מפת הסוגיא — יומא פ״הSugya map — Yoma 85

המשנה לימדה שאסופי הולכים בו אחר רוב העיר. שואלת הגמרא: רוב גויים — נידון כגוי, ולאיזו הלכה? רב פפא: להאכילו נבילות, שאין צריך להפרישו מאיסור. רוב ישראל — נידון כישראל, ולאיזו הלכה? להשיב לו אבידתו (אבידת גוי אין משיבים).

§ It was taught that if there is a majority of gentiles in the city, a foundling is considered to have the status of a gentile. The Gemara asks: To what halakha does this statement relate? Rav Pappa said: It relates to feeding him non-kosher food. One need not protect the child from every prohibition and may even feed him non-kosher food, as though he were a gentile. It was further taught: If there is a majority of Jews, he is a Jew. The Gemara asks: To what halakha does this relate? The Gemara answers: It relates to returning a lost object to him. In such a case it is assumed that he is definitely a Jew. Consequently, Jews must return lost objects to him, whereas there is no obligation to return lost objects to gentiles.

מחצה גויים ומחצה ישראל — האסופי נידון כישראל, ולאיזו הלכה? ריש לקיש: לדיני נזיקין. ומקשה: כיצד? אם שורנו (של ישראל) נגח את שורו של האסופי — הרי הבא ראיה והוצא הממון; כיון שאינו יכול להוכיח שהוא ישראל, אין לו תביעה.

It was further stated: If the city is half gentile and half Jewish, the foundling has the status of a Jew. The Gemara asks: To what halakha does this relate? Reish Lakish said: It is referring to halakhot of damages. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If we say that our ox, i.e., an ox belonging to another Jew, gored his ox, one could ask: How can he make a claim like a Jew? Let him bring proof that he is Jewish, and only then may he take the money for damages, since the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. Since he cannot prove his Jewish status, he has no claim.

תירוץ: מדובר ששורו של האסופי (שור תם) נגח את שורנו. חצי הנזק — משלם, כדין ישראל בשור תם. את החצי השני (שגוי משלם בכל מקרה) — אומרים לניזק: הבא ראיה שזה אינו ישראל, וטול; הראיה על הניזק.

The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary when his innocuous ox, which has gored fewer than three times, gored our ox, i.e., an ox belonging to a Jew, in which case he gives him half, which is what a Jew pays for damages caused by an innocuous ox. However, a gentile must make full restitution for the damage caused. The foundling does not pay the other half, which a gentile gives to a Jew if his ox harms a Jew’s ox. Let me say to the one who suffered the damage: Bring proof that I am not a Jew and take the money. In that case, the burden of proof rests upon the one who suffered the damage.

המשנה: ׳מי שנפלה עליו מפולת, ספק הוא שם ספק אינו שם, ספק חי ספק מת, ספק גוי ספק ישראל — מפקחין עליו את הגל׳. שואלת הגמרא: מה באה המשנה ללמד בשלוש הספיקות?

§ It was taught in the mishna: With regard to one upon whom a rockslide fell, and there is uncertainty whether he is there under the debris or whether he is not there; and there is uncertainty whether he is still alive or whether he is dead; and there is uncertainty whether the person under the debris is a gentile or whether he is Jew, one clears the pile from atop him. The Gemara asks: What is the mishna saying? Why does it bring three different uncertainties to illustrate the principle that one violates Shabbat to save a life even in a case of uncertainty?

תירוץ: המשנה נוקטת לשון ׳לא מיבעיא׳ (מן הקל אל החמור). לא מיבעיא ספק אם הוא תחת הגל — שאם הוא שם וחי, מפקחין; אלא אף בספק חי ספק מת — מפקחין. ולא מיבעיא ספק חי שהוא ישראל ודאי — אלא אף בספק גוי ספק ישראל מפקחין.

The Gemara explains: It is speaking using the style of: Needless to say, and the mishna should be understood as follows: Needless to say, in a case where it is uncertain whether he is there or not there, one removes the debris, since if he is there and he is alive, one must clear the debris. But even if it is uncertain whether he is alive or dead, one must clear the debris. And needless to say, when there is uncertainty whether he is alive or dead, but it is certain that he is a Jew, one must clear the debris. Rather, one must clear the debris even if there is uncertainty whether he is a gentile or a Jew.

