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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 5, 2021 | 讻状讛 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聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

Yoma 85

Today’s daf is sponsored by Jonathan Katz in memory of his mother Margaret Katz (Ruth bat Avraham), “who was always sensitive to mitzvot bein adam la’chavero and extended that to a sensitivity and care for all living creatures. And by Caroline Ben Ari on the shloshim of Judy Prager, Yehudit bat Rabbi Yehuda and Daya, the mother of a dear friend Anne. “Anne has been there for me through thick and think. May your mother’s neshama have an aliya.” And in memory of Hannah Plunka, Chanah Esther Bat Eliyahu Eliezer, whose yahrzeit is tomorrow. And by Amy Cohn for a refuah shleima for Ariyah Rachel Miriam bat Malka.聽

Does Shmuel really hold that we do not follow the majority in cases of saving a life? Does that contradict something he says elsewhere? In the case of saving someone from under a pile of rubble, why did the mishna mention a list of three different doubts? What is the novelty in the sentence that if they find the person alive one can save him/her and if they find the person dead, they leave him/her? After all, isn鈥檛 that obvious! What determines death – that the person no longer breathes or that the heart no longer beats? Is the controversy over the determination of death similar to the controversy over from where do fetuses develop 鈥 from its head or its navel? Rabbi Papa limited the debate regarding heart beating or breathing. From where do we learn that saving a life, even if a doubt, will override Shabbat. The gemara brings a list of different opinions but at the end states that only one of them is really strong and the rest can be rejected in case of doubt. What types of things provide atonement? What is the difference in getting atonement for transgressions between one and God and one with fellow people? How is the atonement different for different levels of transgressions?

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇驻拽讞 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛讙诇 讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗专讬砖讗 讗讬转诪专 讗诐 专讜讘 讙讜讬诐 讙讜讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜诇注谞讬谉 驻拽讜讞 谞驻砖 讗讬谞讜 讻谉


And Shmuel said: This halakha of the status of a found child is with regard to removing debris from on top of him, implying that if there is a majority of gentiles in the city where he is found, one does not violate Shabbat by removing the debris from the child to save his life. This implies that one does follow the majority in the case of saving a life. The Gemara answers: When this statement of Shmuel was stated, it was stated with regard to the first halakha. Shmuel鈥檚 intent was to be lenient, and his statement should be understood as follows: If the majority are gentiles, he is a gentile. Shmuel said: But with regard to the matter of saving a life it is not so. Rather, one saves him based on the uncertainty.


讗诐 专讜讘 讙讜讬诐 讙讜讬 诇诪讗讬 讛讬诇讻转讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讛讗讻讬诇讜 谞讘诇讜转 讗诐 专讜讘 讬砖专讗诇 讬砖专讗诇 诇诪讗讬 讛讬诇讻转讗 诇讛讞讝讬专 诇讜 讗讘讬讚转讜


搂 It was taught that if there is a majority of gentiles in the city, a foundling is considered to have the status of a gentile. The Gemara asks: To what halakha does this statement relate? Rav Pappa said: It relates to feeding him non-kosher food. One need not protect the child from every prohibition and may even feed him non-kosher food, as though he were a gentile. It was further taught: If there is a majority of Jews, he is a Jew. The Gemara asks: To what halakha does this relate? The Gemara answers: It relates to returning a lost object to him. In such a case it is assumed that he is definitely a Jew. Consequently, Jews must return lost objects to him, whereas there is no obligation to return lost objects to gentiles.


诪讞爪讛 注诇 诪讞爪讛 讬砖专讗诇 诇诪讗讬 讛讬诇讻转讗 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇谞讝拽讬谉 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 谞讬诪讗 讚谞讙讞讬讛 转讜专讗 讚讬讚谉 诇转讜专讗 讚讬讚讬讛 谞讬讬转讬 专讗讬讛 讜谞砖拽讜诇


It was further stated: If the city is half gentile and half Jewish, the foundling has the status of a Jew. The Gemara asks: To what halakha does this relate? Reish Lakish said: It is referring to halakhot of damages. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If we say that our ox, i.e., an ox belonging to another Jew, gored his ox, one could ask: How can he make a claim like a Jew? Let him bring proof that he is Jewish, and only then may he take the money for damages, since the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. Since he cannot prove his Jewish status, he has no claim.


诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚谞讙讞讬讛 转讜专讗 讚讬讚讬讛 诇转讜专讗 讚讬讚谉 驻诇讙讗 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 讗讬讚讱 驻诇讙讗 谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讬讬转讬 专讗讬讛 讚诇讗讜 讬砖专讗诇 讗谞讗 讜砖拽讜诇


The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary when his innocuous ox, which has gored fewer than three times, gored our ox, i.e., an ox belonging to a Jew, in which case he gives him half, which is what a Jew pays for damages caused by an innocuous ox. However, a gentile must make full restitution for the damage caused. The foundling does not pay the other half, which a gentile gives to a Jew if his ox harms a Jew鈥檚 ox. Let me say to the one who suffered the damage: Bring proof that I am not a Jew and take the money. In that case, the burden of proof rests upon the one who suffered the damage.


诪讬 砖谞驻诇 注诇讬讜 诪驻讜诇转 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专


搂 It was taught in the mishna: With regard to one upon whom a rockslide fell, and there is uncertainty whether he is there under the debris or whether he is not there; and there is uncertainty whether he is still alive or whether he is dead; and there is uncertainty whether the person under the debris is a gentile or whether he is Jew, one clears the pile from atop him. The Gemara asks: What is the mishna saying? Why does it bring three different uncertainties to illustrate the principle that one violates Shabbat to save a life even in a case of uncertainty?


诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 住驻拽 讛讜讗 砖诐 住驻拽 讗讬谞讜 砖诐 讚讗讬 讗讬转讬讛 讞讬 讛讜讗 讚诪驻拽讞讬谉 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 住驻拽 讞讬 住驻拽 诪转 诪驻拽讞讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 住驻拽 讞讬 住驻拽 诪转 讚讬砖专讗诇 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 住驻拽 讙讜讬 住驻拽 讬砖专讗诇 诪驻拽讞讬谉


The Gemara explains: It is speaking using the style of: Needless to say, and the mishna should be understood as follows: Needless to say, in a case where it is uncertain whether he is there or not there, one removes the debris, since if he is there and he is alive, one must clear the debris. But even if it is uncertain whether he is alive or dead, one must clear the debris. And needless to say, when there is uncertainty whether he is alive or dead, but it is certain that he is a Jew, one must clear the debris. Rather, one must clear the debris even if there is uncertainty whether he is a gentile or a Jew.


诪爪讗讜讛讜 讞讬 诪驻拽讞讬谉 诪爪讗讜讛讜 讞讬 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗驻讬诇讜 诇讞讬讬 砖注讛


搂 The mishna taught: If they found him alive, they continue to remove the debris. The Gemara is surprised at this: If they find him alive, it is obvious that they remove the debris, since that is saving a life. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach that one must desecrate Shabbat for his sake even if it is clear that he will live only a short while and will die soon after.


