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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 3, 2021 | 讻状讙 讘转诪讜讝 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Yoma is sponsored by Vicky Harari in commemoration of her father's Yahrzeit, Avraham Baruch Hacohen ben Zeev Eliyahu Eckstein z'l, a Holocaust survivor and a feminist before it was fashionable. And in gratitude to Michelle Cohen Farber for revolutionizing women's learning worldwide.
  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Yoma 83

Today’s daf is sponsored by Vicki Herzog in honor of her father, Izzy Herzog. “May today’s learning go to the Ilui of his Neshama. I miss my father each and every day.”

How does one determine on what basis to let a sick person eat on Yom Kippur? Rabbi Yannai discusses scenarios where the sick person may feel differently than the doctor – in those cases, on what basis do we determine whether or not to let the person eat? How can the mishna be read according to Rabbi Yannai as the mishna seems to be weighing on the side of the experts, whereas Rabbi Yannai pushes the agenda of when in doubt of cases involving life and death, one is always lenient? Mar bar Rav Ashi agrees somewhat with Rabbi Yannai but disagrees in the case where there are many doctors who think the sick person does not need to eat. Rabbi Yannai would forbid eating in that case but Mar bar Rav Ashi allows it as in his opinion, patient autonomy supersedes all. One who has a disease called bulmus (from starvation), can eat non-kosher food. If bitten by a mad dog, can one eat the lobe of the dog’s liver, which was believed to be a cure? One can take and even prepare medicine on Shabbat if one’s life is endangered. If a rockslide fell upon someone, at what levels of uncertainty can one still desecrate Shabbat in order to potentially save a life? If one needs to eat non-kosher food on account of bulmus, what is the hierarchy of non-kosher foods that we can feed them – we go from least serious to most serious. The gemara discusses several cases where it is unclear which is better or worse. Stories are told of rabbis who had bulmus and whether or not they stole food in order to eat. Another story is brought to highlight the importance of deriving the source of people’s names to determine if they can be trusted or not. What are signs of a mad dog and how does one become a mad dog (what causes the madness)?

讝讜专讜 专砖注讬诐 诪专讞诐 谞驻拽 诪讬谞讛 砖讘转讗讬 讗爪专 驻讬专讬

鈥淭he wicked are estranged from the womb鈥 (Psalms 58:4), i.e., it is clear they are estranged already in their mother鈥檚 womb. Indeed, Shabbetai the hoarder of fruits came out of her. He hoarded fruit during years of famine in order to inflate its price and profit at the expense of poor people.

讞讜诇讛 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 注诇 驻讬 讘拽讬讗讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讞讜诇讛 讗讜诪专 爪专讬讱 讜专讜驻讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讞讜诇讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讘 讬讜讚注 诪专转 谞驻砖讜 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 专讜驻讗 拽讬诐 诇讬讛 讟驻讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

搂 It was taught in the mishna: If a person is ill and requires food due to potential danger, one feeds him according to the advice of medical experts. Rabbi Yannai said: If an ill person says he needs to eat, and a doctor says he does not need to eat, one listens to the ill person.What is the reason for this halakha? It is because the verse states: 鈥淭he heart knows the bitterness of its soul鈥 (Proverbs 14:10), meaning an ill person knows the intensity of his pain and weakness, and doctors cannot say otherwise. The Gemara asks: It is obvious that a person knows himself better than anyone else does. Why does this need to be stated explicitly? The Gemara answers: It is lest you say that the doctor is more certain because he has had more experience with this condition. Therefore, the verse teaches us that even so, it is the ill person who knows his own suffering better than anyone else.

专讜驻讗 讗讜诪专 爪专讬讱 讜讞讜诇讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇专讜驻讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 转讜谞讘讗 讛讜讗 讚谞拽讬讟 诇讬讛

However, in the opposite case, if a doctor says that the ill person needs food, but the ill person himself says he does not need to eat, one listens to the doctor. What is the reason for this halakha? It is because confusion [tunba] has taken hold of the ill person on account of his illness, and his judgment is impaired. Consequently, he himself does not know how much he needs food.

转谞谉 讞讜诇讛 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 注诇 驻讬 讘拽讬讗讬谉 注诇 驻讬 讘拽讬讗讬谉 讗讬谉 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 诇讗 注诇 驻讬 讘拽讬讗讬谉 讗讬谉 注诇 驻讬 讘拽讬 讗讞讚 诇讗

We learned in the mishna: If a person is ill, one feeds him according to the advice of medical experts. This implies that if there are experts present, then according to the advice of experts, yes, one feeds the ill person; but at his own instructions, no, one does not feed him, contrary to Rabbi Yannai鈥檚 opinion. It further implies that according to the advice of several experts, yes, one feeds an ill person; however, according to the advice of only one expert, no, one does not feed him. There appears to be a requirement for at least two doctors, which also contradicts Rabbi Yannai鈥檚 opinion that the opinion of one expert is sufficient to override the opinion of the ill person.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗诪专 诇讗 爪专讬讻谞讗 讜诇讬住驻讜 诇讬讛 注诇 驻讬 讘拽讬 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讘讛讚讬讛 讚讗诪专 诇讗 爪专讬讱 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 注诇 驻讬 讘拽讬讗讬谉

The Gemara rejects this: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a unique circumstance: The ill person says I do not need food, and the consultation of experts is required. The Gemara suggests: But let them feed him according to the advice of one expert, as Rabbi Yannai said that in such a circumstance one feeds the ill person based on the advice of one doctor. The Gemara answers: No, the requirement of two experts is necessary in a case where there is another, third expert with him who says that the ill person does not need to eat. In such a case, one feeds the ill person according to the advice of two experts who agree that he requires it.

驻砖讬讟讗 住驻拽 谞驻砖讜转 讛讜讗 讜住驻拽 谞驻砖讜转 诇讛拽诇 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 转专讬 讗讞专讬谞讬 讘讛讚讬讛 讚讗诪专讬 诇讗 爪专讬讱 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 转专讬 讻诪讗讛 讜诪讗讛 讻转专讬 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇注谞讬谉 注讚讜转 讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 讗讜诪讚谞讗 讘转专 讚注讜转 讗讝诇讬谞谉

The Gemara asks: If so, this is obvious, since it is a case of uncertainty concerning a life-threatening situation, and in all cases of uncertainty concerning a life-threatening situation, the halakha is lenient. The Gemara answers: No, this halakha is necessary in a case where there are two other doctors who, along with the ill person, say that he does not need food. And although Rav Safra said that two witnesses are like one hundred witnesses, and one hundred witnesses are like two witnesses, that rule applies specifically to the matter of testimony; however, in the matter of assessing a situation, we follow the majority of opinions. Therefore, one might think in this case that the ill person should not be fed because the opinion of two doctors plus the ill person should override the opposing opinion of two other doctors.

讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇注谞讬谉 讗讜诪讚谞讗 讚诪诪讜谞讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 住驻拽 谞驻砖讜转 讛讜讗

Generally speaking, two or more witnesses constitute complete testimony, and there is no difference between the testimony of two and the testimony of a large number of people. However, this principle of following the majority applies specifically to assessing monetary issues, but here it is a case of uncertainty concerning a life-threatening situation. Therefore, although it is the opinion of two doctors against the opinion of two doctors and the ill person, the ill person must eat.

讜讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讜讗诐 讗讬谉 砖诐 讘拽讬讗讬谉 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 诪讻诇诇 讚专讬砖讗 讚讗诪专 爪专讬讱 讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讚讗诪专 诇讗 爪专讬讱 讗谞讬 讗讘诇 讗诪专 爪专讬讱 讗谞讬 讗讬谉 砖诐 讘拽讬讗讬谉 转专讬 讗诇讗 讞讚 讚讗诪专 诇讗 爪专讬讱 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜

The Gemara asks: But from the fact that it is taught in the latter clause of the mishna that if there are no experts present one feeds him according to his own opinion, by inference, the first clause of the mishna is referring to a case where the ill person said he needs to eat. In that case, the mishna states that one follows the experts鈥 opinion, not his own, and feeds him. The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete and is teaching the following: In what case is this statement that he may eat only based on the advice of experts said? It is when the ill person said: I do not need to eat. But if he said: I do need to eat, and instead of two experts there is only one who says that he does not need to eat, one feeds him according to his own opinion.

诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 爪专讬讱 讗谞讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬讻讗 诪讗讛 讚讗诪专讬 诇讗 爪专讬讱 诇讚讬讚讬讛 砖诪注讬谞谉 砖谞讗诪专 诇讘 讬讜讚注 诪专转 谞驻砖讜

Mar bar Rav Ashi said: Any instance where an ill person says: I need to eat, even if there are one hundred expert doctors who say that he does not need to eat, we listen to his own opinion and feed him, as it is stated: 鈥淭he heart knows the bitterness of its soul鈥 (Proverbs 14:10).

转谞谉 讗诐 讗讬谉 砖诐 讘拽讬讗讬谉 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 讟注诪讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讘拽讬讗讬谉 讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讘拽讬讗讬谉 诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讚讗诪专 诇讗 爪专讬讱 讗谞讬 讗讘诇 讗诪专 爪专讬讱 讗谞讬 讗讬谉 砖诐 讘拽讬讗讬谉 讻诇诇 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 砖谞讗诪专 诇讘 讬讜讚注 诪专转 谞驻砖讜

We learned in the mishna: If an ill person himself says he needs to eat and there are no experts present, one feeds him according to his own opinion. This implies that the reason one feeds him is because there are no experts present. One may infer from this that if there were experts present, no, one would not feed the ill person based on his own opinion but would instead listen to the advice of the experts. The Gemara rejects this: This is what the mishna is saying: In what case is this statement that one follows the opinion of the experts said? It is when the ill person said: I do not need to eat. However, if he said: I do need to eat, it is considered as if there were no experts there at all; we feed him based on his opinion, as it is stated: 鈥淭he heart knows the bitterness of its soul鈥 (Proverbs 14:10). All the experts are ignored in the face of the ill person鈥檚 own sensitivities.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讗讞讝讜 讘讜诇诪讜住 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讚讘专讬诐 讟诪讗讬诐 注讚 砖讬讗讜专讜 注讬谞讬讜 诪讬 砖谞砖讻讜 讻诇讘 砖讜讟讛 讗讬谉 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪讞爪专 讻讘讚 砖诇讜 讜专讘讬 诪转讬讗 讘谉 讞专砖 诪转讬专

MISHNA: In the case of one who is seized with the life-threatening illness bulmos, causing him unbearable hunger pangs and impaired vision, one may feed him even impure foods on Yom Kippur or any other day until his eyes recover, as the return of his sight indicates that he is recovering. In the case of one whom a mad dog bit, one may not feed him from the lobe of the dog鈥檚 liver. This was thought to be a remedy for the bite, but the Rabbis deem it ineffective. And Rabbi Matya ben 岣rash permits feeding it to him, as he deems it effective.

讜注讜讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪转讬讗 讘谉 讞专砖 讛讞讜砖砖 讘讙专讜谞讜 诪讟讬诇讬谉 诇讜 住诐 讘转讜讱 驻讬讜 讘砖讘转 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 住驻拽 谞驻砖讜转 讜讻诇 住驻拽 谞驻砖讜转 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转

And furthermore, Rabbi Matya ben 岣rash said: With regard to one who suffers pain in his throat, one may place medicine inside his mouth on Shabbat, although administering a remedy is prohibited on Shabbat. This is because there is uncertainty whether or not it is a life-threatening situation for him, as it is difficult to ascertain the severity of internal pain. And a case of uncertainty concerning a life-threatening situation overrides Shabbat.

诪讬 砖谞驻诇讛 注诇讬讜 诪驻讜诇转 住驻拽 讛讜讗 砖诐 住驻拽 讗讬谞讜 砖诐 住驻拽 讞讬 住驻拽 诪转 住驻拽 讙讜讬 住驻拽 讬砖专讗诇 诪驻拽讞讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛讙诇 诪爪讗讜讛讜 讞讬 诪驻拽讞讬谉 讜讗诐 诪转 讬谞讬讞讜讛讜

Similarly, 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 a Jew, one clears the pile from atop him. One may perform any action necessary to rescue him from beneath the debris. If they found him alive after beginning to clear the debris, they continue to clear the pile until they can extricate him. And if they found him dead, they should leave him, since one may not desecrate Shabbat to preserve the dignity of the dead.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪谞讬讬谉 讛讬讜 讬讜讚注讬谉 砖讛讗讬专讜 注讬谞讬讜 诪砖讬讘讞讬谉 讘讬谉 讟讜讘 诇专注 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讜讘讟注诪讗

GEMARA: The Sages taught: From where would they know that his eyes had recovered their sight? It is from when he can discern between good and bad food, since under the influence of bulmos one eats food indiscriminately. Abaye said: It is with tasting. When he can distinguish the tastes of different foods his eyesight must have also recovered. For example, at night, although it is dark, the sign that his eyesight has been restored is that he is able to detect difference in tastes (Me鈥檌ri).

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讬 砖讗讞讝讜 讘讜诇诪讜住 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讛拽诇 讛拽诇 讟讘诇 讜谞讘讬诇讛 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 谞讘讬诇讛 讟讘诇 讜砖讘讬注讬转 砖讘讬注讬转

The Sages taught: In the case of one who is seized with bulmos and must be fed until his vision is restored, one feeds him the items whose prohibition is least severe first. If he must be fed forbidden foods, he should first be fed those whose level of prohibition is least severe. For instance, if there is untithed produce and an unslaughtered animal carcass [neveila] or any other non-kosher meat, one feeds him the neveila, as the prohibition of untithed produced warrants death at the hand of Heaven, but eating non-kosher meat is a transgression punishable only by lashes. If there is untithed produce and produce from the Sabbatical Year, he is fed the produce from the Sabbatical Year. Untithed produce warrants death at the hand of Heaven, whereas the produce of a Sabbatical Year is prohibited by a positive mitzva and there is no punishment associated with it.

讟讘诇 讜转专讜诪讛 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讟讘诇 讜讗讬谉 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 转专讜诪讛 讘谉 转讬诪讗 讗讜诪专 转专讜诪讛 讜诇讗 讟讘诇 讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讬讻讗 讚讗驻砖专 讘讞讜诇讬谉 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诪转拽谞讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜诪住驻讬谞谉 诇讬讛

If they have untithed produce and teruma, there is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m as to which food they should feed him, as it was taught in a baraita: One feeds him untithed produce and does not feed him teruma. Ben Teima says: It is better to feed him teruma and not feed him untithed produce. Rabba said: Where it is possible to feed him non-sacred food by separating tithes from untithed produce and thereby rendering the remainder permitted, everyone agrees that one should make the produce fit for consumption by separating tithes and then feed it to him, even on Shabbat, when it is otherwise prohibited to separate tithes.

讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 讘讞讜诇讬谉 诪专 住讘专 讟讘诇 讞诪讜专 讜诪专 住讘专 转专讜诪讛 讞诪讜专讛 诪专 住讘专 讟讘诇 讞诪讜专 讗讘诇 转专讜诪讛 讞讝讬讗 诇讻讛谉 讜诪专 住讘专 转专讜诪讛 讞诪讜专讛 讗讘诇 讟讘诇 讗驻砖专 诇转拽讜谞讬讛

Where they disagree, it is in a case where it is impossible to feed him non-sacred food because there is no way to separate tithes. One Sage holds that the prohibition of untithed produce is more severe; and one Sage holds that the prohibition of teruma is more severe. The two sides reason as follows. One Sage holds that the prohibition of untithed produce is more severe because it is prohibited to everyone; but teruma is fit for a priest, and therefore one could say that its prohibition is less severe. And one Sage holds that teruma is more severe because non-priests may never eat it, while untithed produce can be made fit to eat, and therefore, even while it is still untithed, the prohibition against eating it is less severe.

