יומא 83 — Soncino English Talmud

¹The wicked are estranged from the womb. From her came forth Shabbatai, the hoarder of provisions [for speculation]. A SICK PERSON IS FED AT THE WORD OF EXPERTS. R. Jannai said: If the patient says, I need [food], whilst the physician says: He does not need it, we hearken to the patient. What is the reason? The heart knoweth its own bitterness. But that is self-evident? You might have said: The physician's knowledge is more established; therefore the information [that we prefer the patient's opinion]. If the physician says: He needs it, whilst the patient says that he does not need it, we listen to the physician. Why? Stupor seized him. We learned: A SICK PERSON IS FED AT THE WORD OF EXPERTS. [That implies]: Only upon the order of experts, but not upon his own order? [Further it implies]: Only upon the order of ‘experts,’ but not upon the order of a single expert? — This refers to the case that he says: I do not need it. But one should feed him upon the order of one expert? — This refers to the case when someone else is present who agrees that he does not need it. [If so, wherefore state that he] is FED AT THE WORD OF EXPERTS. Surely that is self-evident, for it is a possibility of danger to human life and ‘in the case of the possibility of danger to human life we take a more lenient view’! — It refers to a case in which two more people are present who say that he does not need it. And although R. Safra said that ‘Two are as a hundred and a hundred are as two’ applies only to witnesses, but with regard to opinion we go according to the number of opinions, all that applies only to opinions concerning money matters, but here it is a case where there is a possibility of danger to human life. But since in the second part [of the Mishnah] it states: AND IF NO EXPERTS ARE THERE, ONE FEEDS HIM AT HIS OWN WISH, it is to be inferred that in the first part we deal with the case that he said he needed it? There is something missing [in the Mishnah] and this is how it reads: These things are said only for the case that he says: I do not need it; but if he says: I need it, then if two experts are not there, but one who says: He does not need it, then ONE FEEDS HIM AT HIS OWN WISH. Mar son of R. Ashi said: Whenever he says. ‘I need [food]’, even if there be a hundred who say, ‘He does not need it’, we accept his statement, as it is said: ‘The heart knoweth its own bitterness’. We learned in the Mishnah: If no experts are there one feeds him at his own wish. That means only if no experts are there, but not if such experts were there? — This is what is meant: These things are said only for the case that he says, ‘I do not need it’, but if he says, ‘I need it’, then there are no experts there at all, [and] one feeds him at his own wish, as it is said: ‘The heart knoweth its own bitterness’. MISHNAH. IF ONE IS SEIZED BY A RAVENOUS HUNGER, HE MAY BE GIVEN TO EAT EVEN UNCLEAN THINGS UNTIL HIS EYES ARE ENLIGHTENED. IF ONE WAS BIT BY A MAD DOG, HE MAY NOT GIVE HIM TO EAT THE LOBE OF ITS LIVER, BUT R. MATTHIA B. HERESH PERMITS IT. FURTHERMORE DID R. MATTHIA B. HERESH SAY: IF ONE HAS PAIN IN HIS THROAT, HE MAY POUR MEDICINE INTO HIS MOUTH ON THE SABBATH, BECAUSE IT IS A POSSIBILITY OF DANGER TO HUMAN LIFE AND EVERY DANGER TO HUMAN LIFE SUSPENDS THE [LAWS OF THE] SABBATH. IF DEBRIS FALL ON SOMEONE, AND IT IS DOUBTFUL WHETHER OR NOT HE IS THERE, OR WHETHER HE IS ALIVE OR DEAD, OR WHETHER HE BE AN ISRAELITE OR A HEATHEN, ONE SHOULD OPEN [EVEN ON SABBATH] THE HEAP OF DEBRIS FOR HIS SAKE. IF ONE FINDS HIM ALIVE ONE SHOULD REMOVE THE DEBRIS, AND IF HE BE DEAD ONE SHOULD LEAVE HIM THERE [UNTIL THE SABBATH DAY IS OVER]. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: How did they know that his eyes are enlightened again? When he distinguishes between good and bad [food]. — Abaye said: In the taste thereof. Our Rabbis taught: If one was seized by a ravenous hunger, one feeds him with the less forbidden things first; as between tebel [untithed food] and carrion, one should feed him carrion first; between tebel and fruit of the seventh year, one should give him the fruit of the seventh year first. As between terumah and tebel, Tannaim are of divided opinion. For it was taught: One should feed him tebel, but not terumah. Ben Tema holds: Terumah, but not tebel. Rabbah said: If it is possible [to feed him] with common food, there is general agreement that one should prepare it for him and feed him with it; the dispute concerns the case when it is not possible [to feed him] with common food; one holds that [the prohibition of] tebel is more severe, the other assuming that the prohibition of terumah is the more severe. The one holds that [the prohibition of] eating tebel is more severe because terumah is permissible to priests. the other holding [the prohibition of] terumah more severe, whereas tebel may be rendered right [by tithing].^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ

^ᵃnote:Ps. LVIII, 4.
