in an unperforated flowerpot, which is only rabbinical Tevel. After all, it's worse to transgress the rabbinical prohibition of Tevel since you might come to even eat (under this circumstance) Torah obligated Tevel.

67) However, this is only for Tevel that's only rabbinical since it grew in an unperforated flowerpot. However, rabbinical Tevel of vegetables, where there is nothing of its type that is Tevel from the Torah; Rebbi says to eat it as is (and not separate it on Shabbos) since you won't come to eat Tevel from the Torah by eating it. However, R' Elazar b. Shimon says not to eat it until you separate the Maasar.

68) If someone got bitten by a rabid dog; R' Masna b. Choresh says to feed him from the rabid dog's liver since it will heal him. However, the Chachumim say that it's not a Heter to eat non-Kosher food since it's not a proved treatment. All agree that if someone has pain in his throat, he places medicine in it since it's a question if his life is in danger from it.

Daf 84

69) Not only do you need to worry about the Safeik danger for this Shabbos, but even for the danger for next Shabbos (i.e., if you don't administer the medicine today, it's a Safeik if you'll die next Shabbos.) Therefore, if you have a medication that needs to be taken for eight days, I might say that you should wait until Moitzie Shabbos to start it since you don't want to desecrate two Shabbosos. So, we taught otherwise that you heat up the water right away and we don't say to wait since he might get better.

70) You don't do it through non-Jews and minors [Tosfos: even if it's possible to get a non-Jew and minor to do it, since they might be lazy and refrain from doing it, and it will bring him to danger.] You only do it through adult Jews.

71) You don't desecrate Shabbos because a non-Jew or woman says so, but they can combine to be believed. [Rashi says: if you have three saying the sick person doesn't need it, and two saying that he needs it, we can combine the woman and non-Jew to say that there are now three people saying he needs it; so we can desecrate the Shabbos. (Bach- this seems to argue with what we said earlier that two people saying that he needs it wins out even against a hundred who say he doesn't need it. Rather, it makes sense that they combine to one other person who says he needs it in order to make it two people. saying he needs it.)]

72) You save lives (even when desecrating Shabbos); and praiseworthy is someone who does it zealously, and you don't need to receive permission from Beis Din. Like in a case where a child fell in the sea, you spread out the fishing nets to catch him, even if you catch fish with these nets. If you see a child that fell into a pit, you dig up steps to get him out even though you're building steps, and even though it's not as urgent as the child swept out to sea. Also, if a child gets locked behind the door, you can break open the door even if you're making boards out of the door, even though the child is not a scared as in a pit, as you can entertain him in the meantime by banging nuts on the other side.

73) You're allowed to extinguish a fire, and you can barricade a fire to contain it [Tosfos: even though you'll need to carry utensils full of water across the Reshus Harabim, so you're carrying out, and then you're carring into a Reshus Hayachid, and you're also causing the extinguishing of the fire. Also, even though it's not so simple that it will save, since the fire may cross this area while you're trying to bring the utensils.] Even if you're pushing down on the coals, which is making them fit to roast on. Even if you only want to prevent it from coming into another courtyard (where there are sick people and minors who can't be easily evacuated).

74) Shmuel says: we don't follow the majority of cases by danger. Therefore, we don't need to say that you can save a person if a house collapsed on a person from a group that consist of nine Jews and one non-Jew. We don't even need to say that you can save even if they're half Jews and half non-Jews, since that would be a even Safeik, which we are lenient regarding danger. We don't even need it in a case where there is nine non-Jews and one Jew, we also say it's an even Safeik, since they're all in an establish place that the Halacha is to treat them as a fifty/fifty Safeik. But even when one left the group to a different courtyard and the house collapses on him, we don't say, like we usually say, that anything that separates from an established group has the status of the majority, since we don't follow the majority in cases of danger.

75) However, this is only if the whole group separated to the other courtyard [Rashi explains: therefore, we established that the Jew was once in this courtyard. Tosfos: and then the rest left to another place. After all, if we don't say this; what's the difference between this and the first courtyard.] However, if only some of them separated, we follow the majority and you can't save him.

Daf 85

76) [Tosfos explains: the reason why we don't follow the majority by danger since the Pasuk says "you should live with the laws," and it can't lead to a Jew's death under any circumstance.]