讗驻砖专 讘讞讜诇讬谉 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讘砖讘转

It was stated that, according to Rabba, if it is possible to make the untithed produce fit and then feed him with non-sacred food, one should do so. The Gemara is surprised at this: It is obvious that if it is possible to tithe the produce and feed him that, one should do so. Why must it be stated? The Gemara explains: No, it is necessary to state this with regard to a case on Shabbat, when it is generally prohibited to separate terumot and tithes. Even so, the Sages said that it is better to separate terumot and tithes on Shabbat rather than feed the ill person untithed produce.

讘砖讘转 谞诪讬 驻砖讬讟讗 讟诇讟讜诇 诪讚专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘注爪讬抓 砖讗讬谞讜 谞拽讜讘 讚专讘谞谉

The Gemara asks: With regard to Shabbat it is also obvious, since the prohibition against separating terumot and tithes is merely a prohibition against moving, which is prohibited by rabbinic law. That is certainly less severe than the prohibition against eating untithed produce. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with fruits grown in an imperforate container, which are not subject to teruma by Torah law but by rabbinic law. The Gemara teaches that it is preferable to transgress the rabbinic prohibition of tithing the fruit on Shabbat rather than feed the ill person untithed produce, although in this case the prohibition is rabbinic.

诪专 住讘专 讟讘诇 讞诪讜专 讜诪专 住讘专 转专讜诪讛 讞诪讜专讛

搂 The Gemara now discusses the aforementioned two opinions: One Sage, ben Teima, holds that untithed produce is more severe, and therefore one must tithe the fruit although it is prohibited to separate teruma on Shabbat; and one Sage, the first tanna, holds that teruma is more severe.

诇讬诪讗 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 诪讬 砖谞砖讻讜 谞讞砖 拽讜专讬谉 诇讜 专讜驻讗 诪诪拽讜诐 诇诪拽讜诐 讜诪拽专注讬谉 诇讜 讗转 讛转专谞讙讜诇转 讜讙讜讝讝讬谉 诇讜 讗转 讛讻专讬砖讬谉 讜诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇注砖专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 注讚 砖讬注砖专

Let us say that Rabba鈥檚 view is one side of a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it was taught in a baraita: In the case of one whom a snake bit on Shabbat and who is in danger, one calls a doctor for him to come from one place to another; and one tears a chicken apart for him if he needs its meat for healing; and one harvests leeks from the ground and feeds them to him for healing purposes, and one need not separate tithes; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: He should not eat it unless it has been tithed.

谞讬诪讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 专讘讬

Let us say that Rabba鈥檚 statement that one must separate teruma and tithes from the fruit for the ill person on Shabbat, even from untithed produce prohibited by rabbinic law, corresponds to the view of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. He says that one must tithe the leeks for the ill person even on Shabbat, although leeks, like all other vegetables, are considered untithed produce only by rabbinic law. And Rabba鈥檚 opinion does not follow the view of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讛转诐 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 诪注砖专 讬专拽 讚专讘谞谉 讗讘诇 讘诪注砖专 讚讙谉 讚讟讘诇 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讜讗 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 诪讜讚讛 讚讗讬 砖专讬转 诇讬讛 讘注爪讬抓 砖讗讬谞讜 谞拽讜讘 讗转讬 诇诪讬讻诇 讘注爪讬抓 砖讛讜讗 谞拽讜讘

The Gemara rejects this: Even if you say that Rabba holds in accordance with the view of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is saying that one should not separate tithes only there, with regard to the requirement to take the tithe from vegetables, like leeks, which is rabbinic in origin. This requirement was decreed lest one come to confuse vegetables with produce that is untithed by Torah law. However, with regard to the tithe of grains, which have the status of untithed produce by Torah law, although in this particular circumstance their untithed status is rabbinic because the grains grew in an imperforate container, even Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi concedes that the produce must be tithed. Because if it is permitted for him to eat without separating tithes from produce grown in an imperforate container, he may err and come to eat from grain grown in a perforated pot, which is considered untithed produce by Torah law. Consequently, one must separate tithes on Shabbat before feeding an ill person, even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讬 砖讗讞讝讜 讘讜诇诪讜住 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讚讘砖 讜讻诇 诪讬谞讬 诪转讬拽讛 砖讛讚讘砖 讜讻诇 诪讬谞讬 诪转讬拽讛 诪讗讬专讬谉 诪讗讜专 注讬谞讬讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 专讗讬讛 诇讚讘专 讝讻专 诇讚讘专 专讗讜 谞讗 讻讬 讗讜专讜 注讬谞讬 讻讬 讟注诪转讬 诪注讟 讚讘砖 讛讝讛

The Sages taught in a baraita: In the case of one who is seized with bulmos, one feeds him honey and all types of sweet foods, as the honey and all types of sweet foods restore the sight of his eyes. And although there is no clear proof for the matter, there is an allusion to the matter. Jonathan said: 鈥淪ee, I pray you, how my eyes are brightened because I tasted a little of this honey鈥 (I Samuel 14:29).

讜诪讗讬 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 专讗讬讛 诇讚讘专 讚讛转诐 诇讗讜 讘讜诇诪讜住 讗讞讝讬讛

The Gemara asks: And why does the baraita say: Although there is no clear proof for the matter, when that verse is a strong proof? The Gemara answers: There, Jonathan was not seized with bulmos, he was merely very hungry. Therefore, the episode provides no evidence that honey or sweet foods are the remedy for bulmos.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讗讞专 讗讻讬诇讛 讗讘诇 拽讜讚诐 讗讻讬诇讛 诪讙专专 讙专讬专 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬诪爪讗讜 讗讬砖 诪爪专讬 讘砖讚讛 讜讬拽讞讜 讗讜转讜 讗诇 讚讜讚 讜讬转谞讜 诇讜 诇讞诐 讜讬讗讻诇 讜讬砖拽讜讛讜 诪讬诐 讜讬转谞讜 诇讜 驻诇讞 讚讘讬诇讛 讜砖谞讬 爪诪讜拽讬诐 讜讬讗讻诇 讜转砖讘 专讜讞讜 讗诇讬讜 讻讬 诇讗 讗讻诇 诇讞诐 讜诇讗 砖转讛 诪讬诐 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 诇讬诇讜转

Abaye said: They taught that honey restores a one鈥檚 eyesight only after eating other food, but before eating other food it whets one鈥檚 appetite, as it is written: 鈥淎nd they found an Egyptian man in the field, and brought him to David, and they gave him bread and he ate, and they gave him water to drink; and they gave him a piece of a cake of figs, and two clusters of raisins, and he ate, and his spirit was restored; for he had eaten no bread nor drunk any water for three days and three nights鈥 (I Samuel 30:11鈥12). This indicates that sweets are given after the main course and not before it.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讬 砖讗讞讝讜 讘讜诇诪讜住 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗诇讬讛 讘讚讘砖 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 讗祝 住讜诇转 谞拽讬讛 讘讚讘砖 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 拽诪讞讬 讚砖注专讬 讘讚讬讘砖讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 驻注诐 讗讞转 讗讞讝谞讬 讘讜诇诪讜住 讜专爪转讬 诇诪讝专讞讛 砖诇 转讗谞讛 讜拽讬讬诪转讬 讘注爪诪讬 讛讞讻诪讛 转讞讬讛 讘注诇讬讛 讚转谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛专讜爪讛 诇讟注讜诐 讟注诐 转讗谞讛 讬驻谞讛 诇诪讝专讞讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜诪诪讙讚 转讘讜讗讜转 砖诪砖

