Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

December 3, 2022 | 讟壮 讘讻住诇讜 转砖驻状讙

  • Masechet Nedarim is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in honor of our mother Lorraine Kahane and in loving memory of our parents Joseph Kahane z"l, Miriam and Ari Adler z"l.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Nedarim 39 – Shabbat December 3

This is the daf for Shabbat. For Friday鈥檚 daf please click here.

The Mishna rules that one can visit a sick person if they are forbidden to benefit from them, as long as they stand and do not sit. The Gemara tries to figure out who was forbidden to who and why the sit/stand distinction? Three answers are brought 鈥 each explaining the reason for the split differently (two hold that the case is referring to when the sick person is forbidden to benefit from the visitor and one explains the reverse case). The Gemara raises a difficulty from a braita on Shmuel鈥檚 interpretation, but it is resolved. What is the source for visiting the sick in the Torah? Interestingly, it is learned from Moshe鈥檚 words to Korach and his followers. Rava extrapolates the verses in that scene. What seven things were created before the world was created and how does that raise a question against Rava鈥檚 drasha? What did the sun and moon do during the Moshe/Korach showdown? What was God鈥檚 reaction to them? Bikur cholim, visiting the sick, has no limits. What does that mean? One who visits the sick reduces their pain by 1/60. If so, why should we have 60 people visit each sick person and they will be healed?

讙诪壮 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬 讘砖谞讻住讬 诪讘拽专 讗住讜专讬谉 注诇 讞讜诇讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讬讜砖讘 谞诪讬 讗讬 讘砖谞讻住讬 讞讜诇讛 讗住讜专讬谉 注诇 讛诪讘拽专 讗驻讬诇讜 注讜诪讚 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇注讜诇诐 讘砖谞讻住讬 诪讘拽专 讗住讜专讬谉 注诇 讛讞讜诇讛 讜讘诪拽讜诐 砖谞讜讟诇讬谉 砖讻专 注诇 讛讬砖讬讘讛 讜讗讬谉 谞讜讟诇讬谉 砖讻专 注诇 讛注诪讬讚讛

GEMARA: With what are we dealing? If it is a case where the property of the visitor is forbidden to the ill person, even if he is sitting, this should also be permitted. If it is a case where the property of the ill person is forbidden to the visitor, even if he is standing, it should also not be permitted, as one derives benefit from entering the house. Shmuel said: Actually, it is a case where the property of the visitor is forbidden to the ill person, and it is in a place where one takes payment for visiting and sitting with an ill person and one does not take payment for visiting and standing with an ill person. Therefore, by sitting with the ill person the visitor provides him forbidden benefit by sparing him the expense of hiring another person to sit with him.

诪讗讬 驻住拽讗 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗祝 讘诪拽讜诐 砖谞讜讟诇讬谉 砖讻专 注诇 讛讬砖讬讘讛 讘注讬 诇诪砖拽诇 注诇 讛注诪讬讚讛 诇讗 讘注讬 诇诪砖拽诇 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇讬拽讬诐 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬砖讛讗 讘注诪讬讚讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬砖讛讗 讘讬砖讬讘讛

Why was this distinction stated without qualification? There is no apparent fundamental difference between sitting and standing when visiting the ill. The Gemara answers: It teaches us this: Even in a place where one takes payment for visiting the ill, for sitting, one ought to take payment, but for standing, one ought not to take payment. And if you wish, say instead that the distinction can be explained in accordance with the statement that Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim said elsewhere (42a), that one who is prohibited to derive benefit from another due to a rabbinic decree may not enter a field that is owned by the latter, lest he remain standing there longer than permitted. Here too, sitting is prohibited due to a rabbinic decree, lest he remain sitting there longer than is necessary to perform the mitzva of visiting the ill.

注讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讘砖谞讻住讬 讞讜诇讛 讗住讜专讬谉 注诇 讛诪讘拽专 讜讻讙讜谉 讚诇讗 讗讚专讬讛 诪谉 讞讬讜转讬讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讬讜砖讘 谞诪讬 讛讗 讗驻砖专 讘注诪讬讚讛

Ulla said: Actually, it is a case where the property of the ill person is forbidden to the visitor, and where the ill person did not vow that his property would be forbidden in cases where its use enables the visitor to meet needs pertaining to his continued existence. The Gemara asks: If so, then even sitting should be permitted as well, since the vow did not prohibit use pertaining to his existential needs. The Gemara answers: Isn鈥檛 it possible to meet those needs and visit the ill while standing? Therefore, sitting is not an existential need.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讞诇讛 讛讜讗 谞讻谞住 诇讘拽专讜 讞诇讛 讘谞讜 砖讜讗诇讜 讘砖讜拽 讘砖诇诪讗 诇注讜诇讗 讚讗诪专 讘砖谞讻住讬 讞讜诇讛 讗住讜专讬谉 注诇 讛诪讘拽专 讜讻讙讜谉 讚诇讗 讗讚专讬讛 诪谉 讞讬讜转讬讛 砖驻讬专

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If he became ill, he enters to visit him; if his son became ill, he inquires about his son鈥檚 health in the marketplace but may not enter the house to visit him. Granted, according to Ulla, who said: It is a case where the property of the ill person is forbidden to the visitor and where the ill person did not vow that the property be forbidden in cases pertaining to his continued existence, this works out well, as he excluded his own existential needs from the vow, not his son鈥檚 existential needs.