77) If you find a child that's left in the street; if the town is mostly Jews, he has a status as a Jew. Rav holds that it's regarding the obligation to support him to make sure he has a livelihood. [Tosfos says: however, you don't need to make sure of his livelihood if it's half Jews and half non-Jews.] However, you can't assume the child's Yichus to allow a girl to marry a Kohein since we place a special strictness when it comes to Yichus that we require her to have two majoritys. R' Pappa says: we consider this child as a Jew that we return his lost object. [Tosfos says: however, if there is half and half, the child would need to prove he's a Jew before we need to return his lost object. We don't say that we should be able to keep it even when the majority are Jews because of the clause "we don't follow the majority by monetary cases." After all, that's only when he sold an ox that came out that it gores, where the money came into the seller's hand with the consent of its owner. However, here, by the found item, it didn't enter the finder's hand with the owner's consent.]

78) [Rashi says: R' Pappa didn't want to say like Rav that we give him a status of the majority regarding giving him a livelihood, since he holds like Shmuel that we don't follow the majority and allow to desecrate Shabbos to save from a collapse house, and of course, we should also give him a livelihood. Tosfos adds: alternatively, he doesn't argue with Rav, but he saying an extra Chiddush since it's a big prohibition to return a non-Jew's lost object, as it says in Sanhedrin. However, it's not a big Chiddush to give him a livelihood since we say that we support the non-Jewish poor along with the Jewish poor to promote peace.]

79) If the majority are non-Jews, he has a status of a non-Jew that you may feed him Neveila. If it's half Jews and half non-Jews, then we give them a status of a Safeik regarding a goring ox. As the Halacha is that an ox that's a Tam pays half damage, but if it's a non-Jew's ox goring a Jew's ox, he pays full damages, and if it's a Jew's ox goring a non-Jew's ox, he's totally exempt. However, if this child's ox gores, he only pays half, and he'll only pay whole if you prove that he was a non-Jew. If your ox gores his, you're exempt until he proves that he's a Jew. As we always say that the burden of proof is on the one who's trying to collect. [Tosfos says: this can also be the practical difference in the other cases. If the majority are Jews, you're obligated to pay if your ox gores his ox. if the majority are non-Jews, he must pay a Jew full damage if his ox gores the Jew's ox.]

80) You remove fallen debris even if it's a Safeik if he's there or not, and even if he's there perhaps he already died, and even if he's alive, maybe he's a non-Jew. If you find him alive, you continue removing it even if he can only live for a few more hours.

81) However, if you find him to be dead, you can't continue even according to R' Yehuda b. Lakish who holds that you may save a corpse from a fire on Shabbos (and the Chachumim forbid). After all, he only permits there since, if you don't save it, because you're all frantic, you might come to extinguish the fire. However, here, there is no bigger prohibition to avoid if you would dig it out completely.

82) Everyone agrees that, if you find the nose first and he's not breathing, it's a sign he died and you don't continue, as it says "all who are live has wind in its nose." (This is even according to Abba Shaul who says that a person is created from his belly. As that's only logic to say that the beginning of the creation was from the middle, but life depends on the nose breathing.) However, if you uncover the heart first and it's not beating; the Tanna Kama says that you should dig out more to check the nose. However, there are those who say that checking the heart is enough of a sign of death.

83) We learn from the Pasuk "you should live with them" to teach us that even for a Safeik danger you desecrate Shabbos.

84) A 'Chatas' and an "Asham Vadai" atone completely. However, an "Asham Taloy" doesn't atone completely, but it depends if he eventually remembers that he did the sin, he needs to bring a Chatos. Alternatively, when we say that an "Asham Toloy" depends, it means that it depends on whether Yom Kippur comes before you bring it, then you're exempt. However, you need to bring a Chatos and Asham Vadai even if Yom Kippur passed in between.

85) Rebbi holds that Yom Kippur atones on everything (even without repenting) except for someone who throws off the yoke of Hashem (i.e., denies his existence), who reveals corrupt explanations of the Torah, and denies his Bris Milah. For these sins, you need Teshuva too. However, his colleagues held that all bigger sins need Teshiuva with Yom Kippur, as we'll explain.

86) Teshuva by itself atones for Asais and a Lav that could be fixed with an Asei. There's a Tannaic argument whether it atones on a regular Lav. Even so, all agree that the Lav of swearing falsely in Hashem's name is not atoned by Teshuva alone, as it says "I won't forgive."

Daf 86

87) R' Elazar b. Azarya says: if you transgress an Asei and do Teshuva, you don't move from that place until Hashem forgives you. If you transgress a Lav, Teshuva suspends the punishment, and Yom Kippur atones it completely. However, if he transgresses a Lav that has Kreises or the death penalty, Teshuva and Yom Kippur atones, and pain completely cleans it. If you transgress something that has a Chilul Hashem, only death can atone.