Rav Na岣an said that Shmuel said: In the case of one who is seized with bulmos, one feeds him a sheep鈥檚 tail with honey, since the combination of the fatty meat and the honey helps greatly. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Also, fine wheat flour with honey is a remedy. Rav Pappa said: Even barley flour with honey is good for curing bulmos. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Once I was seized with bulmos and I ran to the east side of a fig tree and found ripe figs there, which I ate. Figs on a tree do not all ripen at once but ripen first on the side where the sun rises, so Rabbi Yo岣nan searched first for figs on the east side of the tree. And I thereby fulfilled the verse: 鈥淲isdom preserves the lives of those who have it鈥 (Ecclesiastes 7:12). As Rav Yosef taught: One who wishes to taste the flavor of the fig should turn to the east, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd for the precious things of the sun鈥檚 fruits鈥 (Deuteronomy 33:14), implying that the sun ripens fruit and makes them sweet.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讜讜 拽讗 讗讝诇讬 讘讗讜专讞讗 讗讞讝讬讛 讘讜诇诪讜住 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 拽驻讞讬讛 诇专讜注讛 讗讻诇讬讛 诇专讬驻转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 拽驻讞转 讗转 讛专讜注讛 讻讬 诪讟讜 诇诪转讗 讗讞讝讬讛 讘讜诇诪讜住 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讛讚专讜讛讜 讘诇讙讬 讜爪注讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗谞讬 拽驻讞转讬 讗转 讛专讜注讛 讜讗转讛 拽驻讞转 讗转 讛注讬专 讻讜诇讛

The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei were walking on the road when Rabbi Yehuda was seized with bulmos. He overpowered a nearby shepherd and ate the bread that the shepherd had in his hand, since his life was in danger. Rabbi Yosei said to him: You have robbed that shepherd. When they reached the city, Rabbi Yosei was seized with bulmos, and all the people of the city surrounded him with jugs [lagei] and plates with all sorts of sweets. Rabbi Yehuda said to him in jest: I robbed only the shepherd, but you have robbed the entire city.

讜转讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讜讜 拽讗 讗讝诇讬 讘讗讜专讞讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讜讛 讚讬讬拽 讘砖诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讗 讛讜讜 讚讬讬拽讜 讘砖诪讗 讻讬 诪讟讜 诇讛讛讜讗 讚讜讻转讗 讘注讜 讗讜砖驻讬讝讗 讬讛讘讜 诇讛讜 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪讛 砖诪讱 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讻讬讚讜专 讗诪专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讚诐 专砖注 讛讜讗 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讚讜专 转讛驻讜讻讜转 讛诪讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗砖诇讬诪讜 诇讬讛 讻讬住讬讬讛讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讗 讗砖诇讬诐 诇讬讛 讻讬住讬讛 讗讝诇 讗讜转讘讬讛 讘讬 拽讬讘专讬讛 讚讗讘讜讛

And furthermore, it is told: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei were walking on the road together. Rabbi Meir would analyze names and discern one鈥檚 nature from his name, while Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei were not apt to analyze names. When they came to a certain place, they looked for lodging and were given it. They said to the innkeeper: What is your name? He said to them: My name is Kidor. Rabbi Meir said to himself: Perhaps one can learn from this that he is a wicked person, as it is stated: 鈥淔or they are a generation [ki dor] of upheavals鈥 (Deuteronomy 32:20). Since it was Friday afternoon, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei entrusted their purses to him. Rabbi Meir did not entrust his purse to him but went and placed it at the grave of the innkeeper鈥檚 father.

讗转讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讘讞诇诪讬讛 转讗 砖拽讬诇 讻讬住讗 讚诪谞讞 讗专讬砖讗 讚讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 诇诪讞专 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讻讬 讗转讞讝讬 诇讬 讘讞诇诪讗讬 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讞诇诪讗 讚讘讬 砖诪砖讬 诇讬转 讘讛讜 诪诪砖讗 讗讝诇 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜谞讟专讬讛 讻讜诇讬 讬讜诪讗 讜讗讬讬转讬讛

The innkeeper鈥檚 father appeared to the innkeeper in a dream and said to him: Go take the purse placed at the head of that man, i.e., the innkeeper鈥檚 father. The following day, he said to the Sages: This is what appeared to me in my dream. They said to him: Dreams during twilight on Shabbat evening have no substance and should not be trusted. Even so, Rabbi Meir went and guarded his money all that day and then took it.

诇诪讞专 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讛讘 诇谉 讻讬住谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗 讛讬讜 讚讘专讬诐 诪注讜诇诐 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讚讬讬拽讬转讜 讘砖诪讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讗诪专转 诇谉 诪专 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专讬 讗谞讗 讞砖砖讗 讗讞讝讜拽讬 诪讬 讗诪专讬

The next day, the rabbis said to the innkeeper: Give us our purses. He said to them: These matters never occurred; you never gave me any purses. Rabbi Meir said to them: Why didn鈥檛 you analyze his name to learn that he is a wicked man? They said to him: Why didn鈥檛 the Master tell us? He said to them: I said one should be suspicious, but have I said a person should be established as wicked? Could I say to you with certainty that he is wicked based on his name alone?

诪砖讻讜讛讜 讜注讬讬诇讜讛讜 诇讞谞讜转讗 讞讝讜 讟诇驻讞讬 讗砖驻诪讬讛 讗讝诇讜 讜讬讛讘讜 住讬诪谞讗 诇讚讘讬转讛讜 讜砖拽诇讜讛讜 诇讻讬住讬讬讛讜 讜讗讬讬转讜 讗讝诇 讗讬讛讜 讜拽讟诇讬讛 诇讗讬转转讬讛

What did they do? They dragged the innkeeper and brought him to a store and gave him wine to drink. After he drank the wine, they saw lentils on his mustache, showing that he had eaten lentils that day. They went and gave this sign to his wife. They said that the innkeeper had ordered that their money be returned to them upon the sign that he ate lentils at his last meal. And they took their purses and went. He went and killed his wife out of anger that she did this.

讛讬讬谞讜 (讚转谞谉) 诪讬诐 专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讛讗讻讬诇讜 讘砖专 讞讝讬专 诪讬诐 讗讞专讜谞讬诐 讛专讙讜 讗转 讛谞驻砖

This is as we learned in a baraita: Due to a person鈥檚 laxity in the first washing, they fed him pork. There was an innkeeper who was accustomed to feed pork to gentiles and kosher meat to Jews. He distinguished between Jews and gentiles by watching to see whether they performed the ritual hand-washing before eating. One time, a Jew came and ate without washing his hands before the meal, and the innkeeper gave him pork to eat. Laxity in the final washing, the washing of one鈥檚 hands and mouth after a meal, caused the innkeeper to kill the person. This is similar to that story, as had the wicked innkeeper washed his mouth, the rabbis would not have known that he had eaten lentils.

讜诇讘住讜祝 讛讜讜 讚讬讬拽讬 讘砖诪讗 讻讬 诪讟讜 诇讛讛讜讗 讘讬转讗 讚砖诪讬讛 讘诇讛 诇讗 注讬讬诇讜 诇讙讘讬讛 讗诪专讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 专砖注 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗诪专 诇讘诇讛 谞讗讜驻讬诐 (讻诪讜 讗讞专讬 讘诇讜转讬 讛讬转讛 诇讬 注讚谞讛 讻诇讜诪专 讝拽谞讛 讘谞讗讜驻讬诐)

And in the end, they too, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei, would analyze names. When they came to a house of a landlord named Bala, they did not enter. They said: Conclude from here that he is certainly wicked, as it is written: 鈥淚 said of her who was worn out [bala] by adulteries鈥 (Ezekiel 23:43), as it states: 鈥淎fter I am grown old [beloti] shall I have pleasure?鈥 (Genesis 18:12). 鈥淲orn out by adulteries鈥 means aged through adulteries.

