Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

July 4, 2021 | 讻状讚 讘转诪讜讝 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Yoma is sponsored by Vicky Harari in commemoration of her father's Yahrzeit, Avraham Baruch Hacohen ben Zeev Eliyahu Eckstein z'l, a Holocaust survivor and a feminist before it was fashionable. And in gratitude to Michelle Cohen Farber for revolutionizing women's learning worldwide.

This month's shiurim are sponsored by Fredda Cohen and Eric Nussbaum in memory of her beloved father, Mitchell Cohen, Michael ben Shraga Faivel haLevi, whose 27th yahrzeit falls on 16 Tammuz. He was kind, sweet and funny, and had a big open heart for klal Yisrael v'chol yoshvei tevel.

And for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Yoma 84

This week’s learning is sponsored by Elana and Danny Storch. “Thank You to our dear friends Miriam and Eric Feldstein for their generous hospitality throughout the years. With love and deep appreciation.” And for a refuah shleima to Deborah Shulamit bat Yocheved Chana. This week’s learning is also sponsored by Howard Jacoby Ruben in honor of Debby Jacoby for a wonderful first decade of married life together.” So glad that Hashem helped us find each other through Torah.”

Today’s daf is sponsored in memory of Hannah Plunka, Chanah Esther bat Eliyahu Eliezer, on her yahrzeit.聽聽

What is the remedy for one bitten by a mad dog? In what cases is one allowed to prepare and take medicine on Shabbat? Do the rabbis disagree with Rabbi Matia ben Charash about medicine for one with a throat ache or not? Saving one’s life overrides Shabbat. Who can do it? Anyone? Or should we use someone who is not obligated in mitzvot? Shmuel holds that usual rules of majority don’t hold in the case of life and death – to what case is he referring?

 

诇诪拽讟诇讬讛 讘讚讘专 讛谞讝专拽

killing it with an object that is thrown from a distance like an arrow rather than with one鈥檚 hands. If the dog is possessed by an evil spirit, one should avoid direct contact with it.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讻砖讛讜专讙讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗讬谉 讛讜专讙讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗诇讗 讘讚讘专 讛谞讝专拽 讚讞讬讬祝 讘讬讛 诪住转讻谉 讚谞讻讬转 诇讬讛 诪讬讬转 讚讞讬讬祝 讘讬讛 诪住转讻谉 诪讗讬 转拽谞转讬讛 谞讬砖诇讞 诪讗谞讬讛 讜谞讬专讛讬讟 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讞祝 讘讬讛 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讘砖讜拽讗 砖诇讞讬谞讛讜 诇诪讗谞讬讛 讜专讛讬讟 讗诪专 拽讬讬诪转讬 讘注爪诪讬 讛讞讻诪讛 转讞讬讛 讘注诇讬讛

The Gemara comments: This was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel: When one kills a mad dog, he should kill it only with a thrown object. Furthermore, one who is rubbed by mad dog will become dangerously ill, while one bitten by the dog will die. The Gemara asks: What is the remedy for one who is rubbed by mad dog and becomes dangerously ill? The Gemara answers: Let him take off his clothing and run. The Gemara relates: Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, was rubbed by one of these mad dogs in the market, whereupon he took off his clothing and ran. He said: I have fulfilled the verse: 鈥淲isdom preserves the lives of those who have it鈥 (Ecclesiastes 7:12).

讚谞讻讬转 诇讬讛 诪讬讬转 诪讗讬 转拽谞转讬讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 谞讬转讬 诪砖讻讗 讚讗驻讗 讚讚讬讻专讗 讜谞讬讻转讜讘 注诇讬讛 讗谞讗 驻诇谞讬讗 讘专 驻诇谞讬转讗 讗诪砖讻讗 讚讗驻讗 讚讬讻专讗 讻转讬讘谞讗 注诇讱 讻谞转讬 讻谞转讬 拽诇讬专讜住 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 拽谞讚讬 拽谞讚讬 拽诇讜专讜住 讬讛 讬讛 讛壮 爪讘讗讜转 讗诪谉 讗诪谉 住诇讛 讜谞砖诇讞讬谞讛讜 诇诪讗谞讬讛 讜诇拽讘专讬谞讛讜 讘讬 拽讘专讬 注讚 转专讬住专 讬专讞讬 砖转讗 讜谞驻拽讬谞讛讜 讜谞拽诇讬谞讛讜 讘转谞讜专讗 讜谞讘讚专讬谞讛讜 诇拽讟诪讬讛 讗驻专砖转 讚专讻讬诐 讜讛谞讱 转专讬住专 讬专讞讬 砖转讗 讻讬 砖转讬 诪讬讗 诇讗 诇讬砖转讬 讗诇讗 讘讙讜讘转讗 讚谞讞砖讗 讚讬诇诪讗 讞讝讬 讘讘讜讗讛 讚砖讬讚讗 讜诇讬住转讻谉 讻讬 讛讗 讚讗讘讗 讘专 诪专转讗 讛讜讗 讗讘讗 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 注讘讚讗 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讬讛 讙讜讘转讗 讚讚讛讘讗

The Gemara continues to discuss the baraita: One bitten by a mad dog will die. The Gemara asks: What is the remedy? Abaye said: Let him bring the skin of a male hyena and write on it: I, so-and-so, son of so-and-so, am writing this spell about you upon the skin of a male hyena: Kanti kanti kelirus. And some say he should write: Kandi kandi keloros. He then writes names of God, Yah, Yah, Lord of Hosts, amen amen Selah. And let him take off his clothes and bury them in a cemetery for twelve months of the year, after which he should take them out, and burn them in an oven, and scatter the ashes at a crossroads. And during those twelve months of the year, when his clothes are buried, when he drinks water, let him drink only from a copper tube and not from a spring, lest he see the image of the demon in the water and be endangered, like the case of Abba bar Marta, who is also called Abba bar Manyumi, whose mother made him a gold tube for this purpose.

讜注讜讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪转讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞砖 讘爪驻讬讚谞讗 讗讝诇 讙讘讛 讚讛讛讬讗 诪讟专讜谞讬转讗 注讘讚讗 诇讬讛 诪诇转讗 讞诪砖讗 讜诪注诇讬 砖讘转讗 讗诪专 诇讛 讘砖讘转 诪讗讬 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻转 讗讬 诪爪讟专讬讻谞讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讗讬砖转讘注 诇讬 讚诇讗 诪讙诇讬转 讗讬砖转讘注 诇讗诇讛讗 讚讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 诪讙诇讬谞讗 谞驻拽 讚专砖讛 讘驻讬专拽讗

搂 The mishna said: And furthermore, Rabbi Matya ben 岣rash said: With regard to one who suffers pain in his throat, one may place medicine inside his mouth on Shabbat, although administering a remedy is prohibited on Shabbat. The Gemara discusses a related incident: Rabbi Yo岣nan suffered from the illness tzefidna, which first affects the teeth and gums and then the intestines. He went to a certain gentile matron [matronita] who was a well-known healer. She prepared a medicine for him on Thursday and Friday. He said to her: What shall I do on Shabbat, when I cannot come to collect the medicine from you? She said to him: You will not need it. He asked her: If I do need it, what shall I do? She said to him: Swear to me that you will not reveal the remedy; then I will tell you, and you can prepare it yourself should you need it. He swore: To the God of the Jews, I will not reveal it. She told him the remedy. Rabbi Yo岣nan then went out and taught it publicly, revealing the secret of the remedy.

