## Yoma Daf 85a

###### Yoma 85a:1
[Yoma 85a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/85a:1)

וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר לְפַקֵּחַ עָלָיו אֶת הַגַּל. כִּי אִיתְּמַר דִּשְׁמוּאֵל — אַרֵישָׁא אִיתְּמַר: אִם רוֹב גּוֹיִם — גּוֹי, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: וּלְעִנְיַן פִּקּוּחַ נֶפֶשׁ אֵינוֹ כֵּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Shmuel said:** This *halakha* of the status of a found child is with regard to **removing debris from on top of him,** implying that if there is a majority of gentiles in the city where he is found, one does not violate Shabbat by removing the debris from the child to save his life. This implies that one does follow the majority in the case of saving a life. The Gemara answers: **When** this statement **of Shmuel was stated, it was stated with regard to the first** *halakha*. Shmuel’s intent was to be lenient, and his statement should be understood as follows: **If the majority are gentiles, he is a gentile. Shmuel said: But with regard to the matter of saving a life it is not so.** Rather, one saves him based on the uncertainty.


###### Yoma 85a:2
[Yoma 85a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/85a:2)

אִם רוֹב גּוֹיִם — גּוֹי, לְמַאי הִילְכְתָא? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לְהַאֲכִילוֹ נְבֵלוֹת. אִם רוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל — יִשְׂרָאֵל, לְמַאי הִילְכְתָא? לְהַחְזִיר לוֹ אֲבֵידָתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It was taught that **if** there is **a majority of gentiles** in the city, a foundling is considered to have the status of **a gentile.** The Gemara asks: **To what *halakha*** does this statement relate? **Rav Pappa said:** It relates **to feeding him non-kosher** food. One need not protect the child from every prohibition and may even feed him non-kosher food, as though he were a gentile. It was further taught: **If** there is **a majority of Jews, he is a Jew.** The Gemara asks: **To what *halakha*** does this relate? The Gemara answers: It relates **to returning a lost object to him.** In such a case it is assumed that he is definitely a Jew. Consequently, Jews must return lost objects to him, whereas there is no obligation to return lost objects to gentiles.


###### Yoma 85a:3
[Yoma 85a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/85a:3)

מֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה — יִשְׂרָאֵל, לְמַאי הִילְכְתָא? אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: לִנְזָקִין. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי נֵימָא דְּנַגְחֵיהּ תּוֹרָא דִּידַן לְתוֹרָא דִּידֵיהּ — נַיְיתֵי רְאָיָה וְנִשְׁקוֹל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It was further stated: If the city is **half** gentile **and half** Jewish, the foundling has the status of **a Jew.** The Gemara asks: **To what *halakha*** does this relate? **Reish Lakish said:** It is referring **to** *halakhot* of **damages.** The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances? If we say that our ox,** i.e., an ox belonging to another Jew, **gored his ox,** one could ask: How can he make a claim like a Jew? **Let him bring proof** that he is Jewish, **and** only then may he **take** the money for damages, since the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. Since he cannot prove his Jewish status, he has no claim.


###### Yoma 85a:4
[Yoma 85a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/85a:4)

לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּנַגְחֵיהּ תּוֹרָא דִּידֵיהּ לְתוֹרָא דִּידַן, פַּלְגָא — יָהֵיב לֵיהּ, אִידַּךְ פַּלְגָא — נֵימָא לֵיהּ: אַיְיתִי רְאָיָה דְּלָאו יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲנָא וּשְׁקוֹל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **No,** it is **necessary when his** innocuous **ox,** which has gored fewer than three times, **gored our ox,** i.e., an ox belonging to a Jew, in which case **he gives him half,** which is what a Jew pays for damages caused by an innocuous ox. However, a gentile must make full restitution for the damage caused. The foundling does not pay **the other half,** which a gentile gives to a Jew if his ox harms a Jew’s ox. **Let me say to** the one who suffered the damage: **Bring proof that I am not a Jew and take** the money. In that case, the burden of proof rests upon the one who suffered the damage.


