מפת הסוגיא — יומא פ״גSugya map — Yoma 83

המשנה: חולה (שיש בו סכנה) מאכילים אותו ביום הכיפורים על פי בקיאין. ר׳ ינאי: אם החולה אומר ׳צריך אני לאכול׳ והרופא אומר ׳אינו צריך׳ — שומעים לחולה, שנאמר ״לב יודע מרת נפשו״. הגמרא: פשיטא — אדם מכיר את עצמו! ומתרצת: סלקא דעתך שהרופא בקי יותר, לכן צריך להשמיענו.

§ 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.

המקרה ההפוך: אם הרופא אומר ׳צריך׳ והחולה אומר ׳אינו צריך׳ — שומעים לרופא ומאכילים. הטעם: בלבול (תונבא) אחז בחולה מחמת חוליו, ודעתו אינה צלולה לדעת כמה הוא צריך.

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.

קושיא על ר׳ ינאי מן המשנה: ״מאכילין אותו על פי בקיאין״ — משמע על פי בקיאין כן, אבל על פי עצמו לא; ועוד: על פי בקיאין (רבים) כן, אבל על פי בקי אחד לא — ושני הדיוקים סותרים את ר׳ ינאי.

§ 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.

תירוץ: המשנה עוסקת בחולה שאומר ׳איני צריך׳, ולכן צריך בקיאין כדי להאכילו בעל כורחו. ומקשים: ויאכילוהו על פי בקי אחד! ומתרצים: צריך שניים, במקרה שיש בקי נוסף עם החולה האומר ׳לא צריך׳ — אז שני הבקיאין מכריעים להאכילו.

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.

מקשים: פשיטא — הרי ספק נפשות הוא וספק נפשות להקל! ומתרצים: צריך, במקרה שיש שני בקיאין נוספים עם החולה האומרים ׳לא צריך׳. ואף שאמר רב ספרא ׳שניים כמאה ומאה כשניים׳ — זה רק לעניין עדות, אבל באומדנא (הערכה) הולכים אחר רוב הדעות.

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.

המשך התירוץ: כלל הליכה אחר הרוב באומדנא נאמר רק לעניין ממון, אבל כאן שספק נפשות הוא — מאכילים את החולה אף כנגד שני בקיאין, ואין הולכים אחר הרוב להחמיר.

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.

קושיא מהסיפא: ״אם אין שם בקיאין מאכילין על פי עצמו״ — משמע שהרישא עוסקת בחולה שאמר ׳צריך׳, ושלא כתירוץ הקודם! מתרצים: המשנה חסרה וכך יש לקרוא: במה דברים אמורים שצריך בקיאין — כשאמר ׳לא צריך׳; אבל אמר ׳צריך אני׳, ואין שני בקיאין אלא אחד שאומר ׳לא צריך׳ — מאכילין על פי עצמו.

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.

מר בר רב אשי מוסיף: בכל מקום שהחולה אומר ׳צריך אני׳ — אפילו מאה בקיאין אומרים ׳אינו צריך׳, שומעים לו ומאכילים, שנאמר ״לב יודע מרת נפשו״.

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).

קושיא נוספת (כשיטת מר בר רב אשי): ״אם אין בקיאין על פי עצמו״ — משמע דווקא כשאין בקיאין, אבל יש בקיאין לא! ומתרצים: כך כוונת המשנה: במה דברים אמורים שצריך בקיאין — כשאמר ׳לא צריך׳; אבל אמר ׳צריך אני׳ — כאילו אין שם בקיאין כלל, ומאכילים על פי עצמו, שנאמר ״לב יודע מרת נפשו״.

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.

משנה: מי שאחזתו מחלת הרעבון המסוכנת (בולמוס) — מאכילים אותו אפילו מאכלות אסורים (טמאים), עד שיאירו עיניו (סימן שהתרפא). מי שנשכו כלב שוטה — אין מאכילים אותו מחצר (אונת) הכבד של הכלב, שאין בכך תועלת. ור׳ מתיא בן חרש מתיר, שסבר שיש בכך רפואה.

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.