讜讛讗 讗讬砖转讘注 诇讛 诇讗诇讛讗 讚讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 诪讙诇讬谞讗 讛讗 诇注诪讜 讬砖专讗诇 诪讙诇讬谞讗 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讞诇讜诇 讛砖诐 讚诪讙诇讬 诇讛 诪注讬拽专讗

The Gemara is surprised at this: But he swore to her that he would not reveal it. The Gemara answers that in his vow he declared: I will not reveal it to the God of the Jews. However, his words imply: I will reveal it to His people, the Jews. The Gemara asks: Still, there is a desecration of God鈥檚 name, as the matron now thinks that a great man of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 stature broke his vow. The Gemara answers: He revealed it to her at the outset. As soon as she revealed the remedy to him, he told her that his vow would not prevent him from publicizing the remedy.

诪讗讬 注讘讚讗 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪讬 诪讬 砖讗讜专 砖诪谉 讝讬转 讜诪诇讞 专讘 讬讬诪专 讗诪专 砖讗讜专 讙讜驻讬讛 砖诪谉 讝讬转 讜诪诇讞 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诪砖讞讗 讚讙讚驻讗 讚讗讜讜讝讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗谞讗 注讘讚讬 诇讻讜诇讛讜 讜诇讗 讗讬转住讗讬 注讚 讚讗诪专 诇讬 讛讛讜讗 讟讬讬注讗 讗讬讬转讬 拽砖讬讬转讗 讚讝讬转讗 讚诇讗 诪诇讜 转讬诇转讗 讜拽诇讬谞讛讜 讘谞讜专讗 讗诪专讗 讞讚转讗 讜讗讚讘讬拽 讘讻讻讬 讚专讬讛 注讘讚讬 讛讻讬 讜讗讬转住讗讬

The Gemara asks: What was the medicine that she prepared for him? Rav A岣, son of Rav Ami, said: It was water in which leaven was steeped, olive oil, and salt. Rav Yeimar said: It was leaven itself, olive oil, and salt. Rav Ashi said: The remedy was fat from the bone marrow of a goose鈥檚 wing. Abaye said: I made all of these medicines and was not cured from this ailment, until a certain Arab told me the remedy for it: Take olive seeds that are less than one-third ripe, and burn them in a fire on top of a new hoe, and stick them along the row of gums. I did this and was cured.

诪诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诪讞诪讬诪讬 讞诪讬诪讬 讚讞讬讟讬 讜诪砖讬讜专讬 讻住讗 讚讛专住谞讗 讜诪讗讬 住讬诪谞讬讛 讻讚 专诪讬 诪讬讚讬 讘讻讻讬讛 讜讗转讗 讚诪讗 诪讘讬 讚专讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讬 讞砖 讘爪驻讬讚谞讗 注讘讚 讛讻讬 讘砖讘转讗 讜讗讬转住讬 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讬讻讬 注讘讬讚 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 砖讗谞讬 爪驻讬讚谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪转讞讬诇 讘驻讛 讜讙讜诪专 讘讘谞讬 诪注讬讬诐

搂 The Gemara asks: From where does this disease tzefidna come? It is from eating wheat bread that is too hot and fish remains fried in oil. What is the sign of this sickness? When one puts something between his teeth, blood comes out from his gums. When Rabbi Yo岣nan suffered from tzefidna, he prepared this medicine described above on Shabbat and was cured. The Gemara asks: And how did Rabbi Yo岣nan prepare this medicine on Shabbat for an ailment which affects only the gums but is not life-threatening? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Tzefidna is different, since it does indeed begin in the mouth and appears to be an illness of the teeth, but it ends up in the intestines and is dangerous.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 诪转讬讗 讘谉 讞专砖 讚讗诪专 讛讞讜砖砖 讘驻讬讜 诪讟讬诇讬谉 诇讜 住诐 讘砖讘转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讘讝讜 讜诇讗 讘讗讞专转

Rav 岣yya bar Abba said to Rabbi Yo岣nan: In accordance with whose opinion did you do this? Was it not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Matya ben 岣rash, who said: In the case of one who suffers pain in his mouth, one puts medicine in his mouth on Shabbat, which is a minority opinion? Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: It is so, but I say the Sages agreed with him about taking medicine in this case alone, but no other. If so, with regard to medicine on Shabbat, the view of Rabbi Matya ben 岣rash is not a minority opinion.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诪讬 砖讗讞讝讜 讬专拽讜谉 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘砖专 讞诪讜专 诪讬 砖谞砖讻讜 讻诇讘 砖讜讟讛 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪讞爪专 讻讘讚 砖诇讜 讜讛讞讜砖砖 讘驻讬讜 诪讟讬诇讬谉 诇讜 住诐 讘砖讘转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪转讬讗 讘谉 讞专砖 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讗讬诇讜 讗讬谉 讘讛诐 诪砖讜诐 专驻讜讗讛 讘讗诇讜 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇诪注讜讟讬 住诐

Let us say that this baraita supports him: With regard to one who is seized with yerakon, one feeds him donkey meat as medicine; with regard to one whom a mad dog bit, one feeds him the lobe of its liver; in the case of one who has pain in his mouth, one puts medicine in his mouth on Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Matya ben 岣rash. And the Rabbis say: These have no value as a remedy. The Rabbis used the term these, to exclude what? What, is it not to exclude this medicine for tzefidna, which the Rabbis agree is permitted on Shabbat?

诇讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪拽讬讝讬谉 讚诐 诇住专讜谞讻讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚转谞讬讗 砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 砖砖诪注 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪转讬讗 讘谉 讞专砖 诪拽讬讝讬谉 讚诐 诇住专讜谞讻讬 讘砖讘转 讜诪讬 砖谞砖讻讜 讻诇讘 砖讜讟讛 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪讞爪专 讻讘讚 砖诇讜 讜讛讞讜砖砖 讘驻讬讜 诪讟讬诇讬谉 诇讜 住诐 讘砖讘转

The Gemara rejects this: No, it excludes a different remedy, which Rabbi Matya suggests: Bloodletting to heal the ailment serunkhi is permitted on Shabbat. The Gemara comments: So too, this is reasonable to say, as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said three things that he heard in the name of Rabbi Matya ben 岣rash: One may let blood for serunkhi on Shabbat; and in the case of one whom a mad dog bit, one feeds him the lobe of its liver; and in the case of one who has pain in his mouth, one puts medicine in his mouth on Shabbat.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讗讬诇讜 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 专驻讜讗讛 讘讗讬诇讜 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗转专转讬 讘转专讬讬转讗 讜诇诪注讜讟讬 讚专讬砖讗 诇讗 讗转专转讬 讚专讬砖讗 拽诪讬讬转讗 讜诇诪注讜讟讬 讚住讬驻讗

And the Rabbis say: These have no value as a remedy. The Rabbis used the term these to exclude what? What, is it not to limit their argument only to the latter two items, which do not cure anything, and to exclude the first item, bloodletting for serunkhi, which everyone agrees is an effective remedy? The Gemara rejects this: No, there is no proof from here, since it is possible to say that it is referring to the first two items of the first baraita and excludes the latter clause with regard to medicine on Shabbat, which they agree with.

