(108a:1)פיטרא מאונא דחצבא מיחייב משום עוקר דבר מגידולו מתיב רב אושעיא התולש מעציץ נקוב חייב ושאינו נקוב פטור התם לאו היינו רביתיה הכא היינו רביתיה:
(108a:1)a mushroom from the handle of a pitcher on Shabbat is liable for uprooting an object from its place of growth. Rav Oshaya raised an objection from that which we learned: One who detaches a plant on Shabbat from a perforated flowerpot is liable, and one who detaches a plant from an imperforate pot is exempt. A plant that grows in an imperforate pot is not considered connected to the ground. One who detaches it is not uprooting it from its place of growth. The Gemara answers: There, in the case of an imperforate pot, that is not the way a plant grows. Plants are generally planted in the ground; a plant in an imperforate pot is disconnected from the ground. Whereas here, in the case of a mushroom growing from the handle of a pitcher, that is the way it grows. The plant is considered connected to the ground.
(108a:2)חיה ועוף כו': אמר רב הונא כותבין תפילין על גבי עור של עוף טהור אמר רב יוסף מאי קמ"ל דאית ליה עור תנינא החובל בהן חייב א"ל אביי טובא קמ"ל דאי ממתניתין הוה אמינא כיון דאית ביה ניקבי ניקבי לא קמ"ל כדאמרי במערבא כל נקב שהדיו עוברת עליו אינו נקב
(108a:2)We learned in the mishna: One who wounds an animal or a bird on Shabbat is liable. Rav Huna said: One may write phylacteries on the skin of a kosher bird. Rav Yosef said: What is he teaching us with this statement? If he is teaching us that a bird has skin, we already learned that: One who wounds an animal or a bird is liable. Since there is liability only if a wound forms beneath the skin, apparently a bird has skin. Abaye said to him: He is teaching us many things, for if I had only learned from the mishna, I would have said the following: Since the skin of a bird has many holes from which the feathers grow, one should not be allowed to write sacred matters on it. Therefore, he teaches us as they say in the West, i.e., in Eretz Yisrael: Any hole over which ink passes and does not penetrate it, is not considered a hole that invalidates the writing.
(108a:3)מיתיבי רבי זירא (ויקרא א, יז) בכנפיו להכשיר את העור ואי ס"ד עור הוא היכי מרבי ליה קרא א"ל אביי עור הוא ורחמנא רבייה
(108a:3)Rabbi Zeira raised an objection to the conclusion that the skin of a bird is considered skin. Didn’t we learn in a baraita that the verse: “And he shall rend it by its wings without creating a division, and the priest shall burn it upon the altar on the wood that is on the fire” (Leviticus 1:17), teaches that the priest must prepare even the skin to make it acceptable for the altar? That is not the case when animals are offered, as their skin is flayed before they are sacrificed. And if it should enter your mind that the skin of a bird is skin, how does the verse include it among that which the priest prepares for the altar? Abaye said: This is not difficult. Indeed, it is skin, and nevertheless, the Torah includes it as a biblical decree, specifying that the skin of a bird is sacrificed.
(108a:4)איכא דאמרי א"ר זירא אף אנן נמי תנינא בכנפיו לרבות את העור אי אמרת בשלמא עור הוא היינו דאיצטריך קרא לרבוייה אלא אי אמרת לאו עור הוא אמאי איצטריך קרא לרבוייה אמר ליה אביי לעולם אימא לך לאו עור הוא ואיצטריך סד"א כיון דאית ביה פירצי פירצי מאיס קמ"ל
(108a:4)Some say that Rabbi Zeira said: We, too, have also learned support for this halakha: The verse: “By its wings,” comes to include the skin. Granted, if you say that the skin of a bird is skin, that is the reason that the verse needs to explicitly include it. The verse is teaching us that even though the bird’s skin is skin, it must still be sacrificed. However, if you say that the skin of a bird is not skin, why is a verse necessary to include it? Clearly, it is sacrificed. Abaye said to him: That is not proof. Actually, I can say to you that it is not skin and, nevertheless, it must be included in the verse. Had the skin of the bird not been specifically included, it might have entered your mind to say that since there are many holes in it, it is repulsive and unfit for the altar. Therefore, the verse teaches us that it is sacrificed. There is no proof that the skin of a bird is considered skin.