讜讗诐 诪转 讬谞讬讞讜讛讜 讛讗 谞诪讬 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诪爪讬诇讬谉 讗转 讛诪转 诪驻谞讬 讛讚诇讬拽讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 砖诪注转讬 砖诪爪讬诇讬谉 讗转 讛诪转 诪驻谞讬 讛讚诇讬拽讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诇讗 拽讗诪专 讗诇讗 诪转讜讱 砖讗讚诐 讘讛讜诇 注诇 诪转讜 讗讬 诇讗 砖专讬转 诇讬讛 讗转讬 诇讻讘讜讬讬 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讗讬 诇讗 砖专讬转 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇诪注讘讚


搂 The mishna taught: If they found him dead, they should leave him. The Gemara is surprised at this: Isn鈥檛 this also obvious? What allowance might there be to desecrate Shabbat for the sake of a corpse? The Gemara answers: No, this ruling is necessary according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Lakish, as it was taught in a baraita: One may not save a corpse from a fire, since one may not violate Shabbat for the sake of the dead. Rabbi Yehuda ben Lakish said: I heard that one may save a corpse from a fire. The Gemara challenges: Even Rabbi Yehuda ben Lakish said this only with regard to a fire because a person is agitated over his dead relative, whose body might burn in the fire. If you do not permit him to remove the corpse he may come to extinguish the fire and transgress a severe Torah prohibition. However, here, in the case of a rockslide or building collapse, if you do not permit him to remove the debris, what might he do? In this case, there is no concern of Shabbat desecration, and preserving the dignity of the dead does not override Shabbat.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 注讚 讛讬讻谉 讛讜讗 讘讜讚拽 注讚 讞讜讟诪讜 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讚 诇讘讜 讘讚拽 讜诪爪讗 注诇讬讜谞讬诐 诪转讬诐 诇讗 讬讗诪专 讻讘专 诪转讜 讛转讞转讜谞讬诐 诪注砖讛 讛讬讛 讜诪爪讗讜 注诇讬讜谞讬诐 诪转讬诐 讜转讞转讜谞讬诐 讞讬讬诐


The Rabbis taught: If a person is buried under a collapsed building, until what point does one check to clarify whether the victim is still alive? Until what point is he allowed to continue clearing the debris? They said: One clears until the victim鈥檚 nose. If there is no sign of life, i.e., if he is not breathing, he is certainly dead. And some say: One clears until the victim鈥檚 heart to check for a heartbeat. If several people are buried and one checked and found the upper ones under the debris dead, he should not say: The lower ones are likely also already dead, and there is no point in continuing to search. There was an incident where they found the upper ones dead and the lower ones alive.


谞讬诪讗 讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讻讬 讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 诪讛讬讻谉 讛讜诇讚 谞讜爪专 诪专讗砖讜 砖谞讗诪专 诪诪注讬 讗诪讬 讗转讛 讙讜讝讬 讜讗讜诪专 讙讝讬 谞讝专讱 讜讛砖诇讬讻讬 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 诪讟讬讘讜专讜 讜诪砖诇讞 砖专砖讬讜 讗讬诇讱 讜讗讬诇讱


The Gemara comments: Let us say that the dispute between these tanna鈥檌m who disagree about checking for signs of life is like the dispute between these tanna鈥檌m who disagree about the formation of the fetus. As it was taught in a baraita: From what point is the fetus created? It is from its head, as it is stated: 鈥淵ou are He Who took me [gozi] out of my mother鈥檚 womb鈥 (Psalms 71:6), and it says: 鈥淐ut off [gozi] your hair, and cast it away鈥 (Jeremiah 7:29). These verses suggest that one is created from the head, the place of the hair. Abba Shaul says: A person is created from his navel, and he sends his roots in every direction until he attains the image of a person. The tanna who says that the presence of life is determined based on the nose holds in accordance with the opinion of the tanna who maintains that the formation of a fetus begins with its head. Likewise, the tanna who says the presence of life is determined based on the heart holds in accordance with the opinion of the one who thinks the formation of a fetus begins with its navel.


讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗 讗诪专 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讛转诐 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 讬爪讬专讛 讚讻诇 诪讬讚讬 诪诪爪讬注转讬讛 诪讬转爪专 讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 驻拽讜讞 谞驻砖 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 诪讜讚讬 讚注讬拽专 讞讬讜转讗 讘讗驻讬讛 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讻诇 讗砖专 谞砖诪转 专讜讞 讞讬讬诐 讘讗驻讬讜


The Gemara rejects this: Even if you say that the formation of a fetus from the navel is the opinion of Abba Shaul, he may nevertheless require one to check the nose for signs of life. Until now, Abba Shaul spoke there only about formation, saying that everything is created from its middle; however, as for saving a life, even Abba Shaul admits that the main sign of life is in the nose, as it is written: 鈥淎ll in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life鈥 (Genesis 7:22).


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 诪诪讟讛 诇诪注诇讛 讗讘诇 诪诪注诇讛 诇诪讟讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讘讚拽 诇讬讛 注讚 讞讜讟诪讜 砖讜讘 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讚讻转讬讘 讻诇 讗砖专 谞砖诪转 专讜讞 讞讬讬诐 讘讗驻讬讜


Rav Pappa said: The dispute with regard to how far to check for signs of life applies when the digger begins removing the rubble from below, starting with the feet, to above. In such a case it is insufficient to check until his heart; rather, one must continue removing rubble until he is able to check his nose for breath. But if one cleared the rubble from above to below, once he checked as far as the victim鈥檚 nose he is not required to check further, as it is written: 鈥淎ll in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life鈥 (Genesis 7:22).


讜讻讘专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 诪讛诇讻讬谉 讘讚专讱 讜诇讜讬 讛住讚专 讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 诪讛诇讻讬谉 讗讞专讬讛谉 谞砖讗诇讛 砖讗诇讛 讝讜 讘驻谞讬讛诐 诪谞讬讬谉 诇驻拽讜讞 谞驻砖 砖讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转


搂 The Gemara relates: It once happened that Rabbi Yishmael, and Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya were walking on the road, and Levi HaSadar and Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, were walking respectfully behind them, since they were younger and did not walk alongside their teachers. This question was asked before them: From where is it derived that saving a life overrides Shabbat?


谞注谞讛 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜讗诪专 讗诐 讘诪讞转专转 讬诪爪讗 讛讙谞讘 讜诪讛 讝讛 砖住驻拽 注诇 诪诪讜谉 讘讗 住驻拽 注诇 谞驻砖讜转 讘讗 讜砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐 诪讟诪讗 讗转 讛讗专抓 讜讙讜专诐 诇砖讻讬谞讛 砖转住转诇拽 诪讬砖专讗诇 谞讬转谉 诇讛爪讬诇讜 讘谞驻砖讜 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诇驻拽讜讞 谞驻砖 砖讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转


Rabbi Yishmael answered and said that it is stated: 鈥淚f a thief be found breaking in and be struck so that he dies, there shall be no blood-guiltiness for him鈥 (Exodus 22:1). Now, if this is true for the thief, where there is uncertainty whether he comes to take money or to take lives, and it is known that bloodshed renders the land impure, since it is stated about a murderer: 鈥淎nd you shall not defile the land鈥 (Numbers 35:34), and it causes the Divine Presence to depart from the Jewish people, as the verse continues: 鈥淚n the midst of which I dwell, for I the Lord dwell in the midst of the children of Israel鈥 (Numbers 35:34), and even so the home owner is permitted to save himself at the cost of the thief鈥檚 life, then a fortiori saving a life overrides Shabbat.