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 专讘讛 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 注讜讘专讛 砖讛专讬讞讛 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讛 注讚 砖转砖讜讘 谞驻砖讛 讜诪讬 砖谞砖讻讜 讻诇讘 砖讜讟讛 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪讞爪专 讻讘讚 砖诇讜 讜讛讞讜砖砖 讘驻讬讜 诪讟讬诇讬谉 诇讜 住诐 讘砖讘转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 砖讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪转讬讗 讘谉 讞专砖 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讝讜 讜诇讗 讘讗讞专转 讘讝讜 讗讛讬讬讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗注讜讘专讛 驻砖讬讟讗 注讜讘专讛 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚诇讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讗住诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Come and hear a proof for the matter, as Rabba bar Shmuel taught in the following baraita: With regard to a pregnant woman who smells and craves food, one feeds her until she is satisfied, even on Yom Kippur; and in the case of one whom a mad dog bit, one feeds him from the lobe of its liver; and in the case of one who has pain in his mouth, one places medicine in his mouth on Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, who said it in the name of Rabbi Matya ben 岣rash. And the Rabbis say: In this case and no other. The Gemara clarifies: To which case is this one referring? If we say they said this about a pregnant woman, it is obvious; is there anyone who says one should not give a pregnant woman food? Rather, is it not referring to the halakha pertaining to medicine on Shabbat, which they agree is permitted? Learn from this that the Rabbis did not disagree about this.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讬拽讗 讜注讜讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪转讬讗 讘谉 讞专砖 讛讞讜砖砖 讘驻讬讜 诪讟讬诇讬谉 诇讜 住诐 讘砖讘转 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 诇讬注专讘讬谞讛讜 讜诇讬转谞讬谞讛讜 讜诇讬驻诇讙讜 专讘谞谉 讘住讬驻讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rav Ashi said: The wording of the mishna is also precise in accordance with this approach, as it was taught in the mishna: And furthermore, Rabbi Matya ben 岣rash said: In the case of one who suffers pain in his mouth, one places medicine in his mouth on Shabbat, and the Rabbis do not disagree with him and say otherwise. And if it is so that the Rabbis disagree with him, then let the mishna combine the two halakhot and teach them together, and let the Rabbis disagree with both points in the latter clause. Since the mishna was not written this way, but instead the dispute of the Rabbis appears after Rabbi Matya鈥檚 statement about the mad dog, learn from here that the Rabbis did not disagree with him about the halakha with regard to medicine.

诪驻谞讬 砖住驻拽 谞驻砖讜转 讛讜讗 讜讻讜壮 诇诪讛 诇讬 转讜 诇诪讬诪专 讜讻诇 住驻拽 谞驻砖讜转 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 住驻拽 砖讘转 讝讜 讘诇讘讚 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 住驻拽 砖讘转 讗讞专转

搂 The mishna states that one with pain in his throat should be given medicine on Shabbat because it is a case of uncertainty concerning a life-threatening situation. The Gemara asks: Why do I need to say furthermore: And any case of uncertainty concerning a life-threatening situation overrides Shabbat? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: They stated this not only in a case where there is uncertainty with regard to this Shabbat, but even if the uncertainty is with regard to a different future Shabbat.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讻讙讜谉 讚讗诪讚讜讛 诇转诪谞讬讗 讬讜诪讬 讜讬讜诪讗 拽诪讗 砖讘转讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬注讻讘 注讚 诇讗讜专转讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 谞讬讞讜诇 注诇讬讛 转专讬 砖讘转讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

What are the circumstances in which uncertainty would arise as to whether or not his life will be in danger in the future? They are a case where doctors assess that an ill person needs a certain treatment for eight days, and the first day of his illness is Shabbat. Lest you say: He should wait until evening and begin his treatment after Shabbat so they will not need to desecrate two Shabbatot for his sake, therefore it teaches us that one must immediately desecrate Shabbat for his sake. This is the halakha, despite the fact that an additional Shabbat will be desecrated as a result, because there is uncertainty about whether his life is in danger.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 诪讞诪讬谉 讞诪讬谉 诇讞讜诇讛 讘砖讘转 讘讬谉 诇讛砖拽讜转讜 讘讬谉 诇讛讘专讜转讜 讜诇讗 砖讘转 讝讜 讘诇讘讚 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 诇砖讘转 讗讞专转 讜讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞诪转讬谉 诇讜 砖诪讗 讬讘专讬讗 讗诇讗 诪讞诪讬谉 诇讜 诪讬讚 诪驻谞讬 砖住驻拽 谞驻砖讜转 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讜诇讗 住驻拽 砖讘转 讝讜 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 住驻拽 砖讘转 讗讞专转

That was also taught in a baraita: One heats water for an ill person on Shabbat, whether to give him to drink or to wash him, since it might help him recover. And they did not say it is permitted to desecrate only the current Shabbat for him, but even a different, future Shabbat. And one must not say: Let us wait and perform this labor for him after Shabbat, perhaps he will get well in the meantime. Rather, one heats it for him immediately because any case of uncertainty concerning a life-threatening situation overrides Shabbat. And this is so not only with regard to uncertainty whether his life is in danger on the current Shabbat, but even in a case of uncertainty with regard to danger on a different Shabbat.

讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讚讘专讬诐 讛诇诇讜 诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 讙讜讬诐 讜诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 讻讜转讬讬诐 讗诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 讙讚讜诇讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬谉 讬注砖讜 讚讘专讬诐 讛诇诇讜 诇讗 注诇 驻讬 谞砖讬诐 讜诇讗 注诇 驻讬 讻讜转讬讬诐 讗讘诇 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇讚注转 讗讞专转

And these acts should not be performed by gentiles or Samaritans but should be done by the greatest of the Jewish people, i.e., their scholars, who know how to act properly. And one does not say: These actions may be performed based on the advice of women or Samaritans, since they are not considered experts able to declare a person ill enough to override Shabbat. However, the opinions of these people do combine with an additional opinion, meaning that if there is a dispute, their opinions may be considered when coming to a decision.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪驻拽讞讬谉 驻拽讜讞 谞驻砖 讘砖讘转 讜讛讝专讬讝 讛专讬 讝讛 诪砖讜讘讞 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讬讟讜诇 专砖讜转 诪讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 专讗讛 转讬谞讜拽 砖谞驻诇 诇讬诐 驻讜专砖 诪爪讜讚讛 讜诪注诇讛讜 讜讛讝专讬讝 讛专讬 讝讛 诪砖讜讘讞 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讬讟讜诇 专砖讜转 诪讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚拽讗 爪讬讬讚 讻讜讜专讬 专讗讛 转讬谞讜拽 砖谞驻诇 诇讘讜专 注讜拽专 讞讜诇讬讗 讜诪注诇讛讜 讜讛讝专讬讝 讛专讬 讝讛 诪砖讜讘讞 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讬讟讜诇 专砖讜转 诪讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪转拽谉 讚专讙讗

The Sages taught in a baraita: One engages in saving a life on Shabbat, and one who is vigilant to do so is praiseworthy. And one need not take permission from a court but hurries to act on his own. How so? If one sees a child who fell into the sea, he spreads a fisherman鈥檚 net and raises him from the water. And one who is vigilant and acts quickly is praiseworthy, and one need not seek permission from a court, although in doing so he catches fish in the net as well. Similarly, if one sees a child fall into a pit and the child cannot get out, he digs part of the ground out around the edge of the pit to create a makeshift step and raises him out. And one who is vigilant and acts quickly is praiseworthy, and one need not seek permission from a court, although in doing so he fashions a step.