(108a:5)בעא מיניה מר בריה דרבינא מרב נחמן בר יצחק מהו לכתוב תפילין על גבי עור של דג טהור א"ל אם יבא אליהו ויאמר מאי אם יבא אליהו ויאמר אילימא אי דאית ליה עור אי דלית ליה עור הא חזינן דאית ליה עור ועוד התנן עצמות הדג ועורו מצילין באהל המת אלא אם יבא אליהו ויאמר אי פסקא זוהמא מיניה אי לא פסקא זוהמא מיניה:
(108a:5)Mar, son of Ravina, raised a dilemma before Rav Naḥman bar Yitzhak: What is the halakha with regard to writing phylacteries on the skin of a kosher fish? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzhak said to him: If Elijah comes and says. The Gemara asks: What does the phrase: If Elijah comes and says, mean? What requires clarification? If you say that whether a fish has skin or whether it does not have skin requires clarification, we see that it has skin. And furthermore, we learned in a mishna: Fish bones and skin protect the objects covered with them from becoming impure under a tent with a corpse. Since fish bones and skin do not contract impurity, they constitute a barrier to impurity. Apparently, fish have skin. Rather, if Elijah comes and says whether its foul smell has ceased from it or whether its foul smell has not ceased from it.
(108a:6)שמואל וקרנא הוו יתבי אגודא דנהר מלכא חזינהו למיא דקא דלו ועכירי א"ל שמואל לקרנא גברא רבה קאתי ממערבא וחייש במעיה וקא דלו מיא לאקבולי אפיה קמיה זיל תהי ליה אקנקניה אזל אשכחיה לרב א"ל מניין שאין כותבין תפילין אלא על גבי עור בהמה טהורה א"ל דכתיב (שמות יג, ט) למען תהיה תורת ה' בפיך מן המותר בפיך מניין לדם שהוא אדום שנאמר (מלכים ב ג, כב) ויראו מואב מנגד את המים אדומים כדם
(108a:6)It was reported: Shmuel and Karna were sitting on the bank of the Malka River. They saw that the water was rising and was murky. Shmuel said to Karna: A great man is coming from the West, Eretz Yisrael, and his intestines are aching, and the water is rising to greet him. Go sniff out his container, i.e., see if he is a Torah scholar. Karna went and found Rav, who was the Sage that came from Eretz Yisrael, and he asked him several questions to test him. He said to him: From where is it derived that one may write phylacteries only on the hide of a kosher animal? Rav said to him that this halakha is as it is written: “And it shall be a sign for you on your arm, and a reminder between your eyes, so that God’s Torah will be in your mouth” (Exodus 13:9). Only hide from those animals that are permitted to be placed in your mouth, i.e., may be eaten, may be used for phylacteries. Karna then asked him: From where is it derived that prohibited blood is red? Karna asked Rav this to determine which shades of menstrual blood are impure. Rav said to him that it is as it is stated: “And the Moabites saw the water from afar, red like blood” (II Kings 3:22).
(108a:7)מניין למילה שבאותו מקום נאמר כאן ערלתו ונאמר להלן ערלתו מה להלן דבר שעושה פרי אף כאן דבר שעושה פרי אימא לבו דכתיב (דברים י, טז) ומלתם את ערלת לבבכם אימא אזנו דכתיב (ירמיהו ו, י) הנה ערלה אזנם דנין ערלתו תמה מערלתו תמה ואין דנין ערלתו תמה מערלת שאינה תמה
(108a:7)Karna also asked: From where is derived that circumcision is performed in that place? Rav answered him: It is stated here, with regard to circumcision: “And on the eighth day he shall circumcise the flesh of his foreskin [orlato]” (Leviticus 12:3), and it is stated there, with regard to recently planted trees: “And when you come to the land and plant all types of fruit trees, and you shall count the fruit thereof as forbidden [orlato]; three years shall it be as forbidden unto you, it shall not be eaten.” (Leviticus 19:23). Just as there the Torah is referring to a tree, which is an item that bears fruit, here, too, in the case of circumcision, orla is referring to an item that bears fruit. He asked him: Say that circumcision should be performed on one’s heart, as it is written: “And you shall circumcise the foreskin of [orlat] your heart” (Deuteronomy 10:16)? Say that circumcision should be performed on one’s ear, as it is written: “Behold, their ear is dull [areila] and they cannot listen” (Jeremiah 6:10)? Rav said to him: One derives the meaning of the complete form orlato from another instance of the complete form orlato; and one does not derive the complete form orlato from the incomplete form orlat, which modifies another word, as is also the case with the word areila.