诪讬 砖谞砖讻讜 讻诇讘 砖讜讟讛 讜讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讞诪砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 谞讗诪专讜 讘讻诇讘 砖讜讟讛 驻讬讜 驻转讜讞 讜专讬专讜 谞讜讟祝 讜讗讝谞讬讜 住专讜讞讜转 讜讝谞讘讜 诪讜谞讞 注诇 讬专讻讜转讬讜 讜诪讛诇讱 讘爪讬讚讬 讚专讻讬诐 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 谞讜讘讞 讜讗讬谉 拽讜诇讜 谞砖诪注 诪诪讗讬 讛讜讬 专讘 讗诪专 谞砖讬诐 讻砖驻谞讬讜转 诪砖讞拽讜转 讘讜 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 专讜讞 专注讛 砖讜专讛 注诇讬讜

搂 It was taught that in the case of one whom a mad dog bit, one does not feed him the lobe of its liver. The Gemara clarifies the concept of the mad dog. The Sages taught in a baraita: Five signs were said about a mad dog: Its mouth is always open; and its saliva drips; and its ears are floppy and do not stand up; and its tail rests on its legs; and it walks on the edges of roads. And some say it also barks and its voice is not heard. The Gemara asks: From where did the dog become mad? Rav said: Witches play with it and practice their magic on it, causing it to become mad. And Shmuel said: An evil spirit rests upon it.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two opinions? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them with regard to

Masechet Yoma is sponsored by Vicky Harari in commemoration of her father's Yahrzeit, Avraham Baruch Hacohen ben Zeev Eliyahu Eckstein z'l, a Holocaust survivor and a feminist before it was fashionable. And in gratitude to Michelle Cohen Farber for revolutionizing women's learning worldwide.
  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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

Yoma 80-88 + Siyum – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will continue learning about the amounts one is liable for eating and drinking on Yom Kippur. The...
Dr. Ayelet Hoffmann Libson

Rabbinic Authority and Personal Autonomy in Early Rabbinic Law, Part 1 of 3: A Sick Person Eating on Yom Kippur

This series examines how an individual鈥檚 knowledge of their body and psyche impacts halacha, a fact that demonstrates the tension...

Yoma 83

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yoma 83

讝讜专讜 专砖注讬诐 诪专讞诐 谞驻拽 诪讬谞讛 砖讘转讗讬 讗爪专 驻讬专讬

鈥淭he wicked are estranged from the womb鈥 (Psalms 58:4), i.e., it is clear they are estranged already in their mother鈥檚 womb. Indeed, Shabbetai the hoarder of fruits came out of her. He hoarded fruit during years of famine in order to inflate its price and profit at the expense of poor people.

讞讜诇讛 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 注诇 驻讬 讘拽讬讗讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讞讜诇讛 讗讜诪专 爪专讬讱 讜专讜驻讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讞讜诇讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讘 讬讜讚注 诪专转 谞驻砖讜 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 专讜驻讗 拽讬诐 诇讬讛 讟驻讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

搂 It was taught in the mishna: If a person is ill and requires food due to potential danger, one feeds him according to the advice of medical experts. Rabbi Yannai said: If an ill person says he needs to eat, and a doctor says he does not need to eat, one listens to the ill person.What is the reason for this halakha? It is because the verse states: 鈥淭he heart knows the bitterness of its soul鈥 (Proverbs 14:10), meaning an ill person knows the intensity of his pain and weakness, and doctors cannot say otherwise. The Gemara asks: It is obvious that a person knows himself better than anyone else does. Why does this need to be stated explicitly? The Gemara answers: It is lest you say that the doctor is more certain because he has had more experience with this condition. Therefore, the verse teaches us that even so, it is the ill person who knows his own suffering better than anyone else.

专讜驻讗 讗讜诪专 爪专讬讱 讜讞讜诇讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇专讜驻讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 转讜谞讘讗 讛讜讗 讚谞拽讬讟 诇讬讛

However, in the opposite case, if a doctor says that the ill person needs food, but the ill person himself says he does not need to eat, one listens to the doctor. What is the reason for this halakha? It is because confusion [tunba] has taken hold of the ill person on account of his illness, and his judgment is impaired. Consequently, he himself does not know how much he needs food.

转谞谉 讞讜诇讛 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 注诇 驻讬 讘拽讬讗讬谉 注诇 驻讬 讘拽讬讗讬谉 讗讬谉 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 诇讗 注诇 驻讬 讘拽讬讗讬谉 讗讬谉 注诇 驻讬 讘拽讬 讗讞讚 诇讗

We learned in the mishna: If a person is ill, one feeds him according to the advice of medical experts. This implies that if there are experts present, then according to the advice of experts, yes, one feeds the ill person; but at his own instructions, no, one does not feed him, contrary to Rabbi Yannai鈥檚 opinion. It further implies that according to the advice of several experts, yes, one feeds an ill person; however, according to the advice of only one expert, no, one does not feed him. There appears to be a requirement for at least two doctors, which also contradicts Rabbi Yannai鈥檚 opinion that the opinion of one expert is sufficient to override the opinion of the ill person.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗诪专 诇讗 爪专讬讻谞讗 讜诇讬住驻讜 诇讬讛 注诇 驻讬 讘拽讬 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讘讛讚讬讛 讚讗诪专 诇讗 爪专讬讱 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 注诇 驻讬 讘拽讬讗讬谉

The Gemara rejects this: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a unique circumstance: The ill person says I do not need food, and the consultation of experts is required. The Gemara suggests: But let them feed him according to the advice of one expert, as Rabbi Yannai said that in such a circumstance one feeds the ill person based on the advice of one doctor. The Gemara answers: No, the requirement of two experts is necessary in a case where there is another, third expert with him who says that the ill person does not need to eat. In such a case, one feeds the ill person according to the advice of two experts who agree that he requires it.

驻砖讬讟讗 住驻拽 谞驻砖讜转 讛讜讗 讜住驻拽 谞驻砖讜转 诇讛拽诇 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 转专讬 讗讞专讬谞讬 讘讛讚讬讛 讚讗诪专讬 诇讗 爪专讬讱 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 转专讬 讻诪讗讛 讜诪讗讛 讻转专讬 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇注谞讬谉 注讚讜转 讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 讗讜诪讚谞讗 讘转专 讚注讜转 讗讝诇讬谞谉

The Gemara asks: If so, this is obvious, since it is a case of uncertainty concerning a life-threatening situation, and in all cases of uncertainty concerning a life-threatening situation, the halakha is lenient. The Gemara answers: No, this halakha is necessary in a case where there are two other doctors who, along with the ill person, say that he does not need food. And although Rav Safra said that two witnesses are like one hundred witnesses, and one hundred witnesses are like two witnesses, that rule applies specifically to the matter of testimony; however, in the matter of assessing a situation, we follow the majority of opinions. Therefore, one might think in this case that the ill person should not be fed because the opinion of two doctors plus the ill person should override the opposing opinion of two other doctors.

讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇注谞讬谉 讗讜诪讚谞讗 讚诪诪讜谞讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 住驻拽 谞驻砖讜转 讛讜讗

Generally speaking, two or more witnesses constitute complete testimony, and there is no difference between the testimony of two and the testimony of a large number of people. However, this principle of following the majority applies specifically to assessing monetary issues, but here it is a case of uncertainty concerning a life-threatening situation. Therefore, although it is the opinion of two doctors against the opinion of two doctors and the ill person, the ill person must eat.

讜讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讜讗诐 讗讬谉 砖诐 讘拽讬讗讬谉 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 诪讻诇诇 讚专讬砖讗 讚讗诪专 爪专讬讱 讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讚讗诪专 诇讗 爪专讬讱 讗谞讬 讗讘诇 讗诪专 爪专讬讱 讗谞讬 讗讬谉 砖诐 讘拽讬讗讬谉 转专讬 讗诇讗 讞讚 讚讗诪专 诇讗 爪专讬讱 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜

The Gemara asks: But from the fact that it is taught in the latter clause of the mishna that if there are no experts present one feeds him according to his own opinion, by inference, the first clause of the mishna is referring to a case where the ill person said he needs to eat. In that case, the mishna states that one follows the experts鈥 opinion, not his own, and feeds him. The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete and is teaching the following: In what case is this statement that he may eat only based on the advice of experts said? It is when the ill person said: I do not need to eat. But if he said: I do need to eat, and instead of two experts there is only one who says that he does not need to eat, one feeds him according to his own opinion.

诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 爪专讬讱 讗谞讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬讻讗 诪讗讛 讚讗诪专讬 诇讗 爪专讬讱 诇讚讬讚讬讛 砖诪注讬谞谉 砖谞讗诪专 诇讘 讬讜讚注 诪专转 谞驻砖讜

Mar bar Rav Ashi said: Any instance where an ill person says: I need to eat, even if there are one hundred expert doctors who say that he does not need to eat, we listen to his own opinion and feed him, as it is stated: 鈥淭he heart knows the bitterness of its soul鈥 (Proverbs 14:10).