讗诇讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 讘砖谞讻住讬 诪讘拽专 讗住讜专讬谉 注诇 讛讞讜诇讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讜讗 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘谞讜 讗诪专 诇讱 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘砖谞讻住讬 诪讘拽专 讗住讜专讬谉 注诇 讛讞讜诇讛 讘专讬讬转讗 讘砖谞讻住讬 讞讜诇讛 讗住讜专讬谉 注诇 讛诪讘拽专

However, according to Shmuel, who said: It is a case where the property of the visitor is forbidden to the ill person, what is different about him and what is different about his son? Why is it prohibited for him to visit when the son is ill? The Gemara answers: Shmuel could have said to you: The mishna is referring to a case where the property of the visitor is forbidden to the ill person; the baraita is referring to a case where the property of the ill person is forbidden to the visitor.

诪讗讬 驻住拽讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 (讗诪专) 砖诪讜讗诇

The Gemara asks: Why was this distinction between the mishna and the baraita stated without qualification? Rava said: With regard to Shmuel,

诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽砖讬转讬讛 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讚转谞讬 注讜诪讚 讗讘诇 诇讗 讬讜砖讘 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚谞讻住讬 诪讘拽专 讗住讜专讬谉 注诇 讛讞讜诇讛

the mishna was difficult for him: Why does the tanna specifically teach: He stands in his house but may not sit? Conclude from it that the property of the visitor is forbidden to the ill person.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 专诪讝 诇讘讬拽讜专 讞讜诇讬谉 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 诪谞讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讗诐 讻诪讜转 讻诇 讛讗讚诐 讬诪转讜谉 讗诇讛 讜驻拽讚转 讻诇 讛讗讚诐 讜讙讜壮 诪讗讬 诪砖诪注 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诐 讻诪讜转 讻诇 讛讗讚诐 讬诪讜转讜谉 讗诇讛 砖讛谉 讞讜诇讬诐 讜诪讜讟诇讬诐 讘注专讬住转谉 讜讘谞讬 讗讚诐 诪讘拽专讬诐 讗讜转谉 诪讛 讛讘专讬讜转 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讛壮 砖诇讞谞讬 诇讝讛

搂 Apropos the halakhot of visiting the ill, the Gemara cites related statements. Reish Lakish said: From where is there an allusion from the Torah to visiting the ill? It is as it is stated: 鈥淚f these men die the common death of all men, and be visited after the visitation of all men, then the Lord has not sent me鈥 (Numbers 16:29). The Gemara asks: From where in this verse may visiting the ill be inferred? Rava said that this is what Moses is saying: If these men, the congregation of Korah, die the common death of all men, who become ill, and are confined to their beds, and people come to visit them; if that happens to them, what do the people say? They say: The Lord has not sent me for this task.

讚专砖 专讘讗 讗诐 讘专讬讗讛 讬讘专讗 讛壮 讗诐 讘专讬讗讛 讙讬讛谞诐 诪讜讟讘 转讛讬讛 讗诐 诇讗讜 讬讘专讗 讛壮

Apropos Korah and his congregation, Rava interpreted the repetitive formulation in this verse homiletically: 鈥淏ut if the Lord will create a creation [beria yivra], and the ground opens its mouth, and swallows them, and all that is theirs, and they will descend alive into the pit, then you shall understand that these men have despised God鈥 (Numbers 16:30). Here, Moses is saying: If Gehenna is already a creation [beria] and exists, that is optimal; if not, God should create [yivra] it now.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 砖讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 谞讘专讗讜 拽讜讚诐 砖谞讘专讗 讛注讜诇诐 讗诇讜 讛谉 转讜专讛 讜转砖讜讘讛 讙谉 注讚谉 讜讙讬讛谞诐 讻住讗 讛讻讘讜讚 讜讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讜砖诪讜 砖诇 诪砖讬讞

The Gemara asks: Is that so? Was there uncertainty at that point as to whether Gehenna had already been created? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Seven phenomena were created before the world was created, and they are: Torah, and repentance, the Garden of Eden, and Gehenna, the Throne of Glory, and the Temple, and the name of the Messiah.