ועוד אמר ר׳ מתיא בן חרש: החש כאב בגרונו — מטילים לו תרופה לתוך פיו בשבת, אף שרפואה אסורה בשבת; מפני שכאב פנימי הוא ספק נפשות, וכל ספק נפשות דוחה את השבת.

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.

מי שנפל עליו גל אבנים (מפולת) בשבת — אף בספק אם הוא תחת ההריסות, ספק חי ספק מת, ספק גוי ספק ישראל — מפנים את הגל להצילו. מצאוהו חי — ממשיכים לפנות; ואם מצאוהו מת — מניחים אותו (שאין מחללים שבת לכבוד המת).

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.

גמרא: שנו חכמים — מניין היו יודעים שהאירו עיניו (שהבריא מן הבולמוס)? משעה שמבחין בין מאכל טוב לרע, שכן בשעת הבולמוס אוכל בלא הבחנה. אמר אביי: וגם לפי חוש הטעם — כשמבחין בטעמי המאכלים, אות הוא שחזרה גם ראייתו.

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).

שנו חכמים: מי שאחזו בולמוס שצריך להאכילו — מאכילים אותו את הקל שבאיסורים תחילה. אם יש לפניו טבל ונבילה — מאכילים נבילה (שעונשה מלקות) ולא טבל (שעונשו מיתה בידי שמים). טבל ושביעית — מאכילים שביעית (שאין בה עונש).

§ 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.

טבל ותרומה — מחלוקת תנאים: ת״ק אומר מאכילים טבל ולא תרומה; בן תימא אומר תרומה ולא טבל. אמר רבה: היכא שאפשר להאכילו חולין (על ידי הפרשת תרומות ומעשרות מן הטבל) — הכל מודים שמתקנים את הטבל ומאכילים אותו חולין.

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.

המחלוקת היא כשאי אפשר בחולין: ת״ק סובר טבל חמור — ולכן מאכיל תרומה, שהרי תרומה ראויה לכהן; ובן תימא סובר תרומה חמורה (שלזר לעולם אסורה) — ולכן מאכיל טבל, שהרי טבל אפשר לתקנו.

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.

קושיא על דברי רבה: ״אפשר בחולין״ — פשיטא שמתקנים ומאכילים חולין! ומה החידוש? תירוץ: לא צריכא — החידוש הוא בשבת, שאף שהפרשת תרו״מ אסורה בה, מוטב לתקן בשבת מלהאכילו טבל.

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.

קושיא נוספת: גם בשבת פשיטא — שהרי תיקון הטבל הוא רק איסור טלטול מדרבנן, קל מאיסור אכילת טבל! תירוץ: כאן מדובר בטבל של עציץ שאינו נקוב, שאיסורו מדרבנן — והחידוש שמוטב לעבור על איסור דרבנן (לתקן) מלהאכיל טבל דרבנן.

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.

הגמרא חוזרת לדון בשתי הדעות: מר (ת״ק) סובר טבל חמור — ולכן יש לתקנו אף בשבת ולא להאכיל תרומה; ומר (בן תימא) סובר תרומה חמורה.

§ 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.

נציע שמחלוקת זו תלויה במחלוקת תנאים אחרת: ברייתא — מי שנשכו נחש (וסכנתו דחופה) בשבת, קורין לו רופא ממקום למקום, קורעים לו תרנגולת וגוזזים כרישין ומאכילים אותו, ואינו צריך לעשר — דברי רבי. ר׳ אלעזר בר״ש: לא יאכל עד שיעשר.

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.

נאמר אפוא שרבה (הסובר שמתקנים בשבת אף טבל דרבנן) הולך כר׳ אלעזר בר״ש המחייב לעשר, ולא כרבי הפוטר?

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.

דחייה: אפילו תאמר שרבה כרבי — אין סתירה. רבי פטר מלעשר רק שם, במעשר ירק (כרישין) שהוא מדרבנן; אבל במעשר דגן שטבלו מדאורייתא — אף רבי מודה שצריך לעשר, גזירה שמא יתיר לעצמו אף בעציץ נקוב (טבל גמור) אם נתיר לו בעציץ שאינו נקוב.

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.