^ᵇnote:The suggestion throughout the page of a woman with child who smells a dish and develops a morbid longing for it, is that it is the embryo, and not the mother, who has the desire. If the mother accepted the whispered suggestion, it was due to the noble piety of the unborn child, hence, R. Johanan as the child of the first woman. None is more contemptible than the speculator in foodstuffs who corners the markets for his sordid gain and who causes great affliction among the poor. Such a person, even in the embryonic stage, would not be influenced by the information that it is the Day of Atonement. He would crave his food, unresponsive to any law or sentiment.
^ᶜnote:Prov. XIV, 10.
^ᵈnote:So that he does not feel the lack of food.
^ᵉnote:Which refutes R. Jannai.
^ᶠnote:V. Shab. 129a.
^ᵍnote:Two witnesses are considered sufficient evidence (Deut. XIX, 15) and no increase of their number either strengthens, or if they were counter-witnesses, by reason of superior numbers, weakens their original testimony.
^ʰnote:And yet on the strength of the two experts who say ‘he needs it’, he is fed.
^ⁱnote:Such experts, opposing the patient's own view, would be ignored: ‘They are not present at all’.
^ʲnote:**, bulimy, ox-hunger.
^ᵏnote:Cf. I Sam. XIV, 27. Such ravenous hunger renders the eyes dull.
^ˡnote:That was considered a cure: a fore-runner of modern homeopathics. The Tanna who forbids it denies its curative value, hence its use is forbidden. Matthia b. Heresh believed in this cure, hence permitted it.
^ᵐnote:The dispute here concerns not the principle, but the efficacy, of the proposed medicines.
^ⁿnote:Whenever the permitted and forbidden food alone are insufficient to restore the patient, one should proceed by eliminating as far as possible the more forbidden foods. Untithed food involves punishment of death by divine hand, whereas the eating of carrion involves only the castigation by stripes.
^ᵒnote:Similarly is the fruit of the seventh year less ‘forbidden’, its eating implies much less penalty than the eating of untithed food, because there only the transgression of a positive commandment is involved.
^ᵖnote:V. Glos.
^ᵠnote:[Probably it means that the hungry person can wait for the priestly dues to be duly set aside, v. D.S. a.l. p. 50].
^ʳnote:By setting aside the prescribed dues.
^ˢnote:In each case that food which is considered less forbidden, or involving less of a penalty, would be given first.