(108a:8)Since Rav understood that Karna came to test him, he said to him: What is your name? He told him: Karna. He said to him: May it be the will of God that a horn [karna] will emerge in his eyes.
(108a:9)לסוף עייליה שמואל לביתיה אוכליה נהמא דשערי וכסא דהרסנא ואשקייה שיכרא ולא אחוי ליה בית הכסא כי היכי דלישתלשל לייט רב ואמר מאן דמצערן לא לוקמוה ליה בני וכן הוה:
(108a:9)Ultimately, Shmuel brought him into his house. He fed him barley bread and small fried fish, and gave him beer to drink, and he did not show him the lavatory so he would suffer from diarrhea. Shmuel was a doctor and he wanted to relieve Rav’s intestinal suffering by feeding him food that would relieve him. Since Rav was unaware of Shmuel’s intention, he became angry at him. Rav cursed Shmuel and said: Whoever causes me suffering, let his children not survive. Although Rav eventually discovered Shmuel’s good intentions, his curse was fulfilled, and so it was that Shmuel’s children did not survive long.
(108a:10)כתנאי מניין למילה שבאותו מקום נאמר כאן ערלתו ונאמר להלן ערלתו מה להלן דבר שעושה פרי אף כאן דבר שעושה פרי דברי ר' יאשיה ר' נתן אומר אינו צריך הרי הוא אומר (בראשית יז, יד) וערל זכר אשר לא ימול את בשר ערלתו מקום שניכר בין זכרות לנקבות
(108a:10)The Gemara comments: The issue mentioned above is in fact a dispute between tanna’im. It was asked in a baraita: From where is it derived that circumcision is performed in that place? It is stated here, in the case of circumcision, orlato. And it is stated there, with regard to trees, orlato. Just as there the Torah is referring to a tree, which is an item that bears fruit, here too, orla is referring to an item that bears fruit; this is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya. Rabbi Natan says: This verbal analogy is not necessary, as it says: “And an uncircumcised man who does not circumcise the flesh of his foreskin [orlato], his soul will be cut off from his nation, he has broken My covenant” (Genesis 17:14). From the fact that it says: An uncircumcised man, it is derived that circumcision is in the place that distinguishes between a male and a female.
(108a:11)ת"ר כותבין תפילין על גבי עור בהמה טהורה ועל גבי עור חיה טהורה ועל גבי עור נבלות וטרפות שלהן ונכרכות בשערן ונתפרות בגידן והלכה למשה מסיני שהתפילין נכרכות בשערן ונתפרות בגידן אבל אין כותבין לא על גבי עור בהמה טמאה ולא על גבי עור חיה טמאה ואינו צריך לומר על גבי עור נבלה וטרפה שלהן ואין נכרכין בשערן ואין נתפרות בגידן
(108a:11)The Gemara cites similar proofs. The Sages taught: One may write phylacteries on the hide of a kosher domesticated animal, and on the hide of a kosher non-domesticated animal, and on the hides of their unslaughtered carcasses [neveilot], and on the hides of animals with a condition that will cause them to die within twelve months [tereifot]. And one may wrap the parchment with the hair of these animals and sew them with their sinews; and it is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai that the parchment of phylacteries may be wrapped with the hair of these animals and sewn with their sinews. But one may not write on the hide of a non-kosher animal, or on the hide of a non-kosher undomesticated animal, and it goes without saying that one may not write on their skins when they are neveilot or tereifot. And one may not wrap the parchment with the hair of non-kosher animals, nor may one sew them with their sinews.