###### Yoma 85a:5
[Yoma 85a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/85a:5)

מִי שֶׁנָּפְלָה עָלָיו מַפּוֹלֶת וְכוּ׳. מַאי קָאָמַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It was taught in the mishna: 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 Jew, one clears the pile from atop him. The Gemara asks: **What is** the mishna **saying?** Why does it bring three different uncertainties to illustrate the principle that one violates Shabbat to save a life even in a case of uncertainty?


###### Yoma 85a:6
[Yoma 85a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/85a:6)

לָא מִיבַּעְיָא קָאָמַר: לָא מִיבַּעְיָא סָפֵק הוּא שָׁם סָפֵק אֵינוֹ שָׁם, דְּאִי אִיתֵיהּ חַי — הוּא דִּמְפַקְּחִין, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ סָפֵק חַי סָפֵק מֵת — מְפַקְּחִין. וְלָא מִיבַּעְיָא סָפֵק חַי סָפֵק מֵת, דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ סָפֵק גּוֹי סָפֵק יִשְׂרָאֵל — מְפַקְּחִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **It is speaking** using the style of: **Needless to say,** and the mishna should be understood as follows: **Needless to say,** in a case where it is **uncertain** whether **he is there or not there,** one removes the debris, since **if he is** there and he is **alive, one** must **clear** the debris. **But even** if it is **uncertain** whether he is **alive or dead, one** must **clear** the debris. **And needless to say,** when there is **uncertainty** whether he is **alive or dead,** but it is certain that he is **a Jew,** one must clear the debris. **Rather,** one must **clear** the debris **even if** there is **uncertainty** whether **he is a gentile or a Jew.**


###### Yoma 85a:7
[Yoma 85a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/85a:7)

מְצָאוּהוּ חַי — מְפַקְּחִין. מְצָאוּהוּ חַי, פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, דַּאֲפִילּוּ לְחַיֵּי שָׁעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna taught: If **they found him alive, they** continue to **remove** the debris. The Gemara is surprised at this: **If they find him alive,** it is **obvious** that they remove the debris, since that is saving a life. The Gemara answers: **No,** it is **necessary** to teach that one must desecrate Shabbat for his sake **even** if it is clear that he will **live** only **a short while** and will die soon after.


###### Yoma 85a:8
[Yoma 85a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/85a:8)

וְאִם מֵת יַנִּיחוּהוּ. הָא נָמֵי פְּשִׁיטָא? לָא צְרִיכָא, לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן לָקִישׁ. דְּתַנְיָא: אֵין מַצִּילִין אֶת הַמֵּת מִפְּנֵי הַדְּלֵיקָה, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן לָקִישׁ: שָׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁמַּצִּילִין אֶת הַמֵּת מִפְּנֵי הַדְּלֵיקָה. וַאֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן לָקִישׁ לָא קָאָמַר אֶלָּא מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁאָדָם בָּהוּל עַל מֵתוֹ, אִי לָא שָׁרֵית לֵיהּ — אָתֵי לְכַבּוֹיֵי. אֲבָל הָכָא, אִי לָא שָׁרֵית לֵיהּ — מַאי אִית לֵיהּ לְמֶעְבַּד?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna taught: **If** they found him **dead, they** should **leave him.** The Gemara is surprised at this: Isn’t **this also obvious?** What allowance might there be to desecrate Shabbat for the sake of a corpse? The Gemara answers: **No,** this ruling is **necessary according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda ben Lakish, as it was taught** in a *baraita*: **One** may **not save a corpse from a fire,** since one may not violate Shabbat for the sake of the dead. **Rabbi Yehuda ben Lakish said: I heard that one** may **save a corpse from a fire.** The Gemara challenges: **Even Rabbi Yehuda ben Lakish said this only** with regard to a fire **because a person is agitated over his dead** relative, whose body might burn in the fire. **If you do not permit him** to remove the corpse **he** may **come to extinguish** the fire and transgress a severe Torah prohibition. **However, here,** in the case of a rockslide or building collapse, **if you do not permit him** to remove the debris, **what might he do?** In this case, there is no concern of Shabbat desecration, and preserving the dignity of the dead does not override Shabbat.