²‘If it be possible with common food [etc.]’. Surely it is self-evident?-This refers to the case [that it would have to be done] on the Sabbath. But on the Sabbath, too, It is self-evident, because moving is forbidden only by Rabbinic decree? — We deal here with a pot without a hole, the obligation on which, too’ is only Rabbinic. (‘One holds [the prohibition of] tebel is more severe, the other holding [the prohibition of] terumah more severe). Shall we say that Tannaim have been disputing this matter already? For it was taught: If one was bitten by a snake, one may call for him a physician from one place into another, or tear open a hen for him, or cut leak from the ground for him, give it to him to eat, without having separated the tithe thereof; this is the view of Rabbi. R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon said: He must not eat until tithe has been separated. Shall we say that it is in accord with R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon, and not with Rabbi? — You may even say that it is in accord with Rabbi's view. Rabbi [one may say] makes his statement only here because the tithe of vegetables is in question and that is due but Rabbinically, but in the case of the tithe of corn, which is obligatory by Biblical law, even, Rabbi would agree that if you permit him to eat without [due tithing] in the case of a pot without a hole, he would come to eat likewise even in the case of a pot with a hole. Our Rabbis taught: If one was seized with a ravenous hunger, he is given to eat honey and all kinds of sweet things, for honey and very sweet food enlighten the eyes of man. And although there is no proof for the matter, there is an intimation in this respect: See, I pray you how mine eyes are brightened. because I tasted a little of this honey. What does ‘although there is no proof for the matter’ mean? Because there no ravenous hunger has seized him. Abaye said: This applies only after a meal, but before the meal, it even increases one's appetite, as it is written: And they found an Egyptian in the field, and brought him, to David, and gave him, bread, and he did eat,’ and they gave him water to drink,’ and they gave him a piece of cake of figs, and two clusters of raisins,’ and when he had eaten, his spirit came back to him,’ for he had eaten no bread, nor drunk any water, three days and three nights. R. Nahman said in the name of Samuel: If one was seized by a ravenous hunger, one should give him to eat a tail with honey. R. Huna, the son of R. Joshua said: Also pure flour with honey. R. Papa said: Even barley-flour with honey [is effective]. R. Johanan said: Once I was seized by a ravenous hunger, whereupon I ran to the eastern side of a fig-tree, thus making true in my own case: Wisdom preserveth the life of him who hath it, for R. Joseph learned: One who would taste the [full] taste of a fig, turns to its eastern side, as it is said: And for the precious things of the fruits of the sun. R. Judah and R. Jose were walking together when a ravenous hunger seized R. Judah. He seized a shepherd and devoured his bread. R. Jose said to him: You have robbed the shepherd! As they entered the city, a ravenous hunger seized R. Jose. They brought him all sorts of foods and dishes. Whereupon R. Judah said to him: I may have deprived the shepherd, but you have deprived a whole town. Also, R. Meir and R. Judah and R. Jose were on a journey together. (R. Meir always paid close attention to people's names, whereas R. Judah and R. Jose paid no such attention to them). Once as they came to a certain place. they looked for a lodging, and as they were given it, they said to him [the innkeeper]: What is your name? — He replied: Kidor. Then he [R. Meir] said: Therefrom it is evident that he is a wicked man, for it is said: For a generation [ki-dor] very forward are they. R. Judah and R. Jose entrusted their purses to him; R. Meir did not entrust his purse to him, but went and placed it on the grave of that man's father. Thereupon the man had a vision in his dream [saying]: Go, take the purse lying at the head of this man! In the morning he [the innkeeper] told them [the Rabbis] about it, saying: This is what appeared to me in my dream. They replied to him: There is no substance in the dream of the Sabbath night . R. Meir went, waited there all day, and then took the purse with him. In the morning they [the Rabbis] said to him,: ‘Give us our purses’. He said: There never was such a thing! R. Meir then said to them: Why don't you pay attention to people's names? They said: Why have you not told this [before]. Sir? He answered: consider this but a suspicion.I would not consider that a definite presumption! Thereupon they took him [the host] into a shop [and gave him wine to drink]. Then they saw lentils on his moustache. They went to his wife and gave her that as a sign, and thus obtained their purses and took them back. Whereupon he went and killed his wife. It is with regard to this that it was taught: [Failure to observe the custom of] the first water caused one to eat the meat of pig, [failure to use] the second water slew a person. At the end they, too, paid close attention to people's names. And when they called to a house whose [owner's] name was Balah, they would not enter, saying: He seems to be a wicked man, as it is written: Then said I of her that was [balah] worn out by adulteries. IF SOMEONE WAS BITTEN BY A MAD DOG. Our Rabbis taught: Five things were mentioned in connection with a mad dog. Its mouth is open, its saliva dripping, its ears flap, its tail is hanging between its thighs, it walks on the edge of the road. Some say, Also it barks without its voice being heard. Where does it come from? — Rab said: Witches are having their fun with it. Samuel said: An evil spirit rests upon it. What is the practical difference between these two views? — This is the difference^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ

^ᵗnote:On the Sabbath it is not usually permitted to separate the terumah.
