Previous daf

1)

(a) Someone against whom a mad dog rubbed - should take off his clothes, throw them in front of it and run.

(b) Someone who is bitten by a mad dog stands to die, unless he writes an incantation to save himself - on the skin of a hyena.

(c) He should also bury his clothes for twelve months in the graves by the crossroads - after which he takes them out, burns them and scatters the ashes by the crossroads.

(d) During that time, he should not drink water without the aid of some sort of straw - to avoid seeing the reflection of the demon (who jumped from the dog on to him), thereby becoming endangered.

(a) When a gentile matron administered a cure for Rebbi Yochanan's 'Tzafidna' (a toothache that starts in the mouth and ends in the stomach) for two consecutive days - he asked her for instructions on how to prepare it himself, should the need arise on Shabbos.

(b) By divulging the secret, he did not break his promise - because when she demanded that he swear by the G-d of Israel that he would not so, he inverted her words, and swore that he would not divulge her secret to the G- d of Israel (because in Lashon ha'Kodesh, both *by* the G-d ... and *to* the G-d ... can be expressed by "le'Elokei Yisrael").

(c) Neither did he create a Chilul Hashem by causing her to *think* that he was breaking his promise - because he informed her immediately as to what he had done.

(d) Some say that the secret cure was yeast-water, olive oil and salt. There are two other opinions: Some ...

1. ... replace yeast-water with ... yeast.
2. ... state only one ingredient - the oil from one of the feathers on a goose's wing.

(a) According to Abaye, all of the above methods do not work. An Arab told him to use date-stones that had not yet grown a third - which he was to burn in the fire produced by a burning a new hoe, and to place the ashes on his teeth.

(b) 'Tzafidna' is caused by eating very hot bread and the remnants of fish fried in flour, in their own oil. The sign that he has it - is when his teeth bleed easily.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan permitted this cure on Shabbos - not necessarily because he ruled like Rebbi Masya ben Charash (who maintains in our Mishnah that any illness inside the mouth is considered life-danger), but because the Rabbanan agreed with Rebbi Masya ben Charash in this point.

(d) Rebbi Masya ben Charash, in a Beraisa, permitted 1. someone with jaundice, to eat donkey's meat; 2. someone bitten by a mad dog, to eat part of its liver, and 3. someone whose mouth hurt, to take medicine. We presume that when the Chachamim say '*be'Eilu* Ein Bahem Mishum Refu'ah", they refer to the first two cases, but not to the third - a proof for Rebbi Yochanan's opinion.

(a) We refute this proof however - by explaining that *'be'Eilu'* pertains to all three cases. It comes to preclude a fourth case - that of letting blood for someone who has 'Serunchi' (quinsy), which even *they* considered a reliable cure.

(b) In a second Beraisa, the Chachamim (referring to the three lenient rulings of Rebbi Masya ben Charash 'Makizin Dam li'Serunki be'Shabbos, Mi she'Nashcho Kelev Shoteh ... ', and 'ha'Choshesh be'Fiv, Matilin Lo Sam be'Shabbos') comment 'be'*Eilu* Ein Bahem Mishum Refu'ah'. According to Rebbi Yochanan, 'be'Eilu' refers to the first *two* cases, but excludes the *third*.

(c) We finally prove Rebbi Yochanan right from a third Beraisa, where Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Yossi quoting Rebbi Masya ben Charash, permits feeding 1. a pregnant woman whatever she needs until she recovers; 2. part of the liver of a mad dog to someone who was bitten by it, and 3. administering medicine on Shabbos to someone whose mouth hurts him. We prove our point from the Rabbanan, who say there 'be'Zu ve'Lo ba'Acheres' - which can only pertain to the *latter* case, since the first case is obvious (seeing as it is a S'tam Mishnah), and the second case, is where the Rabbanan explicitly argue with Rebbi Masya ben Charash.

(d) Rav Ashi corroborate this proof from our Mishnah, which cites Rebbi Masya ben Charash's opinion about administering medicine to someone whose mouth hurts him *after* citing the Machlokes between him and the Chachamim regarding feeding part of the liver to someone who was bitten by a mad dog - and the Rabbanan, who argue with him in the Reisha, remain silent there.

