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 84
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) A MAD DOG
(a) The Beraisa lists five attributes of a mad dog.
2) R. YOCHANAN AND THE CURE FOR TZAFIDNA
(b) Question: How did he become this way?
(c) Answer (Rav): Witches fun.
(d) Answer (Shmuel): Evil spirits.
(e) Question: What difference does it make how it became mad?
(f) Answer: Whether to kill it from a distance (Shmuel, lest the
evil spirits attack the person) or in any manner (Rav).
(g) A Beraisa supports Shmuel, indicating also that it is
dangerous to rub up against a mad dog (and lethal to be
bitten by one).
(h) The Gemara describes the procedure (removing one's coat,
etc) for dealing with the dangers created by rubbing up
against such a dog (and R. Huna was able to save himself
with this knowledge).
(i) The Gemara describes the incantation and procedure needed to
save one who was bitten by such a dog.
1. During the 12 months of the procedure the victim should
not drink from a cup in a manner which would allow the
image of the offending spirit to endanger the victim
who would see it.
2. This precaution was taken in the case of Aba b. Marta.
(a) When a gentile matron administered a cure for R. Yochanan's
Tzafidna for two consecutive days - he asked her for
instructions on how to prepare it himself, should the need
arise on Shabbos.
3) R. YOCHANAN AND R. MASYA B. CHARASH
(b) She made him swear by the G-d of Israel that he would not
divulge the formula; he swore and then divulged the secret.
(c) He did not break his promise - because when she demanded
that he swear by the G-d of Israel that he would not so, he
inverted her words, and swore that he would not divulge her
secret *to* the G-d of Israel.
(d) Neither did he create a Chilul Hashem by causing her to
*think* that he was breaking his promise - because he
informed her immediately as to what he had done.
(e) Some say that the secret cure was yeast-water, olive oil and
(f) There are two other opinions:
1. One, replace yeast-water with ... yeast.
(g) (Abaye) None of the above methods work, however, an Arab
told him to use date-stones that had not yet grown a third -
which he was to burn in the fire produced by a burning a new
hoe, and to place the ashes on his teeth.
2. Two, state only one ingredient - the oil from one of
the feathers on a goose's wing.
(h) Question: How does one contract Tzafidna?
(i) Answer: Tzafidna is caused by eating very hot bread and the
remnants of fish fried in flour, in their own oil.
(j) Question: How does one know that he has contracted it?
(k) Answer: When his teeth bleed easily.
(a) R. Yochanan permitted this cure (for Tzafidna) on Shabbos.
(b) Question: In accordance with whom is this Heter?
(c) Answer: R. Masya b. Charash (who maintains in our Mishnah
that any illness inside the mouth is considered life-
(d) Question (R. Chiya b. Aba): But the Chachamim disagree (in
the case of the Chatzar Kaved)!?
(e) Answer (R. Yochanan): The Chachamim argued only regarding
that particular procedure, not regarding other medications.
(f) A Beraisa seems to support R. Yochanan's contention:
1. (R. Masya b. Charash) A person...
(g) This seems to be supported by the Beraisa.
i. With jaundice is permitted to eat donkey's meat.
2. (Chachamim) *Be'Eilu* Ein BaHem MiShum Refu'ah.
ii. Bitten by a mad dog may eat part of its liver.
iii. Whose mouth hurts may take medicine.
3. Question: What are Chachamim specifying (and excluding)
4. Answer: The jaundice and mad dog bite are *not* Refu'ah
and the throat medicine *is* (like R. Yochanan).
5. No, the Chachamim are arguing with all three Refu'os,
and only concede the efficacy of a fourth case, letting
blood for someone who has Serunchi.
1. The Chachamim (referring to three lenient rulings of R.
Masya b. Charash, the first of which is letting blood
for Serunchi) comment Be'*Eilu* Ein BaHem MiShum
(h) No, R. Yochanan may be defended, as Be'Eilu refers to the
*first two* cases, and the Chachamim are allowing for the
effectiveness of the last case (medicine for oral pain).
2. Presumably *Be'Eilu* challenges the effectiveness of
the last two stated cases, and excludes the first
(allowing that it is effective).
(i) R. Yochanan may be supported from a third Beraisa.