专讗讛 砖谞谞注诇讛 讚诇转 讘驻谞讬 转讬谞讜拽 砖讜讘专讛 讜诪讜爪讬讗讜 讜讛讝专讬讝 讛专讬 讝讛 诪砖讜讘讞 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讬讟讜诇 专砖讜转 诪讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚拽讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 诇诪讬转讘专 讘砖讬驻讬 诪讻讘讬谉 讜诪驻住讬拽讬谉 诪驻谞讬 讛讚诇讬拽讛 讘砖讘转 讜讛讝专讬讝 讛专讬 讝讛 诪砖讜讘讞 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讬讟讜诇 专砖讜转 诪讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚拽讗 诪诪讻讬讱 诪讻讜讻讬

Similarly, if one sees that a door is locked before a child and the child is scared and crying, he breaks the door and takes the child out. And one who is vigilant and acts quickly is praiseworthy, and one need not seek permission from a court, although he intends to break it into boards to be used later. Similarly, one may extinguish a fire by placing a barrier of metal or clay vessels filled with water in front of it on Shabbat when life is endangered. And one who is vigilant and acts quickly is praiseworthy, and one need not seek permission from a court, although he leaves the coals, which can be used for cooking after Shabbat.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讬诐 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讚讛讻讬 讜讛讻讬 讗讝诇 诇讬讛 讗讘诇 讘讜专 讚拽讗 讬转讬讘 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

The Gemara comments: And it is necessary to teach these examples, since each one suggests an original idea. As, had it taught us the halakha of the child who fell into the sea, we would have said: He must act quickly in that case because in the meantime, if he delays, the child will be swept away by the waves and disappear, and therefore the rescuer need not seek permission; but in the case of a child who fell into a pit, who remains there and is in no further danger, one might say the rescuer need not hurry but should request permission from the court first. Therefore, the baraita explains: No, it is necessary to tell us that case, too.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讘讜专 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 诪讬讘注讬转 讗讘诇 谞谞注诇讛 讚诇转 讗驻砖专 讚讬转讬讘 讘讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讜诪砖讘讬砖 诇讬讛 讘讗诪讙讜讝讬 爪专讬讻讗

And if it had taught us the case of the pit, one might have thought it is because the child is scared at being trapped; but when a door is locked before a child, it is possible to sit on the other side of the door and amuse him with the sound of nuts until Shabbat is over. Therefore, it is necessary to teach that in this case, too, one does not delay but acts immediately because a life is possibly in danger.

诪讻讘讬谉 讜诪驻住讬拽讬谉 诇诪讛 诇讬 讚讗驻讬诇讜 诇讞爪专 讗讞专转

It was taught in a baraita that one may extinguish a fire by placing a barrier in front of it on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: Why do I need this? What new point is taught by this additional case of a life-endangering situation? The Gemara answers: This halakha applies even if the fire is spreading toward another courtyard. Not only may this be done to save the lives of people in the courtyard on fire; it may also be done to prevent the fire from spreading to an adjacent courtyard.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 讛诇讻讜 讘驻拽讜讞 谞驻砖 讗讞专 讛专讜讘 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 谞讬诪讗 讚讗讬讻讗 转砖注讛 讬砖专讗诇 讜讙讜讬 讗讞讚 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 专讜讘讗 讬砖专讗诇 谞讬谞讛讜 (讗诇讗) 驻诇讙讗 讜驻诇讙讗 住驻拽 谞驻砖讜转 诇讛拽诇

Rav Yosef said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: With regard to saving a life, the Sages did not follow the majority as they do in other areas of halakha. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? When does one not follow the majority? If we say that one does not follow the majority in a case where there are nine Jews and one gentile among them and a building collapses on one of them, then in that case the majority of people are Jews and yet one desecrates Shabbat to save the trapped person. In such a case one is in fact following the majority. Alternatively, if the group is half Jews and half gentiles, the ruling is lenient with regard to a case of uncertainty concerning a life-threatening situation. But this, too, is not a case where one follows the minority, as there is an even chance that the victim is a Jew.

讗诇讗 讚讗讬讻讗 转砖注讛 讙讜讬诐 讜讬砖专讗诇 讗讞讚 讛讗 谞诪讬 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 拽讘讜注 讜讻诇 拽讘讜注 讻诪讞爪讛 注诇 诪讞爪讛 讚诪讬

Rather, it is referring to a case where there are nine gentiles and one Jew. However, this too is obvious. One saves the trapped individual because the group is in a fixed location, and there is a principle that whenever a group is in a fixed location it is considered as though it were evenly divided. In this case, despite the fact that the group鈥檚 majority is gentile, it is considered as though it were composed half of Jews and half of gentiles.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚驻专讜砖 诇讞爪专 讗讞专转 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻诇 讚驻专讬砖 诪专讜讘讗 驻专讬砖 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗 讛诇讻讜 讘驻拽讜讞 谞驻砖 讗讞专 讛专讜讘

The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach that one does not follow the majority in a case where one individual did not remain with the group in their courtyard but separated and went to another courtyard, and a building collapses on him. Lest you say: One should follow the principle that whatever is separated from a group is considered to have left from the majority, and since there was a majority of gentiles there the individual who left the group was probably a gentile, and it is not necessary to clear the debris for a gentile on Shabbat, therefore it teaches us that with regard to uncertainty in a situation of saving a life, one does not follow the majority.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转砖注讛 讙讜讬诐 讜讬砖专讗诇 讗讞讚 讘讗讜转讛 讞爪专 诪驻拽讞讬谉 讘讞爪专 讗讞专转 讗讬谉 诪驻拽讞讬谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚驻专讜砖 讻讜诇讛讜 讛讗 讚驻专讜砖 诪拽爪转讬讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn鈥檛 Rav Asi say that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: If there are nine gentiles and one Jew and a building collapses on one of them, if it is in that same courtyard one removes the debris, but in another courtyard one does not remove the debris? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult; there is no contradiction between the halakhot. This case, where one removes the debris, is when they all left for another courtyard and it is clear that the Jew was among them. Consequently, the principle of being in a fixed location still applies, and it is considered a case of uncertainty. That other situation is when only a minority of them left for the other courtyard, and it is unknown whether the Jew left with them.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讬 讜讛转谞谉 诪爪讗 讘讛 转讬谞讜拽 诪讜砖诇讱 讗诐 专讜讘 讙讜讬诐 讙讜讬 讜讗诐 专讜讘 讬砖专讗诇 讬砖专讗诇 诪讞爪讛 注诇 诪讞爪讛 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讛讞讬讜转讜 讗讘诇 诇讬讬讞住讜 诇讗

The Gemara asks: Did Shmuel actually say this, that one does not follow the majority with regard to saving a life? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: If one finds an abandoned child in a city and his parents are unknown, if the majority of the city are gentiles the child is considered a gentile; and if the majority of the city are Jews the child is considered a Jew; if the city is composed of half gentiles and half Jews, the child is considered a Jew? And Rav said: They taught this, that he is a Jew, only with respect to sustaining him but not with respect to attributing a lineage to him. One does not say that he is definitely Jewish based on the majority. Therefore, with regard to the halakhot of marriage, his status remains uncertain. If the abandoned child is a girl, she is not permitted to marry a priest, who may marry only a woman of certain lineage.

