Yoma 83a

יומא פ״ג ע״א

Learn Yoma 83a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Yoma 83a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Feeding a sick person on יום כיפור (patient versus doctor), and the new משנה on life-saving cases: בולמוס, the mad dog, throat pain, the collapse, and which forbidden food to feed first.

Overview

The amud opens with the end of a story: the child of the pregnant woman who could not overcome her craving on יום כיפור grew up to be the wicked שבתאי, the fruit-hoarder. The גמרא then turns to the משנה's rule that a חולה is fed על פי בקיאין, on the advice of experts. רבי ינאי rules that if the patient says he needs food we listen to him, because לב יודע מרת נפשו. If the doctor says he needs food, we listen to the doctor, because the illness has confused the patient. The גמרא tests these rules against the exact wording of the משנה. It concludes that in ספק נפשות, two experts who say he needs food are enough, even against a majority. מר בר רב אשי goes further: a patient who says 'I need' is fed even if a hundred experts disagree. A new משנה then lists more life-saving cases: feeding forbidden food to a person with בולמוס, the disputed mad-dog remedy, medicine for throat pain on שבת, and digging out someone buried under a collapse. The גמרא explains the sign that the person with בולמוס has recovered, and rules that he is fed the lightest prohibition first. It ends with the dispute over whether to feed him טבל or תרומה when the טבל cannot be tithed.

Opening lines

The steps (33)

1. ConclusionThe end of the story: the wicked child שבתאי
2. StatementThe משנה's rule: feed a sick person on the advice of experts
3. Statementרבי ינאי: when the patient says he needs food, we listen to him
4. ChallengeIsn't that obvious?
5. ResolutionWithout this ruling we would think the doctor knows better
6. StatementThe reverse case: when the doctor says he needs food, we listen to the doctor
7. ChallengeChallenge from the משנה: experts count, not the patient himself
8. ChallengeSecond inference: several experts, not just one
9. ResolutionThe משנה is about a patient who says he does not need food
10. ChallengeWhy not feed him based on just one expert?
11. ResolutionPlural experts are needed when another expert disagrees
12. ChallengeIsn't that obvious, since we are lenient when a life may be at risk?
13. ResolutionThe case is two experts against two experts plus the patient
14. ResolutionWhy we might have followed the majority of opinions
15. ConclusionFollowing the majority applies only to money, not when a life may be at risk
16. ChallengeThe latter clause implies the first clause is about a patient who says he needs food
17. ResolutionThe משנה has missing words and should be read this way
18. StatementThe patient's own word beats even a hundred experts
19. ChallengeThe משנה seems to say experts matter when present
20. ResolutionWhen the patient says 'I need,' it is as if no experts are there at all
21. StatementNew משנה: בולמוס and the mad dog bite
22. StatementMedicine for throat pain on שבת because of ספק נפשות
23. StatementDigging out a person trapped under a collapse on שבת
24. QuestionHow do we know the starving person has recovered?
25. ResponseThe sign is telling good food from bad
26. Statementאביי explains that the test is done by taste
27. StatementFeed the starving person the lightest prohibition first
28. Statementטבל versus תרומה is a dispute
29. ProofThe ברייתא showing the dispute
30. Statementרבה: if the produce can be tithed, tithe it and feed him
31. StatementThe dispute is only when the food cannot be made into חולין
32. StatementEach side holds a different prohibition is more severe
33. StatementThe reasoning behind each side