המשנה: ׳מצאוהו חי — מפקחין׳. תמהה הגמרא: פשיטא, הרי זה פיקוח נפש! תירוץ: חידושה — שמפקחין אף כשברור שלא יחיה אלא חיי שעה, ולא יאריך ימים.

§ The mishna taught: If they found him alive, they continue to remove the debris. The Gemara is surprised at this: If they find him alive, it is obvious that they remove the debris, since that is saving a life. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach that one must desecrate Shabbat for his sake even if it is clear that he will live only a short while and will die soon after.

המשנה: ׳ואם מת — יניחוהו׳. פשיטא, שאין מחללים שבת על מת? תירוץ: צריך, לדעת ר׳ יהודה בן לקיש שאמר ׳שמעתי שמצילין את המת מפני הדליקה׳. אך אף הוא לא התיר אלא בדליקה, מתוך שאדם בהול על מתו ושמא יבוא לכבות; אבל כאן, אם לא תתיר לו — מה יש לו לעשות? אין חשש שיחלל, ולכן יניחוהו.

§ The mishna taught: If they found him dead, they should leave him. The Gemara is surprised at this: Isn’t this also obvious? What allowance might there be to desecrate Shabbat for the sake of a corpse? The Gemara answers: No, this ruling is necessary according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Lakish, as it was taught in a baraita: One may not save a corpse from a fire, since one may not violate Shabbat for the sake of the dead. Rabbi Yehuda ben Lakish said: I heard that one may save a corpse from a fire. The Gemara challenges: Even Rabbi Yehuda ben Lakish said this only with regard to a fire because a person is agitated over his dead relative, whose body might burn in the fire. If you do not permit him to remove the corpse he may come to extinguish the fire and transgress a severe Torah prohibition. However, here, in the case of a rockslide or building collapse, if you do not permit him to remove the debris, what might he do? In this case, there is no concern of Shabbat desecration, and preserving the dignity of the dead does not override Shabbat.

ברייתא: עד היכן בודק אם נשאר בו רוח חיים? עד חוטמו (אם נושם) — ויש אומרים עד לבו (לבדוק דפיקת הלב). בדק ומצא את העליונים (שמעליו בגל) מתים — לא יאמר ׳כבר מתו התחתונים׳ ויפסיק; מעשה היה שמצאו עליונים מתים ותחתונים חיים.

The Rabbis taught: If a person is buried under a collapsed building, until what point does one check to clarify whether the victim is still alive? Until what point is he allowed to continue clearing the debris? They said: One clears until the victim’s nose. If there is no sign of life, i.e., if he is not breathing, he is certainly dead. And some say: One clears until the victim’s heart to check for a heartbeat. If several people are buried and one checked and found the upper ones under the debris dead, he should not say: The lower ones are likely also already dead, and there is no point in continuing to search. There was an incident where they found the upper ones dead and the lower ones alive.

תהיית הגמרא: נאמר שמחלוקת התנאים (חוטם/לב) תלויה במחלוקת אחרת — מהיכן נוצר הוולד? תנא קמא: מראשו, שנאמר ׳ממעי אמי אתה גוזי׳ (מקום השיער שבראש). אבא שאול: מטיבורו, ומשם משלח שורשיו לכל צד עד שנגמרת צורתו.

The Gemara comments: Let us say that the dispute between these tanna’im who disagree about checking for signs of life is like the dispute between these tanna’im who disagree about the formation of the fetus. As it was taught in a baraita: From what point is the fetus created? It is from its head, as it is stated: “You are He Who took me [gozi] out of my mother’s womb” (Psalms 71:6), and it says: “Cut off [gozi] your hair, and cast it away” (Jeremiah 7:29). These verses suggest that one is created from the head, the place of the hair. Abba Shaul says: A person is created from his navel, and he sends his roots in every direction until he attains the image of a person. The tanna who says that the presence of life is determined based on the nose holds in accordance with the opinion of the tanna who maintains that the formation of a fetus begins with its head. Likewise, the tanna who says the presence of life is determined based on the heart holds in accordance with the opinion of the one who thinks the formation of a fetus begins with its navel.