转讜专讛 讚讻转讬讘 讛壮 拽谞谞讬 专讗砖讬转 讚专讻讜 讜讙讜壮

The Gemara provides sources for each of these phenomena. Torah was created before the world was created, as it is written: 鈥淭he Lord made me as the beginning of His way, the first of His works of old鈥 (Proverbs 8:22). Based on the subsequent verses, this is referring to the Torah.

转砖讜讘讛 讚讻转讬讘 讘讟专诐 讛专讬诐 讬诇讚讜 讜转讞讜诇诇 讜讙讜壮 转砖讘 讗谞讜砖 注讚 讚讻讗 讜讙讜壮

Repentance was created before the world was created, as it is written: 鈥淏efore the mountains were brought forth, or ever You had formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God鈥 (Psalms 90:2), and it is written immediately afterward: 鈥淵ou return man to contrition; and You say: Repent, children of man鈥 (Psalms 90:3).

讙谉 注讚谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讟注 讛壮 讗诇讛讬诐 讙谉 讘注讚谉 诪拽讚诐 讜讙讜壮

The Garden of Eden was created before the world was created, as it is written: 鈥淎nd the Lord God planted a garden in Eden eastward [mikedem]鈥 (Genesis 2:8). 鈥淓astward [mikedem]鈥 is interpreted in the sense of before [mikodem], i.e., before the world was created.

讙讬讛谞诐 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 注专讜讱 诪讗转诪讜诇 转驻转讛

Gehenna was created before the world was created, as it is written: 鈥淔or its hearth is ordained of old鈥 (Isaiah 30:33). The hearth, i.e., Gehenna, was created before the world was created.

讻住讗 讻讘讜讚 讚讻转讬讘 谞讻讜谉 讻住讗讱 诪讗讝

The Throne of Glory was created before the world was created, as it is written: 鈥淵our throne is established of old, You are from everlasting鈥 (Psalms 93:2).

讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讚讻转讬讘 讻住讗 讻讘讜讚 诪专讜诐 诪专讗砖讜谉

The Temple was created before the world was created, as it is written: 鈥淵our Throne of Glory on high from the beginning, in the place of our Temple鈥 (Jeremiah 17:12).

砖诪讜 砖诇 诪砖讬讞 讚讻转讬讘 讬讛讬 砖诪讜 诇注讜诇诐 讜讙讜壮

The name of the Messiah was created before the world was created, as it is written about him: 鈥淢ay his name endure forever; his name existed before the sun鈥 (Psalms 72:17). The name of the Messiah predated the creation of the sun and the rest of the world. Apparently, Rava鈥檚 explanation that Moses was uncertain whether Gehenna had been created yet is contradicted by this baraita.

讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬 讗讬讘专讬 诇讬讛 驻讜诪讗 诪讜讟讘 讜讗诐 诇讗 讬讘专讗 讛壮 讜讛讻转讬讘 讗讬谉 讻诇 讞讚砖 转讞转 讛砖诪砖 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬 讛讻讗 诇讗 诪拽专讘 驻讜诪讗 诇讛讻讗 诇讬拽专讘

Rather, the interpretation of the repetitive formulation of the verse is that this is what Moses is saying: If the opening was created for Gehenna, that is optimal, and if not, the Lord should create it now. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd there is nothing new under the sun鈥 (Ecclesiastes 1:9)? How, then, could Moses request that God create the mouth of Gehenna now? The Gemara answers: This is what Moses said: If the mouth of Gehenna is not close to here, let God bring it closer.

讚专砖 专讘讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 砖诪砖 讬专讞 注诪讚 讝讘诇讛 砖诪砖 讜讬专讞 讘讝讘讜诇 诪讗讬 讘注讬讬谉 讜讛讗 讘专拽讬注 拽讘讬注讬 诪诇诪讚 砖注诇讜 砖诪砖 讜讬专讞 诪专拽讬注 诇讝讘讜诇 讜讗诪专讜 诇驻谞讬讜 专讘讜谞讜 砖诇 注讜诇诐 讗诐 讗转讛 注讜砖讛 讚讬谉 诇讘谉 注诪专诐 讗谞讜 诪讗讬专讬诐 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 讗谞讜 诪讗讬专讬谉

Apropos the conflict between Moses and Korah, the Gemara cites an additional verse that Rava interpreted homiletically, and some say that it was Rabbi Yitz岣k who said: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淭he sun and moon stood still in their habitation [zevula], at the light of Your arrows as they go, at the shining of Your glittering spear鈥 (Habakkuk 3:11)? What do the sun and moon seek in zevul, which is the fourth heaven; aren鈥檛 they fixed in rakia, the second heaven? Rather, this teaches that the sun and moon ascended from rakia to zevul and said before Him: Master of the Universe! If You do justice for the son of Amram, i.e., Moses, in his dispute with Korah, we will continue to illuminate the world, and if not, we will not illuminate the world.

