## Yoma Daf 83a

###### Yoma 83a:1
[Yoma 83a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/83a:1)

״זוֹרוּ רְשָׁעִים מֵרָחֶם״. נְפַק מִינַּהּ שַׁבְּתַאי אָצַר פֵּירֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**“The wicked are estranged from the womb”** (Psalms 58:4), i.e., it is clear they are estranged already in their mother’s womb. Indeed, **Shabbetai the hoarder of fruits came out of her.** He hoarded fruit during years of famine in order to inflate its price and profit at the expense of poor people.


###### Yoma 83a:2
[Yoma 83a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/83a:2)

חוֹלֶה מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ עַל פִּי בְּקִיאִין. אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: חוֹלֶה אוֹמֵר צָרִיךְ, וְרוֹפֵא אוֹמֵר אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ — שׁוֹמְעִין לַחוֹלֶה. מַאי טַעְמָא — ״לֵב יוֹדֵעַ מׇרַּת נַפְשׁוֹ״. פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: רוֹפֵא קִים לֵיהּ טְפֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It was taught in the mishna: If a person is **ill** and requires food due to potential danger, **one feeds him according to** the advice of medical **experts. Rabbi Yannai said:** If **an ill person says** he **needs** to eat, **and a doctor says he does not need** to eat, **one listens to the ill person. What is the reason** for this *halakha*? It is because the verse states: **“The heart knows the bitterness of its soul”** (Proverbs 14:10), meaning an ill person knows the intensity of his pain and weakness, and doctors cannot say otherwise. The Gemara asks: It is **obvious** that a person knows himself better than anyone else does. Why does this need to be stated explicitly? The Gemara answers: It is **lest you say** that **the doctor is more certain** because he has had more experience with this condition. Therefore, the verse **teaches us** that even so, it is the ill person who knows his own suffering better than anyone else.


###### Yoma 83a:3
[Yoma 83a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/83a:3)

רוֹפֵא אוֹמֵר צָרִיךְ, וְחוֹלֶה אוֹמֵר אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ — שׁוֹמְעִין לָרוֹפֵא. מַאי טַעְמָא — תּוּנְבָּא הוּא דְּנָקֵיט לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
However, in the opposite case, if **a doctor says** that the ill person **needs** food, **but the ill person** himself **says he does not need** to eat, **one listens to the doctor. What is the reason** for this *halakha*? It is because **confusion [*tunba*] has taken hold** of the ill person on account of his illness, and his judgment is impaired. Consequently, he himself does not know how much he needs food.


###### Yoma 83a:4
[Yoma 83a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/83a:4)

תְּנַן: חוֹלֶה — מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ עַל פִּי בְּקִיאִין. עַל פִּי בְּקִיאִין — אִין, עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ — לָא! עַל פִּי בְּקִיאִין — אִין, עַל פִּי בָּקִי אֶחָד — לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **We learned** in the mishna: If a person is **ill, one feeds him according to** the advice of medical **experts.** This implies that if there are experts present, then **according to** the advice of **experts, yes,** one feeds the ill person; but at **his own** instructions, **no,** one does not feed him, contrary to Rabbi Yannai’s opinion. It further implies that **according to** the advice of several **experts, yes,** one feeds an ill person; however, **according to** the advice of only **one expert, no,** one does not feed him. There appears to be a requirement for at least two doctors, which also contradicts Rabbi Yannai’s opinion that the opinion of one expert is sufficient to override the opinion of the ill person.


###### Yoma 83a:5
[Yoma 83a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/83a:5)

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, דְּאָמַר לָא צְרִיכְנָא. וְלִיסְפּוֹ לֵיהּ עַל פִּי בָּקִי! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאִיכָּא אַחֲרִינָא בַּהֲדֵיהּ דְּאָמַר לָא צְרִיךְ — מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ עַל פִּי בְּקִיאִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **With what are we dealing here?** We are dealing with a unique circumstance: The ill person **says I do not need** food, and the consultation of experts is required. The Gemara suggests: **But let them feed him according to** the advice of **one expert,** as Rabbi Yannai said that in such a circumstance one feeds the ill person based on the advice of one doctor. The Gemara answers: **No,** the requirement of two experts is **necessary** in a case **where there is another,** third expert **with him who says** that the ill person **does not need** to eat. In such a case, **one feeds** the ill person **according to** the advice of two **experts** who agree that he requires it.


