Yoma 83b — the Talmud in English

And we raised this concerning that which we say: if

it is possible with non-sacred produce,

we feed him non-sacred produce; behold,

it is obvious

that they should rectify the tevel and feed him non-sacred produce without transgressing a prohibition!?

And we answer:

it is not necessary

but

on Shabbat,

and the novelty is that it is permitted to transgress and rectify tevel on Shabbat in order to feed him non-sacred produce.

And we challenge:

on Shabbat also it is obvious,

for the entire rectification of the tevel is only

moving

the muktzeh of tevel, whose prohibition

is rabbinic

only

!

And we answer:

with what are we dealing here—

with produce that grew

in an unperforated flowerpot,

whose tevel prohibition

is rabbinic

itself. 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 transgress on Shabbat a rabbinic prohibition of shevut and rectify the produce, even though it is prohibited only rabbinically; and there was room to say that one should not permit a rabbinic prohibition in order to rectify a rabbinic prohibition.

And this is so that they should not come to permit, in such a case, eating produce that grows in a perforated flowerpot, which is tevel by Torah law.

And they disagreed only when there is a need to eat all the produce, including the separated teruma.

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

And we raised this:

shall we say

that the dispute

is a dispute between tannaim,

whether it is preferable to transgress the prohibition of shevut of moving on Shabbat for the sake of rectifying produce whose entire tevel prohibition is only rabbinic?

For it was taught in a beraita: One whom a snake bit—

they call a physician

on Shabbat

from a place

that is outside the tehum

to the place

of the one who was bitten.

And they tear open a chicken for him

in order to place from it a remedy on the wound,

and they cut for him the leeks,

vegetable still attached to the ground,

and they feed him

the leek vegetable while it is tevel, for his healing,

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

Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon says: He shall not eat

the leeks for his healing

until he tithes.

And if so,

let us say

Rabba, who said that wherever it is possible to rectify the non-sacred produce and that suffices for his healing, we rectify it—that according to

Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon it is, and not

according to

Rabbi,

who said that he need not tithe.

And we answer:

even if you say

that Rabba holds like

Rabbi,

it is also satisfactory.

For

Rabbi said there that far only

that he need not tithe

only concerning the tithe of vegetables,

which is only an obligation

rabbinic.

But concerning the tithe of grain, for its tevel is by Torah law—

even Rabbi concedes

that he must tithe even if it grew in an unperforated flowerpot, despite the fact that the tevel prohibition is only rabbinic.

Because

if you permit him

to eat tevel produce that grew

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

whose tevel is by Torah law.

The Sages taught: One whom bulmus seized—

they feed

him honey and all kinds of sweets,

since

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

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

there is: it is related in I Samuel [chapter 14] that Jonathan said when he tasted from the honey:

“See now, for my eyes have become bright,

and

my eyes have become bright, for I tasted a little of this honey.”

And what is “although there is no proof for the matter”,

when it is a good proof?

There, bulmus did not seize

Jonathan.

Abaye said: They taught

that sweets illuminate

only

when he eats them

after eating.

But

if he eats them

before eating—

they merely stimulate

they only arouse hunger, but do not illuminate.

And the proof that sweets should be eaten after the 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 slice of fig-cake and two raisin cakes.

And he ate, and his spirit returned to him, for he had not eaten bread and had not drunk water for three days and three nights.”

Rabbi Nahman said in the name of Samuel: One whom bulmus seized—

they feed him the tail-fat

of a lamb

with honey.

Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua said: Even fine flour

of wheat flour

with honey

was a remedy for him.

Rav Pappa said: Even barley flour

barley flour

with honey.

Rabbi Yohanan said: Once bulmus seized me, and I ran to the eastern side of a fig tree,

and I ate from its sweet fruits found on its eastern side, where the rays of the sun reach,

and I fulfilled in myself

the words of the verse written in Ecclesiastes [chapter 7]

“Wisdom—

preserves its possessor alive.”

For Rav Yosef taught: One who wishes to taste

the

taste

the sweet taste of the tree of the

fig—

should turn to its east

of the fig tree and from there eat its fruits.

As it is said [

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

“And from the precious yield of the sun.”

From fruits sweetened by the heat of the sun.

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei were traveling on the road,

on the way.

Rabbi Yehuda was seized by bulmus.

He struck him down,

Rabbi Yehuda compelled

a shepherd

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

ate the bread,

and ate the shepherd’s bread.