Masechet Yoma is sponsored by Vicky Harari in commemoration of her father's Yahrzeit, Avraham Baruch Hacohen ben Zeev Eliyahu Eckstein z'l, a Holocaust survivor and a feminist before it was fashionable. And in gratitude to Michelle Cohen Farber for revolutionizing women's learning worldwide.

This month's shiurim are sponsored by Fredda Cohen and Eric Nussbaum in memory of her beloved father, Mitchell Cohen, Michael ben Shraga Faivel haLevi, whose 27th yahrzeit falls on 16 Tammuz. He was kind, sweet and funny, and had a big open heart for klal Yisrael v'chol yoshvei tevel.

And for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Yoma 80-88 + Siyum – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will continue learning about the amounts one is liable for eating and drinking on Yom Kippur. The...
alon shvut women

Yoma 84

Teachers: Yehudit Epstein and Dena Rock https://youtu.be/4ZvubWFkTpM  

Yoma 84

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yoma 84

诇诪拽讟诇讬讛 讘讚讘专 讛谞讝专拽

killing it with an object that is thrown from a distance like an arrow rather than with one鈥檚 hands. If the dog is possessed by an evil spirit, one should avoid direct contact with it.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讻砖讛讜专讙讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗讬谉 讛讜专讙讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗诇讗 讘讚讘专 讛谞讝专拽 讚讞讬讬祝 讘讬讛 诪住转讻谉 讚谞讻讬转 诇讬讛 诪讬讬转 讚讞讬讬祝 讘讬讛 诪住转讻谉 诪讗讬 转拽谞转讬讛 谞讬砖诇讞 诪讗谞讬讛 讜谞讬专讛讬讟 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讞祝 讘讬讛 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讘砖讜拽讗 砖诇讞讬谞讛讜 诇诪讗谞讬讛 讜专讛讬讟 讗诪专 拽讬讬诪转讬 讘注爪诪讬 讛讞讻诪讛 转讞讬讛 讘注诇讬讛

The Gemara comments: This was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel: When one kills a mad dog, he should kill it only with a thrown object. Furthermore, one who is rubbed by mad dog will become dangerously ill, while one bitten by the dog will die. The Gemara asks: What is the remedy for one who is rubbed by mad dog and becomes dangerously ill? The Gemara answers: Let him take off his clothing and run. The Gemara relates: Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, was rubbed by one of these mad dogs in the market, whereupon he took off his clothing and ran. He said: I have fulfilled the verse: 鈥淲isdom preserves the lives of those who have it鈥 (Ecclesiastes 7:12).

讚谞讻讬转 诇讬讛 诪讬讬转 诪讗讬 转拽谞转讬讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 谞讬转讬 诪砖讻讗 讚讗驻讗 讚讚讬讻专讗 讜谞讬讻转讜讘 注诇讬讛 讗谞讗 驻诇谞讬讗 讘专 驻诇谞讬转讗 讗诪砖讻讗 讚讗驻讗 讚讬讻专讗 讻转讬讘谞讗 注诇讱 讻谞转讬 讻谞转讬 拽诇讬专讜住 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 拽谞讚讬 拽谞讚讬 拽诇讜专讜住 讬讛 讬讛 讛壮 爪讘讗讜转 讗诪谉 讗诪谉 住诇讛 讜谞砖诇讞讬谞讛讜 诇诪讗谞讬讛 讜诇拽讘专讬谞讛讜 讘讬 拽讘专讬 注讚 转专讬住专 讬专讞讬 砖转讗 讜谞驻拽讬谞讛讜 讜谞拽诇讬谞讛讜 讘转谞讜专讗 讜谞讘讚专讬谞讛讜 诇拽讟诪讬讛 讗驻专砖转 讚专讻讬诐 讜讛谞讱 转专讬住专 讬专讞讬 砖转讗 讻讬 砖转讬 诪讬讗 诇讗 诇讬砖转讬 讗诇讗 讘讙讜讘转讗 讚谞讞砖讗 讚讬诇诪讗 讞讝讬 讘讘讜讗讛 讚砖讬讚讗 讜诇讬住转讻谉 讻讬 讛讗 讚讗讘讗 讘专 诪专转讗 讛讜讗 讗讘讗 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 注讘讚讗 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讬讛 讙讜讘转讗 讚讚讛讘讗

The Gemara continues to discuss the baraita: One bitten by a mad dog will die. The Gemara asks: What is the remedy? Abaye said: Let him bring the skin of a male hyena and write on it: I, so-and-so, son of so-and-so, am writing this spell about you upon the skin of a male hyena: Kanti kanti kelirus. And some say he should write: Kandi kandi keloros. He then writes names of God, Yah, Yah, Lord of Hosts, amen amen Selah. And let him take off his clothes and bury them in a cemetery for twelve months of the year, after which he should take them out, and burn them in an oven, and scatter the ashes at a crossroads. And during those twelve months of the year, when his clothes are buried, when he drinks water, let him drink only from a copper tube and not from a spring, lest he see the image of the demon in the water and be endangered, like the case of Abba bar Marta, who is also called Abba bar Manyumi, whose mother made him a gold tube for this purpose.

讜注讜讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪转讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞砖 讘爪驻讬讚谞讗 讗讝诇 讙讘讛 讚讛讛讬讗 诪讟专讜谞讬转讗 注讘讚讗 诇讬讛 诪诇转讗 讞诪砖讗 讜诪注诇讬 砖讘转讗 讗诪专 诇讛 讘砖讘转 诪讗讬 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻转 讗讬 诪爪讟专讬讻谞讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讗讬砖转讘注 诇讬 讚诇讗 诪讙诇讬转 讗讬砖转讘注 诇讗诇讛讗 讚讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 诪讙诇讬谞讗 谞驻拽 讚专砖讛 讘驻讬专拽讗

搂 The mishna said: And furthermore, Rabbi Matya ben 岣rash said: With regard to one who suffers pain in his throat, one may place medicine inside his mouth on Shabbat, although administering a remedy is prohibited on Shabbat. The Gemara discusses a related incident: Rabbi Yo岣nan suffered from the illness tzefidna, which first affects the teeth and gums and then the intestines. He went to a certain gentile matron [matronita] who was a well-known healer. She prepared a medicine for him on Thursday and Friday. He said to her: What shall I do on Shabbat, when I cannot come to collect the medicine from you? She said to him: You will not need it. He asked her: If I do need it, what shall I do? She said to him: Swear to me that you will not reveal the remedy; then I will tell you, and you can prepare it yourself should you need it. He swore: To the God of the Jews, I will not reveal it. She told him the remedy. Rabbi Yo岣nan then went out and taught it publicly, revealing the secret of the remedy.

