Yoma 83a — the Talmud in English

He recited concerning him

Psalms 58]

“The wicked are estranged from the womb.”

For the wicked became estranged and alienated from their Father in Heaven already when they emerged from their mother’s womb.

There emerged from him Shabtai, “the hoarder of produce,”

who would hoard the produce in order to force up its prices.

We learned in the Mishna:

“A sick person is fed on the basis of experts.”

Rabbi Yannai said:

If

the sick person says, ‘I need [to eat],’

I need to eat,

and the physician says, ‘He does not need [to eat]’—

we heed the sick person.

What is the reason?

Proverbs 14]

“The heart

of the sick person

knows the bitterness of his soul.”

And we raise an objection:

It is obvious

that it is permitted for a sick person who himself feels that he needs to eat not to fast.

And we answer:

Lest you say

that the

physician is more knowledgeable

as to his ability to fast,

it teaches us

that one may rely on the sick person’s feeling even against the physician.

Rabbi Yannai further said: If

the physician says, ‘He needs [to eat,’

to eat,

and the sick person says, ‘I do not need [to eat,’—

we heed the physician.

What is the reason?

It is tunba,

a foolish feeling caused by the illness,

that has seized him,

for a spirit of foolishness has seized the sick person, and therefore he refuses to eat despite being obligated to eat.

And the Gemara proves against Rabbi Yannai from our Mishna:

We learned: “A sick person”—

“is fed on the basis of experts.”

And the Gemara infers: Only

“on the basis of experts”—

yes,

indeed he is fed.

But

“on the basis of himself”—

no.

And another inference is also made: Only

“on the basis of”

two

experts—

yes.

So he is fed.

But

“on the basis of one expert”—

no!

And this is difficult for Rabbi Yannai, who said that he is fed on the basis of himself, and that he is fed on the basis of only one expert.

And we answer:

Here,

in our Mishna,

with what are we dealing?—

With a case such as

where

the sick person himself says

“I do not need [to eat],”

and therefore he is fed only on the basis of two experts.

But if the sick person says that he needs [to eat], he is fed on the basis of himself; and if he does not know, he is fed on the basis of one [expert].

But it is still difficult:

Let them feed him

and let them feed him

on the basis of an expert,

one!

For according to Rabbi Yannai, if the one expert says that he needs to eat and the sick person says that he does not need [to eat], they feed him, and two experts are not required!?

And we answer:

It is necessary [to state this];

our Mishna speaks of a case such as

where there is

an expert

another one with him,

who joins the opinion of the sick person,

saying: “He does not need [to eat].”

We learned in our Mishna:

“He is fed on the basis of experts.”

And we raise an objection:

It is obvious!

For

it is a matter of possible danger to life, and in a matter of possible danger to life one rules leniently!

It is necessary where there are two others with him,

who join the opinion of the sick person,

saying: “He does not need [to eat].”

And it teaches us that the opinion of the sick person is not joined to the two experts who hold as he does, so that we rule in accordance with them against the two who say that he needs [to eat]. Rather, we rule in accordance with the opinion of the two who say that he needs [to eat].

And even though Rav Safra said

that the principle is that

two

witnesses are

like one hundred

witnesses,

and one hundred are like two—

this applies only with regard to testimony.

But with regard to assessment—

after

the majority of

opinions we follow.

Nevertheless, with regard to the assessment of a sick person on Yom Kippur, we do not follow the assessment of the majority of experts.

Since

this applies

when we follow the majority of experts in an assessment, it is

with regard to a monetary assessment.

But here—

it is a matter of possible danger to life.

And in a matter of possible danger to life one rules leniently even in opposition to the majority opinion of experts.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty against Rabbi Yannai’s answer, that our Mishna speaks when the sick person says, “I do not need [to eat]”:

But from the fact that the latter clause teaches: “And if there are no experts there”—

“he is fed on the basis of himself,”

when he says that he needs [to eat], since there are no experts who say so,

by inference,

also

the first clause

speaks of the same matter, in a case such as

where he says, “I need [to eat],”

I need to eat.

And we answer:

The Mishna is deficient,

and in

this is what it teaches:

When are these words applicable,

that he is fed specifically on the basis of two experts? In a case such as

where he says, “I do not need [to eat].”

But if he says, “I need [to eat],”—

if

there are not two experts there, but rather

only one expert,

who says, “He does not need [to eat]”—

he is fed on the basis of himself.

But against two who say, “He does not need [to eat],” we do not heed the sick person.