###### Yoma 85a:9
[Yoma 85a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/85a:9)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: עַד הֵיכָן הוּא בּוֹדֵק? עַד חוֹטְמוֹ. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: עַד לִבּוֹ. בָּדַק וּמָצָא עֶלְיוֹנִים מֵתִים, לֹא יֹאמַר: כְּבָר מֵתוּ הַתַּחְתּוֹנִים. מַעֲשֶׂה הָיָה וּמָצְאוּ עֶלְיוֹנִים מֵתִים וְתַחְתּוֹנִים חַיִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Rabbis taught:** If a person is buried under a collapsed building, **until what point does one check** to clarify whether the victim is still alive? Until what point is he allowed to continue clearing the debris? They said: One clears **until** the victim’s **nose.** If there is no sign of life, i.e., if he is not breathing, he is certainly dead. **And some say:** One clears **until** the victim’s **heart** to check for a heartbeat. If several people are buried and **one checked and found the upper ones** under the debris **dead, he should not say: The lower ones are** likely also **already dead,** and there is no point in continuing to search. **There was an incident where they found the upper ones dead and the lower ones alive.**


###### Yoma 85a:10
[Yoma 85a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/85a:10)

נֵימָא הָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי כִּי הָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי. דְּתַנְיָא: מֵהֵיכָן הַוָּלָד נוֹצָר — מֵרֹאשׁוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מִמְּעֵי אִמִּי אַתָּה גוֹזִי״, וְאוֹמֵר: ״גׇּזִּי נִזְרֵךְ וְהַשְׁלִיכִי״. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: מִטִּיבּוּרוֹ, וּמְשַׁלֵּחַ שׇׁרָשָׁיו אֵילָךְ וְאֵילָךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **Let us say that** the dispute between **these *tanna’im*** who disagree about checking for signs of life **is like** the dispute between **these *tanna’im*** who disagree about the formation of the fetus. **As it was taught** in a *baraita*: **From what point is the fetus created?** It is **from its head, as it is stated: “You are He Who took me [*gozi*] out of my mother’s womb”** (Psalms 71:6), **and it says: “Cut off [*gozi*] your hair, and cast it away”** (Jeremiah 7:29). These verses suggest that one is created from the head, the place of the hair. **Abba Shaul says:** A person is created **from his navel, and he sends his roots in every direction** until he attains the image of a person. The *tanna* who says that the presence of life is determined based on the nose holds in accordance with the opinion of the *tanna* who maintains that the formation of a fetus begins with its head. Likewise, the *tanna* who says the presence of life is determined based on the heart holds in accordance with the opinion of the one who thinks the formation of a fetus begins with its navel.


###### Yoma 85a:11
[Yoma 85a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/85a:11)

אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא אַבָּא שָׁאוּל, עַד כָּאן לָא קָא אָמַר אַבָּא שָׁאוּל הָתָם אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן יְצִירָה, דְּכֹל מִידֵּי מִמְּצִיעֲתֵיהּ מִיתְּצַר, אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן פִּקּוּחַ נֶפֶשׁ — אֲפִילּוּ אַבָּא שָׁאוּל מוֹדֵי דְּעִיקַּר חַיּוּתָא בְּאַפֵּיהּ הוּא, דִּכְתִיב: ״כׇּל אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁמַת רוּחַ חַיִּים בְּאַפָּיו״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **Even** if **you say** that the formation of a fetus from the navel is the opinion of **Abba Shaul,** he may nevertheless require one to check the nose for signs of life. **Until now, Abba Shaul spoke there only about formation,** saying **that everything is created from its middle; however, as for saving a life, even Abba Shaul admits that the main** sign of **life is in the nose, as it is written: “All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life”** (Genesis 7:22).