88) If someone says that he'll sin and I'll do Teshuva, Heaven doesn't give him an opportunity to do Teshuva. If he says that he'll sin and Yom Kippur will atone, Yom Kippur won't atone. This is even according to Rebbi that says that Yom Kippur automatically atones; here is different since he relies on the atonement to sin.

89) The Tanna Kama says: transgressions that one did one year, and didn't repeat during the next year; you're not allowed to confess it this Yom Kippur since it's similar to a dog returning to its vomit. However, R' Elazar b. Yaakov says that it's praiseworthy since the Pasuk says "your sin is before me constantly. When we say something is like a dog returning to its vomit, it refers to someone repeating his sin, which now becomes by him like as if it's permitted.

Daf 87

90) Anyone who does wrong to someone else, even with just words, he needs to appease him. You approach him three times with a row of three people (i.e., every time, you need three people with you). If he's not appeased by that, you shouldn't approach him more than three times. Although we see that Rav approached R' Chanina thirteen times, Rav was different. [Rashi explains: he was strict on himself.]

91) If he dies, we bring ten people to his grave and say "I sinned to Hashem and to this person that I hurt him."

92) Someone should say Vidoy before the last meal before the Taanis since he might get high from an intoxicating drink and he won't come to say Vidoy afterwards. However, you need to say Vidoy afterwards too, since some sin might have came up during the meal.

93) Even though he said Vidoy during Maariv, he says it again by Shachris etc. and even though he says it by Mincha, he says it again my Neila. An individual says it after Shmona Esrei, and the Shatz says it during Shmona Esrei. The main part of Vidoy is "but we, and our fathers, sinned." Therefore, Shmuel was careful to stand up when saying these words.

94) Rav holds that Neila is an extra Tefila. Shmuel says it's only saying "what are us and what are our lives etc." However, we have a Braisa like Rav, which is a disproof to Shmuel.

95) Rav holds that Neila exempts Maariv. This is not needed to his own opinion that Maariv is anyhow voluntary, but he said it according to those who hold that it's mandatory. [Tosfos quotes Ri: Maariv is not completely voluntary that you may skip it at will. After all, we say that if you forgot to say Maariv, you need to Daven Shachris twice. Also, we say that, if you forget Yaleh V'yavoy in Maariv Rosh Chodesh, you don't need to repeat it since Beis Din doesn't Mekadesh the Chodesh at night. Otherwise, he would need to repeat it, and we don't say that you didn't even needed to say it in the first place. After all, once Yaakov Avinu enacted it, we shouldn't neglect it. Also, since it's enacted for the limbs that are burned on the Mizbeach, even though it doesn't prevent the Korban from being valid if you don't burn them; still, it's a Mitzvah. Therefore, only in a case where you need to do another Mitzvah that has a limited time, or it's a big bother to Daven, like when you already undone your belt to eat, as we explain in the first Perek of Shabbos. Or, like the Yerushalmi says; if he already went up to bed, we don't make him come down to Daven. Therefore, we can say by the night after Yom Kippur that there is a reason to skip it; since you have the burden to prepare the night meal, which is akin to a Yom Tov. This is also implied in the Yerushalmi since it says that if Neila exempts Maariv depends if Maariv is voluntary or mandatory; implying that, even if it's voluntary, you just can't push it off for no reason. (Even though the Bavli argues with the Yerushalmi in the aspect that the Bavli holds that this statement that Neila exempts Maariv is only according to the opinion that Maariv is mandatory, since it's not necessary to the one who holds it to be voluntary; and the Yerushalmi holds that it is necessary for the one who holds it's voluntary, so it's not said for the one who says it's mandatory. However, as much as we can say that they agree, we should assume that they agree.)]

96) [Tosfos says: however, it's not probable to say like the Bahag that, by Davening Maariv every night, we made it into an obligation, so that's why he'll need to repeat Maariv because of Yaleh V'yavoy (if it wasn't because we don't Mekadesh the Chodesh at night). After all, then they should force the person to gird himself with his belt again to Daven according to everyone, since he Davens every night, it's now an obligation. Also, according to Rav here, why did our Gemara say that it's simple to his opinion that Maariv is voluntary that Neila exempts it, if people who Daven every night made it into an obligation?]