谞注谞讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讗诪专 讜讻讬 讬讝讬讚 讗讬砖 注诇 专注讛讜 讜讙讜壮 诪注诐 诪讝讘讞讬 转拽讞谞讜 诇诪讜转 诪注诐 诪讝讘讞讬 讜诇讗 诪注诇 诪讝讘讞讬 讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讛诪讬转


Rabbi Akiva answered and said that it is stated: 鈥淎nd if a man comes purposefully upon his neighbor to slay him with guile, you shall take him from My altar, that he may die鈥 (Exodus 21:14). The phrase 鈥渢ake him from My altar鈥 implies that if the murderer is a priest and comes to perform the service, one does not wait for him to do so but takes him to his execution immediately. But one should not take him from on top of My altar. If he already began the service and is in the midst of it, one does not take him down from the altar immediately but instead allows him to finish his service. And Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: They taught only that a priest is not removed from the altar in order to execute him for murder,


讗讘诇 诇讛讞讬讜转 讗驻讬诇讜 诪注诇 诪讝讘讞讬 讜诪讛 讝讛 砖住驻拽 讬砖 诪诪砖 讘讚讘专讬讜 住驻拽 讗讬谉 诪诪砖 讘讚讘专讬讜 讜注讘讜讚讛 讚讜讞讛 砖讘转 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诇驻拽讜讞 谞驻砖 砖讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 谞注谞讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜讗诪专 讜诪讛 诪讬诇讛 砖讛讬讗 讗讞讚 诪诪讗转讬诐 讜讗专讘注讬诐 讜砖诪讜谞讛 讗讬讘专讬诐 砖讘讗讚诐 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诇讻诇 讙讜驻讜 砖讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转


but to preserve a life, e.g., if the priest can testify to the innocence of one who is sentenced to death, one removes him even from on top of My altar, even while he is sacrificing an offering. Just as this priest, about whom there is uncertainty whether there is substance to his words of testimony or whether there is no substance to his words, is taken from the Temple service in order to save a life, and Temple service overrides Shabbat, so too, a fortiori, saving a life overrides Shabbat. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya answered and said: Just as the mitzva of circumcision, which rectifies only one of the 248 limbs of the body, overrides Shabbat, so too, a fortiori, saving one鈥檚 whole body, which is entirely involved in mitzvot, overrides Shabbat.


专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗转 砖讘转讜转讬 转砖诪讜专讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讻诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讱 讞诇拽 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讘谉 讬讜住祝 讗讜诪专 讻讬 拽讜讚砖 讛讬讗 诇讻诐 讛讬讗 诪住讜专讛 讘讬讚讻诐 讜诇讗 讗转诐 诪住讜专讬诐 讘讬讚讛


Other tanna鈥檌m debated this same issue. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says that it is stated: 鈥淏ut keep my Shabbatot (Exodus 31:13). One might have thought that this applies to everyone in all circumstances; therefore, the verse states 鈥渂ut,鈥 a term that restricts and qualifies. It implies that there are circumstances where one must keep Shabbat and circumstances where one must desecrate it, i.e., to save a life. Rabbi Yonatan ben Yosef says that it is stated: 鈥淔or it is sacred to you鈥 (Exodus 31:14). This implies that Shabbat is given into your hands, and you are not given to it to die on account of Shabbat.


专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诪谞住讬讗 讗讜诪专 讜砖诪专讜 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗转 讛砖讘转 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 讞诇诇 注诇讬讜 砖讘转 讗讞转 讻讚讬 砖讬砖诪讜专 砖讘转讜转 讛专讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬 讛讜讗讬 讛转诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讚讬讚讬 注讚讬驻讗 诪讚讬讚讛讜 讜讞讬 讘讛诐 讜诇讗 砖讬诪讜转 讘讛诐


Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya said: It is stated: 鈥淎nd the children of Israel shall keep Shabbat, to observe Shabbat鈥 (Exodus 31:16). The Torah said: Desecrate one Shabbat on his behalf so he will observe many Shabbatot. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: If I would have been there among those Sages who debated this question, I would have said that my proof is preferable to theirs, as it states: 鈥淵ou shall keep My statutes and My ordinances, which a person shall do and live by them鈥 (Leviticus 18:5), and not that he should die by them. In all circumstances, one must take care not to die as a result of fulfilling the mitzvot.


讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讻讜诇讛讜 讗讬转 诇讛讜 驻讬专讻讗 讘专 诪讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 驻讬专讻讗 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚讬诇诪讗 讻讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚诪讞转专转 讞讝拽讛 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪注诪讬讚 注爪诪讜 注诇 诪诪讜谞讜 讜讛讗讬 诪讬讚注 讬讚注 讚拽讗讬 诇讗驻讬讛 讜讗诪专 讗讬 拽讗讬 诇讗驻讗讬 拽讟讬诇谞讗 诇讬讛 讜讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 讘讗 诇讛专讙讱 讛砖讻诐 诇讛专讙讜 讜讗砖讻讞谉 讜讚讗讬 住驻拽 诪谞诇谉


Rava commented on this: All of these arguments have refutations except for that of Shmuel, which has no refutation. The Gemara explains Rava鈥檚 claim: The proof brought by Rabbi Yishmael from the thief who breaks in could perhaps be refuted based on the principle of Rava, as Rava said: What is the reason for the halakha about the thief who breaks in? There is a presumption that while a person is being robbed he does not restrain himself with respect to his money. And this thief knows that the homeowner will rise to oppose him and said to himself from the start: If he rises against me, I will kill him. And the Torah states: If a person comes to kill you, rise to kill him first. We found a source for saving a life that is in certain danger, but from where do we derive that even in a case where there is uncertainty as to whether a life is in danger one may desecrate Shabbat? Consequently, Rabbi Yishmael鈥檚 argument is refuted.


讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 谞诪讬 讚讬诇诪讗 讻讚讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪住专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讝讜讙讗 讚专讘谞谉 诇讬讚注 讗诐 诪诪砖 讘讚讘专讬讜 讜讗砖讻讞谉 讜讚讗讬 住驻拽 诪谞讗 诇谉


The proof of Rabbi Akiva can also be refuted. He brought the case of removing a priest from altar service in order to have him testify on another鈥檚 behalf, since his testimony might acquit the accused and save him from execution. But perhaps that halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Abaye, as Abaye said: If the accused says he has a witness in his favor, we send a pair of rabbis on his behalf to determine if his words of testimony have substance. These rabbis would first check that the testimony of the priest is substantive before removing him from the altar. If so, we have found that one interrupts the Temple service to save a life from certain danger, but from where do we derive that one interrupts the Temple service when the likelihood of saving life is uncertain?


讜讻讜诇讛讜 讗砖讻讞谉 讜讚讗讬 住驻拽 诪谞讗 诇谉 讜讚砖诪讜讗诇 讜讚讗讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 驻讬专讻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讟讘讗 讞讚讗 驻诇驻诇转讗 讞专讬驻讗 诪诪诇讗 爪谞讗 讚拽专讬


And for all the other arguments as well, we have found proofs for saving a life from certain danger. But for cases of uncertainty, from where do we derive this? For this reason, all the arguments are refuted. However, the proof that Shmuel brought from the verse: 鈥淎nd live by them,鈥 which teaches that one should not even put a life in possible danger to observe mitzvot, there is certainly no refutation. Ravina said, and some say it was Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k who said with regard to this superior proof of Shmuel: One spicy pepper is better than a whole basket of squash, since its flavor is more powerful than all the others.


