Yoma 83a (פג.) — the Talmud in English

He recited this verse about him

Psalms 58]

“The wicked are estranged from the womb.”

For the wicked become estranged and alienated from their Father in Heaven already upon emerging from their mother’s womb.

This resulted in the case of Shabtai, the hoarder of produce,”

who would store produce in order to drive up its price.

We learned in the Mishna:

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

Rabbi Yannai said:

If

the sick person says, ‘I need’

to eat,

while the physician says, ‘He does not need’—

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 a sick person who himself senses that he needs to eat is permitted not to fast.

And we answer:

Lest you say

that the

physician is more knowledgeable

regarding his ability to fast,

it teaches us

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

Rabbi Yannai further said: If

the physician says, ‘He needs’

to eat,

while the sick person says, ‘I do not need’—

we heed the physician.

What is the reason?

It is a delusion—

the foolish sensation caused by the illness—

that has seized him,

for a spirit of folly has taken hold of the sick person, and therefore he refuses to eat even though he is obligated to eat.

The Gemara proves an objection to Rabbi Yannai from our Mishna:

We learned: “A sick person”—

“is fed on the basis of the opinion of experts.”

And the Gemara infers: Only

“on the basis of the opinion of experts”—

yes,

indeed, he is fed.

But

“on the basis of his own opinion”—

no. And there is a further inference: Only

“on the basis of the opinion”

of

two

experts—

yes,

he is fed in that manner.

But

“on the basis of the opinion of one expert”—

no!

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

And we answer:

Here,

in our Mishna,

with what are we dealing—

with a case

where

the sick person himself says,

“I do not need”

to eat. Therefore, he is fed only on the basis of the opinion of two experts.

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

But it is still difficult:

Let them feed him

and feed him

on the basis of the opinion of an expert,

one expert!

For according to Rabbi Yannai, if the one expert says that he needs to eat while the sick person says that he does not need to eat, he is fed, and there is no need for two experts!?

And we answer:

No, it is necessary;

our Mishna is speaking of a case

where there is

an expert

with him as well,

who joins the opinion of the sick person,

saying: “He does not need.”

We learned in our Mishna:

“He is fed on the basis of the opinion of experts.”

And we raise an objection:

It is obvious!

For

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

No, it is necessary where there are two other experts with him,

who join the opinion of the sick person,

saying: “He does not need.”

And it teaches us that the opinion of the sick person is not combined with the opinions of the two experts who agree with him, so as to decide in accordance with them against the two who say that he needs to eat. Rather, the decision follows the opinion of the two who say that he needs to eat.

And although Rav Safra said

that the principle is that

two

witnesses are

equivalent to one hundred

witnesses,

and one hundred are equivalent to two—

this applies to testimony.

But with regard to an assessment—

we follow

the majority of

opinions.

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 principle

that we follow the majority of experts in an assessment applies

with regard to a monetary assessment.

But here—

it is a matter of possible danger to life.

And in a case 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 is speaking of a case in which the sick person says, “I do not need”:

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

“he is fed on the basis of his own opinion,”

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

by inference,

also

the first clause

is speaking of the same matter, in a case

where he says, “I need”

to eat.

And we answer:

The Mishna is incomplete,

and

this is what it teaches:

In what case is this statement said,

that he is fed specifically on the basis of two experts? It is in a case

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 only

one expert

who says, “He does not need”—

he is fed on the basis of his own opinion.

But against two who say that 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 that he does not need—

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 his own opinion.”

The reason

is that there are no experts; but if there are

two

experts—

no,

he is not fed on the basis of his own opinion.

And we answer:

This is what

the tanna in our Mishna

is saying:

In what case is this statement said, that he is fed on the basis of two experts? It is in a case

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 against the sick person it is considered as though

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

Mishna:

One whom

a dangerous illness caused by hunger, called

“bulmos,”

has seized—is fed even non-kosher foods, until his eyes brighten.

One who was bitten by a mad dog—

is not fed

for his healing

from its “heavy liver”

[the inner partition separating the human body, called the diaphragm], despite the fact that physicians customarily administer it as a remedy, since this is not a fully effective remedy on which we can rely in order to give it to one bitten by a mad dog and permit him to eat the flesh of a non-kosher animal.

And Rabbi Mattitya ben Ḥeresh permits

giving it to him, because he holds that it is a fully effective remedy.

And Rabbi Mattitya ben Ḥeresh further said: One who is concerned

—who feels pain—

in his throat—

one places a drug inside his mouth on Shabbat,

and it is permitted to violate Shabbat in preparing this drug,

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

One upon whom

on Shabbat

a collapse

of stones has fallen:

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—

one clears the rubble from over him,

exerting himself to remove the pile of stones even through labors prohibited by Torah law.

If

they found him alive—they continue and

clear

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

the rubble, even if it is clear to us that he will die shortly.

And if

they found him

dead—

they leave him [and later, in the Gemara, it will be explained what this Mishna teaches us].

[unclear: the reference to what this teaches is explained later in the Gemara].

Gemara:

The Sages taught: From where would they know

that one whom bulmos has seized is to be fed until his eyes brighten,

that

they have indeed already

brightened?

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 bulmos has seized,

and we are unable to feed him permitted foods, is fed prohibited foods according to the principle:

“He is fed the food that is the least severe!”

If two foods are before us, 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 less severe, since its punishment is only lashes—

he is fed nevela

and not tevel.

Tevel and

produce of

the Sabbatical year

after the time of removal, which is prohibited by a positive mitzva—he is fed 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—this is a dispute

between tannaim.

As it was taught: He is fed tevel, but he is not fed teruma.

Ben Teima says: Teruma, but not tevel.

Rabba said: Where it is possible

to satisfy him

with

the consumption of

non-sacred produce—

everyone agrees that we rectify it for him,

we rectify the tevel on Yom Kippur by separating terumot and tithes from it [for rectifying tevel is prohibited on Yom Kippur only by rabbinic ordinance],

and we feed

him

it.

When they disagree—

where it is not possible

to calm him

with non-sacred produce

alone, but he must be fed the entire quantity of produce before us.

One master,

Ben Teima,

holds: Tevel is more severe,

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

And the other,

the first tanna,

holds: Teruma is more severe

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

The Gemara explains the reason for their dispute:

One master,

Ben Teima,

holds: Tevel is more severe,

since it is prohibited to everyone, both to an Israelite and to a koen.

But teruma—

is fit for a koen,

and therefore its prohibition is less severe than the prohibition of tevel.

And the other,

the first tanna,

holds: Teruma is more severe,

as there is no remedy that makes it permissible for a non-koen to eat.

But tevel—

it is possible to rectify it,

and it will become permissible for non-koanim to eat as well [apart from the teruma in it].