###### Yoma 85a:12
[Yoma 85a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/85a:12)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: מַחְלוֹקֶת מִמַּטָּה לְמַעְלָה, אֲבָל מִמַּעְלָה לְמַטָּה, כֵּיוָן דִּבְדַק לֵיהּ עַד חוֹטְמוֹ — שׁוּב אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, דִּכְתִיב: ״כֹּל אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁמַת רוּחַ חַיִּים בְּאַפָּיו״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said: The dispute** with regard to how far to check for signs of life applies when the digger begins removing the rubble **from below,** starting with the feet, **to above.** In such a case it is insufficient to check until his heart; rather, one must continue removing rubble until he is able to check his nose for breath. **But** if one cleared the rubble **from above to below, once he checked as far as** the victim’s **nose he is not required** to check further, **as it is written: “All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life”** (Genesis 7:22).


###### Yoma 85a:13
[Yoma 85a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/85a:13)

וּכְבָר הָיָה רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה מְהַלְּכִין בַּדֶּרֶךְ, וְלֵוִי הַסַּדָּר וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה מְהַלְּכִין אַחֲרֵיהֶן. נִשְׁאֲלָה שְׁאֵלָה זוֹ בִּפְנֵיהֶם: מִנַּיִין לְפִקּוּחַ נֶפֶשׁ שֶׁדּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara relates: **It once happened that Rabbi Yishmael, and Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya** were **walking on the road, and Levi HaSadar and Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya,** were **walking** respectfully **behind them,** since they were younger and did not walk alongside their teachers. **This question was asked before them: From where** is it derived **that saving a life overrides Shabbat?**


###### Yoma 85a:14
[Yoma 85a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/85a:14)

נַעֲנָה רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל וְאָמַר: ״אִם בַּמַּחְתֶּרֶת יִמָּצֵא הַגַּנָּב״ — וּמָה זֶה, שֶׁסָּפֵק עַל מָמוֹן בָּא סָפֵק עַל נְפָשׁוֹת בָּא, וּשְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים מְטַמֵּא אֶת הָאָרֶץ, וְגוֹרֵם לַשְּׁכִינָה שֶׁתִּסְתַּלֵּק מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, נִיתָּן לְהַצִּילוֹ בְּנַפְשׁוֹ — קַל וָחוֹמֶר לְפִקּוּחַ נֶפֶשׁ שֶׁדּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yishmael answered and said** that it is stated: **“If a thief be found breaking in** and be struck so that he dies, there shall be no blood-guiltiness for him” (Exodus 22:1). **Now, if this** is true for the thief, **where there is uncertainty whether he comes** to take **money** or to take **lives,** and it is known that **bloodshed renders the land impure,** since it is stated about a murderer: “And you shall not defile the land” (Numbers 35:34), **and it causes the Divine Presence to depart from the Jewish people,** as the verse continues: “In the midst of which I dwell, for I the Lord dwell in the midst of the children of Israel” (Numbers 35:34), and even so the home owner **is permitted to save himself at the cost of** the thief’s **life,** then ***a fortiori* saving a life overrides Shabbat.**


###### Yoma 85a:15
[Yoma 85a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/85a:15)

נַעֲנָה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וְאָמַר: ״וְכִי יָזִיד אִישׁ עַל רֵעֵהוּ וְגוֹ׳ מֵעִם מִזְבְּחִי תִּקָּחֶנּוּ לָמוּת״. ״מֵעִם מִזְבְּחִי״ — וְלֹא מֵעַל מִזְבְּחִי. וְאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא לְהָמִית,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Akiva answered and said** that it is stated: **“And if a man comes purposefully upon his neighbor** to slay him with guile, **you shall take him from My altar, that he may die”** (Exodus 21:14). The phrase “take him **from My altar”** implies that if the murderer is a priest and comes to perform the service, one does not wait for him to do so but takes him to his execution immediately. **But** one should **not** take him **from on top of My altar.** If he already began the service and is in the midst of it, one does not take him down from the altar immediately but instead allows him to finish his service. **And Rabba bar bar Ḥana said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They taught only** that a priest is not removed from the altar **in order to execute** him for murder,