###### Yoma 83a:6
[Yoma 83a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/83a:6)

פְּשִׁיטָא, סְפֵק נְפָשׁוֹת הוּא, וּסְפֵק נְפָשׁוֹת לְהָקֵל! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאִיכָּא תְּרֵי אַחֲרִינֵי בַּהֲדֵיהּ דְּאָמְרִי לָא צְרִיךְ. וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּאָמַר רַב סָפְרָא: תְּרֵי כִּמְאָה וּמְאָה כִּתְרֵי, הָנֵי מִילֵּי לְעִנְיַן עֵדוּת, אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן אוּמְדָּנָא — בָּתַר דֵּעוֹת אָזְלִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If so, this is **obvious,** since **it is** a case of **uncertainty** concerning a **life-threatening** situation, and in all cases of **uncertainty** concerning a **life-threatening** situation, the *halakha* **is lenient.** The Gemara answers: **No,** this *halakha* is **necessary** in a case **where there are two other** doctors who, along **with** the ill person, **say** that **he does not need** food. **And although Rav Safra said** that **two** witnesses **are like one hundred** witnesses, **and one hundred** witnesses **are like two** witnesses, **that rule applies** specifically **to the matter of testimony; however,** in the **matter of assessing** a situation, **we follow** the majority of **opinions.** Therefore, one might think in this case that the ill person should not be fed because the opinion of two doctors plus the ill person should override the opposing opinion of two other doctors.


###### Yoma 83a:7
[Yoma 83a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/83a:7)

וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי לְעִנְיַן אוּמְדָּנָא דְמָמוֹנָא, אֲבָל הָכָא סְפֵק נְפָשׁוֹת הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Generally speaking, two or more witnesses constitute complete testimony, and there is no difference between the testimony of two and the testimony of a large number of people. **However, this** principle of following the majority **applies** specifically **to assessing monetary** issues, **but here** it is a case of **uncertainty** concerning a **life-threatening** situation. Therefore, although it is the opinion of two doctors against the opinion of two doctors and the ill person, the ill person must eat.


###### Yoma 83a:8
[Yoma 83a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/83a:8)

וְהָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: וְאִם אֵין שָׁם בְּקִיאִין מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ, מִכְּלָל דְּרֵישָׁא דְּאָמַר צָרִיךְ! חַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — דְּאָמַר לֹא צָרִיךְ אֲנִי, אֲבָל אָמַר צָרִיךְ אֲנִי, אֵין שָׁם בְּקִיאִין תְּרֵי אֶלָּא חַד דְּאָמַר לֹא צָרִיךְ — מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But from** the fact **that it is taught** in **the latter clause** of the mishna that **if there are no experts present one feeds him according to his own opinion, by inference, the first clause** of the mishna is referring to a case where **the ill person said he needs** to eat. In that case, the mishna states that one follows the experts’ opinion, not his own, and feeds him. The Gemara answers: The mishna **is incomplete and is teaching the following: In what** case **is this statement** that he may eat only based on the advice of experts **said?** It is when the ill person **said: I do not need** to eat. **But** if **he said: I do need** to eat, and **instead of two experts there is** only **one who says** that **he does not need** to eat, **one feeds him according to his own opinion.**


###### Yoma 83a:9
[Yoma 83a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/83a:9)

מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאָמַר צָרִיךְ אֲנִי, אֲפִילּוּ אִיכָּא מְאָה דְּאָמְרִי לֹא צָרִיךְ לְדִידֵיהּ שָׁמְעִינַן — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֵב יוֹדֵעַ מׇרַּת נַפְשׁוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Mar bar Rav Ashi said: Any** instance **where** an ill person **says: I need** to eat, **even if there are one hundred** expert doctors **who say** that **he does not need** to eat, **we listen to his own** opinion and feed him, **as it is stated: “The heart knows the bitterness of its soul”** (Proverbs 14:10).


