Yoma 85b (פה:) — the Talmud in English

But

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

to save

him,

even from atop My altar

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

And what is this?

If one knows testimony that could save someone,

where there is uncertainty whether his testimony has substance or whether it has no substance, and

he is in the middle of performing the Temple service, which is stringent, since

the service overrides Shabbat,

his service is interrupted so that he may come to testify and save him.

A fortiori, for the sake of saving a life

itself,

which

he

overrides Shabbat.

Rabbi Elazar responded and said: And

for the sake of fulfilling

circumcision, which is

only

one of a person's 248 limbs—

it overrides

the need to fulfill the mitzva

of Shabbat.

A fortiori, for

the sake of preserving

his entire body—

it overrides

saving him

from Shabbat.

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says:

[Exodus 31] “But

you shall observe My Sabbaths.”

One might have thought: In every case,

under all circumstances?

The verse states: ‘But’—

it makes a distinction.

The word “but” is restrictive, teaching that a distinction must be made between different circumstances.

From here we understand that the verse is speaking of a case involving preservation of 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 to you

to observe.

But you are not entrusted to it.

You are not required to surrender your life for its observance.

Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says:

[Exodus 31]

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

care must be taken that the mitzva of Shabbat be observed.

Therefore, in considering the fulfillment of the mitzva of Shabbat, the Torah said that as part of the mitzva of “observing” it:

Desecrate one Shabbat for his sake, so that he may observe many Shabbatot.

Rabbi Yehuda said that Shmuel said: If I had been

there,

in that place

among those tannaim,

I would have said

to them that the source

of my own

is

is superior to theirs.

For according to my statement, this may be derived from here:

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

and live by them”—

and not die by them.

Rava said: All of them

the teachings of all the tannaim cited above

have a refutation,

apart

from

the

teaching

of Shmuel, which has no refutation.

And Rava explains: The teaching

of Rabbi Yishmael

has a refutation, because

perhaps

the law of the intruder who comes through a breach

is in accordance with Rava’s explanation.

Accordingly, it cannot be derived from there that Shabbat is overridden for the sake of a possible danger to life.

As Rava said: What is the reason for the law of an intruder,

that it is permitted to kill the thief who enters through a breach?

Because

it is presumed

that

a person does not restrain himself

from standing

up for his property

to save it.

And this one,

this thief who comes through a breach,

knows full well that the owner will stand

that the homeowner will stand

against him

in order to prevent him from taking his property.

And he says

to himself:

If he stands against me,

if that man stands against me,

I will kill him!

And the Torah said: If

a

a person comes

to

to kill you—

rise early to kill him!

And

according to Rabbi Yishmael,

we find

only that

certain

danger to life overrides Shabbat, as in the case of an intruder, where the danger to life certainly overrides the prohibition against murder.

But

a possible

danger to life—

from where do we know

that it too overrides Shabbat?

If so, this cannot establish the permissibility of violating Shabbat for the sake of preserving life except in a case of certain danger to life, and not in a case of possible danger. It follows that according to Rabbi Yishmael, we have no source that possible danger to life overrides Shabbat.

Rabbi Akiva’s

teaching also has a refutation, because

perhaps

the priest is not taken away from his service even in a case of uncertainty, but only

as

he said

Abaye said.

As Abaye said: When one is being taken out to be stoned and says, “I have a defense by which I can be saved,” he is returned to be judged favorably only if it is examined whether his claim has substance. Therefore,

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 send with him a pair of Torah scholars,

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

to determine whether

there is

substance to his claim

or not.

The same applies to a priest who knows testimony: He is not interrupted in the midst of his service unless it is first examined whether his testimony has substance,

and

it follows that

we find

only

certain

salvation, for only then is his service interrupted. Similarly, Shabbat is violated for the sake of certain salvation; but in a case of

possible

danger to life—

from where do we know

that Shabbat may be violated?

And

likewise with regard to the statements of

all

the other tannaim,

we find

only that

certain

danger to life overrides Shabbat. But in a case of

possible

danger to life that overrides Shabbat—

from where do we know this?

And

if it were the teaching

of Shmuel—

it certainly has no refutation.

For the meaning of the verse is that a person should perform the mitzvot and live through their performance with certainty, rather than place his life in jeopardy through their performance.