讘讗讜转讛 砖注讛 讬专讛 讘讛谉 讞讬爪讬诐 讜讞谞讬转讜转 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讜讬讜诐 诪砖转讞讜讬诐 诇讻诐 讜讗转诐 诪讗讬专讬诐 讘讻讘讜讚讬 诇讗 诪讞讬转诐 讘讻讘讜讚 讘砖专 讜讚诐 诪讞讬转诐 讜讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讜讬讜诐 讬讜专讬谉 讘讛谉 讞讬爪讬谉 讜讞谞讬转讜转 讜诪讗讬专讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗讜专 讞爪讬讱 讬讛诇讻讜 讜讙讜壮

At that moment, the Holy One, Blessed be He, shot arrows, and threw spears at them, and said to them: Each and every day idolaters bow to you and you continue to illuminate the world and do not protest. In My honor, you did not protest, but in honor of flesh and blood, you protested? And ever since, each and every day the heavenly hosts shoot arrows and throw spears at the sun and the moon, and only then do they emerge and illuminate the world, as it is stated: 鈥淎t the light of Your arrows as they go, at the shining of Your glittering spear鈥 (Habakkuk 3:11).

转谞讬讗 讘讬拽讜专 讞讜诇讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讛 砖讬注讜专 诪讗讬 讗讬谉 诇讛 砖讬注讜专 住讘专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇诪讬诪专 讗讬谉 砖讬注讜专 诇诪转谉 砖讻专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讻诇 诪爪讜转 诪讬 讬砖 砖讬注讜专 诇诪转谉 砖讻专谉 讜讛讗 转谞谉 讛讜讬 讝讛讬专 讘诪爪讜讛 拽诇讛 讻讘讞诪讜专讛 砖讗讬谉 讗转讛 讬讜讚注 诪转谉 砖讻专谉 砖诇 诪爪讜转 讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讚讜诇 讗爪诇 拽讟谉 专讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讗讛 驻注诪讬诐 讘讬讜诐

搂 Returning to the topic of visiting the ill, the Gemara states: It is taught in a baraita: The mitzva of visiting the ill has no fixed measure. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: Has no fixed measure? Rav Yosef thought to say: There is no fixed measure for the granting of its reward. Abaye said to him: And do all other mitzvot have a fixed measure for the granting of their reward? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Avot 2:1): Be as meticulous in the observance of a minor mitzva as a major one, as you do not know the granting of reward for mitzvot. Rather, Abaye said: There is no fixed measure for the disparity between the ill person and his visitor, as even a prominent person pays a visit to a lowly person and should not say that doing so is beneath a person of his standing. Rava said: There is no fixed measure for the number of times that one should visit the ill, as even one hundred times a day is appropriate.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讞讗 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讻诇 讛诪讘拽专 讞讜诇讛 谞讜讟诇 讗讞讚 诪砖砖讬诐 讘爪注专讜 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬注诇讜谉 砖讬转讬谉 讜诇讜拽诪讜讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻注讬砖讜专讬讬转讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讜讘讘谉 讙讬诇讜

Rav A岣 bar 岣nina said: Anyone who visits an ill person takes from him one-sixtieth of his suffering. The Sages said to him: If so, let sixty people enter to visit him, and stand him up, and restore him to health. Rav A岣 bar 岣nina said to them: It is like the tenths of the school of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said that each of one鈥檚 daughters inherits one-tenth of his possessions. His intent was that each daughter would receive one-tenth of the remainder after the previous daughter took her portion. Here too, each visitor takes from the ill person one-sixtieth of the suffering that remains, and consequently a degree of suffering will always remain with the ill person. Furthermore, visiting is effective in easing the suffering of the ill person only when the visitor is one born under the same constellation as the ill person.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讘转 讛谞讬讝讜谞讬转 诪谞讻住讬 讗讞讬谉 谞讜讟诇转 注讬砖讜专 谞讻住讬诐 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 诇讚讘专讬讱 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 注砖专 讘谞讜转 讜讘谉 讗讬谉 诇讜 诇讘谉 讘诪拽讜诐 讘谞讜转 讻诇讜诐 讗诪专 诇讛谉 专讗砖讜谞讛 谞讜讟诇转 注讬砖讜专 谞讻住讬诐 砖谞讬讛 讘诪讛 砖砖讬讬专讛 砖诇讬砖讬转 讘诪讛 砖砖讬讬专讛 讜讞讜讝专讜转 讜讞讜诇拽讜转 讘砖讜讛

The Gemara elaborates on the tenths of the school of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: A daughter who is supported from the property of her brothers after the death of their father receives one-tenth of the estate as her dowry. The Sages said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: According to your statement, in the case of one who has ten daughters and a son, no property at all remains for the son in a place where there are daughters, as they receive the entire inheritance. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to them: The first daughter takes one-tenth of the estate, the second takes one-tenth of that which the first left of the inheritance, the third takes one-tenth of that which the second left of the inheritance, and so on. After each succeeding daughter takes her share, they pool their resources and then divide the property equally. Therefore, the son is left with a share of the inheritance.