转谞谉 讗诐 讗讬谉 砖诐 讘拽讬讗讬谉 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 讟注诪讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讘拽讬讗讬谉 讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讘拽讬讗讬谉 诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讚讗诪专 诇讗 爪专讬讱 讗谞讬 讗讘诇 讗诪专 爪专讬讱 讗谞讬 讗讬谉 砖诐 讘拽讬讗讬谉 讻诇诇 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 砖谞讗诪专 诇讘 讬讜讚注 诪专转 谞驻砖讜

We learned in the mishna: If an ill person himself says he needs to eat and there are no experts present, one feeds him according to his own opinion. This implies that the reason one feeds him is because there are no experts present. One may infer from this that if there were experts present, no, one would not feed the ill person based on his own opinion but would instead listen to the advice of the experts. The Gemara rejects this: This is what the mishna is saying: In what case is this statement that one follows the opinion of the experts said? It is when the ill person said: I do not need to eat. However, if he said: I do need to eat, it is considered as if there were no experts there at all; we feed him based on his opinion, as it is stated: 鈥淭he heart knows the bitterness of its soul鈥 (Proverbs 14:10). All the experts are ignored in the face of the ill person鈥檚 own sensitivities.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讗讞讝讜 讘讜诇诪讜住 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讚讘专讬诐 讟诪讗讬诐 注讚 砖讬讗讜专讜 注讬谞讬讜 诪讬 砖谞砖讻讜 讻诇讘 砖讜讟讛 讗讬谉 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪讞爪专 讻讘讚 砖诇讜 讜专讘讬 诪转讬讗 讘谉 讞专砖 诪转讬专

MISHNA: In the case of one who is seized with the life-threatening illness bulmos, causing him unbearable hunger pangs and impaired vision, one may feed him even impure foods on Yom Kippur or any other day until his eyes recover, as the return of his sight indicates that he is recovering. In the case of one whom a mad dog bit, one may not feed him from the lobe of the dog鈥檚 liver. This was thought to be a remedy for the bite, but the Rabbis deem it ineffective. And Rabbi Matya ben 岣rash permits feeding it to him, as he deems it effective.

讜注讜讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪转讬讗 讘谉 讞专砖 讛讞讜砖砖 讘讙专讜谞讜 诪讟讬诇讬谉 诇讜 住诐 讘转讜讱 驻讬讜 讘砖讘转 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 住驻拽 谞驻砖讜转 讜讻诇 住驻拽 谞驻砖讜转 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转

And furthermore, Rabbi Matya ben 岣rash said: With regard to one who suffers pain in his throat, one may place medicine inside his mouth on Shabbat, although administering a remedy is prohibited on Shabbat. This is because there is uncertainty whether or not it is a life-threatening situation for him, as it is difficult to ascertain the severity of internal pain. And a case of uncertainty concerning a life-threatening situation overrides Shabbat.

诪讬 砖谞驻诇讛 注诇讬讜 诪驻讜诇转 住驻拽 讛讜讗 砖诐 住驻拽 讗讬谞讜 砖诐 住驻拽 讞讬 住驻拽 诪转 住驻拽 讙讜讬 住驻拽 讬砖专讗诇 诪驻拽讞讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛讙诇 诪爪讗讜讛讜 讞讬 诪驻拽讞讬谉 讜讗诐 诪转 讬谞讬讞讜讛讜

Similarly, 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 a Jew, one clears the pile from atop him. One may perform any action necessary to rescue him from beneath the debris. If they found him alive after beginning to clear the debris, they continue to clear the pile until they can extricate him. And if they found him dead, they should leave him, since one may not desecrate Shabbat to preserve the dignity of the dead.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪谞讬讬谉 讛讬讜 讬讜讚注讬谉 砖讛讗讬专讜 注讬谞讬讜 诪砖讬讘讞讬谉 讘讬谉 讟讜讘 诇专注 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讜讘讟注诪讗

GEMARA: The Sages taught: From where would they know that his eyes had recovered their sight? It is from when he can discern between good and bad food, since under the influence of bulmos one eats food indiscriminately. Abaye said: It is with tasting. When he can distinguish the tastes of different foods his eyesight must have also recovered. For example, at night, although it is dark, the sign that his eyesight has been restored is that he is able to detect difference in tastes (Me鈥檌ri).

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讬 砖讗讞讝讜 讘讜诇诪讜住 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讛拽诇 讛拽诇 讟讘诇 讜谞讘讬诇讛 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 谞讘讬诇讛 讟讘诇 讜砖讘讬注讬转 砖讘讬注讬转

The Sages taught: In the case of one who is seized with bulmos and must be fed until his vision is restored, one feeds him the items whose prohibition is least severe first. If he must be fed forbidden foods, he should first be fed those whose level of prohibition is least severe. For instance, if there is untithed produce and an unslaughtered animal carcass [neveila] or any other non-kosher meat, one feeds him the neveila, as the prohibition of untithed produced warrants death at the hand of Heaven, but eating non-kosher meat is a transgression punishable only by lashes. If there is untithed produce and produce from the Sabbatical Year, he is fed the produce from the Sabbatical Year. Untithed produce warrants death at the hand of Heaven, whereas the produce of a Sabbatical Year is prohibited by a positive mitzva and there is no punishment associated with it.

讟讘诇 讜转专讜诪讛 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讟讘诇 讜讗讬谉 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 转专讜诪讛 讘谉 转讬诪讗 讗讜诪专 转专讜诪讛 讜诇讗 讟讘诇 讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讬讻讗 讚讗驻砖专 讘讞讜诇讬谉 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诪转拽谞讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜诪住驻讬谞谉 诇讬讛

If they have untithed produce and teruma, there is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m as to which food they should feed him, as it was taught in a baraita: One feeds him untithed produce and does not feed him teruma. Ben Teima says: It is better to feed him teruma and not feed him untithed produce. Rabba said: Where it is possible to feed him non-sacred food by separating tithes from untithed produce and thereby rendering the remainder permitted, everyone agrees that one should make the produce fit for consumption by separating tithes and then feed it to him, even on Shabbat, when it is otherwise prohibited to separate tithes.

讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 讘讞讜诇讬谉 诪专 住讘专 讟讘诇 讞诪讜专 讜诪专 住讘专 转专讜诪讛 讞诪讜专讛 诪专 住讘专 讟讘诇 讞诪讜专 讗讘诇 转专讜诪讛 讞讝讬讗 诇讻讛谉 讜诪专 住讘专 转专讜诪讛 讞诪讜专讛 讗讘诇 讟讘诇 讗驻砖专 诇转拽讜谞讬讛

Where they disagree, it is in a case where it is impossible to feed him non-sacred food because there is no way to separate tithes. One Sage holds that the prohibition of untithed produce is more severe; and one Sage holds that the prohibition of teruma is more severe. The two sides reason as follows. One Sage holds that the prohibition of untithed produce is more severe because it is prohibited to everyone; but teruma is fit for a priest, and therefore one could say that its prohibition is less severe. And one Sage holds that teruma is more severe because non-priests may never eat it, while untithed produce can be made fit to eat, and therefore, even while it is still untithed, the prohibition against eating it is less severe.

讗驻砖专 讘讞讜诇讬谉 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讘砖讘转

It was stated that, according to Rabba, if it is possible to make the untithed produce fit and then feed him with non-sacred food, one should do so. The Gemara is surprised at this: It is obvious that if it is possible to tithe the produce and feed him that, one should do so. Why must it be stated? The Gemara explains: No, it is necessary to state this with regard to a case on Shabbat, when it is generally prohibited to separate terumot and tithes. Even so, the Sages said that it is better to separate terumot and tithes on Shabbat rather than feed the ill person untithed produce.

