If the patient says that he needs food and the physician says that he does not, we rely on the patient (proof text that a heart knows its own pain).

Question: That seems obvious!?

Answer: We need to be taught to listen to the patient given the physician's expertise.

If the patient says he does not need food and the physician says that he does, we feed the patient, and attribute the patients' feelings to delirium.

Question: The Mishnah, which says that we feed the patient based on the opinion of experts, contradicts both of the above assertions.

It implies that we rely on experts (ie physicians), and not on the patient.

It further implies that we need the opinion of at least two experts (the plural is used) and not on one!?

Answer (R. Yanai): We are speaking of a case where the patient says that he does not need food, in which case we defer to two physicians.

Question: Let us then feed him based on one physician!?

Answer: We are speaking of a case in which the patient also has one physician supporting his refusal to eat.

Question: Is it not obvious that we will feed a patient if experts say that he should eat, given that we are lenient even if the threat to life is a doubt!?

Answer: We need to be taught the Din in the case where two physicians support the patient, indicating that he need not eat (to teach that the patient does not combine with those two physicians supporting him).

This takes into account the view of R. Safra that in matters of assessment, we rely not on two (which establishes matters of testimony), but on the majority of all opinions.

The patient, however, does not create such a majority.

This is because the majority for assessment only applies to monetary matters, but does not eliminate Safek Nefashos.

Question: But the Seifa teaches that, in the absence of experts, we feed him, based on his own sense of need (indicating that the Reisha is also speaking where he indicates a need to eat) not like R. Yanai asserts!?

Answer: The Mishnah is missing text which provides for this shift.

(Mar b. R. Ashi): A patient indicating his need to eat overrides all opinions to the contrary since a heart knows its own pain.

Question: But our Mishnah indicates that we do not rely on him against expert opinions!?

Answer: We must modify our understanding of the Mishnah to permit feeding him when he says he need not eat and the experts say that he does.

However, when he indicates a need to eat, the opinions of the experts are disregarded, as taught.

One who suffers from an attack of Bulmus is fed until his eyes regain their light.

One who has been bitten by a rabid dog may not be fed from its Chatzar Kaved, since it is not an established Refu'ah.

R. Masya b. Cheresh permits giving it, since he considers it an established Refu'ah.

R. Masya b. Cheresh further taught that it is permitted to be Mechalel Shabbos (by preparing the medicine) for throat (or teeth or gums - Rosh, Bartenura) pains (Safek Nefashos).

If there might be a Jew buried beneath a heap, we must dig through the rubble, stopping only when the person is saved or discovered to be dead.

Question: How would we know if the light has returned to his eyes?

Answer: When he can differentiate between good and bad (meaning its taste- Abaye).

In the absence of permitted food, we feed him prohibited food, ha'Kal Kal (least Isur first).

Neveilah (Malkos) before Tevel (Misah).

Isur Shemitah (Asei) before Tevel.

Tevel and Terumah is a Machlokes in the Beraisa.

(Rabah): If taking off the Terumos and Ma'aseros will leave enough to satisfy him, then all agree to do so.

The Machlokes is when all the produce will be needed.

Ben Teima says Terumah before Tevel (so turn it first into Terumah).

Tana Kama holds Tevel first (leave it as Tevel without turning any into Terumah).

Ben Teima holds that Tevel is worse because its Isur applies to everyone (while Terumah can, at least, be eaten by a Kohen).

Tana Kama holds that Terumah is worse because it is irreparable (while Tevel can be tithed).

Question: It is obvious that we would fix the Tevel if that would suffice!?

Answer: We need to be taught to do so even if it is Shabbos.

Question: But even on Shabbos the Isur is only mi'de'Rabanan!?

Answer: We are speaking of food which is only Tevel de'Rabanan (and we are thus taught that they would agree that an Isur de'Rabanan is to be violated in order to fix an Isur de'Rabanan, lest people permit Tevel d'Oreisa). [However, where all the food will need to be eaten, one opinion holds that Tevel is worse, and one holds that Terumah is worse.]

Question: But the issue of permitting a de'Rabanan (Tiltul) to fix Tevel de'Rabanan seems to be a Machlokes Tanaim!?

If one is bitten by a snake, Melachos may be performed to treat the victim.

(Rebbi): We need not tithe the vegetables (medicinal herbs) cut on Shabbos.

(R. Elazar b. R. Shimon): They must first be tithed.

It would appear that Rabah (3.c.4. above) holds like R. Elazar b. R. Shimon, but not like Rebbi!

Answer: Even Rebbi would agree with Rabah that they must be tithed, and he was lenient in the Beraisa because we are speaking of vegetables whose obligation is de'Rabanan.

Rebbi would agree that Tevel d'Oreisa must be fixed even in a case where the Chiyuv is de'Rabanan (such as in an Atzitz She'eino Nakuv).

This is lest people apply this Kula to an Atzitz Nakuv.

(Beraisa): Sweet foods are best for restoring the light to his eyes (alluded to in the Pasuk in Shmuel I, 14:29 where Yonasan reports that he his eyes lit up after tasting a bit of the honey).

Question: That seems like a clear proof, not just an allusion!?

Answer: It is not a clear proof, since Yonasan was not then suffering from Bulmus.

(Abaye): Sweets only restore the light to one's eyes when eaten after food, but before food they only intensify the hunger (proof text from Shmuel I, 30:11-12).

(R. Nachman citing Shmuel): The best food for Bulmus is a sheep's tail in honey.

(R. Huna b. R. Yehoshua): Also fine flour in honey.

(R. Papa): Even barley flour with honey.

(R. Yochanan): 'I once (during a bout of Bulmus) ate from the eastern side of a fig tree' (wisely recalling the teaching of R. Yosef who learned from the Pasuk that the sweetest fruit is to be found on that side).

R. Yehudah (while travelling with R. Yosi) was struck with Bulmus and stole away the loaf of a passing shepherd, raising the rebuke of R. Yosi.

Upon reaching the city, R. Yosi was struck with Bulmus and all the townspeople gathered to bring him sweets to heal him, whereupon R. Yehudah indicated that R. Yosi troubled many more people than just the shepherd.

In the reported incident, R. Meir was able to suspect the innkeeper, based on the implications of his name.

He was not permitted, however, to report his suspicions to R. Yehudah and R. Yosi, who entrusted their purses to the innkeeper.

They were able to retrieve their purses by deceiving the man's wife, pointing out that they knew what she had made him for the previous meal (as evidenced on his mustache).

The innkeeper then killed his wife for giving back the stolen purses.

This is what the Beraisa means when it states that someone who does not wash Mayim Rishonim may end up eating forbidden food (as the innkeeper would assume him not to be Jewish) and one who does not wash Mayim Acharonim may end up causing bloodshed (as in the reported incident).

Subsequently, the Chachamim also began inferring from names, and did not trust Balah (based on the Pasuk "ve'Amar le'Balah Ne'ufim").