יומא פג

יומא פג

״זוֹרוּ רְשָׁעִים מֵרָחֶם״. נְפַק מִינַּהּ שַׁבְּתַאי אָצַר פֵּירֵי.

“The wicked are estranged from the womb” (Psalms 58:4), i.e., it is clear they are estranged already in their mother’s 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.

חוֹלֶה מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ עַל פִּי בְּקִיאִין. אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: חוֹלֶה אוֹמֵר צָרִיךְ, וְרוֹפֵא אוֹמֵר אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ — שׁוֹמְעִין לַחוֹלֶה. מַאי טַעְמָא — ״לֵב יוֹדֵעַ מׇרַּת נַפְשׁוֹ״. פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: רוֹפֵא קִים לֵיהּ טְפֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

§ 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: “The heart knows the bitterness of its soul” (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.

רוֹפֵא אוֹמֵר צָרִיךְ, וְחוֹלֶה אוֹמֵר אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ — שׁוֹמְעִין לָרוֹפֵא. מַאי טַעְמָא — תּוּנְבָּא הוּא דְּנָקֵיט לֵיהּ.

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.

תְּנַן: חוֹלֶה — מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ עַל פִּי בְּקִיאִין. עַל פִּי בְּקִיאִין — אִין, עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ — לָא! עַל פִּי בְּקִיאִין — אִין, עַל פִּי בָּקִי אֶחָד — לָא!

§ 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’s 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’s opinion that the opinion of one expert is sufficient to override the opinion of the ill person.

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, דְּאָמַר לָא צְרִיכְנָא. וְלִיסְפּוֹ לֵיהּ עַל פִּי בָּקִי! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאִיכָּא אַחֲרִינָא בַּהֲדֵיהּ דְּאָמַר לָא צְרִיךְ — מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ עַל פִּי בְּקִיאִין.

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.

פְּשִׁיטָא, סְפֵק נְפָשׁוֹת הוּא, וּסְפֵק נְפָשׁוֹת לְהָקֵל! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאִיכָּא תְּרֵי אַחֲרִינֵי בַּהֲדֵיהּ דְּאָמְרִי לָא צְרִיךְ. וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּאָמַר רַב סָפְרָא: תְּרֵי כִּמְאָה וּמְאָה כִּתְרֵי, הָנֵי מִילֵּי לְעִנְיַן עֵדוּת, אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן אוּמְדָּנָא — בָּתַר דֵּעוֹת אָזְלִינַן.

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.

וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי לְעִנְיַן אוּמְדָּנָא דְמָמוֹנָא, אֲבָל הָכָא סְפֵק נְפָשׁוֹת הוּא.

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.

וְהָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: וְאִם אֵין שָׁם בְּקִיאִין מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ, מִכְּלָל דְּרֵישָׁא דְּאָמַר צָרִיךְ! חַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — דְּאָמַר לֹא צָרִיךְ אֲנִי, אֲבָל אָמַר צָרִיךְ אֲנִי, אֵין שָׁם בְּקִיאִין תְּרֵי אֶלָּא חַד דְּאָמַר לֹא צָרִיךְ — מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ.

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’ 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.

מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאָמַר צָרִיךְ אֲנִי, אֲפִילּוּ אִיכָּא מְאָה דְּאָמְרִי לֹא צָרִיךְ לְדִידֵיהּ שָׁמְעִינַן — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֵב יוֹדֵעַ מׇרַּת נַפְשׁוֹ״.

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: “The heart knows the bitterness of its soul” (Proverbs 14:10).

תְּנַן: אִם אֵין שָׁם בְּקִיאִין — מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ. טַעְמָא דְּלֵיכָּא בְּקִיאִין, הָא אִיכָּא בְּקִיאִין לָא! הָכִי קָאָמַר: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — דְּאָמַר ״לֹא צָרִיךְ אֲנִי״, אֲבָל אָמַר ״צָרִיךְ אֲנִי״, אֵין שָׁם בְּקִיאִין כְּלָל — מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֵב יוֹדֵעַ מׇרַּת נַפְשׁוֹ״.

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: “The heart knows the bitterness of its soul” (Proverbs 14:10). All the experts are ignored in the face of the ill person’s own sensitivities.

מַתְנִי׳ מִי שֶׁאֲחָזוֹ בּוּלְמוֹס — מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ אֲפִילּוּ דְּבָרִים טְמֵאִים, עַד שֶׁיֵּאוֹרוּ עֵינָיו. מִי שֶׁנְּשָׁכוֹ כֶּלֶב שׁוֹטֶה — אֵין מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ מֵחֲצַר כָּבֵד שֶׁלּוֹ. וְרַבִּי מַתְיָא בֶּן חָרָשׁ מַתִּיר.

