## Yoma Daf 84b

###### Yoma 84b:1
[Yoma 84b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/84b:1)

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנֵי רַבָּה בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל: עוּבָּרָה שֶׁהֵרִיחָה — מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתָהּ עַד שֶׁתָּשׁוּב נַפְשָׁהּ, וּמִי שֶׁנְּשָׁכוֹ כֶּלֶב שׁוֹטֶה — מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ מֵחֲצַר כָּבֵד שֶׁלּוֹ, וְהַחוֹשֵׁשׁ בְּפִיו — מְטִילִין לוֹ סַם בְּשַׁבָּת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, שֶׁאָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מַתְיָא בֶּן חָרָשׁ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בָּזוֹ וְלֹא בְּאַחֶרֶת. ״בְּזוֹ״ אַהֵיָיא? אִילֵּימָא אַעוּבָּרָה, פְּשִׁיטָא! עוּבָּרָה מִי אִיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר דְּלָא? אֶלָּא לָאו — אַסַּם. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear** a proof for the matter, **as Rabba bar Shmuel taught** in the following *baraita*: With regard to **a pregnant woman who smells** and craves food, **one feeds her until she is satisfied,** even on Yom Kippur; **and** in the case of **one whom a mad dog bit, one feeds him from the lobe of its liver; and** in the case of **one who has pain in his mouth, one places medicine in his** mouth **on Shabbat;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, who said** it **in the name of Rabbi Matya ben Ḥarash. And the Rabbis say: In this case and no other.** The Gemara clarifies: **To which** case is **this one** referring? **If we say** they said this about **a pregnant woman, it** is **obvious; is there anyone who says** one should **not** give **a pregnant woman** food? **Rather, is it not** referring to the *halakha* pertaining to **medicine** on Shabbat, which they agree is permitted? **Learn from this** that the Rabbis did not disagree about this.


###### Yoma 84b:2
[Yoma 84b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/84b:2)

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: מַתְנִיתִין נָמֵי דַּיְקָא — וְעוֹד אָמַר רַבִּי מַתְיָא בֶּן חָרָשׁ: הַחוֹשֵׁשׁ בְּפִיו מְטִילִין לוֹ סַם בְּשַׁבָּת, וְלָא פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ. וְאִם אִיתָא דִּפְלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ, לִיעָרְבִינְהוּ וְלִיתְנִינְהוּ, וְלִיפַּלְגוּ רַבָּנַן בְּסֵיפָא. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said:** The wording of **the mishna is also precise** in accordance with this approach, as it was taught in the mishna: **And furthermore, Rabbi Matya ben Ḥarash said:** In the case of **one who suffers pain in his mouth, one places medicine in his** mouth **on Shabbat, and the Rabbis do not disagree** with him and say otherwise. **And if it is so that the Rabbis disagree with him,** then **let** the mishna **combine** the two *halakhot* **and teach them** together, **and let the Rabbis disagree** with both points **in the latter clause.** Since the mishna was not written this way, but instead the dispute of the Rabbis appears after Rabbi Matya’s statement about the mad dog, **learn from here** that the Rabbis did not disagree with him about the *halakha* with regard to medicine.


###### Yoma 84b:3
[Yoma 84b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/84b:3)

מִפְּנֵי שֶׁסְּפֵק נְפָשׁוֹת הוּא וְכוּ׳. לְמָה לִי תּוּ לְמֵימַר: ״וְכׇל סְפֵק נְפָשׁוֹת דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת״? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: לֹא סָפֵק שַׁבָּת זוֹ בִּלְבַד אָמְרוּ, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ סָפֵק שַׁבָּת אַחֶרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna states that one with pain in his throat should be given medicine on Shabbat **because** it is a case of **uncertainty** concerning a **life-threatening** situation. The Gemara asks: **Why do I** need to say **furthermore: And any** case of **uncertainty** concerning a **life-threatening** situation **overrides Shabbat? Rav Yehuda said** that **Rav said: They stated** this **not only** in a case where there is **uncertainty** with regard to **this Shabbat, but even** if the **uncertainty** is with regard to **a different** future **Shabbat.**


###### Yoma 84b:4
[Yoma 84b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/84b:4)

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? כְּגוֹן דְּאַמְדוּהּ לִתְמָנְיָא יוֹמֵי, וְיוֹמָא קַמָּא שַׁבְּתָא. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: לִיעַכַּב עַד לְאוּרְתָּא כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא נֵיחוּל עֲלֵיהּ תְּרֵי שַׁבָּתָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What are the circumstances** in which uncertainty would arise as to whether or not his life will be in danger in the future? They are a case **where** doctors **assess** that an ill person needs a certain treatment **for eight days, and the first day** of his illness **is Shabbat. Lest you say: He should wait until evening** and begin his treatment after Shabbat **so they will not need to desecrate two *Shabbatot* for his sake,** therefore **it teaches us** that one must immediately desecrate Shabbat for his sake. This is the *halakha*, despite the fact that an additional Shabbat will be desecrated as a result, because there is uncertainty about whether his life is in danger.


