Previous daf

1)

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "Leiv Yodei'a Maras Nafsho" - that no expert knows a person's situation as well as the patient himself.

(b) We might otherwise have thought that the expert knows better.

(c) Nevertheless, based on the principle that even Safek 'Piku'ach Nefesh' always takes precedence, in the reverse case, we listen to the doctor, and not the patient - because sometimes a 'Meshuga'as' overcomes a person, and he doesn't realize just how ill he is.

(a) If, as we just concluded, when it is question of patient versus doctor, we always accept the lenient diagnoses - then how will we explain our Mishnah, which says that one feeds a sick person through the instructions of *experts*, implying not just through *one* expert, and not even through the patient himself.

(b) We initially establish the Mishnah when the patient himself plus *one* doctor claims that he does not need to eat.

(c) It is certainly obvious that, by Safek Piku'ach Nefesh, when it is a matter of two against two, we follow the lenient diagnosis. Consequently, our Mishnah must speak - when there are *two* doctors who agree with the patient that he does not need to eat.

(a) When Rav Safra said that there is no difference between two and a hundred in court - he meant exactly what he said: 'in court', but not in matters of assessment.

(b) Rav Safra was speaking about money-matters, and it is in that context that the above was said. In our case, which is not a question of money- matters, but of Piku'ach Nefesh, we will not follow the majority.

(c) The Seifa (which says that if there are no experts, then we feed him on the basis of his own assessment) as it stands, implies that in the Reisha, when there *are* experts who say that he does not need to eat, we do *not* listen to him. However, we amend the Mishnah, by adding a section, establishing the Reisha when the patient says that he does *not* need to eat, adding that when he says that he *does*, then we believe him even against *one* doctor who says that he does *not*.

(d) Mar bar Rav Ashi says that when the patient says that he needs to eat, then we follow *his* assessment even against a *hundred* doctors who say that he does *not*.

(a) A Bulmus is a life-threatening illness that is caused by starvation, and which causes the patient's eyes to become hazy.

(b) It is forbidden to emulate the example of the doctors, who would feed someone who had been bitten by a mad dog with part of its lung - because that is not a proven cure.

(c) Rebbi Masya ben Charash permits it.

(d) Rebbi Masya ben Charash also permitted giving medicine to someone with a sore throat on Shabbos - because, in his opinion, it is a proven cure, and any illness that is from the mouth and inwards, is considered life- threatening.

(a) If a wall fell on someone on Shabbos, one may dig it up if there is a slight chance that he is alive ...

1. ... even if it is not certain that he is there?
2. ... even if (we know that he is dead, but) he might not be Jewish?

(b) If, in the process of digging, one discovers that the man who is buried is dead - one must stop digging immediately.

(c) If they are feeding a man who is seized by a Bulmus, they must stop as soon as his eyes light up - which is the moment he can distinguish between the taste of different quality cooked dishes (see Rashash).

(d) As long as is necessary, one feeds him whatever is available, but if there are a number of forbidden foods, he is fed the smallest Isur first. If one has only Tevel, Neveilah and Shevi'is - then the order of priorities is Shevi'is (which is only an Asei); Neveilah (a plain La'av - whereas Tevel carries the penalty of Misah bi'Yedei Shamayim); Tevel.

(a) If only Tevel is available, then, according to the Tana Kama, one feeds him Tevel - because he holds that it is the *less* stringent of the two; according to Ben Teima, Terumah - because, in his opinion, Tevel is *more* stringent.

(b) They do not argue when there is sufficient Tevel for them to separate Terumah and feed him the rest.

(c) What makes ...

1. ... Terumah more stringent according to the Tana Kama - is the fact that it cannot be rectified, in the way that Tevel can.
2. ... Tevel more stringent according to Ben Teima - is the fact that it is not even permitted to Kohanim, as Terumah is.

7)

(a) If Rabah, who said that if it is possible to feed the patient Chulin, then everyone agrees that we do - speaks on Shabbos, then what is the Chidush? Does he need to inform us that we will be permitted to separate Ma'asros on Shabbos (which is only an Isur *de'Rabbanan* - which the Gemara seems to refer to as 'Tiltul'), rather than feed the patient Tevel *d'Oraysa*?

(b) We resolve this by establishing the case by Tevel that is growing in a pot without a hole (whose Tevel is only mi'de'Rabbanan).

(c) And the Chidush is that it is preferable to transgress the *Isur de'Rabbanan of Ma'asering the crops* on Shabbos, than that of feeding the patient *Tevel mi'de'Rabbanan*, from which one may go on to transgress Tevel d'Oraysa.

