Yoma 85a — the Talmud in English

And Shmuel said:

What we learned—that when the majority are Israelites, he is an Israelite—is with regard to

clearing the debris from upon him

on Shabbat. But when it is half-and-half, so that he is only doubtfully an Israelite, one does not clear the debris from upon him.

And this ruling contradicts Shmuel’s earlier ruling, for he said: In matters of preserving life, one does not follow the majority.

And we answer:

When Shmuel’s statement

“to clear the debris from upon him” was said—

it was said with regard to the first clause

of the Mishna there,

it was said.

For this is what we learned there:

If the majority are gentiles—

he is a gentile.

And concerning this he said:

Shmuel said: But with regard to preserving life—

it is not so,

because in matters of preserving life one does not follow the majority; therefore, even when the majority are gentiles, one clears the debris from upon him on Shabbat.

And that which we learned:

“If the majority are gentiles

then he is

a gentile” \-

For what halakhic purpose?

Rav Pappa said: To feed him carrion,

as one would a gentile.

And this that we learned:

“If the majority are Israelites

then he is

an Israelite”—

For what halakhic purpose?

For even when it is half-and-half, one does not feed him carrion!

To return his lost object to him.

But when it is half-and-half, one does not return it to him, since he is doubtfully an Israelite and doubtfully a gentile; rather, one says to him: Bring proof that you are an Israelite, and only then will we return your lost object to you.

“Half-and-half

then he is

an Israelite”—

For what halakhic purpose?

Reish Lakish said: With regard to damages.

And the Gemara explains:

What are the circumstances?

If you say that our ox gored

our ox

his ox,

his ox, why is he considered an Israelite? For

let him bring proof

that he is an Israelite

and let him take!

For the one who seeks to extract money from his fellow bears the proof. And an Israelite is not obligated to pay a gentile for the damages caused by his ox.

No, it is necessary when his ox gored

his ox

our ox

our ox.

Half,

half the damage, which an Israelite pays—the owner of an innocuous ox whose innocuous ox gored the ox of another Israelite—

he gives him.

But

the other half,

which a gentile, the owner of an innocuous ox, must pay if his ox gored [since the law of half-damages for an ox that has become forewarned applies only to an Israelite’s ox, whereas a gentile’s ox pays full damages]—

let him say to him,

the doubtful Israelite, to the injured party:

Bring

you

proof that I am not an Israelite, and take it.

For you are the one seeking to extract money from me, and you must bring proof in order to extract money from me.

We learned in the Mishna:

One upon whom a collapsed structure fell,

it is uncertain whether he is there or whether he is not there; it is uncertain whether he is alive or whether he is dead; it is uncertain whether he is a Cuthean or whether he is an Israelite.

And we inquire concerning it:

What is it saying?

Why did the tannai state so many different uncertainties? And we answer: The tannai, in the formulation of

“it is not necessary to say,” said:

It is not necessary to say: It is uncertain whether he is there or whether he is not there, for if he is there

if he is certainly found there

he is alive—

one clears the debris.

Rather, even when it is uncertain whether he is alive or whether he is dead—

one clears the debris.

And it is not necessary to say when it is uncertain whether an Israelite is alive or dead.

Rather, even when it is uncertain whether he is a gentile or an Israelite—

one clears the debris.

We further learned in the Mishna:

If they found him alive—

they clear the debris.

And we wonder:

If they found him alive—

it is obvious

that they clear the debris!

No, it is necessary to teach that even for the

rescue of

temporary life,

so that he will live only for a short time, one desecrates Shabbat on his account.

We further learned:

And if he died—

they leave him.

And we wonder:

This too is obvious

is it!

And we answer:

No, it is necessary,

but

for the

words of

Rabbi Yehuda ben Lakish.

For it was taught in a beraita: One does not rescue the dead

by moving him

because of a fire,

because he is muktzeh.

Rabbi Yehuda ben Lakish said: I heard

from my teachers

that

so

one does rescue the dead because of a fire.

And even Rabbi Yehuda ben Lakish did not say

that the Sages permitted the prohibition of moving muktzeh for the purpose of rescuing the dead from a fire,

except because a person is distraught over his dead, and if you do not permit him

to move him,

he will come to extinguish

the fire and violate the prohibition of the labor of extinguishing.