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’s liver. This was thought to be a remedy for the bite, but the Rabbis deem it ineffective. And Rabbi Matya ben Ḥarash permits feeding it to him, as he deems it effective.

וְעוֹד אָמַר רַבִּי מַתְיָא בֶּן חָרָשׁ: הַחוֹשֵׁשׁ בִּגְרוֹנוֹ — מְטִילִין לוֹ סַם בְּתוֹךְ פִּיו בְּשַׁבָּת, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא סְפֵק נְפָשׁוֹת, וְכׇל סְפֵק נְפָשׁוֹת דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת.

And furthermore, Rabbi Matya ben Ḥarash 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.

מִי שֶׁנָּפְלָה עָלָיו מַפּוֹלֶת, סָפֵק הוּא שָׁם סָפֵק אֵינוֹ שָׁם, סָפֵק חַי סָפֵק מֵת, סָפֵק גּוֹי סָפֵק יִשְׂרָאֵל, מְפַקְּחִין עָלָיו אֶת הַגַּל. מְצָאוּהוּ חַי — מְפַקְּחִין, וְאִם מֵת — יְנִיחוּהוּ.

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.

גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מִנַּיִין הָיוּ יוֹדְעִין שֶׁהֵאִירוּ עֵינָיו — מִשֶּׁיַּבְחִין בֵּין טוֹב לָרַע. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: וּבְטַעְמָא.

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’iri).

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מִי שֶׁאֲחָזוֹ בּוּלְמוֹס — מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ הַקַּל הַקַּל, טֶבֶל וּנְבֵילָה — מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ נְבֵילָה. טֶבֶל וּשְׁבִיעִית — שְׁבִיעִית.

§ 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.

טֶבֶל וּתְרוּמָה — תַּנָּאֵי הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ טֶבֶל וְאֵין מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ תְּרוּמָה. בֶּן תֵּימָא אוֹמֵר: תְּרוּמָה וְלֹא טֶבֶל. אָמַר רַבָּה: הֵיכָא דְּאֶפְשָׁר בְּחוּלִּין, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דִּמְתַקְּנִינַן לֵיהּ וּמַסְפִּינַן לֵיהּ.

If they have untithed produce and teruma, there is a dispute between tanna’im 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.

כִּי פְּלִיגִי בִּדְלָא אֶפְשָׁר בְּחוּלִּין. מָר סָבַר טֶבֶל חָמוּר, וּמַר סָבַר תְּרוּמָה חֲמוּרָה. מָר סָבַר טֶבֶל חָמוּר — אֲבָל תְּרוּמָה חַזְיָא לְכֹהֵן. וּמַר סָבַר תְּרוּמָה חֲמוּרָה, אֲבָל טֶבֶל אֶפְשָׁר לְתַקּוֹנֵיהּ.

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.

אֶפְשָׁר בְּחוּלִּין — פְּשִׁיטָא? לָא צְרִיכָא, בְּשַׁבָּת.

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.

בְּשַׁבָּת נָמֵי, פְּשִׁיטָא — טִלְטוּל מִדְּרַבָּנַן הוּא! הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — בְּעָצִיץ שֶׁאֵינוֹ נָקוּב, דְּרַבָּנַן.

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.

מָר סָבַר טֶבֶל חָמוּר, וּמַר סָבַר תְּרוּמָה חֲמוּרָה.

§ 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.

לֵימָא תַּנָּאֵי הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: מִי שֶׁנְּשָׁכוֹ נָחָשׁ — קוֹרִין לוֹ רוֹפֵא מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם, וּמְקָרְעִין לוֹ אֶת הַתַּרְנְגוֹלֶת, וְגוֹזְזִין לוֹ אֶת הַכְּרֵישִׁין, וּמַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לְעַשֵּׂר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: לֹא יֹאכַל עַד שֶׁיְּעַשֵּׂר.

Let us say that Rabba’s view is one side of a dispute between tanna’im, 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.

נֵימָא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, וְלָא רַבִּי!

Let us say that Rabba’s 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’s opinion does not follow the view of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי, עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי הָתָם — אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן מַעְשַׂר יָרָק דְּרַבָּנַן, אֲבָל בְּמַעְשַׂר דָּגָן דְּטֶבֶל דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא הוּא, אֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי מוֹדֶה, דְּאִי שָׁרֵית לֵיהּ בְּעָצִיץ שֶׁאֵינוֹ נָקוּב — אָתֵי לְמֵיכַל בְּעָצִיץ שֶׁהוּא נָקוּב.