דחייה: אפשר שאף אבא שאול מודה שבודקים עד החוטם. עד כאן לא אמר אבא שאול ׳מטיבורו׳ אלא לעניין יצירה, שכל דבר נוצר מאמצעו; אבל לעניין פיקוח נפש — אף אבא שאול מודה שעיקר החיות באף, שנאמר ׳כל אשר נשמת רוח חיים באפיו׳.

The Gemara rejects this: Even if you say that the formation of a fetus from the navel is the opinion of Abba Shaul, he may nevertheless require one to check the nose for signs of life. Until now, Abba Shaul spoke there only about formation, saying that everything is created from its middle; however, as for saving a life, even Abba Shaul admits that the main sign of life is in the nose, as it is written: “All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life” (Genesis 7:22).

מסקנת רב פפא: המחלוקת (חוטם/לב) רק כשמפנה את הגל מלמטה למעלה (מן הרגליים), שאז עד הלב אינו די ויש להמשיך עד החוטם. אבל כשמפנה מלמעלה למטה — כיון שבדק עד חוטמו ואין נשימה, שוב אינו צריך, שנאמר ׳כל אשר נשמת רוח חיים באפיו׳.

Rav Pappa said: The dispute with regard to how far to check for signs of life applies when the digger begins removing the rubble from below, starting with the feet, to above. In such a case it is insufficient to check until his heart; rather, one must continue removing rubble until he is able to check his nose for breath. But if one cleared the rubble from above to below, once he checked as far as the victim’s nose he is not required to check further, as it is written: “All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life” (Genesis 7:22).

מעשה שהיו ר׳ ישמעאל, ר׳ עקיבא ור׳ אלעזר בן עזריה מהלכים בדרך, ולוי הסדר ור׳ ישמעאל בנו של ראב״ע מהלכים אחריהם (מתוך כבוד). נשאלה בפניהם שאלה זו: מנין שפיקוח נפש דוחה את השבת?

§ The Gemara relates: It once happened that Rabbi Yishmael, and Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya were walking on the road, and Levi HaSadar and Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, were walking respectfully behind them, since they were younger and did not walk alongside their teachers. This question was asked before them: From where is it derived that saving a life overrides Shabbat?

ר׳ ישמעאל דרש: ׳אם במחתרת ימצא הגנב והוכה ומת אין לו דמים׳. ומה הבא במחתרת — שספק בא על ממון ספק על נפשות, ושפיכות דמים מטמאת את הארץ ומסלקת שכינה — בכל זאת ניתן להצילו (הנגזל) בנפש הגנב; קל וחומר שפיקוח נפש (ודאי) דוחה שבת.

Rabbi Yishmael answered and said that it is stated: “If a thief be found breaking in and be struck so that he dies, there shall be no blood-guiltiness for him” (Exodus 22:1). Now, if this is true for the thief, where there is uncertainty whether he comes to take money or to take lives, and it is known that bloodshed renders the land impure, since it is stated about a murderer: “And you shall not defile the land” (Numbers 35:34), and it causes the Divine Presence to depart from the Jewish people, as the verse continues: “In the midst of which I dwell, for I the Lord dwell in the midst of the children of Israel” (Numbers 35:34), and even so the home owner is permitted to save himself at the cost of the thief’s life, then a fortiori saving a life overrides Shabbat.

ר׳ עקיבא דרש: ׳מעם מזבחי תקחנו למות׳ — דווקא ׳מעם׳ ולא ׳מעל׳ המזבח; כהן רוצח שכבר התחיל בעבודה, אין מורידים אותו להמיתו עד שיגמור. ואמר רבה בר בר חנה בשם ר׳ יוחנן: לא שנו (שאין נוטלים אותו מעל המזבח) אלא להמיתו —

Rabbi Akiva answered and said that it is stated: “And if a man comes purposefully upon his neighbor to slay him with guile, you shall take him from My altar, that he may die” (Exodus 21:14). The phrase “take him from My altar” implies that if the murderer is a priest and comes to perform the service, one does not wait for him to do so but takes him to his execution immediately. But one should not take him from on top of My altar. If he already began the service and is in the midst of it, one does not take him down from the altar immediately but instead allows him to finish his service. And Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They taught only that a priest is not removed from the altar in order to execute him for murder,