讘砖讘转 谞诪讬 驻砖讬讟讗 讟诇讟讜诇 诪讚专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘注爪讬抓 砖讗讬谞讜 谞拽讜讘 讚专讘谞谉

The Gemara asks: With regard to Shabbat it is also obvious, since the prohibition against separating terumot and tithes is merely a prohibition against moving, which is prohibited by rabbinic law. That is certainly less severe than the prohibition against eating untithed produce. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with fruits grown in an imperforate container, which are not subject to teruma by Torah law but by rabbinic law. The Gemara teaches that it is preferable to transgress the rabbinic prohibition of tithing the fruit on Shabbat rather than feed the ill person untithed produce, although in this case the prohibition is rabbinic.

诪专 住讘专 讟讘诇 讞诪讜专 讜诪专 住讘专 转专讜诪讛 讞诪讜专讛

搂 The Gemara now discusses the aforementioned two opinions: One Sage, ben Teima, holds that untithed produce is more severe, and therefore one must tithe the fruit although it is prohibited to separate teruma on Shabbat; and one Sage, the first tanna, holds that teruma is more severe.

诇讬诪讗 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 诪讬 砖谞砖讻讜 谞讞砖 拽讜专讬谉 诇讜 专讜驻讗 诪诪拽讜诐 诇诪拽讜诐 讜诪拽专注讬谉 诇讜 讗转 讛转专谞讙讜诇转 讜讙讜讝讝讬谉 诇讜 讗转 讛讻专讬砖讬谉 讜诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇注砖专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 注讚 砖讬注砖专

Let us say that Rabba鈥檚 view is one side of a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it was taught in a baraita: In the case of one whom a snake bit on Shabbat and who is in danger, one calls a doctor for him to come from one place to another; and one tears a chicken apart for him if he needs its meat for healing; and one harvests leeks from the ground and feeds them to him for healing purposes, and one need not separate tithes; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: He should not eat it unless it has been tithed.

谞讬诪讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 专讘讬

Let us say that Rabba鈥檚 statement that one must separate teruma and tithes from the fruit for the ill person on Shabbat, even from untithed produce prohibited by rabbinic law, corresponds to the view of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. He says that one must tithe the leeks for the ill person even on Shabbat, although leeks, like all other vegetables, are considered untithed produce only by rabbinic law. And Rabba鈥檚 opinion does not follow the view of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讛转诐 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 诪注砖专 讬专拽 讚专讘谞谉 讗讘诇 讘诪注砖专 讚讙谉 讚讟讘诇 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讜讗 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 诪讜讚讛 讚讗讬 砖专讬转 诇讬讛 讘注爪讬抓 砖讗讬谞讜 谞拽讜讘 讗转讬 诇诪讬讻诇 讘注爪讬抓 砖讛讜讗 谞拽讜讘

The Gemara rejects this: Even if you say that Rabba holds in accordance with the view of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is saying that one should not separate tithes only there, with regard to the requirement to take the tithe from vegetables, like leeks, which is rabbinic in origin. This requirement was decreed lest one come to confuse vegetables with produce that is untithed by Torah law. However, with regard to the tithe of grains, which have the status of untithed produce by Torah law, although in this particular circumstance their untithed status is rabbinic because the grains grew in an imperforate container, even Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi concedes that the produce must be tithed. Because if it is permitted for him to eat without separating tithes from produce grown in an imperforate container, he may err and come to eat from grain grown in a perforated pot, which is considered untithed produce by Torah law. Consequently, one must separate tithes on Shabbat before feeding an ill person, even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讬 砖讗讞讝讜 讘讜诇诪讜住 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讚讘砖 讜讻诇 诪讬谞讬 诪转讬拽讛 砖讛讚讘砖 讜讻诇 诪讬谞讬 诪转讬拽讛 诪讗讬专讬谉 诪讗讜专 注讬谞讬讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 专讗讬讛 诇讚讘专 讝讻专 诇讚讘专 专讗讜 谞讗 讻讬 讗讜专讜 注讬谞讬 讻讬 讟注诪转讬 诪注讟 讚讘砖 讛讝讛

The Sages taught in a baraita: In the case of one who is seized with bulmos, one feeds him honey and all types of sweet foods, as the honey and all types of sweet foods restore the sight of his eyes. And although there is no clear proof for the matter, there is an allusion to the matter. Jonathan said: 鈥淪ee, I pray you, how my eyes are brightened because I tasted a little of this honey鈥 (I Samuel 14:29).

讜诪讗讬 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 专讗讬讛 诇讚讘专 讚讛转诐 诇讗讜 讘讜诇诪讜住 讗讞讝讬讛

The Gemara asks: And why does the baraita say: Although there is no clear proof for the matter, when that verse is a strong proof? The Gemara answers: There, Jonathan was not seized with bulmos, he was merely very hungry. Therefore, the episode provides no evidence that honey or sweet foods are the remedy for bulmos.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讗讞专 讗讻讬诇讛 讗讘诇 拽讜讚诐 讗讻讬诇讛 诪讙专专 讙专讬专 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬诪爪讗讜 讗讬砖 诪爪专讬 讘砖讚讛 讜讬拽讞讜 讗讜转讜 讗诇 讚讜讚 讜讬转谞讜 诇讜 诇讞诐 讜讬讗讻诇 讜讬砖拽讜讛讜 诪讬诐 讜讬转谞讜 诇讜 驻诇讞 讚讘讬诇讛 讜砖谞讬 爪诪讜拽讬诐 讜讬讗讻诇 讜转砖讘 专讜讞讜 讗诇讬讜 讻讬 诇讗 讗讻诇 诇讞诐 讜诇讗 砖转讛 诪讬诐 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 诇讬诇讜转

Abaye said: They taught that honey restores a one鈥檚 eyesight only after eating other food, but before eating other food it whets one鈥檚 appetite, as it is written: 鈥淎nd they found an Egyptian man in the field, and brought him to David, and they gave him bread and he ate, and they gave him water to drink; and they gave him a piece of a cake of figs, and two clusters of raisins, and he ate, and his spirit was restored; for he had eaten no bread nor drunk any water for three days and three nights鈥 (I Samuel 30:11鈥12). This indicates that sweets are given after the main course and not before it.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讬 砖讗讞讝讜 讘讜诇诪讜住 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗诇讬讛 讘讚讘砖 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 讗祝 住讜诇转 谞拽讬讛 讘讚讘砖 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 拽诪讞讬 讚砖注专讬 讘讚讬讘砖讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 驻注诐 讗讞转 讗讞讝谞讬 讘讜诇诪讜住 讜专爪转讬 诇诪讝专讞讛 砖诇 转讗谞讛 讜拽讬讬诪转讬 讘注爪诪讬 讛讞讻诪讛 转讞讬讛 讘注诇讬讛 讚转谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛专讜爪讛 诇讟注讜诐 讟注诐 转讗谞讛 讬驻谞讛 诇诪讝专讞讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜诪诪讙讚 转讘讜讗讜转 砖诪砖

Rav Na岣an said that Shmuel said: In the case of one who is seized with bulmos, one feeds him a sheep鈥檚 tail with honey, since the combination of the fatty meat and the honey helps greatly. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Also, fine wheat flour with honey is a remedy. Rav Pappa said: Even barley flour with honey is good for curing bulmos. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Once I was seized with bulmos and I ran to the east side of a fig tree and found ripe figs there, which I ate. Figs on a tree do not all ripen at once but ripen first on the side where the sun rises, so Rabbi Yo岣nan searched first for figs on the east side of the tree. And I thereby fulfilled the verse: 鈥淲isdom preserves the lives of those who have it鈥 (Ecclesiastes 7:12). As Rav Yosef taught: One who wishes to taste the flavor of the fig should turn to the east, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd for the precious things of the sun鈥檚 fruits鈥 (Deuteronomy 33:14), implying that the sun ripens fruit and makes them sweet.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讜讜 拽讗 讗讝诇讬 讘讗讜专讞讗 讗讞讝讬讛 讘讜诇诪讜住 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 拽驻讞讬讛 诇专讜注讛 讗讻诇讬讛 诇专讬驻转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 拽驻讞转 讗转 讛专讜注讛 讻讬 诪讟讜 诇诪转讗 讗讞讝讬讛 讘讜诇诪讜住 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讛讚专讜讛讜 讘诇讙讬 讜爪注讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗谞讬 拽驻讞转讬 讗转 讛专讜注讛 讜讗转讛 拽驻讞转 讗转 讛注讬专 讻讜诇讛

The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei were walking on the road when Rabbi Yehuda was seized with bulmos. He overpowered a nearby shepherd and ate the bread that the shepherd had in his hand, since his life was in danger. Rabbi Yosei said to him: You have robbed that shepherd. When they reached the city, Rabbi Yosei was seized with bulmos, and all the people of the city surrounded him with jugs [lagei] and plates with all sorts of sweets. Rabbi Yehuda said to him in jest: I robbed only the shepherd, but you have robbed the entire city.

