Yoma 85a (פה.) — the Talmud in English

And Shmuel said:

what we learned, that when the majority are Jews, he is considered a Jew, applies with regard to

clearing the debris from upon him

on Shabbat. But when it is half and half, so that he is only possibly Jewish, we do not clear the debris from upon him.

And this contradicts Shmuel’s earlier ruling, that one does not follow the majority in matters of saving a life.

And we answer:

when Shmuel’s statement

“to clear the debris from upon him” was stated, it was

with regard to the first clause

of that Mishna,

that it was stated.

For this is what we learned there:

if the majority are gentiles—he is

a gentile.

And concerning this

Shmuel said: But with regard to saving a life—

this is not so,

since one does not follow the majority in matters of saving a life; therefore, even when the majority are gentiles, we clear the debris from upon him on Shabbat.

And what we learned:

“If the majority are gentiles,

he is

a gentile” \-

With regard to what halakha?

Rav Pappa said: To feed him carcasses,

as one would a gentile.

And this that we learned:

“If the majority are Jews,

he is

a Jew”—

with regard to what halakha?

After all, even when it is half and half, we do not feed him carcasses!

To return his lost property.

But when it is half and half, we do not return it to him, since he is possibly Jewish and possibly a gentile; we say to him: Bring proof that you are Jewish, and only then will we return your lost property to you.

“When it is half and half,

he is

a Jew”—

with regard to what halakha?

Reish Lakish said: With regard to damages.

And the Gemara explains:

What are the circumstances?

If, say, our ox gored

our ox

his ox,

his ox—why is he considered a Jew? After all,

let him bring proof

that he is Jewish,

and let him collect!

For the burden of proof rests upon the one who seeks to extract payment from another. And a Jew is not obligated to pay a gentile for damage caused by his ox.

No, it is necessary when his ox gored

his ox

our ox,

our ox.

Half—

the half-damage that a Jew, the owner of a harmless ox, must pay when his harmless ox gores another Jew’s ox—

he gives him.

But

the other half,

which a gentile who owns a harmless ox would have to pay if his ox gored [since the law of half-damage for an ox that has become forewarned applies only when the ox belongs to a Jew, whereas a gentile’s ox pays full damages]—

let him say to him,

to the injured party who is possibly Jewish:

Bring

you

proof that I am not Jewish, and collect.

Since you are the one seeking to extract money from me, the burden is upon you to 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 not; it is uncertain whether he is alive or dead; it is uncertain whether he is a gentile or whether he is Jewish.

And we inquire about this:

What is it saying?

Why did the tanna state so many different uncertainties? And we answer: The tanna employed the expression

“it is not necessary to say”:

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

if he is certainly found there,

he is alive—

we clear the debris.

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

we clear the debris.

And it is not necessary to say when it is uncertain whether a Jew is alive or dead.

Rather, even if it is uncertain whether he is a gentile or a Jew—

we clear the debris.

We learned further in the Mishna:

If they found him alive—

they clear the debris.

And we wonder:

“If they found him alive”—

isn’t it obvious

that they clear the debris?

No, it is necessary to teach that even for

the rescue of

temporary life,

when he will live only for a short time, we violate Shabbat on his behalf.

We learned further:

And if he died—

they leave him.

And we wonder:

Is this also obvious

that this is the case?

And we answer:

No, it is necessary—

rather,

according to

the words of

Rabbi Yehuda ben Lakish.

As it is taught in a baraita: One may not rescue the dead

by moving him

because of a fire,

since he is muktzeh.

Rabbi Yehuda ben Lakish said: I heard

from my teachers

that

this is the case:

one may rescue the dead from a fire.

And even Rabbi Yehuda ben Lakish did not say

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

except because a person is distraught over his dead relative; if you do not permit him

to move him,

he will come to extinguish

the fire and transgress the prohibition against the labor of extinguishing.

But here,

when the 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?

There is no concern that he might stumble into sin.

The Sages taught: Until where does he clear

the debris, so that he can

check

whether the person upon whom the collapsed structure fell is alive or dead?

Until

he can check the breathing of

his nose.

And if he reaches his nose and finds that he is not breathing, he may not continue clearing the debris on Shabbat.

And some say: Until

he can check the beating of

his heart.

If the collapsed structure fell upon several people, and he

checked and found

the people

above dead—

he should not say: The people below have already died,

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

There was an incident in which they found those above dead, and those below alive.

And we inquire about this:

Shall we say that these tanna'im,

who disagree over whether one checks as far as the nose or as far as the heart, disagree over the same dispute as

these tanna'im:

As it is taught in a baraita: From where is the fetus formed

first?

From its head.

As it is stated [Psalms 71]:

“From my mother’s womb You cut me out

”.

”.

And it says [Jeremiah 7]:

“Cut off your crown

[the hair of your head]

and cast it away

”.

Thus, the expression “cut 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 every direction.

Apparently, the determination of life depends on the place of 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 it is Abba Shaul,

one must check the breathing of the nose.

For

Abba Shaul said this only there,

that the fetus is formed from the navel,

only with regard to formation.

Since

everything

is

formed from its middle,

from its center,

it is formed

there.

But with regard to saving a life—

even Abba Shaul concedes that the source of life is in the face,

as

it is written [Genesis 7]:

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

”.

”.

Rav Pappa said: The dispute

concerns one who clears a collapsed structure when he finds the person lying face down,

from bottom to top,

whether checking the heart is sufficient or whether he continues clearing until he reaches the nose and checks his breath.

But

if he clears the collapsed structure in the direction in which it stands,

from top to bottom,

then

once he has checked him as far as his nose

and found no breathing in him,

he no longer needs

to continue clearing and check the heart.

As it is written: “All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life

”. This indicates that breathing is determinative.

And it once happened that Rabbi Yishmael, Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya were 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 posed to them: From where is it derived that saving a life overrides Shabbat?

Rabbi Yishmael responded and said: [Exodus 22]

“If a thief is found breaking in

“If a thief is found breaking in

and he is struck and dies, there is no bloodguilt for him”.

And this one,

the one who comes in stealth,

who is in doubt

whether the thief

comes for

the theft of

property,

or

comes for a life,

to murder,

he comes.

And

his matter is exceedingly severe, because

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

Nevertheless,

it is permitted to save him

the homeowner

at the cost of his life

the thief.

A fortiori, saving a life overrides Shabbat.

Rabbi Akiva responded and said: [Exodus 21]

“When a man acts intentionally 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 sacrificial service.

And not “from atop My altar”,

for if he has begun the service, we wait until he completes his service.

And the Gemara cites Rabbi Yohanan’s statement to explain Rabbi Akiva’s derivation:

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

that one does not take the koen in the middle of his service

only

in order

to execute

him in court.