###### Yoma 84b:5
[Yoma 84b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/84b:5)

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: מְחַמִּין חַמִּין לַחוֹלֶה בְּשַׁבָּת, בֵּין לְהַשְׁקוֹתוֹ בֵּין לְהַבְרוֹתוֹ. וְלֹא שַׁבָּת זוֹ בִּלְבַד אָמְרוּ, אֶלָּא לְשַׁבָּת אַחֶרֶת. וְאֵין אוֹמְרִים: נַמְתִּין לוֹ שֶׁמָּא יַבְרִיא, אֶלָּא מְחַמִּין לוֹ מִיָּד, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁסְּפֵק נְפָשׁוֹת דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. וְלֹא סָפֵק שַׁבָּת זוֹ, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ סָפֵק שַׁבָּת אַחֶרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**That was also taught** in a *baraita*: **One heats water for an ill person on Shabbat, whether to give him to drink or to wash him,** since it might help him recover. **And they did not say** it is permitted to desecrate **only** the **current Shabbat** for him, **but even a different,** future **Shabbat. And one must not say: Let us wait** and perform this labor **for him** after Shabbat, **perhaps he will get well** in the meantime. **Rather, one heats it for him immediately because any** case of **uncertainty** concerning a **life-threatening** situation **overrides Shabbat. And** this is so **not** only with regard to **uncertainty** whether his life is in danger **on the current Shabbat, but even** in a case of **uncertainty** with regard to danger **on a different Shabbat.**


###### Yoma 84b:6
[Yoma 84b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/84b:6)

וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין דְּבָרִים הַלָּלוּ, לֹא עַל יְדֵי גּוֹיִם, וְלֹא עַל יְדֵי כּוּתִיִּים, אֶלָּא עַל יְדֵי גְּדוֹלֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְאֵין אוֹמְרִין יֵעָשׂוּ דְּבָרִים הַלָּלוּ, לֹא עַל פִּי נָשִׁים, וְלֹא עַל פִּי כּוּתִיִּים, אֲבָל מִצְטָרְפִין לְדַעַת אַחֶרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And these acts should not be performed by gentiles or Samaritans but** should be done **by the greatest of the Jewish people,** i.e., their scholars, who know how to act properly. **And one does not say: These actions** may **be performed** based on the advice **of women or Samaritans,** since they are not considered experts able to declare a person ill enough to override Shabbat. **However,** the opinions of **these** people **do combine with an additional opinion,** meaning that if there is a dispute, their opinions may be considered when coming to a decision.


###### Yoma 84b:7
[Yoma 84b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/84b:7)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מְפַקְּחִין פִּקּוּחַ נֶפֶשׁ בְּשַׁבָּת, וְהַזָּרִיז הֲרֵי זֶה מְשׁוּבָּח, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לִיטּוֹל רְשׁוּת מִבֵּית דִּין. הָא כֵּיצַד? רָאָה תִּינוֹק שֶׁנָּפַל לַיָּם — פּוֹרֵשׂ מְצוּדָה וּמַעֲלֵהוּ, וְהַזָּרִיז הֲרֵי זֶה מְשׁוּבָּח, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לִיטּוֹל רְשׁוּת מִבֵּית דִּין. וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּקָא צָיֵיד כְּווֹרֵי. רָאָה תִּינוֹק שֶׁנָּפַל לְבוֹר — עוֹקֵר חוּלְיָא וּמַעֲלֵהוּ, וְהַזָּרִיז הֲרֵי זֶה מְשׁוּבָּח, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לִיטּוֹל רְשׁוּת מִבֵּית דִּין. אַף עַל גַּב דִּמְתַקֵּן דַּרְגָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **One engages** in **saving a life on Shabbat, and one who is vigilant** to do so **is praiseworthy. And one need not take permission from a court** but hurries to act on his own. **How so?** If **one sees a child who fell into the sea, he spreads** a fisherman’s **net and raises him** from the water. **And one who is vigilant** and acts quickly **is praiseworthy, and one need not seek permission from a court, although** in doing so **he catches fish** in the net as well. Similarly, if **one sees a child fall into a pit** and the child cannot get out, **he digs part of the ground out** around the edge of the pit to create a makeshift step **and raises him out. And one who is vigilant** and acts quickly **is praiseworthy, and one need not seek permission from a court, although in doing so he fashions a step.**


