Yoma 85b — the Talmud in English

But

if the priest who is now engaged in his service knows a defense for a person that is sufficient

to give life

to him,

even from above My altar

you shall take him to come and testify, in order to save the defendant.

And what is this,

that he knows testimony capable of saving,

that there is doubt whether there is substance in his words and doubt whether there is no substance in his words, and

he is engaged in the middle of the service in the Temple, which is stringent, for

service overrides Shabbat,

they interrupt his service so that he will come to testify and save.

A kal va-chomer for saving a life

itself,

that

it

overrides Shabbat.

Rabbi Elazar responded and said: And what

for the sake of fulfilling

circumcision, which is

only

one of the two hundred and forty-eight limbs in a person—

it overrides

the need to fulfill the mitzva

of Shabbat.

A kal va-chomer for

the need to fulfill

his entire body—

which overrides

his rescue

of Shabbat.

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says:

[Exodus 31] “But

My Shabbatot you shall observe.”

One might have thought: for everything,

in every situation?

The verse says: ‘But’—

it makes a distinction.

For the word “but” is a limitation, and it teaches that a distinction must be made between different situations.

And from here we understand that the verse is speaking of a place where there is danger to life, in which case one is not obligated to observe Shabbat.

Rabbi Yonatan ben Yosef says:

[Exodus 31]

“For it is holy to you.”

It,

Shabbat,

is entrusted into your hands

to fulfill it.

But you are not entrusted into its hands,

for you are not obligated to give over your life for its fulfillment.

Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says:

[Exodus 31]

“And the Children of Israel shall observe the Shabbat.” The Torah said:

one must take care that the mitzva of Shabbat be observed.

Therefore, in the consideration of fulfilling the mitzva of Shabbat, the Torah said that as part of the mitzva of “observing

it, desecrate one Shabbat for him, so that he may observe many Shabbatot.”

Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: If I had been

if I had been

there

there among those tannaim,

I would have said

to them that the source

of mine

mine

is superior to theirs.

For according to my words, this can be learned from here:

[Leviticus 18] “And you shall observe My statutes and My ordinances, which a person shall do,

and live through them”—

and not die through them.

Rava said: For all of them

the teachings of all the tannaim above,

there is a refutation.

Except

apart

for

his teaching,

that of Shmuel, which has no refutation.

And Rava explains: There is a refutation of the teaching

of Rabbi Yishmael,

because

perhaps

the law of a burglar who comes through a tunnel should be explained

in accordance with Rava.

And according to it, it is impossible to learn from it that Shabbat is overridden for the sake of a possible danger to life.

For Rava said: What is the reason for the tunnel,

that it is permitted to kill the burglar who comes through it?

Because it is

presumed

that

a person does not restrain himself

from standing

over his property

to save it.

And this one,

this burglar who comes through a tunnel,

knows that he will stand

that the homeowner will stand

opposite him

against him, in order to prevent him from taking his money.

And he says

the burglar in his heart:

If he stands opposite me,

if that one stands against me—

I shall kill him!

And the Torah said:

if

a person comes

a person

to kill you—

rise early to kill him!

And

according to the words of Rabbi Yishmael,

we find

we find only that

certain

danger to life overrides Shabbat, like a burglar who comes through a tunnel, for the danger to life in his case certainly overrides the prohibition of murder.

But

a possible

danger to life—

from where do we know

that it too overrides Shabbat?

And if so, it is impossible to learn from here about the permission of danger to life on Shabbat except for certain danger to life, and not for possible danger; it follows that according to Rabbi Yishmael we have no source that possible danger to life overrides Shabbat.

The teaching of Rabbi Akiva also

has a refutation, because

perhaps

the taking of the priest from the service is not done even in a case of doubt, but only

as

he said

Abaye.

For Abaye said:

One who is going out to be stoned, and said, “I have a defense by which to be saved,” is returned to have his case judged favorably; this is only when they examine whether there is substance in his words. Therefore,

we provide him with a pair of Torah scholars,

who accompany him on his way to the place of stoning, so that if he claims on the way, “I have a defense,” these can examine him,

to know whether

there is

substance in his words

or not.

And the same law applies to the priest who knows testimony: they interrupt him from his service only if they examine that there is substance in his words,

and

it follows that

we find

only

certain

rescue, for only then do they interrupt his service; and likewise, Shabbat is desecrated for the sake of certain rescue, but concerning

possible

danger to life—

from where do we know

that they desecrate Shabbat?

And

likewise in the words of

all of them,

the other tannaim,

we find

only that

certain

danger to life overrides Shabbat, but

possible

danger to life that overrides Shabbat—

from where do we know?

And

if it were the teaching

of Shmuel—

certainly it has no refutation.

For the meaning of the verse is that a person should perform the mitzvot and live through performing them with certainty, and not enter into danger concerning his life through performing them.

Ravina said, and some say Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak

said this concerning Shmuel’s teaching, which has no refutation, in contrast to the other teachings:

One sharp peppercorn is better

a good single seed of hot pepper

than

than

a full basket

a vessel

of gourds

of gourds.