^ᵘnote:[The prohibition to set aside on Sabbath any of the priestly dues is of Rabbinical origin, in the same category as moving about on the Sabbath articles that are unfit for use (cf. Bez. 36b]).
^ᵛnote:To tithe the fruit grown therein.
^ʷnote:[I.e., the tebel under consideration grew in a pot without a hole, and consequently not subject biblically to priestly dues. Nevertheless where it can be rendered right by setting aside the dues, we are told one should rather override the shebuth (v. Glos.) involved than feed him with what is regarded as tebel only Rabbinically (Rashi)].
^ˣnote:[On the interpretation of Rashi which is followed in these notes, the bracketed passage is best omitted, as it is in various MSS. V. D.S.]
^ʸnote:[I.e., Rabbah's principle that we override the shebuth rather than to feed him, with produce which is tebel only Rabbinically, v. p. 408, n. 10].
^ᶻnote:On the Sabbath, as a rule, that would not be permitted, but in the case of a possible danger to human life, that restriction would be inoperative.
^ᵃᵃnote:[I.e., Rabbah's principle is in agreement with R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon, who likewise holds that the vegetables must be first tithed even on Sabbath, although they are subject to tithes only Rabbinically].
^ᵃᵇnote:In which case the obligation is Biblical, which involves the penalty of death by divine decree. [MS.M. has an entirely different reading of the whole passage. v. D.S. a. l.]
^ᵃᶜnote:I Sam. XIV, 29.
^ᵃᵈnote:I Sam. XXX, 11, 12.
^ᵃᵉnote:Eccl. VII, 12.
^ᵃᶠnote:Deut. XXXIII, 14.
^ᵃᵍnote:Ibid. XXXII, 20. The name ‘kidor’ suggested to R. Meir one who does not deserve confidence. That, as he later explained, was an idiosyncrasy of his own, amounting at best to an intuitive caution.
^ᵃʰnote:It was on the eve of the Sabbath,
^ᵃⁱnote:The Sabbath rest gives rise to idle thoughts which are then reflected in dreams.
^ᵃʲnote:Lit., ‘these things never happened’.
^ᵃᵏnote:The suggestion conveyed by the sound of a man's name.
^ᵃˡnote:Supplemented from Bah.
^ᵃᵐnote:Telling him the husband had sent them for the purses and giving her as a proof the fact that lentils had been the last meal in her house.
^ᵃⁿnote:Corrected in accord with marginal gloss.
^ᵃᵒnote:The washing of hands before meals implies ‘the first water’, as against the latter water-washing of the hands after meals, to remove any fat, grease, crumbs, from the meal. The one precedes the blessing before the meal, the other the grace after meals. Failure to wash his hands before meals caused one to eat pork. A certain innkeeper, who served both Jews and heathens, guided himself by the attitude of the guests as to ‘first waters’. Once a non-conforming Jew entered, asked for a meal, without washing his hands; the innkeeper taking him for a heathen, placed pork before him (Rashi). In our case, had Kidor washed his hands after meals, and as is usual in such a case, wiped his upper lip, the traces of his repast would not have been visible, the Rabbis would have had no clue as to how to restore their purses to themselves, and the enraged thief would not have killed his wife.
^ᵃᵖnote:Ezek. XXIII, 43. A play on ‘balah’, viz., one worn out by wrong living.
^ᵃᵠnote:The madness of the dog.