ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
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.
(a) Someone against whom a mad dog rubbed - should take off his clothes,
throw them in front of it and run.
(b) Someone who is bitten by a mad dog stands to die, unless he writes an
incantation to save himself - on the skin of a hyena.
(c) He should also bury his clothes for twelve months in the graves by the
crossroads - after which he takes them out, burns them and scatters the
ashes by the crossroads.
(d) During that time, he should not drink water without the aid of some sort
of straw - to avoid seeing the reflection of the demon (who jumped from the
dog on to him), thereby becoming endangered.
(a) When a gentile matron administered a cure for Rebbi Yochanan's
'Tzafidna' (a toothache that starts in the mouth and ends in the stomach)
for two consecutive days - he asked her for instructions on how to prepare
it himself, should the need arise on Shabbos.
(b) By divulging the secret, 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 (because in Lashon ha'Kodesh, both *by* the G-d ... and *to* the
G-d ... can be expressed by "le'Elokei Yisrael").
(c) 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
(d) Some say that the secret cure was yeast-water, olive oil and salt.
There are two other opinions: Some ...
- ... replace yeast-water with ... yeast.
- ... state only one ingredient - the oil from one of the feathers on a goose's wing.
(a) According to Abaye, all of the above methods do not work. 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
(b) 'Tzafidna' is caused by eating very hot bread and the remnants of fish
fried in flour, in their own oil. The sign that he has it - is when his
teeth bleed easily.
(c) Rebbi Yochanan permitted this cure on Shabbos - not necessarily because
he ruled like Rebbi Masya ben Charash (who maintains in our Mishnah that any
illness inside the mouth is considered life-danger), but
because the Rabbanan agreed with Rebbi Masya ben Charash in this point.
(d) Rebbi Masya ben Charash, in a Beraisa, permitted 1. someone with
jaundice, to eat donkey's meat; 2. someone bitten by a mad dog, to eat part
of its liver, and 3. someone whose mouth hurt, to take medicine. We presume
that when the Chachamim say '*be'Eilu* Ein Bahem Mishum Refu'ah", they refer
to the first two cases, but not to the third - a proof for Rebbi Yochanan's
(a) We refute this proof however - by explaining that *'be'Eilu'* pertains
to all three cases. It comes to preclude a fourth case - that of letting
blood for someone who has 'Serunchi' (quinsy), which even *they* considered
a reliable cure.
(b) In a second Beraisa, the Chachamim (referring to the three lenient
rulings of Rebbi Masya ben Charash 'Makizin Dam li'Serunki be'Shabbos, Mi
she'Nashcho Kelev Shoteh ... ', and 'ha'Choshesh be'Fiv, Matilin Lo Sam
be'Shabbos') comment 'be'*Eilu* Ein Bahem Mishum Refu'ah'. According to
Rebbi Yochanan, 'be'Eilu' refers to the first *two* cases, but excludes the
(c) We finally prove Rebbi Yochanan right from a third Beraisa, where Rebbi
Elazar b'Rebbi Yossi quoting Rebbi Masya ben Charash, permits feeding 1. a
pregnant woman whatever she needs until she recovers; 2. part of the liver
of a mad dog to someone who was bitten by it, and 3. administering
medicine on Shabbos to someone whose mouth hurts him. We prove our point
from the Rabbanan, who say there 'be'Zu ve'Lo ba'Acheres' - which can only
pertain to the *latter* case, since the first case is obvious (seeing as it
is a S'tam Mishnah), and the second case, is where the Rabbanan explicitly
argue with Rebbi Masya ben Charash.
(d) Rav Ashi corroborate this proof from our Mishnah, which cites Rebbi
Masya ben Charash's opinion about administering medicine to someone whose
mouth hurts him *after* citing the Machlokes between him and the Chachamim
regarding feeding part of the liver to someone who was bitten by a mad dog -
and the Rabbanan, who argue with him in the Reisha, remain silent there.
(a) After explaining that someone with mouth pains is a case of Safek
Nefashos, the Tana needed to add 've'Chol Safek Nefashos Docheh Shabbos' -
to permit breaking the Shabbos even if, for example, the doctors assessed
that the patient needed to take cures for eight days (see Rashash). We would
otherwise have thought that one may as well wait for night-fall and begin
taking the medicine only *after* Shabbos, in order to avoid unnecessary
(b) This is borne out by a Beraisa, which permits breaking *this* Shabbos
for a Safek Piku'ach of *next* Shabbos 'Bein Lehashkoso, Bein Lehavroso'.