אבל להחיות (כגון כהן הבא להעיד ולהציל נידון) — נוטלים אותו אף מעל המזבח. ומה זה — שספק יש ממש בעדותו ספק אין — בכל זאת מפסיקים את העבודה (הדוחה שבת) כדי להחיות; קל וחומר לפיקוח נפש שדוחה שבת. ר׳ אלעזר דרש: ומה מילה, שהיא רק אחד מרמ״ח איברים, דוחה שבת — ק״ו לכל גופו.

but to preserve a life, e.g., if the priest can testify to the innocence of one who is sentenced to death, one removes him even from on top of My altar, even while he is sacrificing an offering. Just as this priest, about whom there is uncertainty whether there is substance to his words of testimony or whether there is no substance to his words, is taken from the Temple service in order to save a life, and Temple service overrides Shabbat, so too, a fortiori, saving a life overrides Shabbat. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya answered and said: Just as the mitzva of circumcision, which rectifies only one of the 248 limbs of the body, overrides Shabbat, so too, a fortiori, saving one’s whole body, which is entirely involved in mitzvot, overrides Shabbat.

תנאים נוספים: ר׳ יוסי בר׳ יהודה — ׳את שבתותי תשמורו׳, יכול בכל אופן? ת״ל ׳אך׳ (לשון מיעוט) — חילק, יש שבת שנדחית. ר׳ יונתן בן יוסף — ׳כי קודש היא לכם׳: השבת מסורה בידכם (לדחותה לצורך נפש), ולא אתם מסורים בידה (למות עליה).

Other tanna’im debated this same issue. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says that it is stated: “But keep my Shabbatot” (Exodus 31:13). One might have thought that this applies to everyone in all circumstances; therefore, the verse states “but,” a term that restricts and qualifies. It implies that there are circumstances where one must keep Shabbat and circumstances where one must desecrate it, i.e., to save a life. Rabbi Yonatan ben Yosef says that it is stated: “For it is sacred to you” (Exodus 31:14). This implies that Shabbat is given into your hands, and you are not given to it to die on account of Shabbat.

ר׳ שמעון בן מנסיא — ׳ושמרו בני ישראל את השבת׳: אמרה תורה, חלל עליו שבת אחת כדי שישמור שבתות הרבה. אמר רב יהודה בשם שמואל: אילו הייתי שם, הייתי אומר שדרשתי עדיפה מכולן — ׳וחי בהם׳, ולא שימות בהם (שהמצוות ניתנו לחיות בהן).

Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya said: It is stated: “And the children of Israel shall keep Shabbat, to observe Shabbat” (Exodus 31:16). The Torah said: Desecrate one Shabbat on his behalf so he will observe many Shabbatot. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: If I would have been there among those Sages who debated this question, I would have said that my proof is preferable to theirs, as it states: “You shall keep My statutes and My ordinances, which a person shall do and live by them” (Leviticus 18:5), and not that he should die by them. In all circumstances, one must take care not to die as a result of fulfilling the mitzvot.

רבא: לכל הדרשות יש פירכא, חוץ משל שמואל. דרשת ר׳ ישמעאל (מחתרת) — שמא כטעמו של רבא: חזקה שאין אדם מעמיד עצמו על ממונו, והגנב יודע שבעל הבית יעמוד מולו ואמר ׳אם יעמוד אהרגנו׳, והתורה אמרה ׳בא להרגך השכם להרגו׳ — נמצא שזה היתר בוודאי סכנה; ומנין לספק סכנה?

Rava commented on this: All of these arguments have refutations except for that of Shmuel, which has no refutation. The Gemara explains Rava’s claim: The proof brought by Rabbi Yishmael from the thief who breaks in could perhaps be refuted based on the principle of Rava, as Rava said: What is the reason for the halakha about the thief who breaks in? There is a presumption that while a person is being robbed he does not restrain himself with respect to his money. And this thief knows that the homeowner will rise to oppose him and said to himself from the start: If he rises against me, I will kill him. And the Torah states: If a person comes to kill you, rise to kill him first. We found a source for saving a life that is in certain danger, but from where do we derive that even in a case where there is uncertainty as to whether a life is in danger one may desecrate Shabbat? Consequently, Rabbi Yishmael’s argument is refuted.