(108a:12)וזו שאילה שאל ביתוסי אחד את ר' יהושע הגרסי מניין שאין כותבין תפילין על עור בהמה טמאה דכתיב (שמות יג, ט) למען תהיה תורת ה' בפיך מדבר המותר בפיך אלא מעתה על גבי עור נבלות וטרפות אל יכתבו א"ל אמשול לך משל למה"ד לשני בני אדם שנתחייבו הריגה למלכות אחד הרגו מלך ואחד הרגו איספקליטור) איזה מהן משובח הוי אומר זה שהרגו מלך אלא מעתה יאכלו אמר ליה התורה אמרה (דברים יד, כא) לא תאכלו כל נבלה ואת אמרת יאכלו א"ל קאלוס:
(108a:12)And this question was asked by a Boethusian to Rabbi Yehoshua HaGarsi: From where is it derived that one may not write phylacteries on the hide of a non-kosher animal? He said to him, it is as it is written: “So that God’s Torah will be in your mouth.” The Rabbis derived that one may write the passages only on an item that is permitted to be placed in one’s mouth, i.e., eaten. He said to him: If that is so, on the skin of neveilot and tereifot coming from kosher animals, one should not write phylacteries, as they may not be eaten. He said to him: I will tell you a parable. To what is this similar? To two people who were sentenced to death by the king. One was killed by the king himself, and one was killed by an executioner [ispaklitor]. Which one is more praiseworthy? You must say: The one that the king himself killed. Therefore, an animal that died at the hands of Heaven and not by a human action is superior. He said to him: If so, then the neveilot and tereifot should be eaten, as they were killed by the king. He said to him: The Torah said: “Do not eat any neveila” (Deuteronomy 14:20) and you say they should be eaten? A Torah decree determines that they may not be eaten, but that does not mean they are inferior. The Boethusian said to him: Well put [kalos].
(108a:13)מתני׳ אין עושין הילמי בשבת
(108a:13)MISHNA: One may not make brine [hilmei] on Shabbat,
(108b:1)אבל עושה הוא את מי המלח וטובל בהן פתו ונותן לתוך התבשיל א"ר יוסי והלא הוא הילמי בין מרובה ובין מועט ואלו הן מי מלח המותרין נותן שמן לכתחלה לתוך המים או לתוך המלח:
(108b:1)but one may make salt water and dip one’s bread in it, and place it in cooked food. Rabbi Yosei said: But isn’t it still brine, whether it is a large quantity or whether it is a small quantity? And this is the type of salt water that is permitted: Salt water in which one places oil initially into the water or into the salt. This is salt water prepared not in the usual manner.
(108b:2)גמ׳ מאי קאמר א"ר יהודה אמר שמואל ה"ק אין עושין מי מלח מרובין אבל עושה הוא מי מלח מועטין:
(108b:2)GEMARA: With regard to that which was stated in the mishna, the Gemara asks: What is the tanna saying with regard to the distinction between brine and salt water? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: This is what he is saying: One may not prepare a large quantity of salt water, brine, on Shabbat, but one may prepare a small quantity of salt water.
(108b:3)א"ר יוסי והלא הוא הילמי בין מרובין בין מועטין: איבעיא להו רבי יוסי לאסור או להתיר אמר רב יהודה להתיר מדלא קתני רבי יוסי אוסר א"ל רבה הא מדקתני סיפא ואלו הן מי מלח המותרין מכלל דר' יוסי לאסור אלא אמר רבה לאסור וכן אמר רבי יוחנן לאסור
(108b:3)We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yosei said: But isn’t it still brine whether it is a large quantity or a small quantity? A dilemma was raised before the Sages: When Rabbi Yosei said that there is no difference between a large and small quantity of salt water, was his intention to prohibit preparing any salt water on Shabbat or to permit doing so? Rav Yehuda said: His intention is to permit doing so, which is understood from the fact that the mishna is not teaching: Rabbi Yosei prohibits. Rabba said to him: From the fact that it is taught in the latter clause of the mishna: And this is the type of salt water that is permitted, by inference, Rabbi Yosei intended to prohibit preparing salt water. Rather, Rabba said: Rabbi Yosei intended to prohibit preparing any salt water on Shabbat. And similarly, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Rabbi Yosei’s intention was to prohibit.