(a) One of the cures for someone who has been bitten by a snake, is feeding the stricken man cress, even if this means detaching it on Shabbos. According to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, the cress should however, be Ma'asered before it is fed to the patient; according to Rebbi, that is not necessary.

(b) Rebbi may well agree with Rabah, who holds that one must avoid feeding a sick patient un'Ma'asered crops, even if it is in a plant-pot without a hole, in which case, it is only Tevel de'Rabbanan - because Rabah is speaking about crops, which are *basically Tevel d'Oraysa* (and Chazal were strict even in a case when they are only Tevel *de'Rabbanan*, because one might then go on to permit Tevel *d'Oraysa*). Rebbi however, is speaking about cress, which is *purely* Tevel de'Rabbanan, and which one will never therefore confuse with a case of d'Oraysa.

(a) Honey and other sweet foods are good for Bulmus - because they restore the vision to his eyes.

(b) Yonasan's eyes lit up when he tasted some honey. Nevertheless, there no real proof from there that honey is good for Bulmus - because it does not say that he was suffering from Bulmus.

(c) The Gemara cites the story of the starved Egyptian whom David fed and gave to drink, and then gave some figs and raisins - to prove that sweet foods are effective after he has eaten regular food. Otherwise, the Gemara contends, they will have the adverse affect of stimulating his appetite even further.

(d) Some Amora'im claim that nice juicy meat is good with honey, and others, fine *wheat*-flour. Rav Papa comments that *barley*- flour with honey is also effective.

(a) When Rebbi Yochanan was once stricken with Bulmus - he ran to the east side of a fig-tree, where the fruit is sweetened by the sun, and ate some figs. In that connection, he quoted the Pasuk "u'mi'Meged Tevu'os Shamesh" ("and from the sweetness of the sun's produce").

(b) When Rebbi Yehudah was once seized by Bulmus, he made a shepherd give him his loaf of bread - upon which Rebbi Yossi remarked that he had forced a shepherd. Later, when they arrived in town, it was Rebbi Yossi who was seized with Bulmus. When everyone came running to give him jars of honey and dishes of cooked foods, it was Rebbi Yehudah's turn to remark that he had forced an entire town.

(c) Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yossi deposited their money with Kidor their host. Rebbi Meir did not do like-wise - because Kidor has connotations of being pervert (as in the Pasuk "*Ki Dor* Tahapuchos Heimah", and Rebbi Meir tended to interpret people's names.

(d) He was vindicated the very next day - when Kidor denied that any money had been placed in his charge.

(a) Rebbi Meir therefore ...

1. ... hid his money inside the grave of Kidor's father.
2. ... (when Kidor related that his father had appeared to him in a dream, instructing him to take the purse that was there) - down-played the value of a dream that one dreams on Erev Shabbos, and stood guard over his money the whole day.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yossi retrieved their money - by taking Kidor out for a drink, and then, noting the remains of Kidor's lunch on his moustache, they quickly returned and asked his wife to return it, using, giving her, as a sign that Kidor had instructed her to do so, the fact that they had eaten lentils for lunch.

(c) When Chazal said ...

1. ... that Mayim Acharonim killed a person - they were referring to Kidor's wife, whom Kidor killed when he discovered what she had done. Mayim Acharonim, because had Kidor washed Mayim Acharonim, they would not have had a sign to give her, seeing as it was the custom to wipe away the excess food, with the water that remained on one's hands from Mayim Acharonim.
2. ... Mayim Rishonim caused a person to eat Chazir - they were referring to a man who failed to wash Netilas Yadayim before eating bread, and the inn- keeper (who had many non-Jewish clients, and, assuming that whoever did not wash his hands must be a gentile) fed him Chazir.

(d) We know that Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yossi learned from the above episode - because, on another occasion, when they arrived at a house whose owner was called Balah - they declined to stay there, due to the Pasuk in Yechezkel "va'Omar le'Balah Ni'ufim" (giving Balah a connotation of adultery).

(a) A mad dog's mouth hangs wide open, its saliva drools from it.

1. Its ears - are exceptionally large and doubled over;
2. Its tail - is placed between its thighs;
3. It walks - at the side of the road.

(b) Some add that when it barks, its voice cannot be heard.

(c) According to Rav, its madness is the result of the witches idea of fun. Shmuel says it is an evil spirit that has possessed it.

(d) According to Rav, one can safely kill it from close quarters, whereas according to Shmuel, doing that, means running the risk of the demon entering oneself.