אף דרשת ר׳ עקיבא (כהן הבא להעיד) ניתנת לפירכא — שמא כדברי אביי: מוסרים לו זוג חכמים לבדוק תחילה אם יש ממש בעדותו, ורק אז מורידים אותו; נמצא שזה היתר בוודאי הצלה, ומנין לספק?

The proof of Rabbi Akiva can also be refuted. He brought the case of removing a priest from altar service in order to have him testify on another’s behalf, since his testimony might acquit the accused and save him from execution. But perhaps that halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Abaye, as Abaye said: If the accused says he has a witness in his favor, we send a pair of rabbis on his behalf to determine if his words of testimony have substance. These rabbis would first check that the testimony of the priest is substantive before removing him from the altar. If so, we have found that one interrupts the Temple service to save a life from certain danger, but from where do we derive that one interrupts the Temple service when the likelihood of saving life is uncertain?

וכן בכל שאר הדרשות — מצאנו היתר רק לוודאי סכנה, ומנין לספק? לכן כולן נדחות. ורק דרשת שמואל (׳וחי בהם׳) אין לה פירכא, שכוללת אף ספק. אמר רבינא (ויש אומרים רנב״י): טובה פלפלת חריפה אחת ממלוא סל של דלעות — דרשת שמואל היחידה שווה כנגד כולן.

And for all the other arguments as well, we have found proofs for saving a life from certain danger. But for cases of uncertainty, from where do we derive this? For this reason, all the arguments are refuted. However, the proof that Shmuel brought from the verse: “And live by them,” which teaches that one should not even put a life in possible danger to observe mitzvot, there is certainly no refutation. Ravina said, and some say it was Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak who said with regard to this superior proof of Shmuel: One spicy pepper is better than a whole basket of squash, since its flavor is more powerful than all the others.

משנה: חטאת ואשם ודאי מכפרים. מיתה ויום הכיפורים מכפרים עם התשובה. התשובה לבדה מכפרת על עבירות קלות (עשה ולא תעשה), ועל החמורות היא תולה עד שיכפר יום הכיפורים. האומר ׳אחטא ואשוב׳ — אין מספיקין בידו לעשות תשובה; ׳אחטא ויום הכיפורים מכפר׳ — אין יוה״כ מכפר. עבירות שבין אדם למקום — יוה״כ מכפר; שבין אדם לחברו — אין יוה״כ מכפר עד שירצה את חברו.

MISHNA: A sin-offering, which atones for unwitting performance of transgressions punishable by karet, and a definite guilt-offering, which is brought for robbery and misuse of consecrated items, atone for those sins. Death and Yom Kippur atone for sins when accompanied by repentance. Repentance itself atones for minor transgressions, for both positive mitzvot and negative mitzvot. And repentance places punishment for severe transgressions in abeyance until Yom Kippur comes and completely atones for the transgression. With regard to one who says: I will sin and then I will repent, I will sin and I will repent, Heaven does not provide him the opportunity to repent, and he will remain a sinner all his days. With regard to one who says: I will sin and Yom Kippur will atone for my sins, Yom Kippur does not atone for his sins. Furthermore, for transgressions between a person and God, Yom Kippur atones; however, for transgressions between a person and another, Yom Kippur does not atone until he appeases the other person.

דרש ראב״ע: ׳מכל חטאתיכם לפני ה׳ תטהרו׳ — עבירות שבין אדם למקום יוה״כ מכפר, אך שבין אדם לחברו אין יוה״כ מכפר עד שירצה את חברו. אמר ר׳ עקיבא: אשריכם ישראל! לפני מי אתם מיטהרים ומי מטהר אתכם — אביכם שבשמים, שנאמר ׳וזרקתי עליכם מים טהורים וטהרתם׳, ואומר ׳מקוה ישראל ה׳׳: מה מקוה מטהר את הטמאים, אף הקב״ה מטהר את ישראל.

Similarly, Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya taught that point from the verse: “From all your sins you shall be cleansed before the Lord” (Leviticus 16:30). For transgressions between a person and God, Yom Kippur atones; however, for transgressions between a person and another, Yom Kippur does not atone until he appeases the other person. In conclusion, Rabbi Akiva said: How fortunate are you, Israel; before Whom are you purified, and Who purifies you? It is your Father in Heaven, as it is stated: “And I will sprinkle purifying water upon you, and you shall be purified” (Ezekiel 36:25). And it says: “The ritual bath of Israel is God” (Jeremiah 17:13). Just as a ritual bath purifies the impure, so too, the Holy One, Blessed be He, purifies Israel.