专讘 讞诇讘讜 讞诇砖 谞驻拽 讗讻专讬讝 专讘 讻讛谞讗

The Gemara relates: Rav 岣lbo fell ill. Rav Kahana went out and announced:

  • Masechet Nedarim is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in honor of our mother Lorraine Kahane and in loving memory of our parents Joseph Kahane z"l, Miriam and Ari Adler z"l.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Nedarim: 36-41 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn if a teacher of Torah is allowed to receive payment for his teaching. The Gemara...
talking talmud_square

Nedarim 39: Removing 1/60th of Suffering

A mishnah from Daf 38, and the Gemara on it - one who is the subject of someone else's vow...

Nedarim 39 – Shabbat December 3

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 39 – Shabbat December 3

讙诪壮 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬 讘砖谞讻住讬 诪讘拽专 讗住讜专讬谉 注诇 讞讜诇讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讬讜砖讘 谞诪讬 讗讬 讘砖谞讻住讬 讞讜诇讛 讗住讜专讬谉 注诇 讛诪讘拽专 讗驻讬诇讜 注讜诪讚 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇注讜诇诐 讘砖谞讻住讬 诪讘拽专 讗住讜专讬谉 注诇 讛讞讜诇讛 讜讘诪拽讜诐 砖谞讜讟诇讬谉 砖讻专 注诇 讛讬砖讬讘讛 讜讗讬谉 谞讜讟诇讬谉 砖讻专 注诇 讛注诪讬讚讛

GEMARA: With what are we dealing? If it is a case where the property of the visitor is forbidden to the ill person, even if he is sitting, this should also be permitted. If it is a case where the property of the ill person is forbidden to the visitor, even if he is standing, it should also not be permitted, as one derives benefit from entering the house. Shmuel said: Actually, it is a case where the property of the visitor is forbidden to the ill person, and it is in a place where one takes payment for visiting and sitting with an ill person and one does not take payment for visiting and standing with an ill person. Therefore, by sitting with the ill person the visitor provides him forbidden benefit by sparing him the expense of hiring another person to sit with him.

诪讗讬 驻住拽讗 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗祝 讘诪拽讜诐 砖谞讜讟诇讬谉 砖讻专 注诇 讛讬砖讬讘讛 讘注讬 诇诪砖拽诇 注诇 讛注诪讬讚讛 诇讗 讘注讬 诇诪砖拽诇 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇讬拽讬诐 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬砖讛讗 讘注诪讬讚讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬砖讛讗 讘讬砖讬讘讛

Why was this distinction stated without qualification? There is no apparent fundamental difference between sitting and standing when visiting the ill. The Gemara answers: It teaches us this: Even in a place where one takes payment for visiting the ill, for sitting, one ought to take payment, but for standing, one ought not to take payment. And if you wish, say instead that the distinction can be explained in accordance with the statement that Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim said elsewhere (42a), that one who is prohibited to derive benefit from another due to a rabbinic decree may not enter a field that is owned by the latter, lest he remain standing there longer than permitted. Here too, sitting is prohibited due to a rabbinic decree, lest he remain sitting there longer than is necessary to perform the mitzva of visiting the ill.

注讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讘砖谞讻住讬 讞讜诇讛 讗住讜专讬谉 注诇 讛诪讘拽专 讜讻讙讜谉 讚诇讗 讗讚专讬讛 诪谉 讞讬讜转讬讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讬讜砖讘 谞诪讬 讛讗 讗驻砖专 讘注诪讬讚讛

Ulla said: Actually, it is a case where the property of the ill person is forbidden to the visitor, and where the ill person did not vow that his property would be forbidden in cases where its use enables the visitor to meet needs pertaining to his continued existence. The Gemara asks: If so, then even sitting should be permitted as well, since the vow did not prohibit use pertaining to his existential needs. The Gemara answers: Isn鈥檛 it possible to meet those needs and visit the ill while standing? Therefore, sitting is not an existential need.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讞诇讛 讛讜讗 谞讻谞住 诇讘拽专讜 讞诇讛 讘谞讜 砖讜讗诇讜 讘砖讜拽 讘砖诇诪讗 诇注讜诇讗 讚讗诪专 讘砖谞讻住讬 讞讜诇讛 讗住讜专讬谉 注诇 讛诪讘拽专 讜讻讙讜谉 讚诇讗 讗讚专讬讛 诪谉 讞讬讜转讬讛 砖驻讬专

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If he became ill, he enters to visit him; if his son became ill, he inquires about his son鈥檚 health in the marketplace but may not enter the house to visit him. Granted, according to Ulla, who said: It is a case where the property of the ill person is forbidden to the visitor and where the ill person did not vow that the property be forbidden in cases pertaining to his continued existence, this works out well, as he excluded his own existential needs from the vow, not his son鈥檚 existential needs.

