נדרים לט

נדרים לט

גְּמָ׳ בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִי בְּשֶׁנִּכְסֵי מְבַקֵּר אֲסוּרִין עַל חוֹלֶה — אֲפִילּוּ יוֹשֵׁב נָמֵי? אִי בְּשֶׁנִּכְסֵי חוֹלֶה אֲסוּרִין עַל הַמְבַקֵּר — אֲפִילּוּ עוֹמֵד נָמֵי לָא! אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לְעוֹלָם בְּשֶׁנִּכְסֵי מְבַקֵּר אֲסוּרִין עַל הַחוֹלֶה, וּבִמְקוֹם שֶׁנּוֹטְלִין שָׂכָר עַל הַיְּשִׁיבָה, וְאֵין נוֹטְלִין שָׂכָר עַל הָעֲמִידָה.

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.

מַאי פַּסְקָא? הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּאַף בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁנּוֹטְלִין שָׂכָר, עַל הַיְּשִׁיבָה — בָּעֵי לְמִשְׁקַל, עַל הָעֲמִידָה — לָא בָּעֵי לְמִשְׁקַל. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: כִּדְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְיָקִים, גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יִשְׁהֶא בַּעֲמִידָה. הָכָא נָמֵי גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יִשְׁהֶא בִּישִׁיבָה.

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.

עוּלָּא אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם בְּשֶׁנִּכְסֵי חוֹלֶה אֲסוּרִין עַל הַמְבַקֵּר, וּכְגוֹן דְּלָא אַדְּרֵיהּ מִן חַיּוּתֵיהּ. אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ יוֹשֵׁב נָמֵי! הָא אֶפְשָׁר בַּעֲמִידָה.

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’t it possible to meet those needs and visit the ill while standing? Therefore, sitting is not an existential need.

מֵיתִיבִי: חָלָה הוּא — נִכְנָס לְבַקְּרוֹ, חָלָה בְּנוֹ — שׁוֹאֲלוֹ בַּשּׁוּק. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְעוּלָּא דְּאָמַר בְּשֶׁנִּכְסֵי חוֹלֶה אֲסוּרִין עַל הַמְבַקֵּר, וּכְגוֹן דְּלָא אַדְּרֵיהּ מִן חַיּוּתֵיהּ — שַׁפִּיר.

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’s 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’s existential needs.

אֶלָּא לִשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמַר בְּשֶׁנִּכְסֵי מְבַקֵּר אֲסוּרִין עַל הַחוֹלֶה, מַאי שְׁנָא הוּא וּמַאי שְׁנָא בְּנוֹ? אָמַר לָךְ: מַתְנִיתִין בְּשֶׁנִּכְסֵי מְבַקֵּר אֲסוּרִין עַל הַחוֹלֶה, בָּרַיְיתָא בְּשֶׁנִּכְסֵי חוֹלֶה אֲסוּרִין עַל הַמְבַקֵּר.

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.

מַאי פַּסְקָא? אָמַר רָבָא: (אָמַר) שְׁמוּאֵל

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

מַתְנִיתִין קְשִׁיתֵיהּ; מַאי אִירְיָא דְּתָנֵי עוֹמֵד אֲבָל לֹא יוֹשֵׁב? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ דְּנִכְסֵי מְבַקֵּר אֲסוּרִין עַל הַחוֹלֶה.

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.

אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: רֶמֶז לְבִיקּוּר חוֹלִין מִן הַתּוֹרָה מִנַּיִן? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אִם כְּמוֹת כׇּל הָאָדָם יְמֻתוּן אֵלֶּה וּפְקֻדַּת כׇּל הָאָדָם וְגוֹ׳״. מַאי מַשְׁמַע? אָמַר רָבָא: אִם כְּמוֹת כׇּל הָאָדָם יְמוּתוּן אֵלֶּה, שֶׁהֵן חוֹלִים וּמוּטָלִים בַּעֲרִיסָתָן, וּבְנֵי אָדָם מְבַקְּרִים אוֹתָן, מָה הַבְּרִיּוֹת אוֹמְרִים — ״לֹא ה׳ שְׁלָחַנִי לָזֶה״.

§ 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: “If 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” (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.

דָּרֵשׁ רָבָא: ״אִם בְּרִיאָה יִבְרָא ה׳״, ״אִם בְּרִיאָה״ גֵּיהִנָּם — מוּטָב תִּהְיֶה, אִם לָאו — ״יִבְרָא ה׳״.

Apropos Korah and his congregation, Rava interpreted the repetitive formulation in this verse homiletically: “But 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” (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.

אִינִי? וְהָא תַּנְיָא: שִׁבְעָה דְּבָרִים נִבְרְאוּ קוֹדֶם שֶׁנִּבְרָא הָעוֹלָם, אֵלּוּ הֵן: תּוֹרָה, וּתְשׁוּבָה, גַּן עֵדֶן, וְגֵיהִנָּם, כִּסֵּא הַכָּבוֹד, וּבֵית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, וּשְׁמוֹ שֶׁל מָשִׁיחַ.

The Gemara asks: Is that so? Was there uncertainty at that point as to whether Gehenna had already been created? But isn’t 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.

תּוֹרָה, דִּכְתִיב ה׳: ״קָנָנִי רֵאשִׁית דַּרְכּוֹ וְגוֹ׳״.

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

תְּשׁוּבָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״בְּטֶרֶם הָרִים יֻלָּדוּ וַתְּחוֹלֵל וְגוֹ׳ תָּשֵׁב אֱנוֹשׁ עַד דַּכָּא וְגוֹ׳״.