诪转谞讬壮 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 讜讚讗讬 诪讻驻专讬谉 诪讬转讛 讜讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专讬谉 注诐 讛转砖讜讘讛 转砖讜讘讛 诪讻驻专转 注诇 注讘讬专讜转 拽诇讜转 注诇 注砖讛 讜注诇 诇讗 转注砖讛 讜注诇 讛讞诪讜专讜转 讛讜讗 转讜诇讛 注讚 砖讬讘讗 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讜讬讻驻专 讛讗讜诪专 讗讞讟讗 讜讗砖讜讘 讗讞讟讗 讜讗砖讜讘 讗讬谉 诪住驻讬拽讬谉 讘讬讚讜 诇注砖讜转 转砖讜讘讛 讗讞讟讗 讜讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专 讗讬谉 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专 注讘讬专讜转 砖讘讬谉 讗讚诐 诇诪拽讜诐 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专 注讘讬专讜转 砖讘讬谉 讗讚诐 诇讞讘讬专讜 讗讬谉 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专 注讚 砖讬专爪讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜


MISHNA: A sin-offering, which atones for unwitting performance of transgressions punishable by karet, and a definite guilt-offering, which is brought for robbery and misuse of consecrated items, atone for those sins. Death and Yom Kippur atone for sins when accompanied by repentance. Repentance itself atones for minor transgressions, for both positive mitzvot and negative mitzvot. And repentance places punishment for severe transgressions in abeyance until Yom Kippur comes and completely atones for the transgression. With regard to one who says: I will sin and then I will repent, I will sin and I will repent, Heaven does not provide him the opportunity to repent, and he will remain a sinner all his days. With regard to one who says: I will sin and Yom Kippur will atone for my sins, Yom Kippur does not atone for his sins. Furthermore, for transgressions between a person and God, Yom Kippur atones; however, for transgressions between a person and another, Yom Kippur does not atone until he appeases the other person.


讚专砖 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 诪讻诇 讞讟讗转讬讻诐 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 转讟讛专讜 注讘讬专讜转 砖讘讬谉 讗讚诐 诇诪拽讜诐 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专 注讘讬专讜转 砖讘讬谉 讗讚诐 诇讞讘讬专讜 讗讬谉 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专 注讚 砖讬专爪讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗砖专讬讻诐 讬砖专讗诇 诇驻谞讬 诪讬 讗转诐 诪讟讛专讬谉 诪讬 诪讟讛专 讗转讻诐 讗讘讬讻诐 砖讘砖诪讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜讝专拽转讬 注诇讬讻诐 诪讬诐 讟讛讜专讬诐 讜讟讛专转诐 讜讗讜诪专 诪拽讜讛 讬砖专讗诇 (讛壮) 诪讛 诪拽讜讛 诪讟讛专 讗转 讛讟诪讗讬诐 讗祝 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诪讟讛专 讗转 讬砖专讗诇


Similarly, Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya taught that point from the verse: 鈥淔rom all your sins you shall be cleansed before the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 16:30). For transgressions between a person and God, Yom Kippur atones; however, for transgressions between a person and another, Yom Kippur does not atone until he appeases the other person. In conclusion, Rabbi Akiva said: How fortunate are you, Israel; before Whom are you purified, and Who purifies you? It is your Father in Heaven, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd I will sprinkle purifying water upon you, and you shall be purified鈥 (Ezekiel 36:25). And it says: 鈥淭he ritual bath of Israel is God鈥 (Jeremiah 17:13). Just as a ritual bath purifies the impure, so too, the Holy One, Blessed be He, purifies Israel.


讙诪壮 讗砖诐 讜讚讗讬 讗讬谉 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 诇讗 讜讛讗 讻驻专讛 讻转讬讘讗 讘讬讛 讛谞讱 诪讻驻专讬 讻驻专讛 讙诪讜专讛 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讗讬谞讜 诪讻驻专 讻驻专讛 讙诪讜专讛


GEMARA: The mishna says that a definite guilt-offering atones for sins. The Gemara analyzes this: With regard to a definite guilt-offering, yes, it does atone for sins. This implies that an uncertain guilt-offering does not. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 atonement written with regard to it? Why, then, doesn鈥檛 it atone? The Gemara answers: Those, the sin-offerings and definite guilt-offerings, facilitate complete atonement, but an uncertain guilt-offering does not facilitate complete atonement. Instead, this offering provides temporary atonement for an individual, to protect him from punishment until he becomes aware of his sin and brings the appropriate offering.


讗讬 谞诪讬 讛谞讱 讗讬谉 讗讞专 诪讻驻专 讻驻专转谉 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讗讞专 诪讻驻专 讻驻专转谉 讚转谞谉 讞讬讬讘讬 讞讟讗讜转 讜讗砖诪讜转 讜讚讗讬谉 砖注讘专 注诇讬讛谉 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗砖诪讜转 转诇讜讬谉 驻讟讜专讬谉


Alternatively, there is this distinction: Nothing else facilitates the atonement of those sin-offerings and definite guilt-offerings, whereas something else does facilitate the atonement of the uncertain guilt-offering, as we learned in a mishna: If Yom Kippur passed, those who are obligated to bring sin-offerings and definite guilt-offerings are still obligated to bring their offerings; however, those obligated to bring uncertain guilt-offerings are exempt because Yom Kippur atoned for them.


诪讬转讛 讜讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专讬谉 注诐 讛转砖讜讘讛 注诐 讛转砖讜讘讛 讗讬谉 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 诇讗 谞讬诪讗 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 注诇 讻诇 注讘讬专讜转 砖讘转讜专讛 讘讬谉 注砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 讘讬谉 诇讗 注砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专 讞讜抓 (诪驻讜专拽 注讜诇) 讜诪讙诇讛 驻谞讬诐 讘转讜专讛 讜诪讬驻专 讘专讬转 讘砖专 砖讗诐 注砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专 讜讗诐 诇讗 注砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 讗讬谉 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专


搂 It was taught in the mishna that death and Yom Kippur atone for sins when accompanied by repentance. The Gemara analyzes this: With repentance, yes, they do atone for sins; but by themselves, without repentance, they do not. Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that for all transgressions in the Torah, whether one repented or did not repent, Yom Kippur atones, with the exception of rejecting the yoke of Torah and mitzvot; and denying the Holy One, Blessed be He; and interpreting the Torah falsely; and violating the covenant of the flesh, i.e., circumcision. In these cases, if one repents Yom Kippur atones for his sin, and if one does not repent Yom Kippur does not atone for his sin.


讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 转砖讜讘讛 讘注讬讗 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诇讗 讘注讬讗 转砖讜讘讛


The Gemara rejects this: This is no proof; even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the mishna can be understood as follows: Repentance still requires Yom Kippur in order to complete the atonement, whereas Yom Kippur does not require repentance but atones even without it.


转砖讜讘讛 诪讻驻专转 注诇 注讘讬专讜转 拽诇讜转 注诇 注砖讛 讜注诇 诇讗 转注砖讛 讛砖转讗 注诇 诇讗 转注砖讛 诪讻驻专转 注诇 注砖讛 诪讬讘注讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 注诇 注砖讛 讜注诇 诇讗 转注砖讛 砖谞讬转拽 诇注砖讛


搂 It was taught in the mishna: Repentance itself atones for minor transgressions, for both a positive mitzva and for a negative mitzva. The Gemara is surprised at this: Now that it was stated that repentance atones for a negative mitzva, which is severe and warrants lashes, is it necessary to also teach that it atones for a positive mitzva, which is more lenient? Rav Yehuda said: This is what it said, i.e., the mishna should be understood as follows: Repentance atones for a positive mitzva and for a negative mitzva whose violation can be rectified by a positive mitzva. One is not punished by a court for violating a prohibition for which the Torah prescribes a positive act as a corrective measure and which thereby has the same halakha as a positive mitzva.


