הכל מודים במחמץ אחר מחמץ שהוא חייב שנאמר לא תאפה חמץ לא תעשה חמץ במסרס אחר מסרס שהוא חייב שנאמר ומעוך וכתות ונתוק וכרות אם על כרות חייב על נתוק לא כל שכן אלא להביא נותק אחר כורת שהוא חייב ואלא בזקן
Everyone agrees that one who leavens a meal-offering after one who already leavened it is liable for the additional leavening, as it is stated: “It shall not be baked leavened” (Leviticus 6:10), and it is also stated: “No offering that you sacrifice to God shall be made with leaven” (Leviticus 2:11). The Sages interpreted this to mean that one is liable for every act of leavening performed on a Temple offering. Similarly, everyone agrees that one who castrates after one who castrates is liable, as it is stated: “Those whose testicles are bruised, or crushed, or torn, or cut, shall not be offered to the Lord, and you shall not do this in your land” (Leviticus 22:24). Presumably, if one is liable when the seminal vesicles are cut, when the testicles are detached altogether all the more so one is liable. Rather, this comes to include that one who detaches after one who cuts is liable. Apparently, one is liable for sterilizing one who is already castrated. Rather, we must say that it is permitted to use a remedy that causes sterility in an old man who is no longer capable of procreating.
והאמר רבי יוחנן הן הן החזירוני לנערותי אלא באשה ולרבי יוחנן בן ברוקא דאמר על שניהם הוא אומר ויברך אותם אלהים ויאמר להם פרו ורבו מאי איכא למימר בזקינה אי נמי בעקרה:
The Gemara asks: Didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say with regard to remedies that restore procreative ability: These have restored me to my youth? Apparently, even an elderly man can procreate with the proper remedy. Rather, the remedy for jaundice was discussed with regard to a woman, who is not commanded to reproduce. The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, who said: The mitzva is incumbent on both of them, the man and the woman, as it states: “And God blessed them and God said to them: Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and conquer it” (Genesis 1:28), what is there to say? How could a woman use this remedy? In his opinion a woman is also commanded to procreate. The Gemara answers: In his opinion, this remedy may be used for an elderly woman or, alternatively, for a barren woman. He would agree that there is no prohibition to cause infertility in a woman who cannot conceive.
מתני׳ החושש בשיניו לא יגמע בהן את החומץ אבל מטבל הוא כדרכו ואם נתרפא נתרפא החושש במתניו לא יסוך יין וחומץ אבל סך הוא את השמן ולא שמן וורד בני מלכים סכין שמן ורד על מכותיהן שכן דרכן לסוך בחול רבי שמעון אומר כל ישראל בני מלכים הם:
MISHNA: One who is concerned about pain in his teeth may not sip vinegar through them on Shabbat for medicinal purposes: however, he may dip his food in vinegar in his usual manner and eat it, and if he is healed by the vinegar, he is healed. One who is concerned about pain in his loins may not smear wine and vinegar on them on Shabbat because that is a medical treatment. However, one may smear oil on them. However, one may not use rose oil, which is very expensive and used exclusively as a cure. However, princes may smear with rose oil on their wounds on Shabbat because it is their usual manner to smear rose oil on themselves during the week for pleasure. Rabbi Shimon says: All of the Jewish people are princes, and it is permitted for them to smear rose oil on themselves on Shabbat.
גמ׳ רמי ליה רב אחא אריכא דהוא רב אחא בר פפא לרבי אבהו תנן החושש בשיניו לא יגמע בהן את החומץ למימרא דחומץ מעלי לשינים והכתיב כחמץ לשינים וכעשן לעינים לא קשיא הא בקיוהא דפרי הא בחלא ואיבעית אימא הא והא בחלא הא דאיכא מכה הא דליכא מכה איכא מכה מסי ליכא מכה מרפי:
GEMARA: Rav Aḥa Arikha, so named for his height as the word arikha literally means long in Aramaic, who is also known as Rav Aha bar Pappa, raised a contradiction before Rabbi Abbahu: We learned in the mishna that one who is concerned about pain in his teeth may not sip vinegar through them on Shabbat. Is that to say that vinegar is beneficial for teeth? Isn’t it written: “Like vinegar to the teeth, and like smoke to the eyes, so is the lazy one to those who send him” (Proverbs 10:26)? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as there is a distinction. This verse, which indicates that vinegar is harmful for teeth, is referring to fruit vinegar. The mishna, which indicates that vinegar is beneficial for teeth, is referring to wine vinegar. And if you wish, say instead that both this and that are referring to wine vinegar. In that case, the distinction is as follows: The mishna, which states that vinegar is beneficial for teeth, is referring to a situation in which there is a wound in the teeth. That verse, which indicates that it is harmful for teeth, is referring to a situation in which there is not a wound in the teeth. The Gemara explains: Where there is a wound, vinegar heals; where there is not a wound, it weakens the teeth.