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

גַּן עֵדֶן, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּטַּע ה׳ אֱלֹהִים גַּן בְּעֵדֶן מִקֶּדֶם וְגוֹ׳״.

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

גֵּיהִנָּם, דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי עָרוּךְ מֵאֶתְמוּל תׇּפְתֶּה״.

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

כִּסֵּא כָּבוֹד, דִּכְתִיב: ״נָכוֹן כִּסְאֲךָ מֵאָז״.

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

בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּסֵּא כָבוֹד מָרוֹם מֵרִאשׁוֹן״.

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

שְׁמוֹ שֶׁל מָשִׁיחַ, דִּכְתִיב: ״יְהִי שְׁמוֹ לְעוֹלָם וְגוֹ׳״.

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

אֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמַר: אִי אִיבְּרִי לֵיהּ פּוּמָּא — מוּטָב, וְאִם לָא — ״יִבְרָא ה׳״. וְהָכְתִיב: ״אֵין כׇּל חָדָשׁ תַּחַת הַשָּׁמֶשׁ״! הָכִי קָאָמַר: אִי הָכָא לָא מְקָרַב פּוּמָּא — לְהָכָא לִיקְרַב.

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’t it written: “And there is nothing new under the sun” (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.

דָּרֵשׁ רָבָא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״שֶׁמֶשׁ יָרֵחַ עָמַד זְבֻלָה״. שֶׁמֶשׁ וְיָרֵחַ בִּזְבוּל מַאי בָּעֲיָין? וְהָא בְּרָקִיעַ קְבִיעִי! מְלַמֵּד שֶׁעָלוּ שֶׁמֶשׁ וְיָרֵחַ מֵרָקִיעַ לִזְבוּל, וְאָמְרוּ לְפָנָיו: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, אִם אַתָּה עוֹשֶׂה דִּין לְבֶן עַמְרָם — אָנוּ מְאִירִים, וְאִם לָאו — אֵין אָנוּ מְאִירִין.

Apropos the conflict between Moses and Korah, the Gemara cites an additional verse that Rava interpreted homiletically, and some say that it was Rabbi Yitzḥak who said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “The 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” (Habakkuk 3:11)? What do the sun and moon seek in zevul, which is the fourth heaven; aren’t 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.

בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה יָרָה בָּהֶן חִיצִּים וַחֲנִיתוֹת, אָמַר לָהֶם: בְּכׇל יוֹם וָיוֹם מִשְׁתַּחֲוִים לָכֶם וְאַתֶּם מְאִירִים. בִּכְבוֹדִי לֹא מְחִיתֶם, בִּכְבוֹד בָּשָׂר וָדָם מְחִיתֶם! וּבְכׇל יוֹם וָיוֹם יוֹרִין בָּהֶן חִיצִּין וַחֲנִיתוֹת וּמְאִירִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לְאוֹר חִצֶּיךָ יְהַלֵּכוּ וְגוֹ׳״.

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: “At the light of Your arrows as they go, at the shining of Your glittering spear” (Habakkuk 3:11).

תַּנְיָא: בִּיקּוּר חוֹלִים אֵין לָהּ שִׁיעוּר. מַאי ״אֵין לָהּ שִׁיעוּר״? סָבַר רַב יוֹסֵף לְמֵימַר אֵין שִׁיעוּר לְמַתַּן שְׂכָרָהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְכׇל מִצְוֹת מִי יֵשׁ שִׁיעוּר לְמַתַּן שְׂכָרָן? וְהָא תְּנַן: הֱוֵי זָהִיר בְּמִצְוָה קַלָּה כְּבַחֲמוּרָה, שֶׁאֵין אַתָּה יוֹדֵעַ מַתַּן שְׂכָרָן שֶׁל מִצְוֹת! אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אֲפִילּוּ גָּדוֹל אֵצֶל קָטָן. רָבָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ מֵאָה פְּעָמִים בְּיוֹם.

§ 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’t 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.

אָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא בַּר חֲנִינָא: כׇּל הַמְבַקֵּר חוֹלֶה, נוֹטֵל אֶחָד מִשִּׁשִּׁים בְּצַעֲרוֹ. אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: אִם כֵּן לִיעַלּוּן שִׁיתִּין וְלוֹקְמוּהּ! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּעִישּׂוּרְיָיתָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי, וּבְבֶן גִּילוֹ.

Rav Aḥa bar Ḥanina 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 Aḥa bar Ḥanina said to them: It is like the tenths of the school of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said that each of one’s 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.

דְּתַנְיָא רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: בַּת הַנִּיזוֹנֶית מִנִּכְסֵי אַחִין — נוֹטֶלֶת עִישּׂוּר נְכָסִים. אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי: לִדְבָרֶיךָ מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ עֶשֶׂר בָּנוֹת וּבֵן, אֵין לוֹ לַבֵּן בִּמְקוֹם בָּנוֹת כְּלוּם! אָמַר לָהֶן: רִאשׁוֹנָה נוֹטֶלֶת עִישּׂוּר נְכָסִים, שְׁנִיָּה בַּמֶּה שֶׁשִּׁיְּירָה, שְׁלִישִׁית בַּמֶּה שֶׁשִּׁיְּירָה, וְחוֹזְרוֹת וְחוֹלְקוֹת בְּשָׁוֶה.

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.

רַב חֶלְבּוֹ חֲלַשׁ, נְפַק אַכְרֵיז רַב כָּהֲנָא:

The Gemara relates: Rav Ḥelbo fell ill. Rav Kahana went out and announced: