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