שנו חכמים: מי שאחזו בולמוס — מאכילים אותו דבש וכל מיני מתיקה, שהדבש ומיני המתיקה מאירים את עיני האדם. ואף שאין ראיה גמורה לדבר, זכר (רמז) לדבר מדברי יונתן: ״ראו נא כי אורו עיני כי טעמתי מעט דבש הזה״.

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).

קושיא: ולמה אמרה הברייתא ״אף על פי שאין ראיה״, והרי הפסוק ביונתן ראיה ברורה? תירוץ: שם יונתן לא אחזו בולמוס אלא רעב רגיל, ולכן אין משם ראיה גמורה שדבש מרפא בולמוס.

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.

אמר אביי: לא נאמר שהדבש מאיר עיניים אלא לאחר אכילת מאכל אחר; אבל קודם אכילה הדבש דווקא גורר ומגביר את הרעב. ראיה מן המצרי שמצאו אנשי דוד: נתנו לו תחילה לחם, ורק אחר כך דבילה וצימוקים — שהמתיקה ניתנת לאחר העיקר ולא לפניו.

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.

רב נחמן בשם שמואל: בולמוס — מאכילים אליה (שומן) בדבש; רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע: אף סולת נקייה בדבש; רב פפא: אפילו קמח שעורים בדבש. ר׳ יוחנן: פעם אחזני בולמוס ורצתי למזרח התאנה (ששם מבשילות הפירות תחילה) ומצאתי תאנים, וקיימתי בעצמי ״החכמה תחיה בעליה״. וכדתני רב יוסף: הרוצה לטעום טעם תאנה יפנה למזרחה, שנאמר ״וממגד תבואות שמש״.

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.

מעשה: ר׳ יהודה ור׳ יוסי הלכו בדרך. אחזו בולמוס את ר׳ יהודה, ונטל בעל כורחו את לחמו של רועה ואכלו. אמר לו ר׳ יוסי: קיפחת (גזלת) את הרועה. כשהגיעו לעיר, אחז בולמוס את ר׳ יוסי, והקיפוהו אנשי העיר בכדים וקערות מלאות מטעמים. אמר לו ר׳ יהודה: אני קיפחתי רועה אחד, ואתה קיפחת עיר שלמה.

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.

ועוד: ר׳ מאיר, ר׳ יהודה ור׳ יוסי הלכו בדרך. ר׳ מאיר היה מדייק בשמות בני אדם, ור׳ יהודה ור׳ יוסי לא. הגיעו לבית מלון; שאלו את המארח לשמו, אמר ׳כידור׳. אמר ר׳ מאיר בלבו: רשע הוא, שנאמר ״כי דור תהפוכות המה״. ר׳ יהודה ור׳ יוסי הפקידו אצלו כיסיהם (ערב שבת); ר׳ מאיר לא הפקיד, אלא הטמין כיסו בקבר אבי המארח.

§ 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.

נראה לכידור בחלומו אביו: בוא טול את הכיס המונח על ראש פלוני (אביו, בקבר). למחר סיפר כידור לחכמים את חלומו. אמרו לו: חלום של בין השמשות (ליל שבת) אין בו ממש. אף על פי כן הלך ר׳ מאיר ושמר על מקומו כל היום ולבסוף נטל את כיסו.

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.

למחר ביקשו ר׳ יהודה ור׳ יוסי את כיסיהם. אמר להם כידור: לא היו דברים מעולם. אמר להם ר׳ מאיר: מדוע לא דייקתם בשמו? אמרו לו: ומדוע לא אמרת לנו, רבנו? אמר להם: אמרתי שראוי לחשוש, אך וכי אמרתי להחזיקו ודאי לרשע?

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?

מה עשו? משכו את כידור והכניסוהו לחנות והשקוהו יין, ולאחר ששתה ראו עדשים בשפמו (סימן למאכל היום). הלכו ומסרו סימן זה לאשתו, כאילו ציוה להחזיר את הכיסים, ונטלו את כיסיהם והביאום. כשנודע לכידור — הלך והרג את אשתו על שמסרה הכיסים.

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.