גמרא מדקדקת: המשנה אמרה ׳אשם ודאי׳ — דווקא ודאי כן מכפר, אבל אשם תלוי לא. ומקשה: הרי גם באשם תלוי נכתבה כפרה? תירוץ: החטאת והאשם הוודאי מכפרים כפרה גמורה, ואילו אשם תלוי אינו מכפר כפרה גמורה (אלא תולה עד שייוודע החטא).

GEMARA: The mishna says that a definite guilt-offering atones for sins. The Gemara analyzes this: With regard to a definite guilt-offering, yes, it does atone for sins. This implies that an uncertain guilt-offering does not. The Gemara asks: But isn’t atonement written with regard to it? Why, then, doesn’t it atone? The Gemara answers: Those, the sin-offerings and definite guilt-offerings, facilitate complete atonement, but an uncertain guilt-offering does not facilitate complete atonement. Instead, this offering provides temporary atonement for an individual, to protect him from punishment until he becomes aware of his sin and brings the appropriate offering.

תירוץ נוסף: בחטאת ואשם ודאי — אין דבר אחר מכפר במקומם; באשם תלוי — דבר אחר (יום הכיפורים) מכפר כפרתו. שהרי שנינו: חייבי חטאות ואשמות ודאי שעבר עליהם יום הכיפורים — עדיין חייבים; אבל חייבי אשם תלוי — פטורים, שיוה״כ כיפר עליהם.

Alternatively, there is this distinction: Nothing else facilitates the atonement of those sin-offerings and definite guilt-offerings, whereas something else does facilitate the atonement of the uncertain guilt-offering, as we learned in a mishna: If Yom Kippur passed, those who are obligated to bring sin-offerings and definite guilt-offerings are still obligated to bring their offerings; however, those obligated to bring uncertain guilt-offerings are exempt because Yom Kippur atoned for them.

המשנה: ׳מיתה ויום הכיפורים מכפרים עם התשובה׳ — עם תשובה כן, בפני עצמם (בלא תשובה) לא. נימא שאין משנתנו כרבי? שהרי שנינו, רבי אומר: על כל עבירות שבתורה, בין עשה תשובה בין לא — יום הכיפורים מכפר, חוץ מפורק עול, ומגלה פנים בתורה, ומיפר ברית בשר, שבהם רק אם עשה תשובה יוה״כ מכפר.

§ It was taught in the mishna that death and Yom Kippur atone for sins when accompanied by repentance. The Gemara analyzes this: With repentance, yes, they do atone for sins; but by themselves, without repentance, they do not. Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that for all transgressions in the Torah, whether one repented or did not repent, Yom Kippur atones, with the exception of rejecting the yoke of Torah and mitzvot; and denying the Holy One, Blessed be He; and interpreting the Torah falsely; and violating the covenant of the flesh, i.e., circumcision. In these cases, if one repents Yom Kippur atones for his sin, and if one does not repent Yom Kippur does not atone for his sin.

יישוב: אפשר לומר שאף משנתנו כרבי. כוונת המשנה: התשובה זקוקה ליום הכיפורים כדי להשלים את הכפרה, אך יום הכיפורים עצמו אינו זקוק לתשובה ומכפר אף בלעדיה.

The Gemara rejects this: This is no proof; even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the mishna can be understood as follows: Repentance still requires Yom Kippur in order to complete the atonement, whereas Yom Kippur does not require repentance but atones even without it.

המשנה: ׳תשובה מכפרת על עבירות קלות — על עשה ועל לא תעשה׳. תמיהה: אם על לא תעשה (החמור, שלוקין עליו) מכפרת, על עשה (הקל) צריך לומר? תירוץ רב יהודה: כך כוונת המשנה — על עשה, ועל לא תעשה שניתק לעשה (שהתורה קבעה לו תיקון בעשה), שדינו כעשה.