But here,

when a collapsed structure fell upon him and he died, they did not permit taking him out from there.

Since

if you do not permit him

if you do not permit him to clear him from there—

what does he have to do?

For there is nothing for you to fear, lest he stumble.

The Sages taught: To what point does he

clear the debris, so that he will

examine

the one upon whom the collapsed structure fell, whether he is alive or dead?

Until

he can examine the breathing of

his nose.

And if he reached his nose and found that he was not breathing, he may not continue clearing the debris on Shabbat.

And some say: Until

he can examine the pulse of

his heart.

If the collapsed structure fell upon several people, and

he examined and found

people

above to be dead—

he should not say: The ones below have already died

who are beneath them in the collapsed structure. Rather, he should continue clearing the debris, lest they be alive.

An incident occurred, and they found those above dead and those below alive.

And we inquire concerning it:

Shall we say that these tannaim,

who disagreed whether one examines to his nose or to his heart, disagreed in the dispute of

these tannaim:

For it was taught in a beraita: From where is the fetus formed

first?

From its head.

As it is stated [תהלים עא]

“From my mother’s womb You cut me out

“From my mother’s womb You cut me off

”.

And it says [ירמיהו ז]

“Cut off your crown

“Cut off your crown [שער ראשך] [the hair of your head]

the hair of your head,

and cast it away”.

Thus, the expression “cutting off” refers to a person’s head, and from it the person is formed in his mother’s womb.

Abba Shaul says:

the fetus is formed

from its navel.

And

afterward it

sends out its roots in this direction and in that direction.

And ostensibly, life depends on the formation: whether it is from the head, where the nose is, or from the abdomen, where the heart is.

And we say:

Even if you say [that the opinion is] Abba Shaul,

one must examine the breathing of the nose.

For

Abba Shaul said that there

that the fetus is formed from the navel

only with regard to formation.

Since

everything

every thing

from its middle

from its middle

is formed

is formed.

But with regard to preserving life—

even Abba Shaul concedes that the primary life is in his face.

And as

it is written [בראשית ז]

“All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life

“Everything that has the breath of the spirit of life in its nostrils

”.

Rav Pappa said: The dispute

is when one clears the debris while finding it lying upside down,

from below upward,

whether examining the heart is sufficient, or whether he continues clearing the debris until he reaches the nose and examines his breath.

But

if he clears the debris in the manner in which it stands,

from above downward,

then

since he examined him as far as his nose

and found no breath in him,

he no longer needs

to continue clearing the debris and examining the heart.

As it is written: “Everything that has the breath of the spirit of life in its nostrils

”. And it implies that the breathing is determinative.

And Rabbi Yishmael, Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya were once walking on the road, and Levi the arranger and Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, were walking behind them.

And

this question was asked before them: From where do we know that preserving life overrides Shabbat?

Rabbi Yishmael responded and said: [שמות כב]

“If a thief is found breaking in

“If the thief is found in a tunnel

and he is struck and dies—he has no blood-guilt.”

And this one,

who comes in a tunnel,

for it is uncertain

whether the thief

for

the theft of

property

he

comes, or whether it is uncertain whether he comes

to murder,

he comes.

And

its matter is extremely serious, for

bloodshed defiles the land and causes the Divine Presence to depart from Israel.

Nevertheless,

he may be saved

for the homeowner

at the cost of his life

of the thief.

It is a kal va-chomer for preserving life, which overrides Shabbat.

Rabbi Akiva responded and said: [שמות כא]

“When a man acts intentionally against his fellow

“But if a man acts presumptuously against his fellow

to kill him by guile—

from My altar you shall take him to die.”

And we expound:

“From My altar

you shall take him,” if he has not yet begun the Temple service.

And not “from upon My altar

”, for if he has begun serving, they wait for him until the end of his service.

And the Gemara brings the words of Rabbi Yohanan in order to explain Rabbi Akiva’s exposition:

And Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yohanan said: They taught

that they do not take the koen in the middle of his service

except

in order

to execute

him, in court.