יומא 85 — Soncino English Talmud

¹whereas Samuel said: [It was taught] with reference to removing the debris for its sake? — The words of Samuel refer to the first clause, ‘If the majority are heathens, it is considered a heathen’. It is in connection therewith that Samuel said that it did not apply to the saving of life. ‘If the majority are heathens, it is considered a heathen’. For what practical law [is this taught]? — Said R. Papa: To give it to eat carrion. ‘If the majority are Israelites, it is considered an Israelite’ — For what practical purpose [is this taught]? To restore to it lost property. ‘In the case of half and half, it is considered an Israelite’. For what practical purpose [is this taught]? Resh Lakish said: With regard to damages How that? Shall we say that one ox of ours gored one of his? Let him bring proof and collect! — No, It is necessary for the case that an ox of his had gored one of ours; then he must pay one half, and concerning the other he can say: Prove that I am not an Israelite and collect! IF DEBRIS HAD FALLEN UPON SOMEONE [etc.]. What does he teach herewith? — It states a case of ‘not only’. Not only must one remove the debris in the case of doubt as to whether he is there or not, as long as one knows that he is alive if he is there; but, even though it be doubtful whether he is alive or not he must be freed from the debris. Also, not only if it is doubtful whether he be alive or dead,as long as it is definite that he is an Israelite; but even if it is doubtful whether he is an Israelite or a heathen, one must, for his sake, remove the debris. IF ONE FINDS HIM ALIVE, ONES SHOULD REMOVE THE DEBRIS. But that is self-evident if one finds him alive? — No, the statement is necessary for the case that he has only a short while to live. AND IF HE BE DEAD, ONE SHOULD LEAVE HIM THERE. But that, too, is self-evident? — It is necessary because of the teaching of R. Judah b. Lakish. for it was taught: One may not save a dead person out of a fire. R. Judah b. Lakish said: I heard that one may save a dead person out of a fire. Now even R. Judah b. Lakish says that only because ‘a person is upset about a dead relative’ and if you will not permit him [to save his dead] he will ultimately come to extinguish the fire, but here, if you do not permit it, what can he do? Our Rabbis taught: How far does one search? Until [one reaches] his nose. Some say: Up to his heart. If one searches and finds those above to be dead, one must not assume those below are surely dead. Once it happened that those above were dead and those below were found to be alive. Are we to say that these Tannaim dispute the same as the following Tannaim? For it was taught: From where does the formation of the embryo commence? From its head, as it is said: Thou art he that took me [gozi] out of my mother's womb, and it is also said: Cut off [gozi] thy hair and cast it away. Abba Saul said: From the navel which sends its roots into every direction! You may even say that [the first view is in agreement with] Abba Saul, inasmuch as Abba Saul holds his view only touching the first formation, because ‘everything develops from its core [middle]’, but regarding the saving of life he would agree that life manifests itself through the nose especially, as it is written: In whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life. R. Papa said: The dispute arises only as to from below upwards, but if from above downwards, one had searched up to the nose, one need not search any further, as it is said: ‘In whose nostrils was the breath of life’. R. Ishmael, R. Akiba and R. Eleazar b. Azariah were once on a journey, with Levi ha-Saddar and R. Ishmael son of R. Eleazar b. Azariah following them. Then this question was asked of them: Whence do we know that in the case of danger to human life the laws of the Sabbath are suspended? — R. Ishmael answered and said: If a thief be found breaking in. Now if in the case of this one it is doubtful whether he has come to take money or life; and although the shedding of blood pollutes the land, so that the Shechinah departs from Israel, yet it is lawful to save oneself at the cost of his life — how much more may one suspend the laws of the Sabbath to save human life! R. Akiba answered and said: If a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour etc. thou shalt take him from My altar, that he may die. I.e., only off the altar, but not down from the altar. And in connection therewith Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Johanan: That was taught only when one's life is to be forfeited,^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ

^ᵃnote:Which seems to indicate that even in the case of saving human life it is the majority which decides the legal attitude.
^ᵇnote:Samuel holds that even in that case life must be saved, majority or minority not influencing such a duty.
^ᶜnote:I.e., the flesh of an animal that either died a natural death, or in the course of the ritual slaughter in which some irregularity occurred. An Israelite bound by the ritual could not partake thereof, whereas a non-Israelite could eat it.