5)

(a) After explaining that someone with mouth pains is a case of Safek Nefashos, the Tana needed to add 've'Chol Safek Nefashos Docheh Shabbos' - to permit breaking the Shabbos even if, for example, the doctors assessed that the patient needed to take cures for eight days (see Rashash). We would otherwise have thought that one may as well wait for night-fall and begin taking the medicine only *after* Shabbos, in order to avoid unnecessary Chilul Shabbos.

(b) This is borne out by a Beraisa, which permits breaking *this* Shabbos for a Safek Piku'ach of *next* Shabbos 'Bein Lehashkoso, Bein Lehavroso'.

1. 'Lehashkoso' - refers to medicines that one takes internally.
2. 'Lehavroso' - to external cures.

(c) Where it is necessary to break the Shabbos to save a Jew's life, it is better not to ask a gentile or a child to do so - but through a grown-up Yisrael, because a gentile and a child are likely (due to lack of understanding of the urgency of the situation) to take their time over their Shelichus, thereby causing the death of the patient.

(a) We do not permit Shabbos to be broken on the sole basis of the assessment of women or gentiles.

(b) When the Beraisa concludes 'Aval Mitztarfin le'Da'as Acheres' - it means that if one person plus a woman say that the patient needs to eat, and two say that he does not, then we consider it to be two against two, and the patient should eat.

(c) The Beraisa repeats the Heter to break Shabbos four times, absolving one from the need to go and obtain the Beis-Din's permission: by a child who fell into the sea, by one who fell into a deep pit, by one on whom the door closed and locked, and by someone who was trapped by an oncoming fire. Having said it in the case of the child who ...

1. ... fell into the sea, it nevertheless needs to repeat it in the case where he fell into a deep pit - because we may have thought that it is only in the *former* case that one is absolved from obtaining permission from the Beis-Din, due to the fear that by the time he goes to Beis-Din and returns, the child will have been carried away by the tide, but not in the *latter* case. (It is not however clear, why we need this reasoning, when by every case of Safek Piku'ach Nefesh, each second is crucial - so it seems obvious that one should take action immediately, and not have to ask the Beis-Din)
2. ... fell into a deep pit, it nevertheless needs to repeat it in the case of the door closing on him - because in the former case the child will go into shock, and it is essential to take action, whereas in the latter, one could perhaps put his mind at ease by playing with him until night-fall, and it should not be permitted to break Shabbos on his account.
3. ... child on whom the door had closed, it is nevertheless necessary to repeat it in the case when he is trapped by fire - to permit extinguishing the fire even if the child is in another court-yard.

(d) The Tana adds that it permitted even though the one who breaks the Shabbos derives personal benefit in each of the four cases: ie. he catches fish whilst savving the child from the sea, makes himself a ladder whilst saving him from the pit, makes planks (or fire-brands) whilst breaking down the door to save the trapped child, and prepares embers for roasting whilst extinguishing the fire.

(a) Rav Yosef quoted Rav Yehudah Amar quoted Shmuel as saying that in matters of life and death, we do not follow the majority. This cannot refer to the case of ...

1. ... a wall falling on to a group of nine Jews and one gentile, burying one beneath it, and we do not know which one - because it is obvious that there, we will go after the majority, in order to save a life.
2. ... the group consisting of five Jews and five gentiles - because that is a regular case of Safek Nefashos Lehakel.
3. ... when there are even nine gentiles and one Jew - because that, too, is obvious (like in the previous case) due to the principle 'Kol Kavu'a, ke'Mechtzah al Mechtzah Dami' ('Any Safek that arises in its place of origin, is considered fifty/fifty - and we ignore the majority).

(b) We learn 'Kol Kavua ke'Mechtzah al Mechtzah Dami' - from the Pasuk in Shoftim "ve'Arav Lo ve'Kam Alav"(that someone who threw a stone into a group of nine Jews and one non-Jew, killing a Jew, is Patur - as if it was five and five).

(a) Shmuel is speaking in the latter case (where the wall fell on one out of a group of nine gentiles and one Jew) - but when it fell on him after they had moved to another court-yard. Normally, we would apply the principle 'Kol de'Parish, me'Rubah Parish' (in which case it would be forbidden to save him on Shabbos).

(b) Moving to another courtyard will permit one to break the Shabbos to save the buried man - only if *all* of the group moved to the courtyard where the accident occured, before moving out (leaving one man buried under the pile of rubble) - because then, we know for sure that the Jew among them entered that courtyard. Otherwise, the principle 'Kol de'Parish, me'Ruba Parish' will apply -(since we are not even certain that the Jew entered the courtyard).