זהו ששנינו: ׳מים ראשונים האכילו בשר חזיר׳ — מארח שהבחין בין יהודי לגוי לפי נטילת ידיים, וזה שלא נטל הואכל חזיר; ׳מים אחרונים הרגו את הנפש׳ — שאילו היה כידור נוטל מים אחרונים ומקנח שפמו, לא היו רואים את העדשים ולא נהרגה אשתו.

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.

ולבסוף אף ר׳ יהודה ור׳ יוסי נהגו לדייק בשמות. כשהגיעו לבית מארח ששמו ׳בלה׳, לא נכנסו אליו, ואמרו: שמע מינה רשע הוא, שנאמר ״ואומר לבלה ניאופים״ (כלשון ״אחרי בלותי״ — שזקן בניאופים).

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.

המשנה אמרה ׳מי שנשכו כלב שוטה׳. שנו חכמים חמישה סימני כלב שוטה: פיו פתוח, רירו נוטף, אזניו תלויות (סרוחות), זנבו מונח על ירכותיו, ומהלך בצדי הדרכים. ויש אומרים: אף נובח ואין קולו נשמע. ממה נעשה שוטה? רב: נשים מכשפות משחקות בו; ושמואל: רוח רעה שורה עליו.

§ 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.

מה הנפקא מינה בין רב לשמואל? יש ביניהם נפקא מינה לעניין…

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

…להריגתו בדבר הנזרק מרחוק (כחץ) ולא ביד: לשמואל שרוח רעה שורה עליו, ראוי להימנע ממגע ישיר עמו.

killing it with an object that is thrown from a distance like an arrow rather than with one’s hands. If the dog is possessed by an evil spirit, one should avoid direct contact with it.

ברייתא כשמואל: כשהורגים כלב שוטה — אין הורגים אלא בדבר הנזרק. מי שהכלב חף (שִפשף) בו — מסתכן; ומי שנשכו — מת. תקנת החף בו: ישלח (יפשוט) בגדיו וירוץ. רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע חף בו אחד מהם בשוק, פשט בגדיו ורץ, ואמר: קיימתי בעצמי ״החכמה תחיה בעליה״.

The Gemara comments: This was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel: When one kills a mad dog, he should kill it only with a thrown object. Furthermore, one who is rubbed by a mad dog will become dangerously ill, while one bitten by the dog will die. The Gemara asks: What is the remedy for one who is rubbed by mad dog and becomes dangerously ill? The Gemara answers: Let him take off his clothing and run. The Gemara relates: Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, was rubbed by one of these mad dogs in the market, whereupon he took off his clothing and ran. He said: I have fulfilled the verse: “Wisdom preserves the lives of those who have it” (Ecclesiastes 7:12).

מי שנשכו כלב שוטה — מת. מה תקנתו? אמר אביי: יביא עור זכר של צבוע ויכתוב עליו לחש (״אנא פלוני בר פלונית… כנתי כנתי קלירוס״, ויש אומרים ״קנדי קנדי קלורוס, יה יה ה׳ צבאות אמן אמן סלה״); ויפשוט בגדיו ויקברם בבית הקברות שנים עשר חודש, ואחר ישרפם בתנור ויפזר אפרם בפרשת דרכים. ובאותם שנים עשר חודש, כששותה מים — ישתה רק בקנה (צינור) נחושת, שמא יראה בבואת השד שבמים ויסתכן, כמעשה אבא בר מרתא שאמו עשתה לו קנה של זהב.

The Gemara continues to discuss the baraita: One bitten by a mad dog will die. The Gemara asks: What is the remedy? Abaye said: Let him bring the skin of a male hyena and write on it: I, so-and-so, son of so-and-so, am writing this spell about you upon the skin of a male hyena: Kanti kanti kelirus. And some say he should write: Kandi kandi keloros. He then writes names of God, Yah, Yah, Lord of Hosts, amen amen Selah. And let him take off his clothes and bury them in a cemetery for twelve months of the year, after which he should take them out, and burn them in an oven, and scatter the ashes at a crossroads. And during those twelve months of the year, when his clothes are buried, when he drinks water, let him drink only from a copper tube and not from a spring, lest he see the image of the demon in the water and be endangered, like the case of Abba bar Marta, who is also called Abba bar Manyumi, whose mother made him a gold tube for this purpose.