^ᵈnote:V. B.M., Sonc. ed., p. 149, n. 6.
^ᵉnote:V. B.K., Sonc. ed., p. 211, n. 6. The Jewish owner of an ox which has gored an ox owned by a heathen, is not obliged to pay damages, whereas the heathen would have to pay full damage, whether the owner had been forewarned or not. The Jewish owner of an ox who has gored an ox owned by a fellow-Jew, if not forewarned must pay half of the damage; if forewarned, full damage.
^ᶠnote:I.e., the abandoned child. The suggestion is that we would make him pay damage.
^ᵍnote:The damages due to you.
^ʰnote:He pays one half, as any Jew not forewarned would if his ox gored the ox of a fellow-Jew. The owner in this case would wait to collect full damages, claiming the owner of the goring ox to be a heathen, hence obliged to repay full damages, even if not forewarned. The latter would say: One half I have paid because I am a Jew. If you wish to collect the other half, it is upon you to adduce evidence that I am not a Jew. Only thus could you collect.
^ⁱnote:What is the value of all these hypothetical cases, doubtful savings of life, that he adduces.
^ʲnote:Lit., ‘it is not required’.
^ᵏnote:On the Sabbath, which may be profaned to save life, but not to save a dead person from being burnt.
^ˡnote:Shab. 43b.
^ᵐnote:There is no Biblical law he can transgress; he will but wait for the end of the Sabbath day to do this work.
^ⁿnote:If the person buried under the debris gives no sign of life at the point at which debris have been removed from him.
^ᵒnote:Ps. LXXI, 6.
^ᵖnote:Jer. VII, 29.
^ᵠnote:Hence the dispute of these Tannaim looks exactly the same as those mentioned above.
^ʳnote:Gen. VII, 22.
^ˢnote:If the person under the debris has his feet up and his head down. According to one view, one must examine the core, i.e., the heart; according to the other, even though the heart seems to have suspended action, the definitive diagnosis depends on the action or failure of the function of the nose.
^ᵗnote:Perhaps the systematizer: one who arranged traditions systematically, as opposed to one who excels in dialectics. [Aruch:ha-Sarad: the netmaker].
^ᵘnote:Ex. XXII, 1, in which case, in spite of all the other considerations, it is lawful to kill him.
^ᵛnote:Ex. XXI, 14.
^ʷnote:If he came as priest to do his service, one may take him off the altar, but if he had commenced on it, one may not take him down.

²but to save life one may take one down even from the altar. Now if in the case of this one, where it is doubtful whether there is any substance in his words or not, yet [he interrupts] the service in the Temple [which is important enough to] suspend the Sabbath, how much more should the saving of human life suspend the Sabbath laws! R. Eleazar answered and said: If circumcision, which attaches to one only of the two hundred and forty-eight members of the human body, suspends the Sabbath, how much more shall [the saving of] the whole body suspend the Sabbath! R. Jose son of R. Judah said: Only ye shall keep My Sabbaths,’ one might assume under all circumstances, therefore the text reads: ‘Only’ viz, allowing for exceptions. R. Jonathan b. Joseph said: For it is holy unto you; I.e., it [the Sabbath] is committed to your hands, not you to its hands. R. Simeon b. Menassia said: And the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath. The Torah said: Profane for his sake one Sabbath, so that he may keep many Sabbaths. Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: If I had been there, I should have told them something better than what they said: He shall live by them, but he shall not die because of them. Raba said: [The exposition] of all of them could be refuted, except that of Samuel, which cannot be refuted. That of R. Ishmael — perhaps that is to be taken as Raba did, for Raba said : What is the reason for the [permission to kill the] burglar? No man controls himself when his money is at stake, and since [the burglar] knows that he [the owner] will oppose him, he thinks: If he resists me I shall kill him, therefore the Torah says: If a man has come to kill you. anticipate him by killing him! Hence we know it [only] of a certain case; [but] whence would we know it of a doubtful one? That of R. Akiba's, there too [there may be a refutation]. Perhaps we should do as Abaye suggests, for Abaye said: We give him a couple of scholars, so as to find out whether there is any substance in his words. Again we know that only in the case of certain death, [but] whence would we know it of a doubtful