Yoma 83b (פג:) — the Talmud in English

And we raised this difficulty concerning what we said: If

ordinary non-sacred food is possible

, they feed him ordinary non-sacred food: surely

it is obvious

that they should separate the tithes from the tevel and feed him ordinary non-sacred food, without violating a prohibition!?

And we answer:

It is necessary

only

on Shabbat

, and the novelty is that it is permitted to violate Shabbat and separate the tithes from tevel in order to feed him ordinary non-sacred food.

And we challenge this:

Even on Shabbat it is obvious,

since the entire act of separating the tithes from the tevel involves only

moving

the muktzeh of tevel, whose prohibition

is rabbinic

alone

!

And we answer:

With what are we dealing here

? With produce that grew

in an unperforated flowerpot,

so that its status as tevel is a prohibition

of rabbinic origin

. For by Torah law, something that grows in an unperforated flowerpot is not tevel.

And it teaches us that according to everyone, it is preferable to violate on Shabbat a rabbinic prohibition of shevut and separate the tithes from the produce, even though the produce is prohibited only by rabbinic law; one might have thought that a rabbinic prohibition should not be permitted in order to rectify another rabbinic prohibition.

And this is so in order to prevent people from coming to permit eating in such a case from produce growing in a perforated flowerpot, which is tevel by Torah law.

And they disagree only when there is a need to eat all the produce, including the teruma that has been separated.

One Sage holds that tevel is more stringent, and one Sage holds that teruma is more stringent.

And we raised this difficulty:

Shall we say

that the dispute

is a dispute between tannaim

—whether it is preferable to violate the prohibition of moving something on Shabbat, a rabbinic prohibition of shevut, in order to rectify produce whose prohibition as tevel is entirely rabbinic?

As it was taught in a beraita: If one whom a snake bit

—they call a physician

on Shabbat

from a place

outside the Shabbat boundary

to the place

where the bitten person is.

And they split open a chicken for him

in order to place some of it as a remedy on the wound,

and they cut leeks for him

, a vegetable still attached to the ground,

and feed him

the leek vegetable while it is tevel, as his remedy,

and he need not separate the tithes; these are the words of Rabbi.

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: He may not eat

the leeks as his remedy

until he separates the tithes.

And if so,

shall we say

that Rabba, who said that wherever it is possible to rectify the ordinary non-sacred food and that is sufficient for his healing, they rectify it—is following the opinion of

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, and not

that of

Rabbi

, who said that he need not separate the tithes?

And we answer:

You may even say

that Rabba holds like

Rabbi

, and it is still understandable.

For

Rabbi stated there only

that he need not separate the tithes

with regard to the tithe of vegetables

, which is merely an obligation

of rabbinic origin

. But with regard to the tithe of grain, since its tevel is a Torah prohibition

—even Rabbi agrees

that he must separate the tithes, even if the grain grew in an unperforated flowerpot, despite the fact that its prohibition as tevel is only rabbinic.

Because

if you permit him

to eat tevel produce that grew

in an unperforated flowerpot, he will come to eat produce from a perforated flowerpot

, whose tevel status is from the Torah.

The Sages taught in a beraita: If one is seized by bulmos

—they feed

him honey and all kinds of sweets,

because

honey and all kinds of sweets restore the light of a person’s eyes.

And although there is no proof for the matter, there is an allusion to the matter

in the account in I Samuel [chapter 14], where Jonathan said after tasting honey:

“See, please, how my

eyes have brightened, for I tasted a little of this honey

.”

And what is the meaning of “although there is no proof for the matter

”? Surely this is a good proof?

There, Jonathan was not seized by bulmos

.

Abaye said: They taught

that sweets restore the light of the eyes

only

when one eats them

after a meal

. But

if one eats them

before a meal

they merely stimulate the appetite

, but do not restore the light of the eyes.

And the proof that sweets should be eaten after a meal is from that

which is written

[I Samuel 30]:

“And they found an Egyptian man in the field, and they took 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 fig cake and two clusters of raisins

. And he ate, and his spirit returned to him, for he had eaten no bread and drunk no water for three days and three nights

.”

Rabbi Naḥman said in the name of Shmuel: If one is seized by bulmos

—they feed him a sheep’s tail

of a sheep

with honey.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Even fine semolina

made from wheat flour

with honey

was a remedy for him.

Rav Pappa said: Even barley flour

barley flour

with honey.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Once I was seized by bulmos, and I ran to the eastern side of a fig tree,

and I ate from its sweet fruits that were on its eastern side, where the sun’s rays reach,

and I fulfilled in myself

the words written in Ecclesiastes [chapter 7]:

“Wisdom

preserves the life of its possessor

.”