לא יגמע בהן את החומץ: והתניא לא יגמע ופולט אבל מגמע ובולע אמר אביי כי תנן נמי מתניתין מגמע ופולט תנן רבא אמר אפילו תימא מגמע ובולע כאן לפני טיבול כאן לאחר טיבול
We learned in the mishna: One may not sip vinegar through his teeth on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that the prohibition to sip vinegar on Shabbat means that one may not sip and spit it out; however, one may sip and swallow it? Abaye said: When we learned this ruling in the mishna, we learned it with regard to the case of one who sips and spits it out. Rava said: Even if you say that the mishna prohibits sipping vinegar even in a case where one sips and swallows it, there is still a distinction. Here, the baraita permits sipping vinegar before dipping one’s food in it, as he appears to be doing so for pleasure. Here, the mishna prohibits sipping vinegar after dipping, when it is clear that one is doing so for medicinal purposes.
ונימא מדלפני טיבול שרי לאחר טיבול נמי שרי דשמעינן ליה לרבא דאית ליה הואיל
The Gemara asks: And let us say that since before dipping it, sipping it is permitted, after dipping it sipping it is also permitted. As we heard that Rava accepts the principle of since. The principle of since is illustrated in the following example: The Sages discussed whether one may immerse himself in a ritual bath on Shabbat, even though immersion is similar to repairing oneself through purification and is therefore prohibited. The conclusion of that discussion was that immersion is permitted because it appears as if the individual is bathing for pleasure. On the other hand, immersion is prohibited on Yom Kippur, as bathing for pleasure is prohibited then.
דאמר רבא ליכא מידי דבשבת שרי וביום הכפורים אסור הואיל דבשבת שרי ביום הכפורים נמי שרי
Rava said: There is nothing that is permitted on Shabbat and prohibited on Yom Kippur. The principle is: Since it is permitted on Shabbat, it is also permitted on Yom Kippur. Although the reason to permit bathing on Shabbat does not apply on Yom Kippur, Rava nonetheless permits it due to the principle of since. The decrees of the Sages should be applied equally to whatever degree possible, without making distinctions for particular cases. Here, too, in the case of sipping vinegar, since it is permitted to sip vinegar before dipping food, it should also be permitted to sip vinegar after dipping food.
הדר ביה רבא מהך ממאי דמהך הדר ביה דילמא מההיא הדר ביה לא סלקא דעתך דתניא כל חייבי טבילות טובלין כדרכן בין בתשעה באב בין ביום הכפורים:
The Gemara answers: Rava retracted that statement and prohibited sipping vinegar. The Gemara asks: From where can it be determined that he retracted that statement? Perhaps he retracted this statement with regard to immersion in a ritual bath on Yom Kippur. The Gemara answers: It does not enter your mind to say so, as it was taught in a baraita: All obligated in immersions immerse in their usual manner, both on the Ninth of Av and on Yom Kippur. Rava certainly does not dispute this baraita.
החושש במתניו כו׳: אמר רבי אבא בר זבדא אמר רב הלכה כרבי שמעון למימרא דרב כרבי שמעון סבירא ליה והאמר רב שימי בר חייא משמיה דרב האי מסוכרייא דנזייתא
We learned in the mishna: One who is concerned about pain in his loins may not smear rose oil on them on Shabbat, and Rabbi Shimon permits doing so. Rabbi Abba bar Zavda said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. The Gemara is surprised at this: Is that to say that Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? Didn’t Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya say the following in the name of Rav? With regard to this cloth stopper inserted into the spout of a barrel,