讜讛讗 讗讬砖转讘注 诇讛 诇讗诇讛讗 讚讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 诪讙诇讬谞讗 讛讗 诇注诪讜 讬砖专讗诇 诪讙诇讬谞讗 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讞诇讜诇 讛砖诐 讚诪讙诇讬 诇讛 诪注讬拽专讗

The Gemara is surprised at this: But he swore to her that he would not reveal it. The Gemara answers that in his vow he declared: I will not reveal it to the God of the Jews. However, his words imply: I will reveal it to His people, the Jews. The Gemara asks: Still, there is a desecration of God鈥檚 name, as the matron now thinks that a great man of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 stature broke his vow. The Gemara answers: He revealed it to her at the outset. As soon as she revealed the remedy to him, he told her that his vow would not prevent him from publicizing the remedy.

诪讗讬 注讘讚讗 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪讬 诪讬 砖讗讜专 砖诪谉 讝讬转 讜诪诇讞 专讘 讬讬诪专 讗诪专 砖讗讜专 讙讜驻讬讛 砖诪谉 讝讬转 讜诪诇讞 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诪砖讞讗 讚讙讚驻讗 讚讗讜讜讝讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗谞讗 注讘讚讬 诇讻讜诇讛讜 讜诇讗 讗讬转住讗讬 注讚 讚讗诪专 诇讬 讛讛讜讗 讟讬讬注讗 讗讬讬转讬 拽砖讬讬转讗 讚讝讬转讗 讚诇讗 诪诇讜 转讬诇转讗 讜拽诇讬谞讛讜 讘谞讜专讗 讗诪专讗 讞讚转讗 讜讗讚讘讬拽 讘讻讻讬 讚专讬讛 注讘讚讬 讛讻讬 讜讗讬转住讗讬

The Gemara asks: What was the medicine that she prepared for him? Rav A岣, son of Rav Ami, said: It was water in which leaven was steeped, olive oil, and salt. Rav Yeimar said: It was leaven itself, olive oil, and salt. Rav Ashi said: The remedy was fat from the bone marrow of a goose鈥檚 wing. Abaye said: I made all of these medicines and was not cured from this ailment, until a certain Arab told me the remedy for it: Take olive seeds that are less than one-third ripe, and burn them in a fire on top of a new hoe, and stick them along the row of gums. I did this and was cured.

诪诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诪讞诪讬诪讬 讞诪讬诪讬 讚讞讬讟讬 讜诪砖讬讜专讬 讻住讗 讚讛专住谞讗 讜诪讗讬 住讬诪谞讬讛 讻讚 专诪讬 诪讬讚讬 讘讻讻讬讛 讜讗转讗 讚诪讗 诪讘讬 讚专讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讬 讞砖 讘爪驻讬讚谞讗 注讘讚 讛讻讬 讘砖讘转讗 讜讗讬转住讬 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讬讻讬 注讘讬讚 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 砖讗谞讬 爪驻讬讚谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪转讞讬诇 讘驻讛 讜讙讜诪专 讘讘谞讬 诪注讬讬诐

搂 The Gemara asks: From where does this disease tzefidna come? It is from eating wheat bread that is too hot and fish remains fried in oil. What is the sign of this sickness? When one puts something between his teeth, blood comes out from his gums. When Rabbi Yo岣nan suffered from tzefidna, he prepared this medicine described above on Shabbat and was cured. The Gemara asks: And how did Rabbi Yo岣nan prepare this medicine on Shabbat for an ailment which affects only the gums but is not life-threatening? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Tzefidna is different, since it does indeed begin in the mouth and appears to be an illness of the teeth, but it ends up in the intestines and is dangerous.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 诪转讬讗 讘谉 讞专砖 讚讗诪专 讛讞讜砖砖 讘驻讬讜 诪讟讬诇讬谉 诇讜 住诐 讘砖讘转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讘讝讜 讜诇讗 讘讗讞专转

Rav 岣yya bar Abba said to Rabbi Yo岣nan: In accordance with whose opinion did you do this? Was it not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Matya ben 岣rash, who said: In the case of one who suffers pain in his mouth, one puts medicine in his mouth on Shabbat, which is a minority opinion? Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: It is so, but I say the Sages agreed with him about taking medicine in this case alone, but no other. If so, with regard to medicine on Shabbat, the view of Rabbi Matya ben 岣rash is not a minority opinion.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诪讬 砖讗讞讝讜 讬专拽讜谉 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘砖专 讞诪讜专 诪讬 砖谞砖讻讜 讻诇讘 砖讜讟讛 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪讞爪专 讻讘讚 砖诇讜 讜讛讞讜砖砖 讘驻讬讜 诪讟讬诇讬谉 诇讜 住诐 讘砖讘转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪转讬讗 讘谉 讞专砖 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讗讬诇讜 讗讬谉 讘讛诐 诪砖讜诐 专驻讜讗讛 讘讗诇讜 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇诪注讜讟讬 住诐

Let us say that this baraita supports him: With regard to one who is seized with yerakon, one feeds him donkey meat as medicine; with regard to one whom a mad dog bit, one feeds him the lobe of its liver; in the case of one who has pain in his mouth, one puts medicine in his mouth on Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Matya ben 岣rash. And the Rabbis say: These have no value as a remedy. The Rabbis used the term these, to exclude what? What, is it not to exclude this medicine for tzefidna, which the Rabbis agree is permitted on Shabbat?

诇讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪拽讬讝讬谉 讚诐 诇住专讜谞讻讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚转谞讬讗 砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 砖砖诪注 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪转讬讗 讘谉 讞专砖 诪拽讬讝讬谉 讚诐 诇住专讜谞讻讬 讘砖讘转 讜诪讬 砖谞砖讻讜 讻诇讘 砖讜讟讛 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪讞爪专 讻讘讚 砖诇讜 讜讛讞讜砖砖 讘驻讬讜 诪讟讬诇讬谉 诇讜 住诐 讘砖讘转

The Gemara rejects this: No, it excludes a different remedy, which Rabbi Matya suggests: Bloodletting to heal the ailment serunkhi is permitted on Shabbat. The Gemara comments: So too, this is reasonable to say, as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said three things that he heard in the name of Rabbi Matya ben 岣rash: One may let blood for serunkhi on Shabbat; and in the case of one whom a mad dog bit, one feeds him the lobe of its liver; and in the case of one who has pain in his mouth, one puts medicine in his mouth on Shabbat.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讗讬诇讜 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 专驻讜讗讛 讘讗讬诇讜 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗转专转讬 讘转专讬讬转讗 讜诇诪注讜讟讬 讚专讬砖讗 诇讗 讗转专转讬 讚专讬砖讗 拽诪讬讬转讗 讜诇诪注讜讟讬 讚住讬驻讗

And the Rabbis say: These have no value as a remedy. The Rabbis used the term these to exclude what? What, is it not to limit their argument only to the latter two items, which do not cure anything, and to exclude the first item, bloodletting for serunkhi, which everyone agrees is an effective remedy? The Gemara rejects this: No, there is no proof from here, since it is possible to say that it is referring to the first two items of the first baraita and excludes the latter clause with regard to medicine on Shabbat, which they agree with.