(c) Where it is necessary to break the Shabbos to save a Jew's life, it is
better not to ask a gentile or a child to do so - but through a grown-up
Yisrael, because a gentile and a child are likely (due to lack of
understanding of the urgency of the situation) to take their time over
their Shelichus, thereby causing the death of the patient.
- 'Lehashkoso' - refers to medicines that one takes internally.
- 'Lehavroso' - to external cures.
(a) We do not permit Shabbos to be broken on the sole basis of the
assessment of women or gentiles.
(b) When the Beraisa concludes 'Aval Mitztarfin le'Da'as Acheres' - it means
that if one person plus a woman say that the patient needs to eat, and two
say that he does not, then we consider it to be two against two, and the
patient should eat.
(c) The Beraisa repeats the Heter to break Shabbos four times, absolving
one from the need to go and obtain the Beis-Din's permission: by a child who
fell into the sea, by one who fell into a deep pit, by one on whom the door
closed and locked, and by someone who was trapped by an oncoming fire.
Having said it in the case of the child who ...
1. ... fell into the sea, it nevertheless needs to repeat it in the case
where he fell into a deep pit - because we may have thought that it is only
in the *former* case that one is absolved from obtaining permission from the
Beis-Din, due to the fear that by the time he goes to Beis-Din and returns,
the child will have been carried away by the tide, but not in the *latter*
case. (It is not however clear, why we need this reasoning, when by every
case of Safek Piku'ach Nefesh, each second is crucial - so it seems obvious
that one should take action immediately, and not have to ask the Beis-Din)
(d) The Tana adds that it permitted even though the one who breaks the
Shabbos derives personal benefit in each of the four cases: ie. he catches
fish whilst savving the child from the sea, makes himself a ladder whilst
saving him from the pit, makes planks (or fire-brands) whilst breaking down
the door to save the trapped child, and prepares embers for roasting whilst
extinguishing the fire.
2. ... fell into a deep pit, it nevertheless needs to repeat it in the case
of the door closing on him - because in the former case the child will go
into shock, and it is essential to take action, whereas in the latter, one
could perhaps put his mind at ease by playing with him until night-fall, and
it should not be permitted to break Shabbos on his account.
3. ... child on whom the door had closed, it is nevertheless necessary to
repeat it in the case when he is trapped by fire - to permit extinguishing
the fire even if the child is in another court-yard.
(a) Rav Yosef quoted Rav Yehudah Amar quoted Shmuel as saying that in
matters of life and death, we do not follow the majority. This cannot refer
to the case of ...
1. ... a wall falling on to a group of nine Jews and one gentile, burying
one beneath it, and we do not know which one - because it is obvious that
there, we will go after the majority, in order to save a life.
(b) We learn 'Kol Kavua ke'Mechtzah al Mechtzah Dami' - from the Pasuk in
Shoftim "ve'Arav Lo ve'Kam Alav"(that someone who threw a stone into a group
of nine Jews and one non-Jew, killing a Jew, is Patur - as if it was five
2. ... the group consisting of five Jews and five gentiles - because that is
a regular case of Safek Nefashos Lehakel.
3. ... when there are even nine gentiles and one Jew - because that, too, is
obvious (like in the previous case) due to the principle 'Kol Kavu'a,
ke'Mechtzah al Mechtzah Dami' ('Any Safek that arises in its place of
origin, is considered fifty/fifty - and we ignore the majority).
(a) Shmuel is speaking in the latter case (where the wall fell on one out of
a group of nine gentiles and one Jew) - but when it fell on him after they
had moved to another court-yard. Normally, we would apply the principle 'Kol
de'Parish, me'Rubah Parish' (in which case it would be forbidden to save him
(b) Moving to another courtyard will permit one to break the Shabbos to save
the buried man - only if *all* of the group moved to the courtyard where the
accident occured, before moving out (leaving one man buried under the pile
of rubble) - because then, we know for sure that the Jew among them entered
that courtyard. Otherwise, the principle 'Kol de'Parish, me'Ruba Parish'
will apply -(since we are not even certain that the Jew entered the