§ It was taught in the mishna: Repentance itself atones for minor transgressions, for both a positive mitzva and for a negative mitzva. The Gemara is surprised at this: Now that it was stated that repentance atones for a negative mitzva, which is severe and warrants lashes, is it necessary to also teach that it atones for a positive mitzva, which is more lenient? Rav Yehuda said: This is what it said, i.e., the mishna should be understood as follows: Repentance atones for a positive mitzva and for a negative mitzva whose violation can be rectified by a positive mitzva. One is not punished by a court for violating a prohibition for which the Torah prescribes a positive act as a corrective measure and which thereby has the same halakha as a positive mitzva.

קושיא: ולפי זה, על לא תעשה גמור (שאינו ניתק לעשה) אין תשובה מכפרת? ורמינהו (סתירה מברייתא): ׳אלו הן עבירות קלות — עשה ולא תעשה׳ — משמע אף לא תעשה גמור.

The Gemara asks: But does repentance not atone for a full-fledged negative mitzva? The Gemara raises a contradiction from a separate source: It was taught that these are minor transgressions: A positive mitzva and a negative mitzva,

המשך הברייתא: ׳חוץ מלא תשא׳ (שבועת שווא) — שעליו אין תשובה לבדה מכפרת. תירוץ: אין ׳לא תשא׳ הלאו היחיד החמור, אלא ׳לא תשא וכל הדומה לו׳ — כל הלאווים החמורים שיש בהם עונש בית דין.

except for: “You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain” (Exodus 20:7), about which the Torah states: “For God will not absolve him who takes His name in vain” (Exodus 20:7). The Gemara answers: It is not that this is the only negative mitzva that is not a minor transgression; rather, it is: “You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain” and any prohibition similar to it, meaning all severe prohibitions that carry punishment by a court.

ניסיון ראיה: ר׳ יהודה אומר — כל שהוא מ׳לא תשא׳ ולמטה (עבירות קלות ממנו) תשובה מכפרת; ומ׳לא תשא׳ ולמעלה (חמורות ממנו) תשובה תולה ויוה״כ מכפר. דחייה: גם כאן הכוונה ׳לא תשא וכל הדומה לו׳, ואין ראיה.

The Gemara proposes: Come and hear from that which was taught: Rabbi Yehuda says: For any sin from “You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain” and below, i.e., prohibitions less severe than that, repentance atones. For any sin from “You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain” and above, repentance suspends punishment and Yom Kippur atones. The Gemara rejects this: This does not constitute proof either, since one could say that it is referring to: “You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain” and anything similar to it.

ניסיון ראיה נוסף: לפי שנאמר בחורב על התשובה ׳ונקה׳, יכול אף ׳לא תשא׳ בכלל — ת״ל ׳לא ינקה׳ (שבועת שווא אינה מתנקה בתשובה לבדה). יכול אף שאר חייבי לאווין כן — ת״ל ׳את שמו׳: רק שמו אינו מנקה, אבל מנקה שאר חייבי לאווין — משמע ששאר הלאווין מתכפרים בתשובה.

Come and hear from a different source that was taught: Since it was stated at Horeb with regard to repentance: “Absolve,” one might have thought that even the transgression of: “You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain” is included among them; therefore, the verses states: “Will not absolve” (Exodus 20:6). One might have thought this is also true for those who are liable for violating all other prohibitions; therefore, the verse states: “His name.” God does not absolve the one who disrespects His name, but He absolves those who are liable for violating all other prohibitions and repent. This is proof that those who violate all other prohibitions are not comparable to one who violates: “You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain.”

מסקנה: מחלוקת תנאים היא. שנינו בברייתא: על מה תשובה מכפרת — על עשה ועל לא תעשה שניתק לעשה; ועל מה תשובה תולה ויום הכיפורים מכפר — על כריתות, על מיתות בית דין, ועל לא תעשה גמור. הרי שיש תנא המבחין בין לאו גמור ללאו הניתק לעשה.

The Gemara answers: This is a dispute between tanna’im, as it was taught in a baraita: For what does repentance atone? It atones for a positive mitzva and for a negative mitzva that can be rectified through a positive mitzva. And for what does repentance suspend punishment and Yom Kippur atone? It is for sins punishable by karet, and for sins punishable by the death penalty from the earthly court, and for full-fledged negative mitzvot. This indicates that there is a tanna who distinguishes between prohibitions that warrant lashes and those that do not. Therefore, there is a tannaitic dispute as to whether or not prohibitions that warrant punishment by the courts can be rectified by repentance alone.