Mishna:

Our Mishna explains the types of atonement for transgressions, among which the atonement of Yom Kippur is also included:

A. A

sin-offering, and

likewise a

definite guilt-offering

[a guilt-offering for robbery and a guilt-offering for misuse of consecrated property]—

atone

[and the atonement of a conditional guilt-offering will be explained in the Gemara]. And this atonement is together with repentance, for if he had not regretted his sin, he would not have brought the sin-offering or the guilt-offering.

And likewise

death

of the person,

and

likewise

Yom Kippur—

atone together with repentance.

B.

Repentance atones for minor transgressions, for

the neglect of positive mitzvot

and for

the transgression of prohibitions of

“You shall not do.”

And for

the

severe

transgressions, whose punishment is death by the hands of Heaven or karet—

repentance

can only

suspend

to protect from the sufferings, but it does not atone,

until Yom Kippur comes and atones.

C.

One who says: “I shall sin and repent, I shall sin and repent”—

they do not give him the opportunity to repent.

D. One who says:

“I shall sin, and Yom Kippur will atone”—

Yom Kippur does not atone

for him.

E. Only concerning

transgressions between a person and the Omnipresent—

Yom Kippur atones.

But concerning

transgressions between a person and his fellow—

Yom Kippur does not atone, until he appeases his fellow.

F.

Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya expounded:

[Leviticus 16] “For on this day He shall atone for you, to cleanse you

from all your sins; before the Lord you shall be cleansed.”

Transgressions between a person and the Omnipresent—

Yom Kippur atones.

Transgressions between a person and his fellow: Yom Kippur does not atone, until he appeases his fellow.

Rabbi Akiva said: Fortunate are you, Israel!

Before whom are you purified, and who purifies you—

your Father in Heaven!

As it is stated

[Ezekiel 36]

“And I shall sprinkle pure waters upon you, and you shall be purified.”

And it says

[Jeremiah 17]

“The hope of Israel—

the Lord”:

Just as a ritual bath purifies the impure, so the Holy One, blessed be He, purifies Israel.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna that a sin-offering and a definite guilt-offering atone.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it: Is it only

a definite guilt-offering—

yes,

it atones, whereas

a conditional guilt-offering,

which comes for a possible inadvertent sin [for a certain inadvertent sin one is liable to a sin-offering]—

no,

it does not atone!?

But atonement is written concerning it

in the conditional guilt-offering! And we answer:

These,

the sin-offering and the definite guilt-offering,

provide complete atonement.

But

a conditional guilt-offering does not provide complete atonement,

rather, it comes to protect from sufferings if he sinned, until his sin becomes certain and he brings a sin-offering.

Alternatively: These,

the sin-offering and the definite guilt-offering,

have no

thing

else

that

provides their atonement.

But

a conditional guilt-offering—

there is also something

else

that

provides its atonement.

For we learned: Those liable for sin-offerings and definite guilt-offerings,

despite

Yom Kippur having passed over them—

are liable

to bring them.

But those liable for

conditional guilt-offerings for whom

Yom Kippur passed—

are exempt

from bringing them, since Yom Kippur comes in their place.

We learned in the Mishna:

Death and Yom Kippur atone together with repentance.

And the Gemara infers:

together with repentance—

yes,

only together with it do they atone. But

by themselves—

no,

they do not atone.

Let us say

the Mishna

is not in accordance with Rabbi

it is.

For it was taught in a beraita, Rabbi says: For all the transgressions in the Torah, whether he repented or whether he did not repent, Yom Kippur atones.

Except for one who throws off the yoke, and

the

one who interprets the Torah presumptuously,

who expounds it disparagingly,

and

the

one who violates the covenant of the flesh,

who nullifies the mitzva of circumcision,

for

only

if he repented—

Yom Kippur atones

for him.

But if he did not repent—

Yom Kippur does not atone.

And we answer:

Even if you say

our Mishna is according to

Rabbi,

it is satisfactory.

For indeed,

repentance requires Yom Kippur.

But

Yom Kippur does not require repentance

along with it; rather, it atones by itself.

We learned in the Mishna:

Repentance atones for minor transgressions, for a positive mitzva and for a prohibition.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

Now, for

the transgression of

“You shall not do”,

repentance

atones.

For

the neglect of a positive mitzva

it is—

is it necessary to say,

that it atones for it!?

Rav Yehuda said: This is what he is saying:

Repentance atones

for a positive mitzva, and for a prohibition that is remedied by a positive mitzva,

for which one is not flogged, and which is no more severe than a positive mitzva; therefore both of them were written.

And we object: According to your words,

and

if

for a complete prohibition

which is not remedied by a positive mitzva, and for which one is flogged,

no,

repentance alone does not atone?

And we contradict it

from that which was taught in a beraita:

These are

the mitzvot

that are minor,

for which repentance alone atones:

Mitzvot

“positive and prohibitive”!