讜转讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讜讜 拽讗 讗讝诇讬 讘讗讜专讞讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讜讛 讚讬讬拽 讘砖诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讗 讛讜讜 讚讬讬拽讜 讘砖诪讗 讻讬 诪讟讜 诇讛讛讜讗 讚讜讻转讗 讘注讜 讗讜砖驻讬讝讗 讬讛讘讜 诇讛讜 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪讛 砖诪讱 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讻讬讚讜专 讗诪专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讚诐 专砖注 讛讜讗 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讚讜专 转讛驻讜讻讜转 讛诪讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗砖诇讬诪讜 诇讬讛 讻讬住讬讬讛讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讗 讗砖诇讬诐 诇讬讛 讻讬住讬讛 讗讝诇 讗讜转讘讬讛 讘讬 拽讬讘专讬讛 讚讗讘讜讛

And furthermore, it is told: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei were walking on the road together. Rabbi Meir would analyze names and discern one鈥檚 nature from his name, while Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei were not apt to analyze names. When they came to a certain place, they looked for lodging and were given it. They said to the innkeeper: What is your name? He said to them: My name is Kidor. Rabbi Meir said to himself: Perhaps one can learn from this that he is a wicked person, as it is stated: 鈥淔or they are a generation [ki dor] of upheavals鈥 (Deuteronomy 32:20). Since it was Friday afternoon, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei entrusted their purses to him. Rabbi Meir did not entrust his purse to him but went and placed it at the grave of the innkeeper鈥檚 father.

讗转讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讘讞诇诪讬讛 转讗 砖拽讬诇 讻讬住讗 讚诪谞讞 讗专讬砖讗 讚讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 诇诪讞专 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讻讬 讗转讞讝讬 诇讬 讘讞诇诪讗讬 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讞诇诪讗 讚讘讬 砖诪砖讬 诇讬转 讘讛讜 诪诪砖讗 讗讝诇 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜谞讟专讬讛 讻讜诇讬 讬讜诪讗 讜讗讬讬转讬讛

The innkeeper鈥檚 father appeared to the innkeeper in a dream and said to him: Go take the purse placed at the head of that man, i.e., the innkeeper鈥檚 father. The following day, he said to the Sages: This is what appeared to me in my dream. They said to him: Dreams during twilight on Shabbat evening have no substance and should not be trusted. Even so, Rabbi Meir went and guarded his money all that day and then took it.

诇诪讞专 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讛讘 诇谉 讻讬住谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗 讛讬讜 讚讘专讬诐 诪注讜诇诐 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讚讬讬拽讬转讜 讘砖诪讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讗诪专转 诇谉 诪专 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专讬 讗谞讗 讞砖砖讗 讗讞讝讜拽讬 诪讬 讗诪专讬

The next day, the rabbis said to the innkeeper: Give us our purses. He said to them: These matters never occurred; you never gave me any purses. Rabbi Meir said to them: Why didn鈥檛 you analyze his name to learn that he is a wicked man? They said to him: Why didn鈥檛 the Master tell us? He said to them: I said one should be suspicious, but have I said a person should be established as wicked? Could I say to you with certainty that he is wicked based on his name alone?

诪砖讻讜讛讜 讜注讬讬诇讜讛讜 诇讞谞讜转讗 讞讝讜 讟诇驻讞讬 讗砖驻诪讬讛 讗讝诇讜 讜讬讛讘讜 住讬诪谞讗 诇讚讘讬转讛讜 讜砖拽诇讜讛讜 诇讻讬住讬讬讛讜 讜讗讬讬转讜 讗讝诇 讗讬讛讜 讜拽讟诇讬讛 诇讗讬转转讬讛

What did they do? They dragged the innkeeper and brought him to a store and gave him wine to drink. After he drank the wine, they saw lentils on his mustache, showing that he had eaten lentils that day. They went and gave this sign to his wife. They said that the innkeeper had ordered that their money be returned to them upon the sign that he ate lentils at his last meal. And they took their purses and went. He went and killed his wife out of anger that she did this.

讛讬讬谞讜 (讚转谞谉) 诪讬诐 专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讛讗讻讬诇讜 讘砖专 讞讝讬专 诪讬诐 讗讞专讜谞讬诐 讛专讙讜 讗转 讛谞驻砖

This is as we learned in a baraita: Due to a person鈥檚 laxity in the first washing, they fed him pork. There was an innkeeper who was accustomed to feed pork to gentiles and kosher meat to Jews. He distinguished between Jews and gentiles by watching to see whether they performed the ritual hand-washing before eating. One time, a Jew came and ate without washing his hands before the meal, and the innkeeper gave him pork to eat. Laxity in the final washing, the washing of one鈥檚 hands and mouth after a meal, caused the innkeeper to kill the person. This is similar to that story, as had the wicked innkeeper washed his mouth, the rabbis would not have known that he had eaten lentils.

讜诇讘住讜祝 讛讜讜 讚讬讬拽讬 讘砖诪讗 讻讬 诪讟讜 诇讛讛讜讗 讘讬转讗 讚砖诪讬讛 讘诇讛 诇讗 注讬讬诇讜 诇讙讘讬讛 讗诪专讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 专砖注 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗诪专 诇讘诇讛 谞讗讜驻讬诐 (讻诪讜 讗讞专讬 讘诇讜转讬 讛讬转讛 诇讬 注讚谞讛 讻诇讜诪专 讝拽谞讛 讘谞讗讜驻讬诐)

And in the end, they too, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei, would analyze names. When they came to a house of a landlord named Bala, they did not enter. They said: Conclude from here that he is certainly wicked, as it is written: 鈥淚 said of her who was worn out [bala] by adulteries鈥 (Ezekiel 23:43), as it states: 鈥淎fter I am grown old [beloti] shall I have pleasure?鈥 (Genesis 18:12). 鈥淲orn out by adulteries鈥 means aged through adulteries.

诪讬 砖谞砖讻讜 讻诇讘 砖讜讟讛 讜讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讞诪砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 谞讗诪专讜 讘讻诇讘 砖讜讟讛 驻讬讜 驻转讜讞 讜专讬专讜 谞讜讟祝 讜讗讝谞讬讜 住专讜讞讜转 讜讝谞讘讜 诪讜谞讞 注诇 讬专讻讜转讬讜 讜诪讛诇讱 讘爪讬讚讬 讚专讻讬诐 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 谞讜讘讞 讜讗讬谉 拽讜诇讜 谞砖诪注 诪诪讗讬 讛讜讬 专讘 讗诪专 谞砖讬诐 讻砖驻谞讬讜转 诪砖讞拽讜转 讘讜 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 专讜讞 专注讛 砖讜专讛 注诇讬讜

搂 It was taught that in the case of one whom a mad dog bit, one does not feed him the lobe of its liver. The Gemara clarifies the concept of the mad dog. The Sages taught in a baraita: Five signs were said about a mad dog: Its mouth is always open; and its saliva drips; and its ears are floppy and do not stand up; and its tail rests on its legs; and it walks on the edges of roads. And some say it also barks and its voice is not heard. The Gemara asks: From where did the dog become mad? Rav said: Witches play with it and practice their magic on it, causing it to become mad. And Shmuel said: An evil spirit rests upon it.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two opinions? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them with regard to

Scroll To Top