Yoma 168

תא שמע דתני רבה בר שמואל עוברה שהריחה מאכילין אותה עד שתשוב נפשה ומי שנשכו כלב שוטה מאכילין אותו מחצר כבד שלו והחושש בפיו מטילין לו סם בשבת דברי ר"א בר' יוסי שאמר משום ר' מתיא בן חרש וחכמים אומרים בזו ולא באחרת בזו אהייא אילימא אעוברה פשיטא עוברה מי איכא למאן דאמר דלא אלא לאו אסם שמע מינה

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?

רב אשי אמר מתני' נמי דיקא ועוד אמר רבי מתיא בן חרש החושש בפיו מטילין לו סם בשבת ולא פליגי רבנן עליה ואם איתא דפליגי רבנן עליה ליערבינהו וליתנינהו וליפלגו רבנן בסיפא ש"מ

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 414, n. 3.');">¹</span> This is conclusive.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the Rabbis agree that this may be given on Sabbath.');">²</span>

מפני שספק נפשות הוא וכו' ל"ל תו למימר וכל ספק נפשות דוחה את השבת אמר רב יהודה אמר רב לא ספק שבת זו בלבד אמרו אלא אפילו ספק שבת אחרת

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The text here differs from the one given in the Mishnah, but agrees with the reading in the Mishnah of MS.M].');">³</span> And herein the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The authorities of the first view given anonymously in the MISHNAH:');">⁴</span>

היכי דמי כגון דאמדוה לתמניא יומי ויומא קמא שבתא מהו דתימא ליעכב עד לאורתא כי היכי דלא ניחול עליה תרי שבתא קמ"ל

do not dispute him. For if it were that the Rabbis dispute him, he should teach these together,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the other case, wherein the Sages oppose his view.');">⁵</span> and afterwards mention that the Rabbis dispute it.

תניא נמי הכי מחמין חמין לחולה בשבת בין להשקותו בין להברותו ולא שבת זו בלבד אמרו אלא לשבת אחרת ואין אומרים נמתין לו שמא יבריא אלא מחמין לו מיד מפני שספק נפשות דוחה את השבת ולא ספק שבת זו אלא אפי' ספק שבת אחרת

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As is soon explained.');">⁶</span>

ואין עושין דברים הללו לא ע"י נכרים ולא ע"י כותיים אלא ע"י גדולי ישראל ואין אומרין יעשו דברים הללו לא ע"פ נשים ולא ע"פ כותיים אבל מצטרפין לדעת אחרת

How that? If e.g. the [diagnosis] estimates an eight-day [crisis] the first day of which falls on the Sabbath.

ת"ר מפקחין פקוח נפש בשבת והזריז ה"ז משובח ואין צריך ליטול רשות מב"ד הא כיצד ראה תינוק שנפל לים פורש מצודה ומעלהו והזריז ה"ז משובח ואין צריך ליטול רשות מב"ד ואע"ג דקא צייד כוורי ראה תינוק שנפל לבור עוקר חוליא ומעלהו והזריז ה"ז משובח ואין צריך ליטול רשות מב"ד אע"ג דמתקן דרגא

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.

ראה שננעלה דלת בפני תינוק שוברה ומוציאו והזריז ה"ז משובח ואין צריך ליטול רשות מב"ד ואע"ג דקא מיכוין למיתבר בשיפי מכבין ומפסיקין מפני הדליקה בשבת והזריז ה"ז משובח ואין צריך ליטול רשות מב"ד ואע"ג דקא ממכיך מכוכי

Nor are these things to be done by Gentiles or minors,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So MS.M.; cur. edd. Cutheans (Samaritans) . If the original 'Cutheans is preferred, then 'gedole Yisrael' (rendered here 'adult Jews') means 'even prominent Jews' - shall profane the Sabbath to save life.');">⁷</span> but by Jewish adults.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So MS.M.; cur. edd. Cutheans (Samaritans) . If the original 'Cutheans is preferred, then 'gedole Yisrael' (rendered here 'adult Jews') means 'even prominent Jews' - shall profane the Sabbath to save life.');">⁷</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If e.g., two say it is necessary, three say it was not, and a woman or a non-Jew assert it is necessary, the opinion of 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.');">⁸</span>

וצריכא דאי אשמועינן ים משום דאדהכי והכי אזל ליה אבל בור דקא יתיב אימא לא צריכא

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].

ואי אשמועינן בור משום דקא מיבעית אבל ננעלה דלת אפשר דיתיב בהאי גיסא ומשביש ליה באמגוזי צריכא

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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The infant may be frightened, or within the room, endangered.');">⁹</span> 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.

מכבין ומפסיקין למה לי דאפי' לחצר אחרת

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And produces a coal-fire, which may be utilised. For other readings v. D.S. a.I.');">¹⁰</span> 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 meantime<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Until such permission is obtained.');">¹¹</span>

אמר רב יוסף אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל לא הלכו בפקוח נפש אחר הרוב היכי דמי אי נימא דאיכא תשעה ישראל וכותי אחד בינייהו רובא ישראל נינהו (אלא) פלגא ופלגא ספק נפשות להקל

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 ma 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.

אלא דאיכא תשעה כותיים וישראל אחד הא נמי פשיטא דהוה ליה קבוע וכל קבוע כמחצה על מחצה דמי

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?

לא צריכא דפרוש לחצר אחרת מהו דתימא כל דפריש מרובא פריש קמ"ל דלא הלכו בפקוח נפש אחר הרוב

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 considered<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kabua'. For a full explanation of this principle v. Sanh., Sonc. ed., p. 531, n. 4.');">¹²</span> half and half? - No, it refers to a case in which [one has]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [So Asheri].');">¹³</span>

איני והאמר ר' אסי א"ר יוחנן תשעה כותיים וישראל אחד באותה חצר מפקחין בחצר אחרת אין מפקחין לא קשיא הא דפרוש כולהו הא דפרוש מקצתייהו

gone off into another court.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And in that court he became buried in the debris.');">¹⁴</span> 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereto one of the group had repaired.');">¹⁵</span>

ומי אמר שמואל הכי והתנן מצא בה תינוק מושלך אם רוב כותיים כותי ואם רוב ישראל ישראל מחצה על מחצה ישראל ואמר רב לא שנו אלא להחיותו אבל לייחסו לא

- This is no contradiction: In the one case all had gone off, in the other only a few had gone off.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [In the former case, since they all had left the former court, the principle of kabua' no longer operates, and 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].');">¹⁶</span> But could Samuel have said that? Have we not learnt: If one finds therein<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In a town wherein Israelites and Gentiles live.');">¹⁷</span> a child abandoned, if the majority of the inhabitants are heathens, it is t be considered a heathen; if the majority are Israelites, it is to be considered an Israelite; in the case of hal and half it is to be also considered an Israelite.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Keth. 15a.');">¹⁸</span> And in connection therewith Rab said: This was taught only in relation to sustaining it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Jews are in duty bound to support their own poor.');">¹⁹</span> but not for the purpose of legitimizing<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the child found exposed were a girl, she could not marry a priest, who is obliged to marry a native-born Israelite, not a proselyte.');">²⁰</span> it;