As Rav Yosef taught: One who wishes to taste

the flavor

of the

fig

—should turn to its eastern side

and eat its fruit from there.

As it is stated

[Deuteronomy 33], in Moses’ blessing to Joseph, that his land should be blessed:

“And from the choice produce of the sun

.” This refers to fruit sweetened by the heat of the sun.

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei were traveling along a road

.

Bulmos seized Rabbi Yehuda.

He overpowered

a

shepherd

who passed along the road, took his bread from him against his will, and

ate the bread

—he ate the shepherd’s bread.

Rabbi Yosei said to him

: See,

you have overpowered the shepherd!

When they reached the city

,

bulmos seized Rabbi Yosei.

They surrounded him

—the townspeople surrounded Rabbi Yosei

with bowls

of honey and sweets,

and

with

bowls

of cooked dishes, in order to restore his spirit.

Rabbi Yehuda said to Rabbi Yosei

:

I

indeed

overpowered the

bread of

the shepherd

, whereas

you “overpowered” the

food of

the entire city.

Furthermore,

another incident occurred:

Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Yosei were traveling along a road.

Rabbi Meir was particular

about

the name

of the host with whom they came to lodge, examining whether it was a favorable name or an unfavorable one.

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei were not particular about names.

When they reached a certain place

,

they sought lodging

, and

it was given to them

.

They said to him

—to the host:

“What is your name?”

He said to them: “Kidor.”

Rabbi Meir said

:

This demonstrates

from his name that

he is a wicked man

, because

it is stated

[Deuteronomy 32]:

“For they are a wayward generation

.”

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei entrusted him with

they deposited with him

their money pouches

.

But

Rabbi Meir did not entrust his pouch to him.

He went

—Rabbi Meir went—

and placed

his money pouch

in the cemetery

at the grave

of his father

, the host’s father.

He appeared to him

—the host’s deceased father appeared to his son—

in his dream

and said to him:

“Come, take

and take

the pouch

of money

that is placed at the head

of

that man

[that is, beside my head].

The next day he said to them

—the host said to them:

“This is how

it was:

I was shown

and my father spoke to me

in my dream

.”

Rabbi Meir said to him

:

“Dreams seen on Friday night

have no substance.”

He intended to dissuade him from going there.

Rabbi Meir went and guarded it

—he guarded his pouch—

the entire day

beside the grave,

and

after the conclusion of Shabbat

he brought it

with him.

The next day they said to him

—to the host:

“Give us our pouches”

that we entrusted to you.

He said to them: “There never were any such things.”

Rabbi Meir said to them: “Why were you not particular

as I was

about the name?

”

They said to him: “Why did you, master, not tell us

?”

He said to them: “Granted that I said to be wary

of the name, but

to establish him

as a wicked man and warn you about him—who said that I did so?

They drew him along

by their words,

and brought him

to a

wine shop

in order to get him drunk and discover from him where their money was.

They saw lentils on his mustache,

.

They went

to his house and asked his wife in his name for their pouches,

and gave

her

a sign for his wife

—a sign that he had indeed sent them to ask for the pouches, namely, that he told them she had cooked lentils for him.

And they took

and took

their pouches

that his wife gave them,

and brought them away

.

He went

—the host went—and realized that they had taken their pouches and that his theft had been exposed,

and he killed his wife

, because she had given them to them.

This is what was taught in a beraita: The first waters

—if a Jew did not wash his hands before the meal—

they fed

him

pork,

because the innkeeper thought that since he had not washed his hands before the meal, he was a gentile, and he fed him pork.

But

the final waters

—if this person did not wash his hands before Grace after Meals—

caused a life to be lost.

For it is customary for those who wash their hands before Grace after Meals to wipe their mustache with their damp hands; had this man washed his hands, he too would have wiped the lentils from his mustache, and they would not have had a sign for his wife, and she would not have been killed.

And ultimately

they became particular about names.

When they came

to

a certain house whose owner’s name

was

“Bala”

—they did not enter to him.

They said: “This demonstrates that he is wicked,”

because

it is written

[Ezekiel 23]:

“And say to Bala: Adulteries

.”

We learned in the Mishna:

One whom a mad dog bit.

The Sages taught in a beraita: Five things were stated concerning a mad dog: Its mouth is open, its saliva drips, and its ears hang down

, large and folded downward,

its tail lies between its thighs, and it walks along the sides of the roads.

From what does it become

a mad dog?

Rav said: Women who practice witchcraft play with it

, displaying their witchcraft and amusing themselves.

And Shmuel said: An evil spirit rests upon it.

What is the practical difference between them? [For example: what difference does it make?] What difference does it make what caused the dog to become mad?

That is, what difference does it make what causes the dog to become mad?