case? [And similarly with the exposition of] all of them we know it only of a certain case; whence do we know of a doubtful case? But of Samuel, as to that there is no refutation. Rabina, or R. Nahman b. Isaac said: ‘Better is one corn of pepper than a whole basket full of pumpkins. MISHNAH. THE SIN-OFFERING AND THE GUILT-OFFERING [FOR THE] UNDOUBTED COMMISSION OF CERTAIN OFFENCES PROCURE ATONEMENT, DEATH AND THE DAY OF ATONEMENT PROCURE ATONEMENT TOGETHER WITH PENITENCE. PENITENCE PROCURES ATONEMENT FOR LIGHTER TRANSGRESSIONS: [THE TRANSGRESSION OF] POSITIVE COMMANDMENTS AND PROHIBITIONS. IN THE CASE OF SEVERER TRANSGRESSIONS IT [PENITENCE] SUSPENDS [THE DIVINE PUNISHMENT], UNTIL THE DAY OF ATONEMENT COMES TO PROCURE ATONEMENT. IF ONE SAYS: I SHALL SIN AND REPENT, SIN AND REPENT, NO OPPORTUNITY WILL BE GIVEN TO HIM TO REPENT. [IF ONE SAYS]: I SHALL SIN AND THE DAY OF ATONEMENT WILL PROCURE ATONEMENT FOR ME, THE DAY OF ATONEMENT PROCURES FOR HIM NO ATONEMENT. FOR TRANSGRESSIONS AS BETWEEN MAN AND THE OMNIPRESENT THE DAY OF ATONEMENT PROCURES ATONEMENT, BUT FOR TRANSGRESSIONS AS BETWEEN MAN AND HIS FELLOW THE DAY OF ATONEMENT DOES NOT PROCURE ANY ATONEMENT, UNTIL HE HAS PACIFIED HIS FELLOW. THIS WAS EXPOUNDED BY R. ELEAZAR B. ALARIAH: FROM ALL YOUR SINS BEFORE THE LORD SHALL YE BE CLEAN, I.E., FOR TRANSGRESSIONS AS BETWEEN MAN AND THE OMNIPRESENT THE DAY OF ATONEMENT PROCURES ATONEMENT, BUT FOR TRANSGRESSIONS AS BETWEEN MAN AND HIS FELLOW THE DAY OF ATONEMENT DOES NOT PROCURE ATONEMENT UNTIL HE HAS PACIFIED HIS FELLOW. R. AKIBA SAID: HAPPY ARE YOU, ISRAEL! WHO IS IT BEFORE WHOM YOU BECOME CLEAN? AND WHO IS IT THAT MAKES YOU CLEAN? YOUR FATHER WHICH IS IN HEAVEN, AS IT IS SAID: AND I WILL SPRINKLE CLEAN WATER UPON YOU AND YE SHALL BE CLEAN. AND IT FURTHER SAYS: THOU HOPE OF ISRAEL, THE LORD! JUST AS THE FOUNTAIN RENDERS CLEAN THE UNCLEAN, SO DOES THE HOLY ONE, BLESSED BE HE, RENDER CLEAN ISRAEL. GEMARA. Only the undoubted guilt-offering [atones], but not the suspensive one? But is not the word ‘forgiveness’ written with regard to it too? — These [others] procure complete atonement, the suspensive guilt-offering does not procure complete atonement. Or else, As for these [others] another can effect their atonement, whereas in the case of the suspensive guilt-offering nothing else can effect their atonement. For it was taught: If those who were liable to sin-offerings, or guilt-offerings [for the] undoubted [commission of offences] permitted the Day of Atonement to pass, they are still obliged to offer then, up; but in the case of those who were liable to suspensive guilt-offerings, they are exempt. DEATH AND THE DAY OF ATONEMENT PROCURE ATONEMENT TOGETHER WITH PENITENCE. Only TOGETHER WITH PENITENCE, but not in themselves! — Shall we say that this teaching is not in accord with, Rabbi? For it was taught: Rabbi said, For all transgressions [of commands of] the Torah, whether one had repented or not, does the Day of Atonement procure atonement, except in the case of one who throws off the yoke [of the Torah ], interprets the Torah unlawfully. or breaks the covenant of Abraham our father. In these cases, if he repented, the Day of Atonement procures atonement, if not, not! — You might even say that this is in accord with Rabbi: Repentance needs the Day of Atonement, but the Day of Atonement does not need repentance. PENITENCE PROCURES ATONEMENT FOR LIGHTER TRANSGRESSIONS: [THE TRANSGRESSION OF] POSITIVE COMMANDMENTS AND PROHIBITIONS. If it procures atonement for the transgression of negative commandments, is it necessary [to state that it procures it for the transgression of] positive ones? — Rab Judah said: This is what he means, [It procures atonement] for [the transgression of] a positive commandment , of a negative commandment that is to be remedied into a positive one. But not [for the transgression] of an actual negative commandment? Against this the following contradiction is to be raised: These are light transgressions [for which penitence procures atonement: transgression of] positive commandments and negative commandments^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ

^ˣnote:If one had been sentenced to death, there is ample provision for a revision, if even at the last moment someone claims to have found evidence of the accused's innocence. If a priest has such evidence, or is only believed to have it, he would be taken down from the altar even after he had commenced, and before having completed, his service.