###### Yoma 83a:10
[Yoma 83a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/83a:10)

תְּנַן: אִם אֵין שָׁם בְּקִיאִין — מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ. טַעְמָא דְּלֵיכָּא בְּקִיאִין, הָא אִיכָּא בְּקִיאִין לָא! הָכִי קָאָמַר: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — דְּאָמַר ״לֹא צָרִיךְ אֲנִי״, אֲבָל אָמַר ״צָרִיךְ אֲנִי״, אֵין שָׁם בְּקִיאִין כְּלָל — מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֵב יוֹדֵעַ מׇרַּת נַפְשׁוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**We learned** in the mishna: **If** an ill person himself says he needs to eat and **there are no experts present, one feeds him according to his own opinion.** This implies that **the reason** one feeds him **is** because **there are no experts** present. One may infer from this that if **there were experts** present, **no,** one would not feed the ill person based on his own opinion but would instead listen to the advice of the experts. The Gemara rejects this: **This is** what the mishna **is saying: In what** case **is this statement** that one follows the opinion of the experts **said?** It is **when** the ill person **said: I do not need** to eat. **However,** if **he said: I do need** to eat, it is considered as if **there were no experts there at all; we feed him based on his opinion, as it is stated: “The heart knows the bitterness of its soul”** (Proverbs 14:10). All the experts are ignored in the face of the ill person’s own sensitivities.


###### Yoma 83a:11
[Yoma 83a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/83a:11)

**מַתְנִי׳** מִי שֶׁאֲחָזוֹ בּוּלְמוֹס — מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ אֲפִילּוּ דְּבָרִים טְמֵאִים, עַד שֶׁיֵּאוֹרוּ עֵינָיו. מִי שֶׁנְּשָׁכוֹ כֶּלֶב שׁוֹטֶה — אֵין מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ מֵחֲצַר כָּבֵד שֶׁלּוֹ. וְרַבִּי מַתְיָא בֶּן חָרָשׁ מַתִּיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In the case of **one who is seized** with the life-threatening illness ***bulmos*,** causing him unbearable hunger pangs and impaired vision, **one** may **feed him even impure foods** on Yom Kippur or any other day **until his eyes recover,** as the return of his sight indicates that he is recovering. In the case of **one whom a mad dog bit, one** may **not feed him from the lobe of** the dog’s **liver.** This was thought to be a remedy for the bite, but the Rabbis deem it ineffective. **And Rabbi Matya ben Ḥarash permits** feeding it to him, as he deems it effective.


###### Yoma 83a:12
[Yoma 83a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/83a:12)

וְעוֹד אָמַר רַבִּי מַתְיָא בֶּן חָרָשׁ: הַחוֹשֵׁשׁ בִּגְרוֹנוֹ — מְטִילִין לוֹ סַם בְּתוֹךְ פִּיו בְּשַׁבָּת, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא סְפֵק נְפָשׁוֹת, וְכׇל סְפֵק נְפָשׁוֹת דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And furthermore, Rabbi Matya ben Ḥarash said:** With regard to **one who suffers pain in his throat, one** may **place medicine inside his mouth on Shabbat,** although administering a remedy is prohibited on Shabbat. This is **because** there is **uncertainty** whether or not it is a **life-threatening** situation for him, as it is difficult to ascertain the severity of internal pain. **And** a case of **uncertainty** concerning a **life-threatening** situation **overrides Shabbat.**


###### Yoma 83a:13
[Yoma 83a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/83a:13)

מִי שֶׁנָּפְלָה עָלָיו מַפּוֹלֶת, סָפֵק הוּא שָׁם סָפֵק אֵינוֹ שָׁם, סָפֵק חַי סָפֵק מֵת, סָפֵק גּוֹי סָפֵק יִשְׂרָאֵל, מְפַקְּחִין עָלָיו אֶת הַגַּל. מְצָאוּהוּ חַי — מְפַקְּחִין, וְאִם מֵת — יְנִיחוּהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Similarly, 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 **a Jew, one clears the pile** from **atop him.** One may perform any action necessary to rescue him from beneath the debris. If **they found him alive** after beginning to clear the debris, **they** continue to **clear** the pile until they can extricate him. **And if** they found him **dead, they** should **leave him,** since one may not desecrate Shabbat to preserve the dignity of the dead.