Ravina said, and some say Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak

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

One sharp peppercorn is better

than one kernel of hot pepper

than

that which fills

a full basket

a vessel

of gourds

of gourds.

Mishna:

Our Mishna explains the types of atonement for transgressions, including the atonement of Yom Kippur:

A. A

sin-offering, and

likewise a

definite guilt-offering

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

effect atonement

[and the atonement effected by a provisional guilt-offering will be explained in the Gemara]. This atonement is together with repentance, for had he not regretted his sin, he would not have brought the sin-offering or the guilt-offering.

Likewise,

death

of a person,

and

likewise

Yom Kippur—

effect atonement together with repentance.

B.

Repentance effects atonement for minor transgressions: for

failure to perform a positive mitzva,

and for

the transgression of prohibitions of

“you shall not.”

And for

the

severe

transgressions, whose punishment is death at the hand of Heaven or karet,

repentance

can only

suspend

the punishment and protect him from suffering, but it does not effect atonement

until Yom Kippur arrives and effects atonement.

C. One who says,

“I will sin and repent; I will sin and repent”—

he is not given the opportunity to repent.

D. One who says:

“I will sin, and Yom Kippur will effect atonement”—

Yom Kippur does not effect atonement

for him.

E. Only for

transgressions between a person and God does

Yom Kippur effect atonement.

But for

transgressions between one person and another—

Yom Kippur does not effect atonement until he appeases the other person.

F.

Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya expounded:

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

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

Transgressions between a person and God—

Yom Kippur effects atonement.

Transgressions between one person and another: Yom Kippur does not effect atonement until he appeases the other person.

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 does the Holy One, blessed be He, purify Israel.

Gemara:

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

And we raised a difficulty concerning this: Is it only a

definite guilt-offering—

yes,

it effects atonement, whereas a

provisional guilt-offering,

brought for a possible inadvertent sin [for which one is liable to a sin-offering when the inadvertent transgression is certain]—

no,

it does not effect atonement!?

But atonement is explicitly written with regard to it,

the provisional guilt-offering! And we answer:

Those

sin-offerings and definite guilt-offerings

effect complete atonement.

But

a provisional guilt-offering does not effect complete atonement;

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

Alternatively: Those

sin-offerings and definite guilt-offerings

have no

thing

else

that

effects the atonement they effect.

But

a provisional guilt-offering—

there is also something

else

that

effects the atonement it effects.

As we learned in a Mishna: Those liable to bring sin-offerings and definite guilt-offerings,

even though

Yom Kippur has passed over them—

are liable

to bring them.

But those liable to bring

provisional guilt-offerings when

Yom Kippur has passed over them—

are exempt

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

We learned in the Mishna:

Death and Yom Kippur effect atonement together with repentance.

And the Gemara infers:

Together with repentance—

yes,

only together with it do they effect atonement. But

by themselves—

no,

they do not effect atonement.

Shall we say

that our

Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi

?

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

Except for one who casts off the yoke, and

the one who

interprets the Torah antagonistically,

expounding it disparagingly,

and

the one who

violates the covenant of the flesh,

who nullifies the mitzva of circumcision,

for

only

if he repented does

Yom Kippur effect atonement

for him.

But if he did not repent—

Yom Kippur does not effect atonement.

And we answer:

Even say

that our Mishna is according to

Rabbi—it is satisfactory.

it is resolved.

For indeed,

repentance requires Yom Kippur.

But

Yom Kippur does not require repentance

along with it; rather, it effects atonement by itself.

We learned in the Mishna:

Repentance effects atonement for minor transgressions, for positive mitzvot and for negative mitzvot.

And we raised a difficulty concerning this:

Now, for

a transgression of

“you shall not”

repentance

effects atonement;

for

failure to perform a positive

mitzva—

is it necessary

to state that it effects atonement for it!?

Rav Yehuda said: This is what it means:

Repentance effects atonement

for a positive mitzva, and for a negative mitzva 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 were mentioned.

And we challenge this: According to your statement,

and

is it the case that

for a complete negative mitzva

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

no

repentance alone does not effect atonement?

And we juxtapose to this

the following baraita:

These are

the

minor

mitzvot for which repentance alone effects atonement:

Positive

and negative mitzvot!