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 专讘讛 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 注讜讘专讛 砖讛专讬讞讛 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讛 注讚 砖转砖讜讘 谞驻砖讛 讜诪讬 砖谞砖讻讜 讻诇讘 砖讜讟讛 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪讞爪专 讻讘讚 砖诇讜 讜讛讞讜砖砖 讘驻讬讜 诪讟讬诇讬谉 诇讜 住诐 讘砖讘转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 砖讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪转讬讗 讘谉 讞专砖 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讝讜 讜诇讗 讘讗讞专转 讘讝讜 讗讛讬讬讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗注讜讘专讛 驻砖讬讟讗 注讜讘专讛 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚诇讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讗住诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Come and hear a proof for the matter, as Rabba bar Shmuel taught in the following baraita: With regard to a pregnant woman who smells and craves food, one feeds her until she is satisfied, even on Yom Kippur; and in the case of one whom a mad dog bit, one feeds him from the lobe of its liver; and in the case of one who has pain in his mouth, one places medicine in his mouth on Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, who said it in the name of Rabbi Matya ben 岣rash. And the Rabbis say: In this case and no other. The Gemara clarifies: To which case is this one referring? If we say they said this about a pregnant woman, it is obvious; is there anyone who says one should not give a pregnant woman food? Rather, is it not referring to the halakha pertaining to medicine on Shabbat, which they agree is permitted? Learn from this that the Rabbis did not disagree about this.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讬拽讗 讜注讜讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪转讬讗 讘谉 讞专砖 讛讞讜砖砖 讘驻讬讜 诪讟讬诇讬谉 诇讜 住诐 讘砖讘转 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 诇讬注专讘讬谞讛讜 讜诇讬转谞讬谞讛讜 讜诇讬驻诇讙讜 专讘谞谉 讘住讬驻讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rav Ashi said: The wording of the mishna is also precise in accordance with this approach, as it was taught in the mishna: And furthermore, Rabbi Matya ben 岣rash said: In the case of one who suffers pain in his mouth, one places medicine in his mouth on Shabbat, and the Rabbis do not disagree with him and say otherwise. And if it is so that the Rabbis disagree with him, then let the mishna combine the two halakhot and teach them together, and let the Rabbis disagree with both points in the latter clause. Since the mishna was not written this way, but instead the dispute of the Rabbis appears after Rabbi Matya鈥檚 statement about the mad dog, learn from here that the Rabbis did not disagree with him about the halakha with regard to medicine.

诪驻谞讬 砖住驻拽 谞驻砖讜转 讛讜讗 讜讻讜壮 诇诪讛 诇讬 转讜 诇诪讬诪专 讜讻诇 住驻拽 谞驻砖讜转 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 住驻拽 砖讘转 讝讜 讘诇讘讚 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 住驻拽 砖讘转 讗讞专转

搂 The mishna states that one with pain in his throat should be given medicine on Shabbat because it is a case of uncertainty concerning a life-threatening situation. The Gemara asks: Why do I need to say furthermore: And any case of uncertainty concerning a life-threatening situation overrides Shabbat? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: They stated this not only in a case where there is uncertainty with regard to this Shabbat, but even if the uncertainty is with regard to a different future Shabbat.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讻讙讜谉 讚讗诪讚讜讛 诇转诪谞讬讗 讬讜诪讬 讜讬讜诪讗 拽诪讗 砖讘转讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬注讻讘 注讚 诇讗讜专转讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 谞讬讞讜诇 注诇讬讛 转专讬 砖讘转讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

What are the circumstances in which uncertainty would arise as to whether or not his life will be in danger in the future? They are a case where doctors assess that an ill person needs a certain treatment for eight days, and the first day of his illness is Shabbat. Lest you say: He should wait until evening and begin his treatment after Shabbat so they will not need to desecrate two Shabbatot for his sake, therefore it teaches us that one must immediately desecrate Shabbat for his sake. This is the halakha, despite the fact that an additional Shabbat will be desecrated as a result, because there is uncertainty about whether his life is in danger.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 诪讞诪讬谉 讞诪讬谉 诇讞讜诇讛 讘砖讘转 讘讬谉 诇讛砖拽讜转讜 讘讬谉 诇讛讘专讜转讜 讜诇讗 砖讘转 讝讜 讘诇讘讚 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 诇砖讘转 讗讞专转 讜讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞诪转讬谉 诇讜 砖诪讗 讬讘专讬讗 讗诇讗 诪讞诪讬谉 诇讜 诪讬讚 诪驻谞讬 砖住驻拽 谞驻砖讜转 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讜诇讗 住驻拽 砖讘转 讝讜 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 住驻拽 砖讘转 讗讞专转

That was also taught in a baraita: One heats water for an ill person on Shabbat, whether to give him to drink or to wash him, since it might help him recover. And they did not say it is permitted to desecrate only the current Shabbat for him, but even a different, future Shabbat. And one must not say: Let us wait and perform this labor for him after Shabbat, perhaps he will get well in the meantime. Rather, one heats it for him immediately because any case of uncertainty concerning a life-threatening situation overrides Shabbat. And this is so not only with regard to uncertainty whether his life is in danger on the current Shabbat, but even in a case of uncertainty with regard to danger on a different Shabbat.

讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讚讘专讬诐 讛诇诇讜 诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 讙讜讬诐 讜诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 讻讜转讬讬诐 讗诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 讙讚讜诇讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬谉 讬注砖讜 讚讘专讬诐 讛诇诇讜 诇讗 注诇 驻讬 谞砖讬诐 讜诇讗 注诇 驻讬 讻讜转讬讬诐 讗讘诇 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇讚注转 讗讞专转

And these acts should not be performed by gentiles or Samaritans but should be done by the greatest of the Jewish people, i.e., their scholars, who know how to act properly. And one does not say: These actions may be performed based on the advice of women or Samaritans, since they are not considered experts able to declare a person ill enough to override Shabbat. However, the opinions of these people do combine with an additional opinion, meaning that if there is a dispute, their opinions may be considered when coming to a decision.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪驻拽讞讬谉 驻拽讜讞 谞驻砖 讘砖讘转 讜讛讝专讬讝 讛专讬 讝讛 诪砖讜讘讞 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讬讟讜诇 专砖讜转 诪讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 专讗讛 转讬谞讜拽 砖谞驻诇 诇讬诐 驻讜专砖 诪爪讜讚讛 讜诪注诇讛讜 讜讛讝专讬讝 讛专讬 讝讛 诪砖讜讘讞 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讬讟讜诇 专砖讜转 诪讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚拽讗 爪讬讬讚 讻讜讜专讬 专讗讛 转讬谞讜拽 砖谞驻诇 诇讘讜专 注讜拽专 讞讜诇讬讗 讜诪注诇讛讜 讜讛讝专讬讝 讛专讬 讝讛 诪砖讜讘讞 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讬讟讜诇 专砖讜转 诪讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪转拽谉 讚专讙讗

The Sages taught in a baraita: One engages in saving a life on Shabbat, and one who is vigilant to do so is praiseworthy. And one need not take permission from a court but hurries to act on his own. How so? If one sees a child who fell into the sea, he spreads a fisherman鈥檚 net and raises him from the water. And one who is vigilant and acts quickly is praiseworthy, and one need not seek permission from a court, although in doing so he catches fish in the net as well. Similarly, if one sees a child fall into a pit and the child cannot get out, he digs part of the ground out around the edge of the pit to create a makeshift step and raises him out. And one who is vigilant and acts quickly is praiseworthy, and one need not seek permission from a court, although in doing so he fashions a step.