讜注诇 诇讗 转注砖讛 讙诪讜专 诇讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讗诇讜 讛谉 拽诇讜转 注砖讛 讜诇讗 转注砖讛


The Gemara asks: But does repentance not atone for a full-fledged negative mitzva? The Gemara raises a contradiction from a separate source: It was taught that these are minor transgressions: A positive mitzva and a negative mitzva,

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聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

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...

Yoma 85

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yoma 85

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇驻拽讞 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛讙诇 讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗专讬砖讗 讗讬转诪专 讗诐 专讜讘 讙讜讬诐 讙讜讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜诇注谞讬谉 驻拽讜讞 谞驻砖 讗讬谞讜 讻谉


And Shmuel said: This halakha of the status of a found child is with regard to removing debris from on top of him, implying that if there is a majority of gentiles in the city where he is found, one does not violate Shabbat by removing the debris from the child to save his life. This implies that one does follow the majority in the case of saving a life. The Gemara answers: When this statement of Shmuel was stated, it was stated with regard to the first halakha. Shmuel鈥檚 intent was to be lenient, and his statement should be understood as follows: If the majority are gentiles, he is a gentile. Shmuel said: But with regard to the matter of saving a life it is not so. Rather, one saves him based on the uncertainty.


讗诐 专讜讘 讙讜讬诐 讙讜讬 诇诪讗讬 讛讬诇讻转讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讛讗讻讬诇讜 谞讘诇讜转 讗诐 专讜讘 讬砖专讗诇 讬砖专讗诇 诇诪讗讬 讛讬诇讻转讗 诇讛讞讝讬专 诇讜 讗讘讬讚转讜


搂 It was taught that if there is a majority of gentiles in the city, a foundling is considered to have the status of a gentile. The Gemara asks: To what halakha does this statement relate? Rav Pappa said: It relates to feeding him non-kosher food. One need not protect the child from every prohibition and may even feed him non-kosher food, as though he were a gentile. It was further taught: If there is a majority of Jews, he is a Jew. The Gemara asks: To what halakha does this relate? The Gemara answers: It relates to returning a lost object to him. In such a case it is assumed that he is definitely a Jew. Consequently, Jews must return lost objects to him, whereas there is no obligation to return lost objects to gentiles.


诪讞爪讛 注诇 诪讞爪讛 讬砖专讗诇 诇诪讗讬 讛讬诇讻转讗 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇谞讝拽讬谉 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 谞讬诪讗 讚谞讙讞讬讛 转讜专讗 讚讬讚谉 诇转讜专讗 讚讬讚讬讛 谞讬讬转讬 专讗讬讛 讜谞砖拽讜诇


It was further stated: If the city is half gentile and half Jewish, the foundling has the status of a Jew. The Gemara asks: To what halakha does this relate? Reish Lakish said: It is referring to halakhot of damages. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If we say that our ox, i.e., an ox belonging to another Jew, gored his ox, one could ask: How can he make a claim like a Jew? Let him bring proof that he is Jewish, and only then may he take the money for damages, since the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. Since he cannot prove his Jewish status, he has no claim.


诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚谞讙讞讬讛 转讜专讗 讚讬讚讬讛 诇转讜专讗 讚讬讚谉 驻诇讙讗 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 讗讬讚讱 驻诇讙讗 谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讬讬转讬 专讗讬讛 讚诇讗讜 讬砖专讗诇 讗谞讗 讜砖拽讜诇


The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary when his innocuous ox, which has gored fewer than three times, gored our ox, i.e., an ox belonging to a Jew, in which case he gives him half, which is what a Jew pays for damages caused by an innocuous ox. However, a gentile must make full restitution for the damage caused. The foundling does not pay the other half, which a gentile gives to a Jew if his ox harms a Jew鈥檚 ox. Let me say to the one who suffered the damage: Bring proof that I am not a Jew and take the money. In that case, the burden of proof rests upon the one who suffered the damage.


诪讬 砖谞驻诇 注诇讬讜 诪驻讜诇转 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专


搂 It was taught in the mishna: With regard to one upon whom a rockslide fell, and there is uncertainty whether he is there under the debris or whether he is not there; and there is uncertainty whether he is still alive or whether he is dead; and there is uncertainty whether the person under the debris is a gentile or whether he is Jew, one clears the pile from atop him. The Gemara asks: What is the mishna saying? Why does it bring three different uncertainties to illustrate the principle that one violates Shabbat to save a life even in a case of uncertainty?


诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 住驻拽 讛讜讗 砖诐 住驻拽 讗讬谞讜 砖诐 讚讗讬 讗讬转讬讛 讞讬 讛讜讗 讚诪驻拽讞讬谉 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 住驻拽 讞讬 住驻拽 诪转 诪驻拽讞讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 住驻拽 讞讬 住驻拽 诪转 讚讬砖专讗诇 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 住驻拽 讙讜讬 住驻拽 讬砖专讗诇 诪驻拽讞讬谉


The Gemara explains: It is speaking using the style of: Needless to say, and the mishna should be understood as follows: Needless to say, in a case where it is uncertain whether he is there or not there, one removes the debris, since if he is there and he is alive, one must clear the debris. But even if it is uncertain whether he is alive or dead, one must clear the debris. And needless to say, when there is uncertainty whether he is alive or dead, but it is certain that he is a Jew, one must clear the debris. Rather, one must clear the debris even if there is uncertainty whether he is a gentile or a Jew.


诪爪讗讜讛讜 讞讬 诪驻拽讞讬谉 诪爪讗讜讛讜 讞讬 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗驻讬诇讜 诇讞讬讬 砖注讛


搂 The mishna taught: If they found him alive, they continue to remove the debris. The Gemara is surprised at this: If they find him alive, it is obvious that they remove the debris, since that is saving a life. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach that one must desecrate Shabbat for his sake even if it is clear that he will live only a short while and will die soon after.


讜讗诐 诪转 讬谞讬讞讜讛讜 讛讗 谞诪讬 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诪爪讬诇讬谉 讗转 讛诪转 诪驻谞讬 讛讚诇讬拽讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 砖诪注转讬 砖诪爪讬诇讬谉 讗转 讛诪转 诪驻谞讬 讛讚诇讬拽讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诇讗 拽讗诪专 讗诇讗 诪转讜讱 砖讗讚诐 讘讛讜诇 注诇 诪转讜 讗讬 诇讗 砖专讬转 诇讬讛 讗转讬 诇讻讘讜讬讬 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讗讬 诇讗 砖专讬转 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇诪注讘讚