(108b:4)תניא נמי הכי אין עושין מי מלח מרובין לתת לתוך הכבשין שבתוך גיסטרא אבל עושה הוא מי מלח מועטין ואוכל בהן פתו ונותן לתוך התבשיל א"ר יוסי וכי מפני שהללו מרובין והללו מועטין הללו אסורין והללו מותרין יאמרו מלאכה מרובה אסורה מלאכה מועטת מותרת אלא אלו ואלו אסורין הן ואלו הן מי מלח המותרין נותן שמן ומלח או שמן ומים ובלבד שלא יתן מים ומלח לכתחלה:
(108b:4)That was also taught in a baraita: One may not prepare a large quantity of salt water to add to the pickled vegetables that are inside a flat earthenware shard used for pickling [gistera]. However, one may prepare a small quantity of salt water and eat his bread with it and add it to cooked food. Rabbi Yosei said: Is it because this is a large quantity and this is a small quantity that this is prohibited and this is permitted? People will learn from this and say: A large amount of labor is prohibited on Shabbat, but a small amount of labor is permitted. Rather, certainly they are both prohibited. And this is the type of salt water that is permitted: One may place oil and salt together or oil and water and then add salt to the mixture, and this halakha applies provided one does not place water and salt together ab initio.
(108b:5)(עזין צנון ואתרוג סימן):
(108b:5)Strong, radish, and citron are a mnemonic for the following halakhot.
(108b:6)תני רבי יהודה בר חביבא אין עושין מי מלח עזין מאי מי מלח עזין רבה ורב יוסף בר אבא דאמרי תרווייהו כל שהביצה צפה בהן וכמה אמר אביי תרי תילתי מילחא ותילתא מיא
(108b:6)Rabbi Yehuda bar Ḥaviva taught: One may not prepare strong salt water on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: What is strong salt water? Rabba and Rav Yosef bar Abba both said: Any water in which an egg can float. The Gemara asks: And how much salt is in this salt water? Abaye said: Two-thirds salt and one-third water.
(108b:7)למאי עבדי לה א"ר אבהו למורייסא תני רבי יהודה בר חביבא אין מולחין צנון וביצה בשבת רב חזקיה משמיה דאביי אמר צנון אסור וביצה מותרת אמר רב נחמן מריש הוה מלחנא פוגלא אמינא אפסודי קא מפסידנא ליה דאמר שמואל פוגלא חורפי מעלי כיון דשמענא להא דכי אתא עולא ואמר במערבא מלחי כישרי כישרי ממלח לא מלחנא טבולי ודאי מטבילנא
(108b:7)The Gemara asks: For what purpose is this salt water prepared? Rabbi Abbahu said: It is prepared for fish brine [muraisa]. And Rabbi Yehuda bar Ḥaviva taught with regard to salting: One may not salt a radish or an egg on Shabbat because by salting them he performs a labor that improves them. Rav Ḥizkiya said in the name of Abaye: Preparing a radish is prohibited, and preparing an egg is permitted. Rav Naḥman said: Initially, I would salt radishes on Shabbat, as I said: I am ruining it by doing so, as Shmuel said: Sharpness is good for radishes; since salt reduces their sharpness, one who adds salt ruins the radish. However, once I heard this, that when Ulla came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that in the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, they salt many piles of radishes throughout the week, I do not salt them on Shabbat anymore, but I certainly dip them in salt because that is not considered to be an improvement.
(108b:8)תני ר' יהודה בר חביבא אתרוג צנון וביצה אילמלא קליפתן החיצונה אינן יוצאין מבני מעיים לעולם
(108b:8)The Gemara cites that which Rabbi Yehuda bar Ḥaviva taught with regard to radishes and eggs: With regard to a citron, a radish, and an egg, if it were not for their outer peel, or egg white, they would never emerge from the intestines, because they are extremely hard to digest.