讗诇讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 讘砖谞讻住讬 诪讘拽专 讗住讜专讬谉 注诇 讛讞讜诇讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讜讗 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘谞讜 讗诪专 诇讱 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘砖谞讻住讬 诪讘拽专 讗住讜专讬谉 注诇 讛讞讜诇讛 讘专讬讬转讗 讘砖谞讻住讬 讞讜诇讛 讗住讜专讬谉 注诇 讛诪讘拽专

However, according to Shmuel, who said: It is a case where the property of the visitor is forbidden to the ill person, what is different about him and what is different about his son? Why is it prohibited for him to visit when the son is ill? The Gemara answers: Shmuel could have said to you: The mishna is referring to a case where the property of the visitor is forbidden to the ill person; the baraita is referring to a case where the property of the ill person is forbidden to the visitor.

诪讗讬 驻住拽讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 (讗诪专) 砖诪讜讗诇

The Gemara asks: Why was this distinction between the mishna and the baraita stated without qualification? Rava said: With regard to Shmuel,

诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽砖讬转讬讛 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讚转谞讬 注讜诪讚 讗讘诇 诇讗 讬讜砖讘 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚谞讻住讬 诪讘拽专 讗住讜专讬谉 注诇 讛讞讜诇讛

the mishna was difficult for him: Why does the tanna specifically teach: He stands in his house but may not sit? Conclude from it that the property of the visitor is forbidden to the ill person.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 专诪讝 诇讘讬拽讜专 讞讜诇讬谉 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 诪谞讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讗诐 讻诪讜转 讻诇 讛讗讚诐 讬诪转讜谉 讗诇讛 讜驻拽讚转 讻诇 讛讗讚诐 讜讙讜壮 诪讗讬 诪砖诪注 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诐 讻诪讜转 讻诇 讛讗讚诐 讬诪讜转讜谉 讗诇讛 砖讛谉 讞讜诇讬诐 讜诪讜讟诇讬诐 讘注专讬住转谉 讜讘谞讬 讗讚诐 诪讘拽专讬诐 讗讜转谉 诪讛 讛讘专讬讜转 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讛壮 砖诇讞谞讬 诇讝讛

搂 Apropos the halakhot of visiting the ill, the Gemara cites related statements. Reish Lakish said: From where is there an allusion from the Torah to visiting the ill? It is as it is stated: 鈥淚f these men die the common death of all men, and be visited after the visitation of all men, then the Lord has not sent me鈥 (Numbers 16:29). The Gemara asks: From where in this verse may visiting the ill be inferred? Rava said that this is what Moses is saying: If these men, the congregation of Korah, die the common death of all men, who become ill, and are confined to their beds, and people come to visit them; if that happens to them, what do the people say? They say: The Lord has not sent me for this task.

讚专砖 专讘讗 讗诐 讘专讬讗讛 讬讘专讗 讛壮 讗诐 讘专讬讗讛 讙讬讛谞诐 诪讜讟讘 转讛讬讛 讗诐 诇讗讜 讬讘专讗 讛壮

Apropos Korah and his congregation, Rava interpreted the repetitive formulation in this verse homiletically: 鈥淏ut if the Lord will create a creation [beria yivra], and the ground opens its mouth, and swallows them, and all that is theirs, and they will descend alive into the pit, then you shall understand that these men have despised God鈥 (Numbers 16:30). Here, Moses is saying: If Gehenna is already a creation [beria] and exists, that is optimal; if not, God should create [yivra] it now.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 砖讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 谞讘专讗讜 拽讜讚诐 砖谞讘专讗 讛注讜诇诐 讗诇讜 讛谉 转讜专讛 讜转砖讜讘讛 讙谉 注讚谉 讜讙讬讛谞诐 讻住讗 讛讻讘讜讚 讜讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讜砖诪讜 砖诇 诪砖讬讞

The Gemara asks: Is that so? Was there uncertainty at that point as to whether Gehenna had already been created? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Seven phenomena were created before the world was created, and they are: Torah, and repentance, the Garden of Eden, and Gehenna, the Throne of Glory, and the Temple, and the name of the Messiah.

转讜专讛 讚讻转讬讘 讛壮 拽谞谞讬 专讗砖讬转 讚专讻讜 讜讙讜壮

The Gemara provides sources for each of these phenomena. Torah was created before the world was created, as it is written: 鈥淭he Lord made me as the beginning of His way, the first of His works of old鈥 (Proverbs 8:22). Based on the subsequent verses, this is referring to the Torah.