搂 The mishna taught: If they found him dead, they should leave him. The Gemara is surprised at this: Isn鈥檛 this also obvious? What allowance might there be to desecrate Shabbat for the sake of a corpse? The Gemara answers: No, this ruling is necessary according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Lakish, as it was taught in a baraita: One may not save a corpse from a fire, since one may not violate Shabbat for the sake of the dead. Rabbi Yehuda ben Lakish said: I heard that one may save a corpse from a fire. The Gemara challenges: Even Rabbi Yehuda ben Lakish said this only with regard to a fire because a person is agitated over his dead relative, whose body might burn in the fire. If you do not permit him to remove the corpse he may come to extinguish the fire and transgress a severe Torah prohibition. However, here, in the case of a rockslide or building collapse, if you do not permit him to remove the debris, what might he do? In this case, there is no concern of Shabbat desecration, and preserving the dignity of the dead does not override Shabbat.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 注讚 讛讬讻谉 讛讜讗 讘讜讚拽 注讚 讞讜讟诪讜 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讚 诇讘讜 讘讚拽 讜诪爪讗 注诇讬讜谞讬诐 诪转讬诐 诇讗 讬讗诪专 讻讘专 诪转讜 讛转讞转讜谞讬诐 诪注砖讛 讛讬讛 讜诪爪讗讜 注诇讬讜谞讬诐 诪转讬诐 讜转讞转讜谞讬诐 讞讬讬诐


The Rabbis taught: If a person is buried under a collapsed building, until what point does one check to clarify whether the victim is still alive? Until what point is he allowed to continue clearing the debris? They said: One clears until the victim鈥檚 nose. If there is no sign of life, i.e., if he is not breathing, he is certainly dead. And some say: One clears until the victim鈥檚 heart to check for a heartbeat. If several people are buried and one checked and found the upper ones under the debris dead, he should not say: The lower ones are likely also already dead, and there is no point in continuing to search. There was an incident where they found the upper ones dead and the lower ones alive.


谞讬诪讗 讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讻讬 讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 诪讛讬讻谉 讛讜诇讚 谞讜爪专 诪专讗砖讜 砖谞讗诪专 诪诪注讬 讗诪讬 讗转讛 讙讜讝讬 讜讗讜诪专 讙讝讬 谞讝专讱 讜讛砖诇讬讻讬 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 诪讟讬讘讜专讜 讜诪砖诇讞 砖专砖讬讜 讗讬诇讱 讜讗讬诇讱


The Gemara comments: Let us say that the dispute between these tanna鈥檌m who disagree about checking for signs of life is like the dispute between these tanna鈥檌m who disagree about the formation of the fetus. As it was taught in a baraita: From what point is the fetus created? It is from its head, as it is stated: 鈥淵ou are He Who took me [gozi] out of my mother鈥檚 womb鈥 (Psalms 71:6), and it says: 鈥淐ut off [gozi] your hair, and cast it away鈥 (Jeremiah 7:29). These verses suggest that one is created from the head, the place of the hair. Abba Shaul says: A person is created from his navel, and he sends his roots in every direction until he attains the image of a person. The tanna who says that the presence of life is determined based on the nose holds in accordance with the opinion of the tanna who maintains that the formation of a fetus begins with its head. Likewise, the tanna who says the presence of life is determined based on the heart holds in accordance with the opinion of the one who thinks the formation of a fetus begins with its navel.


讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗 讗诪专 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讛转诐 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 讬爪讬专讛 讚讻诇 诪讬讚讬 诪诪爪讬注转讬讛 诪讬转爪专 讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 驻拽讜讞 谞驻砖 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 诪讜讚讬 讚注讬拽专 讞讬讜转讗 讘讗驻讬讛 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讻诇 讗砖专 谞砖诪转 专讜讞 讞讬讬诐 讘讗驻讬讜


The Gemara rejects this: Even if you say that the formation of a fetus from the navel is the opinion of Abba Shaul, he may nevertheless require one to check the nose for signs of life. Until now, Abba Shaul spoke there only about formation, saying that everything is created from its middle; however, as for saving a life, even Abba Shaul admits that the main sign of life is in the nose, as it is written: 鈥淎ll in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life鈥 (Genesis 7:22).


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 诪诪讟讛 诇诪注诇讛 讗讘诇 诪诪注诇讛 诇诪讟讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讘讚拽 诇讬讛 注讚 讞讜讟诪讜 砖讜讘 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讚讻转讬讘 讻诇 讗砖专 谞砖诪转 专讜讞 讞讬讬诐 讘讗驻讬讜


Rav Pappa said: The dispute with regard to how far to check for signs of life applies when the digger begins removing the rubble from below, starting with the feet, to above. In such a case it is insufficient to check until his heart; rather, one must continue removing rubble until he is able to check his nose for breath. But if one cleared the rubble from above to below, once he checked as far as the victim鈥檚 nose he is not required to check further, as it is written: 鈥淎ll in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life鈥 (Genesis 7:22).


讜讻讘专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 诪讛诇讻讬谉 讘讚专讱 讜诇讜讬 讛住讚专 讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 诪讛诇讻讬谉 讗讞专讬讛谉 谞砖讗诇讛 砖讗诇讛 讝讜 讘驻谞讬讛诐 诪谞讬讬谉 诇驻拽讜讞 谞驻砖 砖讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转


搂 The Gemara relates: It once happened that Rabbi Yishmael, and Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya were walking on the road, and Levi HaSadar and Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, were walking respectfully behind them, since they were younger and did not walk alongside their teachers. This question was asked before them: From where is it derived that saving a life overrides Shabbat?


谞注谞讛 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜讗诪专 讗诐 讘诪讞转专转 讬诪爪讗 讛讙谞讘 讜诪讛 讝讛 砖住驻拽 注诇 诪诪讜谉 讘讗 住驻拽 注诇 谞驻砖讜转 讘讗 讜砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐 诪讟诪讗 讗转 讛讗专抓 讜讙讜专诐 诇砖讻讬谞讛 砖转住转诇拽 诪讬砖专讗诇 谞讬转谉 诇讛爪讬诇讜 讘谞驻砖讜 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诇驻拽讜讞 谞驻砖 砖讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转


Rabbi Yishmael answered and said that it is stated: 鈥淚f a thief be found breaking in and be struck so that he dies, there shall be no blood-guiltiness for him鈥 (Exodus 22:1). Now, if this is true for the thief, where there is uncertainty whether he comes to take money or to take lives, and it is known that bloodshed renders the land impure, since it is stated about a murderer: 鈥淎nd you shall not defile the land鈥 (Numbers 35:34), and it causes the Divine Presence to depart from the Jewish people, as the verse continues: 鈥淚n the midst of which I dwell, for I the Lord dwell in the midst of the children of Israel鈥 (Numbers 35:34), and even so the home owner is permitted to save himself at the cost of the thief鈥檚 life, then a fortiori saving a life overrides Shabbat.


