Yoma 165

(תהלים נח, ד) זורו רשעים מרחם נפק מינה שבתאי אצר פירי

The wicked are estranged from the womb.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ps. LVIII, 4.');">¹</span> From her came forth Shabbatai, the hoarder of provisions<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The suggestion throughout the page of a woman with child who smells a dish and develops a morbid longing for it, is that it is the embryo, and not the mother, who has the desire. If the mother accepted the whispered suggestion, it was due to the noble piety of the unborn child, hence, R. Johanan as the child of the first woman. None is more contemptible than the speculator in foodstuffs who corners the markets for his sordid gain and who causes great affliction among the poor. Such a person, even in the embryonic stage, would not be influenced by the information that it is the Day of Atonement. He would crave his food, unresponsive to any law or sentiment.');">²</span> [for speculation].

חולה מאכילין אותו על פי בקיאין אמר ר' ינאי חולה אומר צריך ורופא אומר אינו צריך שומעין לחולה מ"ט (משלי יד, י) לב יודע מרת נפשו פשיטא מהו דתימא רופא קים ליה טפי קמ"ל

A SICK PERSON IS FED AT THE WORD OF EXPERTS. R'Jannai said: If the patient says, I need [food], whilst the physician says: He does not need it, we hearken to the patient. What is the reason?

רופא אומר צריך וחולה אומר אינו צריך שומעין לרופא מ"ט תונבא הוא דנקיט ליה

The heart knoweth its own bitterness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prov. XIV, 10.');">³</span> But that is self-evident? You might have said: The physician's knowledge is more established; therefore the information [that we prefer the patient's opinion].

תנן חולה מאכילין אותו ע"פ בקיאין ע"פ בקיאין אין ע"פ עצמו לא ע"פ בקיאין אין על פי בקי אחד לא

If the physician says: He needs it, whilst the patient says that he does not need it, we listen to the physician. Why? Stupor seized him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that he does not feel the lack of food.');">⁴</span>

הכא במאי עסקינן דאמר לא צריכנא וליספו ליה ע"פ בקי לא צריכא דאיכא אחרינא בהדיה דאמר לא צריך מאכילין אותו ע"פ בקיאין

We learned: A SICK PERSON IS FED AT THE WORD OF EXPERTS. [That implies]: Only upon the order of experts, but not upon his own order? [Further it implies]: Only upon the order of 'experts,' but not upon the order of a single expert?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which refutes R. Jannai.');">⁵</span>

ספק נפשות הוא וספק נפשות להקל לא צריכא דאיכא תרי אחריני בהדיה דאמרי לא צריך ואע"ג דאמר רב ספרא תרי כמאה ומאה כתרי ה"מ לענין עדות אבל לענין אומדנא בתר דעות אזלינן

- This refers to the case that he says: I do not need it. But one should feed him upon the order of one expert? - This refers to the case when someone else is present who agrees that he does not need it. [If so, wherefore state that he] is FED AT THE WORD OF EXPERTS.

וה"מ לענין אומדנא דממונא אבל הכא ספק נפשות הוא

Surely that is self-evident, for it is a possibility of danger to human life and 'in the case of the possibility of danger to human life we take a more lenient view'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Shab. 129a.');">⁶</span> - It refers to a case in which two more people are present who say that he does not need it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Two witnesses are considered sufficient evidence (Deut. XIX, 15) and no increase of their number either strengthens, or if they were counter-witnesses, by reason of superior numbers, weakens their original testimony.');">⁷</span> And although R'Safra said that 'Two are as a hundred and a hundred are as two'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And yet on the strength of the two experts who say 'he needs it', he is fed.');">⁸</span>

והא מדקתני סיפא ואם אין שם בקיאין מאכילין אותו על פי עצמו מכלל דרישא דאמר צריך חסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני בד"א דאמר לא צריך אני אבל אמר צריך אני אין שם בקיאין תרי אלא חד דאמר לא צריך מאכילין אותו על פי עצמו

applies only to witnesses, but with regard to opinion we go according to the number of opinions, all that applies only to opinions concerning money matters, but here it is a case where there is a possibility of danger to human life. But since in the second part [of the Mishnah] it states: AND IF NO EXPERTS ARE THERE, ONE FEEDS HIM AT HIS OWN WISH, it is to be inferred that in the first part we deal with the case that he said he needed it? There is something missing [in the Mishnah] and this is how it reads: These things are said only for the case that he says: I do not need it; but if he says: I need it, then if two experts are no there, but one who says: He does not need it, then ONE FEEDS HIM AT HIS OWN WISH.

מר בר רב אשי אמר כל היכא דאמר צריך אני אפי' איכא מאה דאמרי לא צריך לדידיה שמעינן שנאמר לב יודע מרת נפשו

Mar son of R'Ashi said: Whenever he says.' I need [food]', even if there be a hundred who say, 'He does not need it', we accept his statement, as it is said: 'The heart knoweth its own bitterness'. We learned in the Mishnah: If no experts are there one feeds him at his own wish.

