Yoma 84a — the Talmud in English

There is a difference between them: ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

to kill it

specifically

with something that is thrown

at the dog from a distance. For according to Shmuel, one must not approach it because of the evil spirit, and it must be killed from a distance, by throwing an arrow or a knife.

A beraita was taught in accordance with Shmuel: When they kill it—

they kill it only with something that is thrown.

One who rubs against it,

the one who rubs against it—

is endangered.

One whom it bites,

the one whom the mad dog bit—

dies.

And the Gemara adds:

“One who rubs against it is endangered—

what is his remedy

to be saved?

He should remove his garment

and take off his clothes,

and run,

and flee at a run.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, rubbed against one of them

—he rubbed against it—

one of them

one of the mad dogs, while it was

in the marketplace.

He removed his garment

and took off his clothes,

and ran

and fled.

He said: I fulfilled in myself [

Ecclesiastes 7]

“Wisdom—

preserves the life of its possessor.”

“One whom it bites dies”—

what is his remedy

to be saved from death?”

Abaye said: Let him bring

bring

the hide of a male hyena

the hide of a male hyena.

And let him write upon it

as follows:

“I, so-and-so son of so-and-so, upon the hide

of

a male hyena

—

I have written upon you: Kanti, Kanti, Kalirus!”

And some say

that he should write as follows:

“Kandi, Kandi, Kalorus, Yah Yah, Lord of Hosts, amen amen, selah.”

And he should remove it from his garment

and take off his clothes,

and bury them in a cemetery for twelve lunar months.

He should bury them among the graves for twelve months of the year.

And he should take them out

and remove them from there after this period,

and burn them

and burn them

in an oven, and scatter their ashes

and scatter their ashes

at a crossroads.

And during those

and during those

twelve lunar months, when he drinks water—

he should not drink it

directly from the cup into his mouth

but

only by sucking

through a copper tube,

through a copper reed, so that no image will be reflected in the liquid in the cup, for

perhaps he will see the reflection

of himself

of the demon [

the demon that leapt upon him from the dog]

and be endangered

by this.

As in the case of Abba bar Marta, who was Abba bar Minyumi: his mother made for him

his mother made for him, after he was bitten by a mad dog,

a golden tube,

a tube made of gold, through which he drank.

We learned in our Mishna:

“And Rabbi Mattia further said”:

the one who suffers pain in his throat, they place a drug in his mouth on Shabbat.

Rabbi Yohanan suffered

he became ill

with

an illness called

“tzafdina.”

It is a dangerous illness that begins in the teeth and gums and spreads into the body, to the intestines.

He went

he went

to the home of that noblewoman,

an important gentile woman who was a physician.

She performed a procedure for him

she treated him during the day

on the fifth day and on the eve of Shabbat

and on Friday, on the eve of Shabbat.

He said to her: What

shall I do

on Shabbat?

She said to him: You will not need

to be treated on Shabbat.

He said to her: But

nevertheless

if I need it—

what

shall I do?

She said to him: Swear to me that you will not reveal it,

that you will not reveal the treatment.

He swore

to her with this wording:

“To the God of Israel I shall not reveal it.”

He went out,

Rabbi Yohanan went out,

and expounded it

and revealed the treatment

in the public lecture,

in the lesson that he gave.

And we raise an objection:

But he swore to her,

Rabbi Yohanan, that he would not reveal it!

And we answer: This was the meaning of his oath: only

“To the God of Israel I shall not reveal it; but to His people Israel

yes,

I shall reveal it.”

That is to say, this is not at all the wording of an oath.

And we still raise an objection:

But there is a desecration of the Name,

since the noblewoman would think that he had violated his oath.

And we answer:

He revealed it to her at the outset,

immediately, before he revealed it in the public lecture, that this was not the wording of an oath.

And the Gemara explains:

What

treatment

did she perform for him?

Rav Aha, son of Rav Ami, said: Water of leaven, olive oil, and salt.

Rav Yemar said:

not water of leaven, but she placed in it

the leaven itself, olive oil, and salt.

Rav Ashi said: Goose-wing fat.