专讗讛 砖谞谞注诇讛 讚诇转 讘驻谞讬 转讬谞讜拽 砖讜讘专讛 讜诪讜爪讬讗讜 讜讛讝专讬讝 讛专讬 讝讛 诪砖讜讘讞 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讬讟讜诇 专砖讜转 诪讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚拽讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 诇诪讬转讘专 讘砖讬驻讬 诪讻讘讬谉 讜诪驻住讬拽讬谉 诪驻谞讬 讛讚诇讬拽讛 讘砖讘转 讜讛讝专讬讝 讛专讬 讝讛 诪砖讜讘讞 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讬讟讜诇 专砖讜转 诪讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚拽讗 诪诪讻讬讱 诪讻讜讻讬

Similarly, if one sees that a door is locked before a child and the child is scared and crying, he breaks the door and takes the child out. And one who is vigilant and acts quickly is praiseworthy, and one need not seek permission from a court, although he intends to break it into boards to be used later. Similarly, one may extinguish a fire by placing a barrier of metal or clay vessels filled with water in front of it on Shabbat when life is endangered. And one who is vigilant and acts quickly is praiseworthy, and one need not seek permission from a court, although he leaves the coals, which can be used for cooking after Shabbat.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讬诐 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讚讛讻讬 讜讛讻讬 讗讝诇 诇讬讛 讗讘诇 讘讜专 讚拽讗 讬转讬讘 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

The Gemara comments: And it is necessary to teach these examples, since each one suggests an original idea. As, had it taught us the halakha of the child who fell into the sea, we would have said: He must act quickly in that case because in the meantime, if he delays, the child will be swept away by the waves and disappear, and therefore the rescuer need not seek permission; but in the case of a child who fell into a pit, who remains there and is in no further danger, one might say the rescuer need not hurry but should request permission from the court first. Therefore, the baraita explains: No, it is necessary to tell us that case, too.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讘讜专 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 诪讬讘注讬转 讗讘诇 谞谞注诇讛 讚诇转 讗驻砖专 讚讬转讬讘 讘讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讜诪砖讘讬砖 诇讬讛 讘讗诪讙讜讝讬 爪专讬讻讗

And if it had taught us the case of the pit, one might have thought it is because the child is scared at being trapped; but when a door is locked before a child, it is possible to sit on the other side of the door and amuse him with the sound of nuts until Shabbat is over. Therefore, it is necessary to teach that in this case, too, one does not delay but acts immediately because a life is possibly in danger.

诪讻讘讬谉 讜诪驻住讬拽讬谉 诇诪讛 诇讬 讚讗驻讬诇讜 诇讞爪专 讗讞专转

It was taught in a baraita that one may extinguish a fire by placing a barrier in front of it on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: Why do I need this? What new point is taught by this additional case of a life-endangering situation? The Gemara answers: This halakha applies even if the fire is spreading toward another courtyard. Not only may this be done to save the lives of people in the courtyard on fire; it may also be done to prevent the fire from spreading to an adjacent courtyard.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 讛诇讻讜 讘驻拽讜讞 谞驻砖 讗讞专 讛专讜讘 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 谞讬诪讗 讚讗讬讻讗 转砖注讛 讬砖专讗诇 讜讙讜讬 讗讞讚 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 专讜讘讗 讬砖专讗诇 谞讬谞讛讜 (讗诇讗) 驻诇讙讗 讜驻诇讙讗 住驻拽 谞驻砖讜转 诇讛拽诇

Rav Yosef said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: With regard to saving a life, the Sages did not follow the majority as they do in other areas of halakha. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? When does one not follow the majority? If we say that one does not follow the majority in a case where there are nine Jews and one gentile among them and a building collapses on one of them, then in that case the majority of people are Jews and yet one desecrates Shabbat to save the trapped person. In such a case one is in fact following the majority. Alternatively, if the group is half Jews and half gentiles, the ruling is lenient with regard to a case of uncertainty concerning a life-threatening situation. But this, too, is not a case where one follows the minority, as there is an even chance that the victim is a Jew.

讗诇讗 讚讗讬讻讗 转砖注讛 讙讜讬诐 讜讬砖专讗诇 讗讞讚 讛讗 谞诪讬 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 拽讘讜注 讜讻诇 拽讘讜注 讻诪讞爪讛 注诇 诪讞爪讛 讚诪讬

Rather, it is referring to a case where there are nine gentiles and one Jew. However, this too is obvious. One saves the trapped individual because the group is in a fixed location, and there is a principle that whenever a group is in a fixed location it is considered as though it were evenly divided. In this case, despite the fact that the group鈥檚 majority is gentile, it is considered as though it were composed half of Jews and half of gentiles.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚驻专讜砖 诇讞爪专 讗讞专转 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻诇 讚驻专讬砖 诪专讜讘讗 驻专讬砖 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗 讛诇讻讜 讘驻拽讜讞 谞驻砖 讗讞专 讛专讜讘

The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach that one does not follow the majority in a case where one individual did not remain with the group in their courtyard but separated and went to another courtyard, and a building collapses on him. Lest you say: One should follow the principle that whatever is separated from a group is considered to have left from the majority, and since there was a majority of gentiles there the individual who left the group was probably a gentile, and it is not necessary to clear the debris for a gentile on Shabbat, therefore it teaches us that with regard to uncertainty in a situation of saving a life, one does not follow the majority.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转砖注讛 讙讜讬诐 讜讬砖专讗诇 讗讞讚 讘讗讜转讛 讞爪专 诪驻拽讞讬谉 讘讞爪专 讗讞专转 讗讬谉 诪驻拽讞讬谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚驻专讜砖 讻讜诇讛讜 讛讗 讚驻专讜砖 诪拽爪转讬讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn鈥檛 Rav Asi say that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: If there are nine gentiles and one Jew and a building collapses on one of them, if it is in that same courtyard one removes the debris, but in another courtyard one does not remove the debris? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult; there is no contradiction between the halakhot. This case, where one removes the debris, is when they all left for another courtyard and it is clear that the Jew was among them. Consequently, the principle of being in a fixed location still applies, and it is considered a case of uncertainty. That other situation is when only a minority of them left for the other courtyard, and it is unknown whether the Jew left with them.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讬 讜讛转谞谉 诪爪讗 讘讛 转讬谞讜拽 诪讜砖诇讱 讗诐 专讜讘 讙讜讬诐 讙讜讬 讜讗诐 专讜讘 讬砖专讗诇 讬砖专讗诇 诪讞爪讛 注诇 诪讞爪讛 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讛讞讬讜转讜 讗讘诇 诇讬讬讞住讜 诇讗

The Gemara asks: Did Shmuel actually say this, that one does not follow the majority with regard to saving a life? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: If one finds an abandoned child in a city and his parents are unknown, if the majority of the city are gentiles the child is considered a gentile; and if the majority of the city are Jews the child is considered a Jew; if the city is composed of half gentiles and half Jews, the child is considered a Jew? And Rav said: They taught this, that he is a Jew, only with respect to sustaining him but not with respect to attributing a lineage to him. One does not say that he is definitely Jewish based on the majority. Therefore, with regard to the halakhot of marriage, his status remains uncertain. If the abandoned child is a girl, she is not permitted to marry a priest, who may marry only a woman of certain lineage.

Scroll To Top