4) SAFEK NEFASHOS
1. (R. Elazar b. R. Yosi citing R. Masya b. Charash) It is
permitted to feed:
(j) This, indeed, supports R. Yochanan, and R. Ashi infers this
from the (manner in which the cases are listed the Chachamim
are arguing in the) Mishnah itself.
i. A pregnant woman until she recovers;
2. (Chachamim) Be'Zu Ve'Lo Be'Acheres.
ii. Chatzar Kaved for a mad dog bite; and,
iii. Medicine on Shabbos for oral pain.
3. Question: To which case do the Chachamim refer?
4. Answer: To the pregnant woman.
5. Question: Their agreement to this case is obvious!
6. Answer: They must refer to, and agree with, the
medicine for oral pain (they cannot refer to the
Chatzar Kaved since the Chachamim explicitly argue in
the Mishnah on this case).
(a) Question: Why does the Mishnah tell us, again (after
teaching that someone with mouth pains is a case of Safek
Nefashos), that all Safek Nefashos is Docheh Shabbos?
5) PIKUACH NEFESH ON SHABBOS
(b) Answer (R. Yehudah citing Rav): To permit breaking the
Shabbos even if he might die on a different Shabbos (but
would certainly survive this one).
(c) Question: What would be an example?
(d) Answer: The doctors assessed that the patient needed to take
cures for eight days and we might otherwise have thought
that we may as well wait for night-fall and begin taking the
medicine only *after* Shabbos, in order to avoid unnecessary
(e) This is borne out by a Beraisa, which permits breaking
*this* Shabbos for a Safek Piku'ach Nefesh *next* Shabbos.
(f) Where it is necessary to save a Jew's life, we do rely on a
gentile or a child to do so (in the most effective manner)
but rather an adult Jew should do the Chilul Shabbos.
(g) We are not Mechalel Shabbos based only on the assessment of
women or gentiles, however, they combine with another person
to permit the patient to eat (even against two others saying
that he need not eat).
(a) The Beraisa teaches in four cases that one who is quick to
be Mechalel Shabbos and save a life is praiseworthy and then
teaches that he need not obtain permission from Beis Din.
6) ROV IN PIKUACH NEFESH
(b) The Gemara explains by each case why one who is praiseworthy
might think to nevertheless seek permission.
1. By a child who fell into the sea (even though he will
trap fish for himself).
(c) We need to be taught each of the four cases, owing to the
peculiarities of each case.
2. By a child who fell into a deep pit (even though he
fashions a ladder for himself).
3. By a child on whom the door closed and locked (even
though he seeks to use the splinters from the door).
4. By someone who was trapped by an oncoming fire (even
though he intends to preserve the coals thereby).
1. The child who fell in the sea would be swept away if
time were allowed for questions, unlike the child in
2. The child in the pit may go into shock whereas we might
be able to play games with the child on the other side
of the door until after Shabbos.
3. We repeat the Heter regarding an oncoming fire even if
the child is in another court-yard.
(a) (R. Yosef citing R. Yehudah citing Shmuel) In matters of
life and death, we do not follow the majority.
(b) Question: Under what circumstances are we taught this Din?
1. Answer 1: In the case of a wall which fell onto a group
of nine Jews and one gentile, burying one beneath it,
and we do not know which one.
(c) Answer 4: It speaks of the case in Answer 3, however the
wall fell on him after they had moved to another court-yard.
2. Question: But there it is *obvious* that we will follow
the majority in order to save a life!?
3. Answer 2: It speaks of the case where the group
consists of five Jews and five gentiles.
4. Question: But that is a regular case of Safek Nefashos
5. Answer 3: It speaks where there are nine gentiles and
6. Question: But the principle of Kol Kavu'a makes that
case obvious, as well (it is no different than 50-50)!?
1. We should apply the principle Kol De'Parish, Me'Rubah
Parish (making it forbidden to save him on Shabbos).
(d) Question: But R. Yochanan has taught that in just such a
case of nine Gentiles and one Jew, we only save the one
person in *that* Chatzer, not in another Chatzer!?
2. Shmuel has thus taught that we do not follow the Rov in
matters of Pikuach Nefesh.
(e) Answer: Shmuel speaks where they *all* moved to the other
Chatzer, thus we have established that a Jew is among the
group in the new Chatzer, while R. Yochanan forbade where
only *some* of the group moved to the new Chatzer.