The Eliyahu B. Sit edition presents a profound study of the תלמוד בבלי Talmud Bavli, specifically focusing on the גמרא Gemara נדרים Nedarim, דף ל״ט Daf Lamed Tet. Today’s daf is dedicated to the healing of individuals: משה בן דינה Moshe ben Dina, יוסף בן שרה Yosef ben Sara, שרה בת רחל Sara bat Rachel, שלמה בן מרים Shlomo ben Miriam, and שאול חי גבריאל בן שרה Shaul Chai Gavriel ben Sara. We invoke the prayer, אל נא רפא נא לה El na refa na lah, beseeching divine intervention for their recovery, and we affirm our intentions with an Amen.
We begin our study on ל״ח Lamed Chet, עמוד ב׳ Amud Bet, focusing on the משנה Mishnah, two lines from the bottom. The text introduces the case of the individual who has made a נדר neder, specifically the prohibition of deriving benefit from a friend. The question arises: who is prohibited from benefiting from whom? This situation is exemplified by the interaction between ראובן Reuven and שמעון Shimon. It could be that Reuven is forbidden to derive benefit from Shimon, or vice versa.
As we delve deeper, the Mishnah states that if the person who has made the neder visits their friend, who is now ill, we must clarify the dynamics of their interaction. For instance, if Shimon visits Reuven, the Mishnah specifies that Shimon may stand during the visit, but he cannot sit. Moreover, he is permitted to provide a healing of the soul, but not a healing concerning monetary matters. The Gemara will elaborate on this distinction.
The Gemara immediately questions the specifics of the case: who is visiting whom? If Reuven is the sick one and Shimon is the visitor, we need to determine the implications of their respective prohibitions. If Shimon is forbidden to benefit from Reuven's assets, standing during the visit should be permissible. The reasoning is that Shimon is performing a mitzvah by visiting the sick, and thus the benefit to Reuven is incidental. The act of visiting is a mitzvah, which does not constitute a direct benefit to Reuven.
However, the Gemara explores an alternative scenario where the roles are reversed. If Reuven is the one who is not allowed to derive benefit from Shimon, then even standing in Reuven's house may be problematic, as Shimon would be benefiting merely by entering the house. The discussion reveals a critical halachic distinction: either all should be permitted, or all should be forbidden.
Shmuel offers a resolution, positing that the original case indeed concerns Reuven who cannot derive benefit from Shimon. In this scenario, Shimon should be allowed to visit, stand, and even sit, especially in a context where visitors are paid for their time. If Shimon waives the fee, Reuven gains no monetary benefit. However, if the visit involves Shimon providing something of value, such as assistance or comfort, this becomes problematic.
Abaye and Rava further contribute to the discussion. Abaye suggests that the prohibition of sitting stems from the potential for Shimon to stay longer than necessary, which could lead to a benefit for Reuven. Rava adds that there is no limit to the number of visits one can make, emphasizing the importance of frequent visits to the sick.
As the discussion unfolds, Rabbi Chiya bar Abba cites that every visitor who comes to see the sick alleviates a fraction of their pain. However, the Gemara questions the logic of multiple visitors collectively reducing the sick person's pain if each visitor only alleviates a small portion. The resolution lies in understanding the distribution of benefits among visitors, akin to the division of inheritance among heirs.
In a broader context, the Gemara transitions to explore the mitzvah of ביקור חולים bikur cholim, emphasizing its significance and the lack of limitations in fulfilling this commandment. The discussions highlight the spiritual and communal responsibilities of visiting the sick, reinforcing the notion that such acts of kindness are paramount within Jewish law and ethics.
Ultimately, the study of this daf not only elucidates the halachic intricacies surrounding the prohibition of deriving benefit but also reinforces the communal obligation to care for the sick, illustrating the profound interconnectedness of individuals within the Jewish community.