###### Yoma 84b:8
[Yoma 84b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/84b:8)

רָאָה שֶׁנִּנְעֲלָה דֶּלֶת בִּפְנֵי תִּינוֹק — שׁוֹבְרָהּ וּמוֹצִיאוֹ, וְהַזָּרִיז הֲרֵי זֶה מְשׁוּבָּח, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לִיטּוֹל רְשׁוּת מִבֵּית דִּין. וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּקָא מִיכַּוֵּין לְמִיתְבַּר בְּשִׁיפֵי. מְכַבִּין וּמַפְסִיקִין מִפְּנֵי הַדְּלֵיקָה בְּשַׁבָּת, וְהַזָּרִיז הֲרֵי זֶה מְשׁוּבָּח, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לִיטּוֹל רְשׁוּת מִבֵּית דִּין. וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּקָא מְמַכֵּיךְ מַכּוֹכֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Similarly, if **one sees that a door is locked before a child** and the child is scared and crying, **he breaks the door and takes the child out. And one who is vigilant** and acts quickly **is praiseworthy, and one need not seek permission from a court, although he intends to break** it **into boards** to be used later. Similarly, **one** may **extinguish a fire** by **placing a barrier** of metal or clay vessels filled with water **in front of** it **on Shabbat** when life is endangered. **And one who is vigilant** and acts quickly **is praiseworthy, and one need not seek permission from a court, although he leaves the coals,** which can be used for cooking after Shabbat.


###### Yoma 84b:9
[Yoma 84b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/84b:9)

וּצְרִיכָא: דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן יָם — מִשּׁוּם דְּאַדְּהָכִי וְהָכִי אָזֵל לֵיהּ, אֲבָל בּוֹר, דְּקָא יָתֵיב — אֵימָא לָא, צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And** it is **necessary** to teach these examples, since each one suggests an original idea. **As, had it taught us** the *halakha* of the child who fell into **the sea,** we would have said: He must act quickly in that case **because in the meantime,** if he delays, the child **will be swept away** by the waves and disappear, and therefore the rescuer need not seek permission; **but** in the case of a child who fell into **a pit, who remains** there and is in no further danger, one might **say** the rescuer need not hurry but should request permission from the court first. Therefore, the *baraita* explains: **No,** it is **necessary** to tell us that case, too.


###### Yoma 84b:10
[Yoma 84b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/84b:10)

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן בּוֹר — מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא מִיבְּעִית, אֲבָל נִנְעֲלָה דֶּלֶת, אֶפְשָׁר דְּיָתֵיב בְּהַאי גִּיסָא וּמְשַׁבֵּישׁ לֵיהּ בְּאַמְגּוֹזֵי. צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if it had taught us the** case of the **pit,** one might have thought it is **because the child is scared** at being trapped; **but when a door is locked** before a child, **it is possible to sit on the other side** of the door **and amuse him with** the sound of **nuts** until Shabbat is over. Therefore, it is **necessary** to teach that in this case, too, one does not delay but acts immediately because a life is possibly in danger.


###### Yoma 84b:11
[Yoma 84b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/84b:11)

מְכַבִּין וּמַפְסִיקִין. לְמָה לִי? דַּאֲפִילּוּ לְחָצֵר אַחֶרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It was taught in a *baraita* that **one** may **extinguish a fire** by **placing a barrier** in front of it on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: **Why do I** need **this?** What new point is taught by this additional case of a life-endangering situation? The Gemara answers: This *halakha* applies **even** if the fire is spreading **toward another courtyard.** Not only may this be done to save the lives of people in the courtyard on fire; it may also be done to prevent the fire from spreading to an adjacent courtyard.


###### Yoma 84b:12
[Yoma 84b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/84b:12)

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא הָלְכוּ בְּפִקּוּחַ נֶפֶשׁ אַחַר הָרוֹב. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי נֵימָא דְּאִיכָּא תִּשְׁעָה יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹי אֶחָד בֵּינַיְיהוּ — רוּבָּא יִשְׂרָאֵל נִינְהוּ, (אֶלָּא) פַּלְגָא וּפַלְגָא, סְפֵק נְפָשׁוֹת לְהָקֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Yosef said** that **Rav Yehuda said** that **Shmuel said:** With regard to **saving a life,** the Sages **did not follow the majority** as they do in other areas of *halakha*. The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances?** When does one not follow the majority? **If we say** that one does not follow the majority in a case where **there are nine Jews and one gentile among them** and a building collapses on one of them, then in that case **the majority** of people are **Jews** and yet one desecrates Shabbat to save the trapped person. In such a case one is in fact following the majority. Alternatively, if the group is **half Jews and half gentiles,** the ruling is **lenient** with regard to a case of **uncertainty** concerning a **life-threatening** situation. But this, too, is not a case where one follows the minority, as there is an even chance that the victim is a Jew.