Rabbi Yosei said to him

to Rabbi Yehuda: See that

you have struck down the shepherd!

When they reached the city,

when they arrived at the city

Rabbi Yosei was seized by bulmus.

They surrounded him

the townspeople surrounded Rabbi Yosei

with bowls

with vessels of honey and sweets,

and

with

bowls,

with bowls of cooked dishes, in order to restore his spirit.

Rabbi Yehuda said to him

to Rabbi Yosei:

I

indeed

struck down

the bread of

the shepherd,

whereas

you “struck down”

the food of

the entire city.

And furthermore,

another incident occurred:

Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Yosei were traveling on the road.

Rabbi Meir would examine

examining

the name

the name of the homeowner with whom they came to lodge, whether it was pleasant or ugly.

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei would not examine names.

When they came to a certain place,

when they came to one place,

they sought lodging,

they looked for an inn,

they gave it to them.

And they gave them a place to lodge.

They said to him

to the homeowner:

“What is your name?”—

He said to them: “Kidor.”

Rabbi Meir

said:

infer from this

from his name that

he is a wicked man.

Because

it is said [

Deuteronomy 32]:

“For they are a generation of reversals.”

And that day was the eve of Shabbat.

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei entrusted to him

they deposited with him

their purses,

their money pouches.

But

Rabbi Meir did not entrust his purse to him.

Rabbi Meir went,

Rabbi Meir went,

and placed it

and placed his money pouch

in the graveyard

in the cemetery

of his father,

of the homeowner’s father.

He appeared to him,

the deceased father of the homeowner appeared to his son

in his dream,

in a dream, and said to him:

Come, take

come and take

the purse

a money pouch

that is placed at the head

that is placed beside the head

of that man,

of that person [that is, beside my head].

The next day he said to them

the homeowner:

Thus

so

he appeared to me

my father appeared and said to me

in my dream.

Rabbi Meir said to him

Rabbi Meir:

A dream of Friday night

dreams that a person dreams on Friday night from his repose—

has no substance.

And he intended to deter him from going there.

Rabbi Meir went and guarded it

and guarded his purse

the entire day

beside the grave,

and

on the conclusion of Shabbat

he brought it

he brought it with him.

The next day they said to him

to the homeowner

give us our purses

that we deposited with you.

He said to them: “There was never any such thing.”

Rabbi Meir said to them: “Why did you not examine,

like me,

the name?”

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

that we should examine his name and be wary of him?”

He said to them: “Say that I said [there is] apprehension,

that one should be wary of the name. But

to establish him

as wicked and warn you about him—

did I say that?”

They drew the homeowner along

with their words,

and brought him

and brought him

to a wine shop

of wine in order to get him drunk and extract from him where their money was.

They saw lentils on his mustache,

they saw lentils on his mustache.

They went

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

and they gave

and gave her

a sign for his wife,

a sign to his wife that he had indeed sent them to request the purses, for he had told them that she had cooked lentils for him.

And they took

and took

their purses,

which his wife gave them,

and they brought them away

and went away.

He went,

the homeowner went and realized that they had taken their purses and that his theft had been revealed,

and he killed his wife,

and killed his wife because she had given them.

This is that which was taught: The first waters

that a Jewish person did not wash before eating—

they fed

him

pig’s flesh,

for the innkeeper thought that since he had not washed his hands before eating, he was a gentile, and he fed him pig’s flesh.

But

the latter waters,

that this one did not wash his hands before Grace after Meals—

they caused a life to be taken.

For it is the practice of those who wash their hands before Grace after Meals to wipe their mustache with their moist hands; and if this one had washed his hands, he would also 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 would examine names.

When they came

when they came

to a certain house whose owner’s name

was

“Balah”—

they did not enter to him.

They said: “Infer from this: he is wicked.”

Because

it is written [

Ezekiel 23]:

“And he said to Balah: adulteries.”

We learned in the Mishna:

One whom a mad dog bit.

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

large and folding downward,

and its tail rests on its thighs, and it walks at the sides of the roads.

And some say: It also barks, but its voice is not heard,

From what does there come to be

a mad dog?

Rav said: Sorceress women play with it,

to display their sorcery, for amusement.

And Samuel said: An evil spirit rests upon it.

What is the practical difference between them?

[As in: what practical difference emerges]? What difference does it make from what the dog became mad?