Yoma 84a (פד.) — the Talmud in English

The practical difference between them is:

to kill it

specifically

with an object that is thrown

at the mad dog from a distance. For according to Shmuel, one should not approach it because of the evil spirit, but should kill it from a distance by throwing an arrow or a knife.

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

they kill it only with an object that is thrown.

One who rubs against it,

the one who rubs himself against it—

is endangered.

One whom it bites,

the one whom the mad dog bites—

dies.

And the Gemara adds:

“One who rubs against it is endangered—

what is his remedy

to be saved?

He should remove his garment—

he should take off his clothes—

and run,

fleeing at a run.

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

when he rubbed against

one of them,

one of the mad dogs, when it was

in the marketplace.

He removed his garment

and took off his clothes,

and ran

and fled.

He said: I fulfilled with regard to 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 skin of a male hyena.

And let him write upon it

as follows:

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

upon its skin

of a male hyena

of a male hyena—

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

And some say

that he should write as follows:

“Kandi, Kandi, Kaloros; Yah, Yah, Lord of Hosts; amen, amen, selah.”

And let him remove his garment

and take off his clothes,

and bury them among the graves for twelve months of the year.

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

And let him take them out

and remove them from there after this period,

and let him burn them

and burn them

in a furnace, and scatter their ashes

and scatter their ashes

at a crossroads.

And during

those

twelve months of the year, when he drinks water—

he should not drink

directly into his mouth from the cup

but

only by sucking

through a copper tube,

through a copper pipe, so that no image will be reflected in the liquid in the cup, because

perhaps he will see the reflection

his reflection

of the demon [

the demon that jumped from the dog upon him]

and become endangered

by this.

This is like the case of Abba bar Marta, who is Abba bar Manyומי, whose mother made for him

after he was bitten by a mad dog

a golden tube,

a tube of gold through which he drank.

We learned in our Mishna:

And Rabbi Matya said further:

one who feels pain in his throat, they may place a drug in his mouth on Shabbat.

Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 house of that noblewoman,

an important gentile woman who was a physician.

She performed a treatment for him

she treated him during

the fifth day and Friday afternoon

on Thursday and on Friday, on the eve of Shabbat.

He said to her: What shall I do on Shabbat

what shall I do?

She said to him: You will not need

treatment on Shabbat.

He said to her: And

if

nevertheless

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 in these words:

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

He went out

Rabbi Yoḥanan went out,

and expounded it

and revealed the treatment

in the public lecture,

in the lesson that he delivered.

And we raise an objection:

But he swore to her

Rabbi Yoḥanan swore to her 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, these words were not an oath at all.

We nevertheless raise another objection:

But there is a desecration of God’s Name,

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

And we answer:

He revealed it to her beforehand,

immediately, before he revealed it in the public lecture, that these words were not an oath.

And the Gemara explains:

What

treatment

did she perform for him?

Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ami, said: Water in which olive oil had been boiled, and salt.

Rav Yemar said:

not water in which olive oil had been boiled, but she placed in it

the leaven itself, olive oil, and salt.

Rav Ashi said: Goose-wing oil.

This is fat from the small bone in the head of a goose’s wing, which he applied to his temples.

Abaye said: I performed

I tried

all of them,

the treatments,

but I was not healed,

and they did not cure me.

Until a certain Arab told me,

an Ishmaelite:

Bring

bring

olive pits

olive pits, which are hard,

that have not reached one-third

that have not reached one-third of their growth,

and burn them in a fire

and burn them

on a new mattock

when they are placed upon a new mattock.

And stick

and stick the ash

between your teeth,

in the row of teeth.

I did so—

and I was healed.

From what did it result,

from what did that illness develop?

From

eating

very hot wheat bread,

wheat bread that is excessively hot,

and from

eating

the remnants of the fish-fry,

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

something

between his teeth,

between his teeth,

and blood comes from the row of his teeth,

and blood flows from the row of his teeth.

When Rabbi Yoḥanan felt the tzafdina—

he performed this treatment

the treatment that he had been taught, even

on Shabbat,

despite the fact that the Sages prohibited administering a treatment on Shabbat to one who is not dangerously ill,

and he was healed.

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

And we raise the following question:

But how did Rabbi Yoḥanan do this

on Shabbat?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Tzafdina is different,

as it is a dangerous illness,

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

Rav Ḥiyya bar Abba said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: In accordance with whose opinion

do you hold? Is it

in accordance with Rabbi Matya ben Ḥarash, who says: One who feels pain

pain

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

And do the Sages not disagree with him, just as they disagreed with him regarding what he permitted—a person bitten by a mad dog—to eat the lobe of the dog’s liver?

He said to him:

According to

what I say:

only

with

the permission of treatment

this,

the eating of the lobe of the dog’s liver, do the Sages disagree with him,

but not

do they disagree with him

with

the permission of the

other

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

Let us say that this supports him,

Rabbi Yoḥanan, that the Sages did not disagree regarding one who feels pain in his mouth on Shabbat, from that which was taught in a beraita:

One whom jaundice has seized,

whose face turns yellow—

they feed him donkey meat.

One whom a mad dog has bitten—

they feed him from the lobe of its liver.

And one who feels pain in his mouth—

they may place a drug in his mouth on Shabbat.

These are the words of Rabbi Matya ben Ḥarash.

And the Sages say: With regard to these—

there is no prohibition of treatment involved.

And the Gemara explains: When the Sages said that

“with regard to these”

there is no prohibition of treatment involved—

what does this serve to exclude?

The wording implies that among the three treatments there is one treatment with regard to which even the Sages agree, and that only these particular treatments do not involve treatment.

Is it not to exclude the drug,

for one who feels pain in his mouth, with regard to which the Sages agree that it is a treatment and that it should be taken on Shabbat?

The Gemara rejects this:

No,

this is not the meaning of the Sages’ statement.

Rather, they disagree with all three treatments of Rabbi Matya ben Ḥarash mentioned in the beraita. They intended only

to exclude

the treatment of

“bloodletting” for sironkhi,

for the illness of asphyxia, with regard to which they agree with him that it is an effective treatment.

This too is reasonable:

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said three things that he heard in the name of Rabbi Matya ben Ḥarash: One may perform bloodletting for sironkhi on Shabbat; one whom a mad dog has bitten is fed from the lobe of its liver; and one who feels pain in his mouth may have a drug placed in his mouth on Shabbat.

And the Sages say: With regard to these, there is no prohibition of treatment involved.

“With regard to these”—

what does this serve to exclude?

Is it not—

the latter two

treatments,

the last ones,

that they disagree with him?

And to exclude the first,

meaning that regarding the first treatment, bloodletting for asphyxia, they agree with him.

The Gemara rejects this:

No,

this is not the intention of the Sages.

Rather, “with regard to these” refers

to the first two, the initial ones.

They disagree with him regarding the first two treatments,

and to exclude

the treatment

of the final one,

with regard to which they agree with him—the treatment for one who feels pain in his mouth.