Yoma

Come and hear: For Rabbah b. Samuel learned: If a woman with child has smelt [food], one feeds her until she is restored; and one who was bitten by a mad dog is given to eat from the lobe of its liver, and one who has pains in his mouth may be given medicine on the Sabbath — these are the words of R. Eleazar b. Jose in the name of R. Matthia b. Heresh. But the Sages say: In this case, but not in another. Now what does ‘in this case refer to? Would you say to the woman with child? That is self-evident; for is there anyone to say that in the case of a woman with child it would not be permitted? — Hence it must refer to the medicine.1 This is conclusive.2 R. Ashi said: Our Mishnah too justifies this inference. R. MATTHIA B. HERESH SAID FURTHERMORE: IF ONE HAS PAINS IN HIS MOUTH ONE MAY GIVE HIM MEDICINE ON THE SABBATH.3 And herein the Rabbis4 do not dispute him. For if it were that the Rabbis dispute him, he should teach these together,5 and afterwards mention that the Rabbis dispute it . This is conclusive evidence. BECAUSE IT IS A POSSIBILITY OF DANGER TO HUMAN LIFE. Why was it necessary to add ‘AND WHEREVER THERE IS DANGER TO HUMAN LIFE, THE LAWS OF THE SABBATH ARE SUSPENDED?-Rab Judah in the name of Rab said: Not only in the case of a danger [to human life] on this Sabbath, but even in the case of a danger on the following Sabbath.6 How that? If e.g.. the [diagnosis] estimates an eight-day [crisis] the first day of which falls on the Sabbath. You might have said, let them wait until the evening, so that the Sabbaths may not be profaned because of him, therefore he informs us [that we do not consider that]. Thus also was it taught: One may warm water for a sick person on the Sabbath, both for the purpose of giving him a drink or of refreshing him, and not only for [this] one Sabbath did they rule thus, but also for the following one. Nor do we say: Let us wait, because perchance he will get well, but we warm the water for him immediately, because the possibility of danger to human life renders inoperative the laws of the Sabbath, not only in case of such possibility on this one Sabbath, but also in case of such possibility on another Sabbath. Nor are these things to be done by Gentiles or minors,7 but by Jewish adults.7 Nor do we say in this connection: We do not rely in such matters on the opinions of women, or of Samaritans, but we join their opinion to that of others.8 Our Rabbis taught: One must remove debris to save a life on the Sabbath, and the more eager one is, the more praiseworthy is one; and one need not obtain permission from the Beth din. How so? If one saw a child falling into the sea, he spreads a net and brings it up — the faster the better, and he need not obtain permission from the Beth din though he thereby catches fish [in his net]. If he saw a child fall into a pit, he breaks loose one segment [of the entrenchment] and pulls it up — the faster the better; and he need not obtain permission of the Beth din, even though he is thereby making a step [stairs]. If he saw a door closing upon an infant,9 he may break it, so as to get the child out — the faster the better; and he need not obtain permission from the Beth din, though he thereby consciously makes chips of wood. One may extinguish and isolate [the fire] in the case of a conflagration — the sooner the better, and he need not obtain permission from the Beth din, even though he subdues the flames.10 Now all these cases must be mentioned separately. For if only the case of the [infant falling into] the sea had been mentioned [one would have said, it is permitted there] because meantime11 the child might be swept away by the water, but that does not apply in the case [of its falling into] the pit, because since it remains [stays] therein, one might have thought, one may not [save it before obtaining permission], therefore it is necessary to refer to that. And if the teaching had confined itself to the case of the pit, [one would have thought, there no permission is required] because the child is terrified but in the case of a door closing upon it, one might sit outside and [amuse the child] by making a noise with nuts, therefore it was necessary [to include that too]. For what purposes is the ‘extinguishing’ and ‘isolating’ necessary? — Even for the benefit of another [neighbouring] court. R. Joseph said on the authority of Rab Judah, in the name of Samuel: In the case of danger to human life one pays no attention to majority. How is that? Would you say [in the case of] nine Israelites and one heathen among them? But then the majority consists of Israelites! Or, even if there were half and half, in the case of danger to human life, we take the more lenient view? Again, if you say that it is a case of nine heathens and one Israelite, that too is self-evident, because it is stationary and whatever is stationary is considered12 half and half? — No, it refers to a case in which [one has]13 gone off into another court.14 You might have said: Whosoever has gone off, has gone off from the majority which consisted of heathens, therefore the information that in case of danger to human life, we are not concerned with question of majorities which consisted of heathens. But that is not so, for R. Assi said in the name of R. Johanan: In the case of nine heathens and one Israelite, [if a building collapsed upon them while they were all] in that court, one must remove debris, but not if [a building collapsed] in another court?15 — This is no contradiction: In the one case all had gone off, in the other only a few had gone off.16 But could Samuel have said that? Have we not learnt: If one finds therein17 a child abandoned, if the majority of the inhabitants are heathens, it is to be considered a heathen; if the majority are Israelites, it is to be considered an Israelite; in the case of half and half it is to be also considered an Israelite.18 And in connection therewith Rab said: This was taught only in relation to sustaining it, 19 but not for the purpose of legitimizing20 it; here ‘adult Jews’) means ‘even prominent Jews’ — shall profane the Sabbath to save life. the latter is joined to that of the others, who are in the affirmative, thus presenting a divided opinion, in which case, since danger to human life is involved, the more lenient view is adopted. consequently the majority decides, but in the latter case, since there still remains a number of them in the former court, we apply the principle of kabua’ and the debris have to be removed. So Asheri; Rashi explains differently]. not a proselyte.