תנן אם אין שם בקיאין מאכילין אותו ע"פ עצמו טעמא דליכא בקיאין הא איכא בקיאין לא ה"ק בד"א דאמר לא צריך אני אבל אמר צריך אני אין שם בקיאין כלל מאכילין אותו ע"פ עצמו שנאמר לב יודע מרת נפשו

That means only if no experts are there, but not if such experts were there? - This is what is meant: These things are said only for the case that he says, ' do not need it', but if he says, 'I need it', then there are no experts<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such experts, opposing the patient's own view, would be ignored: 'They are not present at all'.');">⁹</span> there at all, [and] one feeds him at his own wish, as it is said: 'The heart knoweth its own bitterness'. <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF ONE IS SEIZED BY A RAVENOUS HUNGER,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' **, bulimy, ox-hunger.');">¹⁰</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> מי שאחזו בולמוס מאכילין אותו אפי' דברים טמאים עד שיאורו עיניו מי שנשכו כלב שוטה אין מאכילין אותו מחצר כבד שלו ור' מתיא בן חרש מתיר

HE MAY BE GIVEN TO EAT EVEN UNCLEAN THINGS UNTIL HIS EYES ARE ENLIGHTENED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. I Sam. XIV, 27. Such ravenous hunger renders the eyes dull.');">¹¹</span> IF ONE WAS BIT BY A MAD DOG, HE MAY NOT GIVE HIM TO EAT THE LOBE OF ITS LIVER, BUT R'MATTHIA B. HERESH PERMITS IT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That was considered a cure: a fore-runner of modern homeopathics. The Tanna who forbids it denies its curative value, hence its use is forbidden. Matthia b. Heresh believed in this cure, hence permitted it.');">¹²</span> FURTHERMORE DID R'MATTHIA B. HERESH SAY: IF ONE HAS PAIN IN HIS THROAT, HE MAY POUR MEDICINE INTO HIS MOUTH ON THE SABBATH,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The dispute here concerns not the principle, but the efficacy, of the proposed medicines.');">¹³</span>

ועוד אמר ר' מתיא בן חרש החושש בגרונו מטילין לו סם בתוך פיו בשבת מפני שהוא ספק נפשות וכל ספק נפשות דוחה את השבת

BECAUSE IT IS A POSSIBILITY OF DANGER TO HUMAN LIFE AND EVERY DANGER TO HUMAN LIFE SUSPENDS THE [LAWS OF THE] SABBATH. IF DEBRIS FALL ON SOMEONE, AND IT IS DOUBTFUL WHETHER OR NOT HE IS THERE, OR WHETHER HE IS ALIVE OR DEAD, OR WHETHER HE BE AN ISRAELITE OR A HEATHEN, ONE SHOULD OPEN [EVEN ON SABBATH] THE HEAP OF DEBRIS FOR HIS SAKE. IF ONE FINDS HIM ALIVE ONE SHOULD REMOVE THE DEBRIS, AND IF HE BE DEAD ONE SHOULD LEAVE HIM THERE [UNTIL THE SABBATH DAY IS OVER].

מי שנפלה עליו מפולת ספק הוא שם ספק אינו שם ספק חי ספק מת ספק כותי ספק ישראל מפקחין עליו את הגל מצאוהו חי מפקחין ואם מת יניחוהו

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Our Rabbis taught: How did they know that his eyes are enlightened again? When he distinguishes between good and bad [food]. - Abaye said: In the taste thereof.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ת"ר מניין היו יודעין שהאירו עיניו משיבחין בין טוב לרע אמר אביי ובטעמא

Our Rabbis taught: If one was seized by a ravenous hunger, one feeds him with the less forbidden things first; as between tebel [untithed food] and carrion,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whenever the permitted and forbidden food alone are insufficient to restore the patient, one should proceed by eliminating as far as possible the more forbidden foods. Untithed food involves punishment of death by divine hand, whereas the eating of carrion involves only the castigation by stripes.');">¹⁴</span> one should feed him carrion first; between tebel and fruit of the seventh year, one should give him the fruit of the seventh year first.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Similarly is the fruit of the seventh year less 'forbidden', its eating implies much less penalty than the eating of untithed food, because there only the transgression of a positive commandment is involved.');">¹⁵</span> As between terumah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">¹⁶</span>

ת"ר מי שאחזו בולמוס מאכילין אותו הקל הקל טבל ונבילה מאכילין אותו נבילה טבל ושביעית שביעית

and tebel, Tannaim are of divided opinion. For it was taught: One should feed him tebel, but not terumah. Ben Tema holds: Terumah, but not tebel.

טבל ותרומה תנאי היא דתניא מאכילין אותו טבל ואין מאכילין אותו תרומה בן תימא אומר תרומה ולא טבל אמר רבה היכא דאפשר בחולין דכולי עלמא לא פליגי דמתקנינן ליה ומספינן ליה

Rabbah said: If it is possible [to feed him] with common food,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Probably it means that the hungry person can wait for the priestly dues to be duly set aside, v. D.S. a.l. p. 50].');">¹⁷</span> there is general agreement that one should prepare it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By setting aside the prescribed dues.');">¹⁸</span> for him and feed him with it; the dispute concerns the case when it is not possible [to feed him] with common food; one holds that [the prohibition of] tebel is more severe, the other assuming that the prohibition<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In each case that food which is considered less forbidden, or involving less of a penalty, would be given first.');">¹⁹</span>

כי פליגי בדלא אפשר בחולין מר סבר טבל חמור ומר סבר תרומה חמורה מר סבר טבל חמור אבל תרומה חזיא לכהן ומר סבר תרומה חמורה אבל טבל אפשר לתקוניה

of terumah is the more severe. The one holds that [the prohibition of] eating tebel is more severe because terumah is permissible to priests. the other holding [the prohibition of] terumah more severe, whereas tebel may be rendered right [by tithing].