###### Yoma 84b:13
[Yoma 84b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/84b:13)

אֶלָּא דְּאִיכָּא תִּשְׁעָה גּוֹיִם וְיִשְׂרָאֵל אֶחָד. הָא נָמֵי פְּשִׁיטָא — דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ קָבוּעַ, וְכׇל קָבוּעַ כְּמֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה דָּמֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it is referring to a case where **there are nine gentiles and one Jew.** However, **this too** is **obvious.** One saves the trapped individual because the group is in a **fixed** location, **and** there is a principle that **whenever** a group is in **a fixed** location **it is considered** as though it were evenly divided. In this case, despite the fact that the group’s majority is gentile, it is considered as though it were composed **half** of Jews and **half** of gentiles.


###### Yoma 84b:14
[Yoma 84b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/84b:14)

לָא צְרִיכָא, דִּפְרוּשׁ לְחָצֵר אַחֶרֶת, מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: כׇּל דְּפָרֵישׁ — מֵרוּבָּא פָּרֵישׁ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּלָא הָלְכוּ בְּפִקּוּחַ נֶפֶשׁ אַחַר הָרוֹב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **No,** it is **necessary** to teach that one does not follow the majority in a case where one individual did not remain with the group in their courtyard but **separated** and went **to another courtyard,** and a building collapses on him. **Lest you say:** One should follow the principle that **whatever is separated** from a group **is considered to have left from the majority,** and since there was a majority of gentiles there the individual who left the group was probably a gentile, and it is not necessary to clear the debris for a gentile on Shabbat, therefore **it teaches us that with regard to** uncertainty in a situation of **saving a life, one does not follow the majority.**


###### Yoma 84b:15
[Yoma 84b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/84b:15)

אִינִי?! וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: תִּשְׁעָה גּוֹיִם וְיִשְׂרָאֵל אֶחָד בְּאוֹתָהּ חָצֵר — מְפַקְּחִין, בְּחָצֵר אַחֶרֶת — אֵין מְפַקְּחִין! לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דִּפְרוּשׁ כּוּלְּהוּ, הָא דִּפְרוּשׁ מִקְצָתַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Is that so? But didn’t Rav Asi say** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** If there are **nine gentiles and one Jew** and a building collapses on one of them, if it is **in that same courtyard one removes the debris,** but **in another courtyard one does not remove the debris?** The Gemara answers: This is **not difficult;** there is no contradiction between the *halakhot*. **This** case, where one removes the debris, is **when they all left** for another courtyard and it is clear that the Jew was among them. Consequently, the principle of being in a fixed location still applies, and it is considered a case of uncertainty. **That** other situation is **when** only **a minority of them left** for the other courtyard, and it is unknown whether the Jew left with them.


###### Yoma 84b:16
[Yoma 84b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/84b:16)

וּמִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל הָכִי? וְהָתְנַן: מָצָא בָהּ תִּינוֹק מוּשְׁלָךְ, אִם רוֹב גּוֹיִם — גּוֹי, וְאִם רוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל — יִשְׂרָאֵל, מֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה — יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְאָמַר רַב: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא לְהַחְיוֹתוֹ, אֲבָל לְיַיחֲסוֹ לֹא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Did Shmuel** actually **say this,** that one does not follow the majority with regard to saving a life? **Didn’t we learn** in a mishna: If **one finds an abandoned child** in a city and his parents are unknown, **if the majority** of the city **are gentiles** the child is considered **a gentile; and if the majority** of the city **are Jews** the child is considered a **Jew;** if the city is composed of **half** gentiles **and half** Jews, the child is considered a **Jew? And Rav said: They taught this,** that he is a Jew, **only** with respect **to sustaining him but not** with respect **to attributing a lineage to him.** One does not say that he is definitely Jewish based on the majority. Therefore, with regard to the *halakhot* of marriage, his status remains uncertain. If the abandoned child is a girl, she is not permitted to marry a priest, who may marry only a woman of certain lineage.