^ʸnote:The circumcision must take place on the eighth day, even if that day falls on the Sabbath, suspending the law of the Sabbath, which prohibits operation, as well as preparations leading to it.
^ᶻnote:Ex. XXXI, 13.
^ᵃᵃnote:Lit., ‘divides’, ‘makes a distinction’. The word ‘rak’ here translated ‘only’ (E.V. ‘verily’) is interpreted as ‘only under certain, I.e., not all conditions’,
^ᵃᵇnote:Ibid. 14.
^ᵃᶜnote:Ibid., 16.
^ᵃᵈnote:Lev. XVIII, 5.
^ᵃᵉnote:To the priest who thinks he has relevant testimony in favour of the accused, because of which he may be taken down from the altar in the midst of the service.
^ᵃᶠnote:A commentary on Samuel's irrefutable simple interpretation, as against the more involved and less perfect interpretations of the other Rabbis.
^ᵃᵍnote:Cf. Lev. V, 15 and VI, 6, as opposed to the suspensive guilt-offering, due in the case of doubtful commission of sin, which postpones punishment until that doubt is removed, when a sin-offering is due to procure atonement. Among the guilt-offerings due for undoubted commission of certain offences are: one for illegal appropriation of private property, after reparation has been made; one for misappropriation of sacred property; one for carnal connection with a bondwoman betrothed to another man; the offering of a nazirite who had interrupted the days of his avowed naziriteship by levitical impurity.
^ᵃʰnote:Penitence is essential; it consists of genuine regret, and determination to improve one's conduct. In the case of any offering (sin or guilt) such penitence is taken for granted, for without it no sacrifice has any meaning or value.
^ᵃⁱnote:Because this statement indicates that he never experienced genuine regret.
^ᵃʲnote:Lev. XVI, 30.
^ᵃᵏnote:The verse is thus taken to mean ‘From all your sins before the Lord’, (i.e. , as between man and his Creator) will the Day the Atonement procure you forgiveness; but not for those which are committed not ‘before the Lord’, and ‘before man’, viz., sins committed against our fellow-man.
^ᵃˡnote:Ezek. XXXVI, 25.
^ᵃᵐnote:Jer. XVII, 13. The word ‘mikweh’ is a homonym meaning both ‘fountain’ thus ritual bath, and ‘hope’.
^ᵃⁿnote:V. Lev. V, 18 with reference to a suspensive guilt-offering; v. also supra p. 422, n. 4.
^ᵃᵒnote:The sin-offering and certain guilt-offerings.
^ᵃᵖnote:Ker. 25a.
^ᵃᵠnote:I.e., denies the existence of God.
^ᵃʳnote:Lit., ‘reveals an aspect of the Torah (not in accordance with the correct interpretation)’; or, ‘acts in a bare-faced manner against the Torah’. For a full discussion of the phrase v. Sanh., Sonc. ed., p. 99.
^ᵃˢnote:Circumcision; v. loc. cit.
^ᵃᵗnote:A sin of omission is not as serious as one of commission.
^ᵃᵘnote:A prohibitive law, the transgression of which must be repaired by a positive act, as e.g., Lev. XIX, 13: Thou shalt not rob, and V, 23: He shall make restitution.