谞注谞讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讗诪专 讜讻讬 讬讝讬讚 讗讬砖 注诇 专注讛讜 讜讙讜壮 诪注诐 诪讝讘讞讬 转拽讞谞讜 诇诪讜转 诪注诐 诪讝讘讞讬 讜诇讗 诪注诇 诪讝讘讞讬 讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讛诪讬转


Rabbi Akiva answered and said that it is stated: 鈥淎nd if a man comes purposefully upon his neighbor to slay him with guile, you shall take him from My altar, that he may die鈥 (Exodus 21:14). The phrase 鈥渢ake him from My altar鈥 implies that if the murderer is a priest and comes to perform the service, one does not wait for him to do so but takes him to his execution immediately. But one should not take him from on top of My altar. If he already began the service and is in the midst of it, one does not take him down from the altar immediately but instead allows him to finish his service. And Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: They taught only that a priest is not removed from the altar in order to execute him for murder,


讗讘诇 诇讛讞讬讜转 讗驻讬诇讜 诪注诇 诪讝讘讞讬 讜诪讛 讝讛 砖住驻拽 讬砖 诪诪砖 讘讚讘专讬讜 住驻拽 讗讬谉 诪诪砖 讘讚讘专讬讜 讜注讘讜讚讛 讚讜讞讛 砖讘转 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诇驻拽讜讞 谞驻砖 砖讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 谞注谞讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜讗诪专 讜诪讛 诪讬诇讛 砖讛讬讗 讗讞讚 诪诪讗转讬诐 讜讗专讘注讬诐 讜砖诪讜谞讛 讗讬讘专讬诐 砖讘讗讚诐 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诇讻诇 讙讜驻讜 砖讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转


but to preserve a life, e.g., if the priest can testify to the innocence of one who is sentenced to death, one removes him even from on top of My altar, even while he is sacrificing an offering. Just as this priest, about whom there is uncertainty whether there is substance to his words of testimony or whether there is no substance to his words, is taken from the Temple service in order to save a life, and Temple service overrides Shabbat, so too, a fortiori, saving a life overrides Shabbat. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya answered and said: Just as the mitzva of circumcision, which rectifies only one of the 248 limbs of the body, overrides Shabbat, so too, a fortiori, saving one鈥檚 whole body, which is entirely involved in mitzvot, overrides Shabbat.


专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗转 砖讘转讜转讬 转砖诪讜专讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讻诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讱 讞诇拽 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讘谉 讬讜住祝 讗讜诪专 讻讬 拽讜讚砖 讛讬讗 诇讻诐 讛讬讗 诪住讜专讛 讘讬讚讻诐 讜诇讗 讗转诐 诪住讜专讬诐 讘讬讚讛


Other tanna鈥檌m debated this same issue. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says that it is stated: 鈥淏ut keep my Shabbatot (Exodus 31:13). One might have thought that this applies to everyone in all circumstances; therefore, the verse states 鈥渂ut,鈥 a term that restricts and qualifies. It implies that there are circumstances where one must keep Shabbat and circumstances where one must desecrate it, i.e., to save a life. Rabbi Yonatan ben Yosef says that it is stated: 鈥淔or it is sacred to you鈥 (Exodus 31:14). This implies that Shabbat is given into your hands, and you are not given to it to die on account of Shabbat.


专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诪谞住讬讗 讗讜诪专 讜砖诪专讜 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗转 讛砖讘转 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 讞诇诇 注诇讬讜 砖讘转 讗讞转 讻讚讬 砖讬砖诪讜专 砖讘转讜转 讛专讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬 讛讜讗讬 讛转诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讚讬讚讬 注讚讬驻讗 诪讚讬讚讛讜 讜讞讬 讘讛诐 讜诇讗 砖讬诪讜转 讘讛诐


Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya said: It is stated: 鈥淎nd the children of Israel shall keep Shabbat, to observe Shabbat鈥 (Exodus 31:16). The Torah said: Desecrate one Shabbat on his behalf so he will observe many Shabbatot. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: If I would have been there among those Sages who debated this question, I would have said that my proof is preferable to theirs, as it states: 鈥淵ou shall keep My statutes and My ordinances, which a person shall do and live by them鈥 (Leviticus 18:5), and not that he should die by them. In all circumstances, one must take care not to die as a result of fulfilling the mitzvot.


讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讻讜诇讛讜 讗讬转 诇讛讜 驻讬专讻讗 讘专 诪讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 驻讬专讻讗 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚讬诇诪讗 讻讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚诪讞转专转 讞讝拽讛 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪注诪讬讚 注爪诪讜 注诇 诪诪讜谞讜 讜讛讗讬 诪讬讚注 讬讚注 讚拽讗讬 诇讗驻讬讛 讜讗诪专 讗讬 拽讗讬 诇讗驻讗讬 拽讟讬诇谞讗 诇讬讛 讜讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 讘讗 诇讛专讙讱 讛砖讻诐 诇讛专讙讜 讜讗砖讻讞谉 讜讚讗讬 住驻拽 诪谞诇谉


Rava commented on this: All of these arguments have refutations except for that of Shmuel, which has no refutation. The Gemara explains Rava鈥檚 claim: The proof brought by Rabbi Yishmael from the thief who breaks in could perhaps be refuted based on the principle of Rava, as Rava said: What is the reason for the halakha about the thief who breaks in? There is a presumption that while a person is being robbed he does not restrain himself with respect to his money. And this thief knows that the homeowner will rise to oppose him and said to himself from the start: If he rises against me, I will kill him. And the Torah states: If a person comes to kill you, rise to kill him first. We found a source for saving a life that is in certain danger, but from where do we derive that even in a case where there is uncertainty as to whether a life is in danger one may desecrate Shabbat? Consequently, Rabbi Yishmael鈥檚 argument is refuted.


讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 谞诪讬 讚讬诇诪讗 讻讚讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪住专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讝讜讙讗 讚专讘谞谉 诇讬讚注 讗诐 诪诪砖 讘讚讘专讬讜 讜讗砖讻讞谉 讜讚讗讬 住驻拽 诪谞讗 诇谉


The proof of Rabbi Akiva can also be refuted. He brought the case of removing a priest from altar service in order to have him testify on another鈥檚 behalf, since his testimony might acquit the accused and save him from execution. But perhaps that halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Abaye, as Abaye said: If the accused says he has a witness in his favor, we send a pair of rabbis on his behalf to determine if his words of testimony have substance. These rabbis would first check that the testimony of the priest is substantive before removing him from the altar. If so, we have found that one interrupts the Temple service to save a life from certain danger, but from where do we derive that one interrupts the Temple service when the likelihood of saving life is uncertain?


讜讻讜诇讛讜 讗砖讻讞谉 讜讚讗讬 住驻拽 诪谞讗 诇谉 讜讚砖诪讜讗诇 讜讚讗讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 驻讬专讻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讟讘讗 讞讚讗 驻诇驻诇转讗 讞专讬驻讗 诪诪诇讗 爪谞讗 讚拽专讬


And for all the other arguments as well, we have found proofs for saving a life from certain danger. But for cases of uncertainty, from where do we derive this? For this reason, all the arguments are refuted. However, the proof that Shmuel brought from the verse: 鈥淎nd live by them,鈥 which teaches that one should not even put a life in possible danger to observe mitzvot, there is certainly no refutation. Ravina said, and some say it was Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k who said with regard to this superior proof of Shmuel: One spicy pepper is better than a whole basket of squash, since its flavor is more powerful than all the others.