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.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן מִי: שֶׁאֲחָזוֹ בּוּלְמוּס — מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ דְּבַשׁ וְכׇל מִינֵי מְתִיקָה, שֶׁהַדְּבַשׁ וְכׇל מִינֵי מְתִיקָה מְאִירִין מְאוֹר עֵינָיו שֶׁל אָדָם. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין רְאָיָה לַדָּבָר, זֵכֶר לַדָּבָר: ״רְאוּ נָא כִּי אוֹרוּ עֵינַי כִּי טָעַמְתִּי מְעַט דְּבַשׁ הַזֶּה״.

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: “See, I pray you, how my eyes are brightened because I tasted a little of this honey” (I Samuel 14:29).

וּמַאי: ״אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין רְאָיָה לַדָּבָר״! דְּהָתָם לָאו בּוּלְמוּס אַחְזֵיה.

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.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לֹא שָׁנוּ, אֶלָּא לְאַחַר אֲכִילָה, אֲבָל קוֹדֶם אֲכִילָה מִגְרָר גָּרֵיר, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּמְצְאוּ אִישׁ מִצְרִי בַּשָּׂדֶה וַיִּקְחוּ אוֹתוֹ אֶל דָּוִד וַיִּתְּנוּ לוֹ לֶחֶם וַיֹּאכַל וַיַּשְׁקוּהוּ מָיִם. וַיִּתְּנוּ לוֹ פֶלַח דְּבֵילָה וּשְׁנֵי צִמּוּקִים וַיֹּאכַל וַתָּשׇׁב רוּחוֹ אֵלָיו כִּי לֹא אָכַל לֶחֶם וְלֹא שָׁתָה מַיִם שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה לֵילוֹת״.

Abaye said: They taught that honey restores one’s eyesight only after eating other food, but before eating other food it whets one’s appetite, as it is written: “And 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” (I Samuel 30:11–12). This indicates that sweets are given after the main course and not before it.

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מִי שֶׁאֲחָזוֹ בּוּלְמוּס — מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ אַלְיָה בִּדְבַשׁ. רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אָמַר: אַף סוֹלֶת נְקִיָּה בִּדְבַשׁ. רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ קִמְחָא דִשְׂעָרֵי בְּדוּבְשָׁא. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: פַּעַם אַחַת אֲחָזַנִי בּוּלְמוּס וְרַצְתִּי לְמִזְרָחָהּ שֶׁל תְּאֵנָה, וְקִיַּימְתִּי בְּעַצְמִי: ״הַחׇכְמָה תְּחַיֶּה בְעָלֶיהָ״. דְּתָנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: הָרוֹצֶה לִטְעוֹם טַעַם תְּאֵנָה — יִפְנֶה לְמִזְרָחָהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּמִמֶּגֶד תְּבוּאוֹת שָׁמֶשׁ״.

Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said: In the case of one who is seized with bulmos, one feeds him a sheep’s 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 Yoḥanan 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 Yoḥanan searched first for figs on the east side of the tree. And I thereby fulfilled the verse: “Wisdom preserves the lives of those who have it” (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: “And for the precious things of the sun’s fruits” (Deuteronomy 33:14), implying that the sun ripens fruit and makes them sweet.

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הֲווֹ קָא אָזְלִי בְּאוֹרְחָא. אַחְזֵיה בּוּלְמוּס לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, קַפְּחֵיהּ לְרוֹעֶה אַכְלֵיהּ לְרִיפְתָּא. אָמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: קִפַּחְתָּ אֶת הָרוֹעֶה. כִּי מְטוֹ לְמָתָא, אַחְזֵיה בּוּלְמוּס לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי. אַהְדְּרוּהוּ בְּלָגֵי וְצָעֵי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אֲנִי קִפַּחְתִּי אֶת הָרוֹעֶה, וְאַתָּה קִפַּחְתָּ אֶת הָעִיר כּוּלָּהּ.

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.

