POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
by Rabbi Ephraim Becker
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous dafYoma 85
YOMA 59-88 have been dedicated to the memory of the late Dr. Simcha
Bekelnitzky (Simcha Gedalya ben Shraga Feibush) of Queens N.Y. by his wife
and daughters. Well known in the community for his Chesed and Tzedakah, he
will long be remembered.
1) SHMUEL ON ROV IN PIKUACH NEFESH (cont'd)
(a) Question: But Shmuel taught (on the Mishnah determining the
status of an abandoned child) that we only permit saving the
buried person when there is a Jewish majority!?
2) THE MISHNAH REGARDING AN ABANDONED CHILD
(b) Answer: Shmuel was qualifying the Reisha of that Mishnah
(which presumes that the child is a Gentile when the
majority of residents are non-Jews) by saying that regarding
Pikuach Nefesh, we do not apply this majority rule and we
*do* save the person (consistent with his earlier teaching).
(a) Question: What application can be derived from assuming the
child to be a non-Jew if the majority are non-Jews?
3) THE DOUBTS ARISING IN THE CASE OF THE TRAPPED PERSON
(b) Answer: To permit feeding him non-kosher food.
(c) Question: And of what consequence is the teaching that he is
considered a Jew when surrounded by a Jewish majority (since
we may not feed him non-kosher food even when it is 50-50)?
(d) Answer: We must return his lost articles (which we would not
do if it was 50-50).
(e) Question: What is the consequence of teaching that in a 50-
50 case we will see him as a Jew?
(f) Answer: For the purposes of damages.
1. Question: If a Jew's ox gored his, he should have to
bring proof of his Jewishness in order to collect (the
burden of proof is always on the claimant)!?
2. Answer: It is speaking in a case when *his* ox (a Tam)
gores that of a Jew, and the Jew is claiming *full*
damages (which a gentile would be obligated to pay) and
the Jew would have to prove that the child is a non-Jew
to collect full damages.
(a) Question: Why does the Mishnah list all of the possible
4) SAVING THE BURIED MAN
(b) Answer: The Mishnah is built in steps of "not only..."
1. Not only if we are in doubt if a person is there, but
even if there is a doubt if he is alive;
2. And not only if we are in doubt if he is alive, but
even if we are in doubt if he is a Jew.
(a) Question: It is *obvious* that if they found the buried man
alive, they continue to dig!?
(b) Answer: We dig even if it would only be possible to keep him
alive for a short period of time (however short).
(c) Question: It is *obvious* that if he is dead we leave him!?
(d) Answer: We need to be taught this Din according to R.
Yehudah b. Lakish.
1. R. Yehudah b. Lakish permits carrying a corpse [which
is Muktzeh] from a fire, into a courtyard with an Eruv,
lest one [out of respect for the dead person] come to
extinguish the fire).
(e) Question: How far do we dig to establish if he is alive?
2. He did not permit digging up the corpse (since there no
Isur d'Oraysa which he might come to transgress).
(f) Answer: Until his nose and check his breathing.
(g) Answer: Untl his heart, to check his pulse.
[1. If many people were buried in an accident, and those
above are found to be dead we are obligated to continue
digging to check the ones below independently.
(h) Question: is this Machlokes hinged on the Machlokes
regarding the creation of a person?
2. The incident bears this out.]
1. The Tana Kama brings proofs that a baby is formed from
(i) Answer: Even Aba Shaul could agree here to check his
respiration since they are only discussing creation of the
person, not saving the life of the person (which, the Pasuk
indicates, is in the breath).
2. Aba Shaul says from the navel (since Hashem created
everything from the middle).
(j) (R. Papa) The above Machlokes is speaking where we are
digging from his feet.
1. Tana Kama holds to dig all the way to his nose and not
to rely on the absence of pulse.
(k) A group of Tana'im were asked for the source of the Halachah
that saving human life (even be'Safek) has precedence over
2. Yesh Omerim hold that the absence of pulse is
sufficient indication of the absence of respiration.
1. R. Yishmael derived it from the Pasuk "Im Ba'Machteres
Yimatzei Ha'Ganav ... " (If one is permitted to kill
[with all its implications] which is only *Safek*
Piku'ach Nefesh then one should certainly be permitted
to break the Shabbos for that).
2. R. Akiva inferred it from the Pasuk "Me'Im Mizbechi
Tikachenu Lamus", (If we will even interrupt the Avodah
(which over-rides Shabbos) to call a witness (whose
testimony may not be of any value), to save someone's
life then we should certainly break the Shabbos in
order to do so.
5) MISHNAH: THE ATONEMENT OF KORBANOS AND YOM KIPUR
3. R. Elazar responded from the Mitzvah of Milah - because
if one may break Shabbos to rectify *one* limb then one
may certainly do so to rectify the *entire body*.
(l) Rava found a weakness with each of the sources (each could
be understood to permit only Pikuach Nefesh *Vadai* not
*Safek* Pikuach Nefesh which we are seeking) other than that
4. R. Yosi b. R. Yehudah learns it from the excluding word
Ach (to teach us that there are cases where one is not
obligated to observe Shabbos).
5. R. Yonasan b. Yosef learns it from Kodesh Hi Lachem
(Shabbos is handed over to *us* [to observe], and not
we to it [to die]).
6. R. Shimon b. Menasyah derives it from Ve'Shameru B'nei
Yisrael Es Ha'Shabbos (one should break one Shabbos to
enable the person who will otherwise die, to keep many
7. Shmuel later asserted that it is best learned from the
Pasuk VeChai BaHem (live with the Mitzvos, not die for
1. R. Yishmael's source may be understood (as Rava does)
to refer to a certainty that the thief will kill the
homeowner (given the principle that a person does not
stand idly by when his money is being taken away).
(m) This led Ravina to praise Shmuel's teaching (one sharp
peppercorn is better than a basket-full of pumpkins).
2. R. Akiva's source may be understood (as Abaye does)
that two Talmidei-Chachamim will check that his
testimony is valuable, in which case, it is no longer a
case of Safek Pikuach Nefesh, but Vadai.
3. Similarly with the other sources mentioned.
4. Shmuel's source is the only one which covers *Safek*
Piku'ach Nefesh because the Pasuk implies that the
Mitzvos must be a source of life at all costs, whether
one keeps them, or breaks them.
(a) Korbanos Chatas and Asham (Vadai), and Misah and Yom Kipur
atone, together with Teshuvah.
6) ASHAM TALUI
(b) Teshuvah alone atones for Mitzvos Aseh and Lo Sa'aseh.
(c) Aveiros which incur Misah require Yom Kipur (to suspend the
afflictions) and Yom Kipur to atone, with Teshuvah.
(d) One who plans to do an Aveirah and Teshuvah for it, is
hindered from doing Teshuvah.
(e) One who does an Aveirah relying on the atonement of Yom
Kipur does not benefit from that atonement.
(f) Yom Kipur does not atone for sins between man and man.
1. These require reconciliation between the parties.
(g) R. Akiva learns from the Pasuk that Hashem purifies us from
our sins just as a Mikvah purifies those who are impure.
2. R. Elazar b. Azaryah learns this from the Pasuk Lifnei
(a) Question: Asham Talui should be mentioned together with
Chatas and Asham Vadai - since the word Kaparah appears
7) DEATH AND YOM KIPUR WITH OR WITHOUT TESHUVAH
(b) Answer: An Asham Talui, unlike an Asham Vadai, does not
atone completely (it only holds off the punishment until he
ascertains that he sinned and can bring his Chatas).
(c) Alternate Answer: The Asham Talui is not grouped with the
others since Yom Kipur is a backup Kaparah for it.
(a) Question: If we infer that without Teshuvah Yom Kipur and
Misah do not atone, then this would not follow the opinion
of Rebbi (according to whom Yom Kipur atones even without
Teshuvah, with the exception of one who denies Hashem (Porek
Ol), interprets the Torah however it suits him or negates
the B'ris Milah).
8) R. YEHUDAH ON ASEH AND LO SA'ASEH
(b) Answer: Rebbi might agree with our Mishnah, which only says
that Teshuvah alone needs Yom Kipur; it does not say that
Yom Kipur needs Teshuvah.
(a) Question: If Teshuvah atones for Mitzvos Lo Sa'aseh, is it
not obvious that it will atone for Mitzvos Aseh as well!?
(b) Answer: R. Yehudah therefore amends Lo Sa'aseh to Lav
HaNitak Le'Aseh (which needs to be also taught as it does
not incur Malkos, and is not more stringent than an Aseh).
(c) Question: Does Teshuvah then *not* atone for a Lo Sa'aseh!?
1. The Beraisa teaches that Teshuvah *does* atone for Lo
(d) Answer: The Tana means by Lo Sisa to include with it all
comparable Lavin (which are not Nitak Le'Aseh).
2. The only exception listed in Beraisa is Lo Sisa