###### Yoma 83a:14
[Yoma 83a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/83a:14)

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מִנַּיִין הָיוּ יוֹדְעִין שֶׁהֵאִירוּ עֵינָיו — מִשֶּׁיַּבְחִין בֵּין טוֹב לָרַע. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: וּבְטַעְמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **The Sages taught: From where would they know that his eyes had recovered** their sight? It is **from when he can discern between good and bad** food, since under the influence of *bulmos* one eats food indiscriminately. **Abaye said:** It is **with tasting.** When he can distinguish the tastes of different foods his eyesight must have also recovered. For example, at night, although it is dark, the sign that his eyesight has been restored is that he is able to detect difference in tastes (*Me’iri*).


###### Yoma 83a:15
[Yoma 83a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/83a:15)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מִי שֶׁאֲחָזוֹ בּוּלְמוֹס — מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ הַקַּל הַקַּל, טֶבֶל וּנְבֵילָה — מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ נְבֵילָה. טֶבֶל וּשְׁבִיעִית — שְׁבִיעִית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught:** In the case of **one who is seized** with ***bulmos*** and must be fed until his vision is restored, **one feeds him the** items whose prohibition is **least** severe first. If he must be fed forbidden foods, he should first be fed those whose level of prohibition is least severe. For instance, if there is **untithed produce** and **an unslaughtered animal carcass [*neveila*]** or any other non-kosher meat, **one feeds him** the ***neveila*,** as the prohibition of untithed produced warrants death at the hand of Heaven, but eating non-kosher meat is a transgression punishable only by lashes. If there is **untithed produce and** produce from the **Sabbatical Year,** he is fed the produce from the **Sabbatical Year.** Untithed produce warrants death at the hand of Heaven, whereas the produce of a Sabbatical Year is prohibited by a positive mitzva and there is no punishment associated with it.


###### Yoma 83a:16
[Yoma 83a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/83a:16)

טֶבֶל וּתְרוּמָה — תַּנָּאֵי הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ טֶבֶל וְאֵין מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ תְּרוּמָה. בֶּן תֵּימָא אוֹמֵר: תְּרוּמָה וְלֹא טֶבֶל. אָמַר רַבָּה: הֵיכָא דְּאֶפְשָׁר בְּחוּלִּין, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דִּמְתַקְּנִינַן לֵיהּ וּמַסְפִּינַן לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If they have **untithed produce and *teruma*,** there **is** a dispute between ***tanna’im*** as to which food they should feed him, **as it was taught** in a *baraita*: **One feeds him untithed produce and does not feed him *teruma*. Ben Teima says:** It is better to feed him ***teruma* and not** feed him **untithed produce. Rabba said: Where it is possible** to feed **him non-sacred food** by separating tithes from untithed produce and thereby rendering the remainder permitted, **everyone agrees that one should make** the produce **fit** for consumption by separating tithes **and** then **feed** it **to him,** even on Shabbat, when it is otherwise prohibited to separate tithes.


###### Yoma 83a:17
[Yoma 83a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/83a:17)

כִּי פְּלִיגִי בִּדְלָא אֶפְשָׁר בְּחוּלִּין. מָר סָבַר טֶבֶל חָמוּר, וּמַר סָבַר תְּרוּמָה חֲמוּרָה. מָר סָבַר טֶבֶל חָמוּר — אֲבָל תְּרוּמָה חַזְיָא לְכֹהֵן. וּמַר סָבַר תְּרוּמָה חֲמוּרָה, אֲבָל טֶבֶל אֶפְשָׁר לְתַקּוֹנֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Where they disagree,** it is in a case **where it is impossible** to feed him **non-sacred food** because there is no way to separate tithes. **One Sage holds** that the prohibition of **untithed produce is more severe; and one Sage holds** that the prohibition of ***teruma* is more severe.** The two sides reason as follows. One **Sage holds that** the prohibition of **untithed produce is** more **severe** because it is prohibited to everyone; **but *teruma* is fit for a priest,** and therefore one could say that its prohibition is less severe. **And one Sage holds that *teruma* is** more **severe** because non-priests may never eat it, **while untithed produce can be made fit** to eat, and therefore, even while it is still untithed, the prohibition against eating it is less severe.