Fat from the marrow of the small bone at the head of a goose’s wing, and he anointed his temples with it.

Abaye said: I performed

I performed

all of them

treatments,

but I was not cured,

and it did not heal me.

Until that Arab

an Ishmaelite

said to me:

bring

olive pits

hard olive pits,

that have not reached one-third

of their growth,

and burn them in fire

and burn them in fire,

on a new hoe

when they are upon a new hoe.

And adhere it,

and adhere the ash

to the row of his teeth

along the row of the teeth.

I did this—

and I was cured.

From what did it come,

from what did that illness arise?

From

eating

very hot wheat

wheat bread that was excessively hot,

and from

eating

the remnants of the fish fried in flour

which are fish fried in flour in their own oil.

And what is its sign

of that illness?

When he places

when a person places

something

some object

between his teeth,

in his teeth,

and blood comes from the row of his teeth,

and blood flows from the row of his teeth.

When Rabbi Yohanan suffered from tzafdina—

he did this

the treatment that had been taught to him, even

on Shabbat,

despite the fact that the Sages prohibited treating on Shabbat one who is not dangerously ill,

and he was cured.

Rashi does not have the following passage, which is given in parentheses: [

And we raise the question:

But how did Rabbi Yohanan do this

on Shabbat?

Rabbi Nahman bar Yitzhak said: Tzafdina is different,

for it is a dangerous illness,

since it begins in the mouth and ends in the intestines ]

Rav Hiyya bar Abba said to Rabbi Yohanan: In accordance with whom

do you hold? Is it

in accordance with Rabbi Mattia ben Harash, who says: One who suffers

pain

in his mouth, they place a drug for him on Shabbat!?

And do the Sages not dispute him, just as they disputed him concerning what he permitted—the eating of the liver of a dog for one whom a mad dog bit?

He said to him:

according to

what I say:

only

with

the permission for treatment

this,

the eating of the liver of a dog, do the Sages dispute him,

and not

do they dispute him

with

the permission for the

other

treatment, for one who suffers pain in his mouth on Shabbat.

Let us say that it supports him,

Rabbi Yohanan, that the Sages did not dispute one who suffers pain in his mouth on Shabbat, from that which was taught:

One whom jaundice seized,

whose face becomes yellow—

they feed him donkey meat.

One whom a mad dog bit—

they feed him from the liver of that dog.

And one who suffers pain in his mouth—

they place a drug for him on Shabbat.

The words of Rabbi Mattia ben Harash.

And the Sages say: With these—

there is no issue of treatment.

And the Gemara explains: This that the Sages said,

“with these

there is no issue of treatment”—

to exclude what?

For their words imply that among the three treatments there is a treatment concerning which even the Sages agree, and only with these specific ones is there no issue of treatment.

Is it not to exclude the drug,

for one who suffers pain in his mouth, concerning which the Sages agree that it is a treatment and that it may be taken on Shabbat!

The Gemara rejects this:

No,

this is not the meaning of the words of the Sages.

Rather, they dispute all three treatments of Rabbi Mattia ben Harash mentioned in the beraita. And they intended only

to exclude

the treatment of

“bloodletting” for seronchi,

for the illness of choking, concerning which they agree with him that it is an effective treatment.

So too, it is reasonable:

For it was taught: Rabbi Ishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said three things that he heard in the name of Rabbi Mattia ben Harash: Blood is let for seronchi on Shabbat; one whom a mad dog bit is fed from the liver of that dog; and one who suffers pain in his mouth is given a drug on Shabbat.

And the Sages say: With these there is no issue of treatment.

“With these”—

to exclude what?

Is it not—

the latter two

treatments,

the last ones,

that they dispute him?

And to exclude the first,

for concerning the first treatment, bloodletting for seronchi, they agree with him.

The Gemara rejects this:

No,

this is not the intention of the Sages.

Rather, “with these” refers

to the first two, the first ones.

For concerning the first two treatments they dispute him.

And to exclude

the treatment

of the final one,

for they agree with him concerning the treatment of one who suffers pain in his mouth.