Mar bar Rav Ashi said: Whenever he says, “I need [to eat],” even if there are one hundred who say, “He does not need [to eat]”—

we heed him,

the sick person,

as it is stated: “The heart knows the bitterness of its soul.”

And we raise an objection from our Mishna:

We learned: “If there are no experts there”—

“he is fed on the basis of himself.”

The reason—

that there are no experts; but if there are

two

experts—

no,

he is not fed on the basis of himself.

And we answer:

This is what

the tanna of our Mishna

says:

That he is fed on the basis of two experts applies in a case such as

where he says, “I do not need [to eat].”

But if he says, “I need [to eat],”—

even if one hundred experts say that he does not need [to eat], we do not heed them, because in relation to the sick person the matter is considered as though

“there are no experts there at all,” and he is fed on the basis of himself, as it is stated: “The heart knows the bitterness of its soul.”

Mishna:

One whom

a dangerous illness caused by hunger called

“bulmus”

has seized—is fed even impure things, until his eyes brighten.

One whom a mad dog has bitten—

he is not fed

for his healing

from the “liver of that animal,” [

from the inner wall that divides the human body and is called the diaphragm,] even though physicians customarily administer it as a remedy, since this is not a complete remedy on which we can rely in order to give it to one bitten by a mad dog and permit him the prohibition of eating an impure animal.

And Rabbi Matya ben חרש permits

giving it, because he holds that it is a complete remedy.

And Rabbi Matya ben חרש further said: One who feels

pain

in his throat—

a drug is placed inside his mouth on Shabbat,

and it is permitted to desecrate Shabbat by preparing this drug,

because it is a matter of possible danger to life, and every matter of possible danger to life overrides Shabbat.

One upon whom

on Shabbat

a collapse

of stones fell:

It is uncertain whether he is there or whether he is not there; it is uncertain whether he is alive or dead; it is uncertain

whether he is

a gentile or whether

he is

an Israelite—

we clear the pile from over him,

exerting ourselves to remove the pile of stones even through Torah prohibitions.

If

they found him alive—

they continue and

clear

the pile even if it is clear to us that he will die within a short time.

And if

they found him

dead—

they leave him [

and below, in the Gemara, it will be explained what this Mishna teaches us].

Gemara:

The Sages taught: From where would they know

that one whom bulmus has seized and whom they feed until his eyes brighten,

that

indeed they have already

brightened his eyes?

When he can distinguish between good and bad.

Abaye said:

The intention of the beraita is—

and by taste,

that he can distinguish between the taste of a good dish and the taste of a bad dish.

The Sages taught: One whom bulmus has seized,

and we do not have permitted foods with which to feed him, they feed him prohibited foods according to the principle:

“They feed him the least severe [prohibition].”

If there were before us two foods, one of which is

tevel,

whose prohibition is severe, since one who eats it is liable to death at the hands of Heaven,

and

the other is

nevela,

whose prohibition is lenient, since its punishment is only lashes—

they feed him nevela

and not tevel.

Tevel and

produce of

the Sabbatical year

after the time of removal, which are forbidden by a positive-commandment prohibition—they feed him produce of

the Sabbatical year.

Tevel and teruma,

for which a non-koen who eats it is liable to death at the hands of Heaven—the matter is a dispute

it is a dispute among tannaim.

For it was taught: They feed him tevel, but they do not feed him teruma.

Ben Teima says: Teruma, but not tevel.

Rabba said: Where it is possible

to satisfy him

with

the eating of

non-sacred produce—

everyone agrees that we rectify it for him

the tevel on Yom Kippur by separating terumot and tithes from it [since rectifying tevel is prohibited on Yom Kippur only by rabbinic decree],

and we feed

and give food

to him.

When they disagree—

where it is not possible

to calm him

with non-sacred produce

alone, but it is necessary to feed him the entire quantity of produce before us.

One master,

Ben Teima,

held: Tevel is more severe,

and therefore it is preferable to rectify the tevel and feed him teruma.

And the other master,

the first tanna,

held: Teruma is more severe

than eating tevel, and therefore it is preferable to feed him tevel.

And the Gemara explains the reason for their dispute:

One master,

Ben Teima,

held: Tevel is more severe,

koen.

But teruma—

is fit for a koen,

and therefore its prohibition is lighter than the prohibition of tevel.

And the other master,

the first tanna,

held: Teruma is more severe,

because there is no way to make it permissible for a non-koen to eat it.

But tevel—

it can be rectified

and then it will be permitted for non-koanim to eat as well [apart from the teruma in it].