וְתוּ: רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הֲווֹ קָא אָזְלִי בְּאוֹרְחָא, רַבִּי מֵאִיר הֲוָה דָּיֵיק בִּשְׁמָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי לָא הֲווֹ דָּיְיקִי בִּשְׁמָא. כִּי מְטוֹ לְהָהוּא דּוּכְתָּא, בְּעוֹ אוּשְׁפִּיזָא. יְהַבוּ לְהוּ. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: מָה שְׁמָךְ? אֲמַר לְהוּ: ״כִּידוֹר״. אֲמַר: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ אָדָם רָשָׁע הוּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי דוֹר תַּהְפּוּכוֹת הֵמָּה״. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אַשְׁלִימוּ לֵיהּ כִּיסַיְיהוּ. רַבִּי מֵאִיר לָא אַשְׁלֵים לֵיהּ כִּיסֵיהּ, אֲזַל אוֹתְבֵיהּ בֵּי קִיבְרֵיהּ דַּאֲבוּהּ.

§ 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’s 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: “For they are a generation [ki dor] of upheavals” (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’s father.

אִתְחֲזִי לֵיהּ בְּחֶלְמֵיהּ: תָּא שְׁקֵיל כִּיסָא דְּמַנַּח אַרֵישָׁא דְּהָהוּא גַּבְרָא. לִמְחַר אֲמַר לְהוּ: הָכִי אִתְחֲזִי לִי בְּחֶלְמַאי. אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: חֶלְמָא דְּבֵי שִׁמְשֵׁי לֵית בְּהוּ מַמָּשָׁא, אֲזַל רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְנַטְרֵיהּ כּוּלֵּי יוֹמָא וְאַיְּיתְיֵהּ.

The innkeeper’s 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’s 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.

לִמְחַר אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: הַב לַן כִּיסַן. אֲמַר לְהוּ: לֹא הָיוּ דְבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם. אֲמַר לְהוּ רַבִּי מֵאִיר: אַמַּאי לָא דָּיְיקִיתוּ בִּשְׁמָא? אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: אַמַּאי לָא אֲמַרְתְּ לַן מָר? אֲמַר לְהוּ: אֵימַר דַּאֲמַרִי אֲנָא חֲשָׁשָׁא, אַחְזוֹקֵי מִי אֲמַרִי?

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’t you analyze his name to learn that he is a wicked man? They said to him: Why didn’t 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?

מַשְׁכוּהוּ וְעַיְּילוּהוּ לַחֲנוּתָא, חֲזוֹ טְלָפְחֵי אַשְּׂפָמֵיהּ, אֲזַלוּ וִיהַבוּ סִימָנָא לִדְבֵיתְהוּ וְשַׁקְלוּהּ לְכִיסַיְיהוּ וְאַיְיתוֹ. אֲזַל אִיהוּ וְקַטְלֵיהּ לְאִיתְּתֵיהּ.

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.

הַיְינוּ (דִּתְנַן): מַיִם רִאשׁוֹנִים הֶאֱכִילוּ בְּשַׂר חֲזִיר. מַיִם אַחֲרוֹנִים הָרְגוּ אֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ.

This is as we learned in a baraita: Due to a person’s 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’s 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.

וּלְבַסּוֹף הֲווֹ דָּיְיקִי בִּשְׁמָא. כִּי מְטוֹ לְהָהוּא בֵּיתָא דִּשְׁמֵיהּ ״בָּלָה״, לָא עֲיַילוּ לְגַבֵּיהּ. אָמְרִי: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ רָשָׁע הוּא. דִּכְתִיב: ״וָאֹמַר לַבָּלָה נִאוּפִים״, (כְּמוֹ: ״אַחֲרֵי בְלוֹתִי הָיְתָה לִּי עֶדְנָה״, כְּלוֹמַר: זָקְנָה בְּנִאוּפִים).

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: “I said of her who was worn out [bala] by adulteries” (Ezekiel 23:43), as it states: “After I am grown old [beloti] shall I have pleasure?” (Genesis 18:12). “Worn out by adulteries” means aged through adulteries.

מִי שֶׁנְּשָׁכוֹ כֶּלֶב שׁוֹטֶה וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן, חֲמִשָּׁה דְּבָרִים נֶאֶמְרוּ בְּכֶלֶב שׁוֹטֶה: פִּיו פָּתוּחַ, וְרִירוֹ נוֹטֵף, וְאׇזְנָיו סְרוּחוֹת, וּזְנָבוֹ מוּנָּח עַל יַרְכוֹתָיו, וּמְהַלֵּךְ בְּצִידֵּי דְּרָכִים. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: אַף נוֹבֵחַ וְאֵין קוֹלוֹ נִשְׁמָע. מִמַּאי הָוֵי? רַב אָמַר: נָשִׁים כַּשְׁפָנִיּוֹת מְשַׂחֲקוֹת בּוֹ, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: רוּחַ רָעָה שׁוֹרָה עָלָיו.

§ 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.

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ

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