转砖讜讘讛 讚讻转讬讘 讘讟专诐 讛专讬诐 讬诇讚讜 讜转讞讜诇诇 讜讙讜壮 转砖讘 讗谞讜砖 注讚 讚讻讗 讜讙讜壮

Repentance was created before the world was created, as it is written: 鈥淏efore the mountains were brought forth, or ever You had formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God鈥 (Psalms 90:2), and it is written immediately afterward: 鈥淵ou return man to contrition; and You say: Repent, children of man鈥 (Psalms 90:3).

讙谉 注讚谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讟注 讛壮 讗诇讛讬诐 讙谉 讘注讚谉 诪拽讚诐 讜讙讜壮

The Garden of Eden was created before the world was created, as it is written: 鈥淎nd the Lord God planted a garden in Eden eastward [mikedem]鈥 (Genesis 2:8). 鈥淓astward [mikedem]鈥 is interpreted in the sense of before [mikodem], i.e., before the world was created.

讙讬讛谞诐 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 注专讜讱 诪讗转诪讜诇 转驻转讛

Gehenna was created before the world was created, as it is written: 鈥淔or its hearth is ordained of old鈥 (Isaiah 30:33). The hearth, i.e., Gehenna, was created before the world was created.

讻住讗 讻讘讜讚 讚讻转讬讘 谞讻讜谉 讻住讗讱 诪讗讝

The Throne of Glory was created before the world was created, as it is written: 鈥淵our throne is established of old, You are from everlasting鈥 (Psalms 93:2).

讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讚讻转讬讘 讻住讗 讻讘讜讚 诪专讜诐 诪专讗砖讜谉

The Temple was created before the world was created, as it is written: 鈥淵our Throne of Glory on high from the beginning, in the place of our Temple鈥 (Jeremiah 17:12).

砖诪讜 砖诇 诪砖讬讞 讚讻转讬讘 讬讛讬 砖诪讜 诇注讜诇诐 讜讙讜壮

The name of the Messiah was created before the world was created, as it is written about him: 鈥淢ay his name endure forever; his name existed before the sun鈥 (Psalms 72:17). The name of the Messiah predated the creation of the sun and the rest of the world. Apparently, Rava鈥檚 explanation that Moses was uncertain whether Gehenna had been created yet is contradicted by this baraita.

讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬 讗讬讘专讬 诇讬讛 驻讜诪讗 诪讜讟讘 讜讗诐 诇讗 讬讘专讗 讛壮 讜讛讻转讬讘 讗讬谉 讻诇 讞讚砖 转讞转 讛砖诪砖 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬 讛讻讗 诇讗 诪拽专讘 驻讜诪讗 诇讛讻讗 诇讬拽专讘

Rather, the interpretation of the repetitive formulation of the verse is that this is what Moses is saying: If the opening was created for Gehenna, that is optimal, and if not, the Lord should create it now. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd there is nothing new under the sun鈥 (Ecclesiastes 1:9)? How, then, could Moses request that God create the mouth of Gehenna now? The Gemara answers: This is what Moses said: If the mouth of Gehenna is not close to here, let God bring it closer.

讚专砖 专讘讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 砖诪砖 讬专讞 注诪讚 讝讘诇讛 砖诪砖 讜讬专讞 讘讝讘讜诇 诪讗讬 讘注讬讬谉 讜讛讗 讘专拽讬注 拽讘讬注讬 诪诇诪讚 砖注诇讜 砖诪砖 讜讬专讞 诪专拽讬注 诇讝讘讜诇 讜讗诪专讜 诇驻谞讬讜 专讘讜谞讜 砖诇 注讜诇诐 讗诐 讗转讛 注讜砖讛 讚讬谉 诇讘谉 注诪专诐 讗谞讜 诪讗讬专讬诐 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 讗谞讜 诪讗讬专讬谉

Apropos the conflict between Moses and Korah, the Gemara cites an additional verse that Rava interpreted homiletically, and some say that it was Rabbi Yitz岣k who said: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淭he sun and moon stood still in their habitation [zevula], at the light of Your arrows as they go, at the shining of Your glittering spear鈥 (Habakkuk 3:11)? What do the sun and moon seek in zevul, which is the fourth heaven; aren鈥檛 they fixed in rakia, the second heaven? Rather, this teaches that the sun and moon ascended from rakia to zevul and said before Him: Master of the Universe! If You do justice for the son of Amram, i.e., Moses, in his dispute with Korah, we will continue to illuminate the world, and if not, we will not illuminate the world.

讘讗讜转讛 砖注讛 讬专讛 讘讛谉 讞讬爪讬诐 讜讞谞讬转讜转 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讜讬讜诐 诪砖转讞讜讬诐 诇讻诐 讜讗转诐 诪讗讬专讬诐 讘讻讘讜讚讬 诇讗 诪讞讬转诐 讘讻讘讜讚 讘砖专 讜讚诐 诪讞讬转诐 讜讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讜讬讜诐 讬讜专讬谉 讘讛谉 讞讬爪讬谉 讜讞谞讬转讜转 讜诪讗讬专讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗讜专 讞爪讬讱 讬讛诇讻讜 讜讙讜壮

At that moment, the Holy One, Blessed be He, shot arrows, and threw spears at them, and said to them: Each and every day idolaters bow to you and you continue to illuminate the world and do not protest. In My honor, you did not protest, but in honor of flesh and blood, you protested? And ever since, each and every day the heavenly hosts shoot arrows and throw spears at the sun and the moon, and only then do they emerge and illuminate the world, as it is stated: 鈥淎t the light of Your arrows as they go, at the shining of Your glittering spear鈥 (Habakkuk 3:11).

转谞讬讗 讘讬拽讜专 讞讜诇讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讛 砖讬注讜专 诪讗讬 讗讬谉 诇讛 砖讬注讜专 住讘专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇诪讬诪专 讗讬谉 砖讬注讜专 诇诪转谉 砖讻专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讻诇 诪爪讜转 诪讬 讬砖 砖讬注讜专 诇诪转谉 砖讻专谉 讜讛讗 转谞谉 讛讜讬 讝讛讬专 讘诪爪讜讛 拽诇讛 讻讘讞诪讜专讛 砖讗讬谉 讗转讛 讬讜讚注 诪转谉 砖讻专谉 砖诇 诪爪讜转 讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讚讜诇 讗爪诇 拽讟谉 专讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讗讛 驻注诪讬诐 讘讬讜诐

搂 Returning to the topic of visiting the ill, the Gemara states: It is taught in a baraita: The mitzva of visiting the ill has no fixed measure. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: Has no fixed measure? Rav Yosef thought to say: There is no fixed measure for the granting of its reward. Abaye said to him: And do all other mitzvot have a fixed measure for the granting of their reward? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Avot 2:1): Be as meticulous in the observance of a minor mitzva as a major one, as you do not know the granting of reward for mitzvot. Rather, Abaye said: There is no fixed measure for the disparity between the ill person and his visitor, as even a prominent person pays a visit to a lowly person and should not say that doing so is beneath a person of his standing. Rava said: There is no fixed measure for the number of times that one should visit the ill, as even one hundred times a day is appropriate.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讞讗 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讻诇 讛诪讘拽专 讞讜诇讛 谞讜讟诇 讗讞讚 诪砖砖讬诐 讘爪注专讜 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬注诇讜谉 砖讬转讬谉 讜诇讜拽诪讜讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻注讬砖讜专讬讬转讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讜讘讘谉 讙讬诇讜

Rav A岣 bar 岣nina said: Anyone who visits an ill person takes from him one-sixtieth of his suffering. The Sages said to him: If so, let sixty people enter to visit him, and stand him up, and restore him to health. Rav A岣 bar 岣nina said to them: It is like the tenths of the school of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said that each of one鈥檚 daughters inherits one-tenth of his possessions. His intent was that each daughter would receive one-tenth of the remainder after the previous daughter took her portion. Here too, each visitor takes from the ill person one-sixtieth of the suffering that remains, and consequently a degree of suffering will always remain with the ill person. Furthermore, visiting is effective in easing the suffering of the ill person only when the visitor is one born under the same constellation as the ill person.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讘转 讛谞讬讝讜谞讬转 诪谞讻住讬 讗讞讬谉 谞讜讟诇转 注讬砖讜专 谞讻住讬诐 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 诇讚讘专讬讱 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 注砖专 讘谞讜转 讜讘谉 讗讬谉 诇讜 诇讘谉 讘诪拽讜诐 讘谞讜转 讻诇讜诐 讗诪专 诇讛谉 专讗砖讜谞讛 谞讜讟诇转 注讬砖讜专 谞讻住讬诐 砖谞讬讛 讘诪讛 砖砖讬讬专讛 砖诇讬砖讬转 讘诪讛 砖砖讬讬专讛 讜讞讜讝专讜转 讜讞讜诇拽讜转 讘砖讜讛

The Gemara elaborates on the tenths of the school of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: A daughter who is supported from the property of her brothers after the death of their father receives one-tenth of the estate as her dowry. The Sages said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: According to your statement, in the case of one who has ten daughters and a son, no property at all remains for the son in a place where there are daughters, as they receive the entire inheritance. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to them: The first daughter takes one-tenth of the estate, the second takes one-tenth of that which the first left of the inheritance, the third takes one-tenth of that which the second left of the inheritance, and so on. After each succeeding daughter takes her share, they pool their resources and then divide the property equally. Therefore, the son is left with a share of the inheritance.

专讘 讞诇讘讜 讞诇砖 谞驻拽 讗讻专讬讝 专讘 讻讛谞讗

The Gemara relates: Rav 岣lbo fell ill. Rav Kahana went out and announced:

Scroll To Top