97) The Gemara asks that we find a Braisa that they Daven Maariv Moitzie Yom Kippur. As the Tanna Kama says that he can be Yoitza with a seven Bracha Davening that the middle Bracha includes all the topics of the middle Brachos. [Tosfos quotes Rashbam: since they're still fasting, it's as if it's somewhat still Yom Kippur, so you Daven a seven Bracha Tefila. However, since it's truly weekday, you need to Daven the topics of the eighteen Brachos.] R' Chanina b. Gamliel says to say the full eighteen Brachos since you need to mention Havdala in Chonein Hadaas. [Tosfos explains: although we say in Brahcos that you can include Havdala in Havinanu, that's only for someone who Davens Havineinu regularly, so, needing to mention Havdala is not a reason to change. However, this is someone who regularly Davens a full eighteen Bracha Tefila, he should definitely not change now because of any small reason, like having to add in Havdala.] The Gemara answers: (true, that this Braisa is against him, but) we find a Braisa supporting Rav too, as we'll bring.

Daf 88

98) The Tanna Kama only allow someone who emitted semen on Yom Kippur to be Toivel until Mincha time to allow him to Daven Mincha. Therefore, he holds that you don't say Neila by day, but by night, (and you can Toivel at night to Daven it), so, we can say that he holds that Neila exempts Maariv. However, R' Yossi holds that you can Toivel the whole day since you need to Daven Neila by day. Therefore, according to R' Yossi, since you don't Daven it at night, it doesn't exempt Maariv. Although we have a Braisa that R' Yossi permits Teveila until Mincha time (and his Tanna Kama says that he can Toivel the whole day, we must say that it refers to a case where he already Davened Neila, and he doesn't hold that you need to Toivel for the Tumah, since he doesn't hold that it's a special Mitzvah to Toivel on the first day that you could. [Rashi says: since his Tanna Kama who says to Toivel the whole day, even after Neila, must hold that there is a special Mitzva to Toivel that day. If so, he must disagree with the Tanna Kama of R' Yossi in the first Braisa who says that you can only Toivel until Mincha, since he holds that there is no Mitzvah to Toivel on that day. However, Tosfos holds it's pushed to say the Rabanan argue with each other, since they would seem to be the same people, the colleagues of R' Yossi. Rather, when the first Tanna Kama says that you don't need Teveila after Mincha, that's only that it's not necessary for Neila since he has the choice to Daven it after nightfall, but, in truth, it's necessary for the Mitzva to be Toivel in that day. The practical difference is: if you didn't end up Toiveling that day, it doesn't prevent him from Davening Neila since he can Toivel that night and Daven it.]

99) Although we see that R' Yossi holds that there is a special Mitzvah to Toivel that day. As R' Yossi says: when someone has the name of Hashem written on his body, he shouldn't pursue finding a reed to cover it up when he Toivels (so it will be covered when he's naked, but rely on covering with his other hand despite the chance that he'll might forget and uncover it); since he'll might miss the time for Teveila that day. (However the Chachumim say that he needs to get a reed, and you don't need to worry that he'll miss Teviela for that day since they hold it's not a Mitzvah to Toivel exactly on that day.) [Tosfos points out: this is not a contradiction in the Tanna Kama, since he's only careful when he will definitely not Toivel that day. However, here, he might find the reed and Toivel this day, and also, he needs to be careful to treat Hashem's name properly.] We must say that this Braisa is R' Yossi b. Tachlifa, and the earlier one is R' Yossi b. Yehuda. As we see that he doesn't hold there is a special Mitzva to be Toivel on that day, since he holds that a woman who has many Sfeikos when to Toivel holds she only Toivels after all the Safeik time. [Tosfos points out: according to this conclusion, it's not a problem anymore that the Rabanan of the two R' Yossis contradict each other, since these R' Yossis are different people, so their Rabanans are also different.]

100) If someone emits semen on Yom Kippur, he can be Toivel. Therefore, he should scrub himself Erev Yom Kippur so he can Toivel, just in case, without a Chatzitza.

101) One Braisa says: if someone had an Onnes to emit semen on Yom Kippur, (it's a sign of long life and he'll see many descendants) since his sins are ready to be forgiven. Another Braisa says: he should be afraid of death in the coming year (that Heaven didn't accept his fast, so, they give him satiation from something he should be fasting from (i.e., since he can't have relations). However, if he lasts the year, it shows that he's someone who will go straight to the next world and it's a sign that he's a real Tzadik (as they gave him satiation as a sign that he doesn't have too many sins that he needs to fast for).