诪转谞讬壮 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 讜讚讗讬 诪讻驻专讬谉 诪讬转讛 讜讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专讬谉 注诐 讛转砖讜讘讛 转砖讜讘讛 诪讻驻专转 注诇 注讘讬专讜转 拽诇讜转 注诇 注砖讛 讜注诇 诇讗 转注砖讛 讜注诇 讛讞诪讜专讜转 讛讜讗 转讜诇讛 注讚 砖讬讘讗 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讜讬讻驻专 讛讗讜诪专 讗讞讟讗 讜讗砖讜讘 讗讞讟讗 讜讗砖讜讘 讗讬谉 诪住驻讬拽讬谉 讘讬讚讜 诇注砖讜转 转砖讜讘讛 讗讞讟讗 讜讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专 讗讬谉 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专 注讘讬专讜转 砖讘讬谉 讗讚诐 诇诪拽讜诐 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专 注讘讬专讜转 砖讘讬谉 讗讚诐 诇讞讘讬专讜 讗讬谉 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专 注讚 砖讬专爪讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜


MISHNA: A sin-offering, which atones for unwitting performance of transgressions punishable by karet, and a definite guilt-offering, which is brought for robbery and misuse of consecrated items, atone for those sins. Death and Yom Kippur atone for sins when accompanied by repentance. Repentance itself atones for minor transgressions, for both positive mitzvot and negative mitzvot. And repentance places punishment for severe transgressions in abeyance until Yom Kippur comes and completely atones for the transgression. With regard to one who says: I will sin and then I will repent, I will sin and I will repent, Heaven does not provide him the opportunity to repent, and he will remain a sinner all his days. With regard to one who says: I will sin and Yom Kippur will atone for my sins, Yom Kippur does not atone for his sins. Furthermore, for transgressions between a person and God, Yom Kippur atones; however, for transgressions between a person and another, Yom Kippur does not atone until he appeases the other person.


讚专砖 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 诪讻诇 讞讟讗转讬讻诐 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 转讟讛专讜 注讘讬专讜转 砖讘讬谉 讗讚诐 诇诪拽讜诐 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专 注讘讬专讜转 砖讘讬谉 讗讚诐 诇讞讘讬专讜 讗讬谉 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专 注讚 砖讬专爪讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗砖专讬讻诐 讬砖专讗诇 诇驻谞讬 诪讬 讗转诐 诪讟讛专讬谉 诪讬 诪讟讛专 讗转讻诐 讗讘讬讻诐 砖讘砖诪讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜讝专拽转讬 注诇讬讻诐 诪讬诐 讟讛讜专讬诐 讜讟讛专转诐 讜讗讜诪专 诪拽讜讛 讬砖专讗诇 (讛壮) 诪讛 诪拽讜讛 诪讟讛专 讗转 讛讟诪讗讬诐 讗祝 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诪讟讛专 讗转 讬砖专讗诇


Similarly, Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya taught that point from the verse: 鈥淔rom all your sins you shall be cleansed before the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 16:30). For transgressions between a person and God, Yom Kippur atones; however, for transgressions between a person and another, Yom Kippur does not atone until he appeases the other person. In conclusion, Rabbi Akiva said: How fortunate are you, Israel; before Whom are you purified, and Who purifies you? It is your Father in Heaven, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd I will sprinkle purifying water upon you, and you shall be purified鈥 (Ezekiel 36:25). And it says: 鈥淭he ritual bath of Israel is God鈥 (Jeremiah 17:13). Just as a ritual bath purifies the impure, so too, the Holy One, Blessed be He, purifies Israel.


讙诪壮 讗砖诐 讜讚讗讬 讗讬谉 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 诇讗 讜讛讗 讻驻专讛 讻转讬讘讗 讘讬讛 讛谞讱 诪讻驻专讬 讻驻专讛 讙诪讜专讛 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讗讬谞讜 诪讻驻专 讻驻专讛 讙诪讜专讛


GEMARA: The mishna says that a definite guilt-offering atones for sins. The Gemara analyzes this: With regard to a definite guilt-offering, yes, it does atone for sins. This implies that an uncertain guilt-offering does not. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 atonement written with regard to it? Why, then, doesn鈥檛 it atone? The Gemara answers: Those, the sin-offerings and definite guilt-offerings, facilitate complete atonement, but an uncertain guilt-offering does not facilitate complete atonement. Instead, this offering provides temporary atonement for an individual, to protect him from punishment until he becomes aware of his sin and brings the appropriate offering.


讗讬 谞诪讬 讛谞讱 讗讬谉 讗讞专 诪讻驻专 讻驻专转谉 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讗讞专 诪讻驻专 讻驻专转谉 讚转谞谉 讞讬讬讘讬 讞讟讗讜转 讜讗砖诪讜转 讜讚讗讬谉 砖注讘专 注诇讬讛谉 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗砖诪讜转 转诇讜讬谉 驻讟讜专讬谉


Alternatively, there is this distinction: Nothing else facilitates the atonement of those sin-offerings and definite guilt-offerings, whereas something else does facilitate the atonement of the uncertain guilt-offering, as we learned in a mishna: If Yom Kippur passed, those who are obligated to bring sin-offerings and definite guilt-offerings are still obligated to bring their offerings; however, those obligated to bring uncertain guilt-offerings are exempt because Yom Kippur atoned for them.


诪讬转讛 讜讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专讬谉 注诐 讛转砖讜讘讛 注诐 讛转砖讜讘讛 讗讬谉 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 诇讗 谞讬诪讗 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 注诇 讻诇 注讘讬专讜转 砖讘转讜专讛 讘讬谉 注砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 讘讬谉 诇讗 注砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专 讞讜抓 (诪驻讜专拽 注讜诇) 讜诪讙诇讛 驻谞讬诐 讘转讜专讛 讜诪讬驻专 讘专讬转 讘砖专 砖讗诐 注砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专 讜讗诐 诇讗 注砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 讗讬谉 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专


搂 It was taught in the mishna that death and Yom Kippur atone for sins when accompanied by repentance. The Gemara analyzes this: With repentance, yes, they do atone for sins; but by themselves, without repentance, they do not. Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that for all transgressions in the Torah, whether one repented or did not repent, Yom Kippur atones, with the exception of rejecting the yoke of Torah and mitzvot; and denying the Holy One, Blessed be He; and interpreting the Torah falsely; and violating the covenant of the flesh, i.e., circumcision. In these cases, if one repents Yom Kippur atones for his sin, and if one does not repent Yom Kippur does not atone for his sin.


讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 转砖讜讘讛 讘注讬讗 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诇讗 讘注讬讗 转砖讜讘讛


The Gemara rejects this: This is no proof; even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the mishna can be understood as follows: Repentance still requires Yom Kippur in order to complete the atonement, whereas Yom Kippur does not require repentance but atones even without it.


转砖讜讘讛 诪讻驻专转 注诇 注讘讬专讜转 拽诇讜转 注诇 注砖讛 讜注诇 诇讗 转注砖讛 讛砖转讗 注诇 诇讗 转注砖讛 诪讻驻专转 注诇 注砖讛 诪讬讘注讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 注诇 注砖讛 讜注诇 诇讗 转注砖讛 砖谞讬转拽 诇注砖讛


搂 It was taught in the mishna: Repentance itself atones for minor transgressions, for both a positive mitzva and for a negative mitzva. The Gemara is surprised at this: Now that it was stated that repentance atones for a negative mitzva, which is severe and warrants lashes, is it necessary to also teach that it atones for a positive mitzva, which is more lenient? Rav Yehuda said: This is what it said, i.e., the mishna should be understood as follows: Repentance atones for a positive mitzva and for a negative mitzva whose violation can be rectified by a positive mitzva. One is not punished by a court for violating a prohibition for which the Torah prescribes a positive act as a corrective measure and which thereby has the same halakha as a positive mitzva.


讜注诇 诇讗 转注砖讛 讙诪讜专 诇讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讗诇讜 讛谉 拽诇讜转 注砖讛 讜诇讗 转注砖讛


The Gemara asks: But does repentance not atone for a full-fledged negative mitzva? The Gemara raises a contradiction from a separate source: It was taught that these are minor transgressions: A positive mitzva and a negative mitzva,

Scroll To Top