(108b:9)כי אתא רב דימי אמר מעולם לא טבע גברא בימא דסדום אמר רב יוסף הפוכה סדום והפוכה מילה גברא הוא דלא טבע כשורא טבע אמר ליה אביי לא מיבעיא קאמר לא מבעיא כשורא דאפילו בכל מימות שבעולם לא טבע אלא אפילו גברא דטבע בכל מימות שבעולם בימא דסדום לא טבע למאי נפקא מינה כי הא דרבין הוה שקיל ואזיל אחוריה דרבי ירמיה אגודא דימא דסדום אמר ליה מהו למימשי מהני מיא בשבת א"ל שפיר דמי
(108b:9)When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: No person has ever drowned in the Sea of Sodom, the Dead Sea. Since there is so much salt, people easily float in it. Rav Yosef said: Sodom is overturned and Rav Dimi’s statement is backward. Is his statement saying that it is a man who does not drown in the Dead Sea, but a plank sinks? Abaye said to him: He is saying his statement utilizing the style of: It is not necessary: It is not necessary to mention a plank because it does not sink in any body of water in the world. But even a man, who drowns in other bodies of water in the world, does not drown in the Sea of Sodom. The Gemara asks: What are the practical consequences of this halakha? The Gemara explains: This halakha is relevant in a case of this kind: Ravin was walking after Rabbi Yirmeya on the shore of the Sea of Sodom. Ravin said to Rabbi Yirmeya: What is the ruling? Is it permitted to wash oneself with this water on Shabbat, or perhaps it is prohibited because it has healing properties? Rabbi Yirmeya said to him: One may well do so.
(108b:10)מהו למימץ ולמיפתח אמר ליה זו לא שמעתי כיוצא בה שמעתי דאמר ר' זירא זימנין א"ל משמיה דרב מתנה וזימנין אמר לה משמיה דמר עוקבא ותרווייהו משמיה דאבוה דשמואל ולוי אמרין חד אמר יין בתוך העין אסור על גב העין מותר וחד אמר רוק תפל [אפילו] על גב העין אסור
(108b:10)Ravin asked another question: When one washes himself on Shabbat in water from the Dead Sea, what is the halakha? Is it permitted for him to close and open his eyes in the water so that the water gets inside? Rabbi Yirmeya said to him: That case I did not hear; however, with regard to a similar case, placing wine in one’s eye on Shabbat, I did hear. As Rabbi Zeira said, sometimes he said it in the name of Rav Mattana and sometimes he said it in the name of Mar Ukva, and they both said it in the name of Shmuel’s father and in the name of Levi: One of them said: With regard to placing wine inside the eye on Shabbat, it is prohibited because it heals; on the eye, it is permitted. And one of them said: Bland saliva, saliva from one who has not eaten since waking, even placing it on the eye on Shabbat is prohibited because it is commonly used as medicine.
(108b:11)תסתיים דאבוה דשמואל הוא דאמר יין בתוך העין אסור על גב העין מותר מדאמר שמואל שורה אדם פיתו ביין ונותנו על גב העין בשבת דשמיעא ליה ממאן לאו דשמיעא ליה מאבוה וליטעמיך הא דאמר שמואל רוק תפל אפי' ע"ג העין אסור דשמיעא ליה ממאן אילימא דשמיעא ליה מאבוה אלא לוי ולא חדא אמר אלא חדא שמיעא ליה מאבוה וחדא שמיעא ליה מלוי ולא ידעינן הי מאבוה הי מלוי
(108b:11)The Gemara comments: Conclude that Shmuel’s father is the one who said that placing wine inside the eye is prohibited but on the eye is permitted, from the fact that Shmuel said: A person may soak his bread in wine and place it on his eye on Shabbat. He said this after he heard this halakha from whom? Is it not that he heard it from his father? The Gemara rejects this: And according to your reasoning, that halakha which Shmuel said: It is prohibited to place bland saliva even on the eye on Shabbat, he said this after he heard this halakha from whom? If we say that he heard it from his father, then Levi, who was cited together with Shmuel’s father in the list of those who stated the halakhot, did he himself not say even one halakha? Rather, one halakha Shmuel heard from his father, and one halakha he heard one from Levi, and we do not know which he heard from his father and which he heard from Levi.
(108b:12)אמר מר עוקבא אמר שמואל שורה אדם קילורין מע"ש ונותן על גב עיניו בשבת ואינו חושש בר ליואי הוי קאי קמיה דמר עוקבא חזייה דהוה מייץ ופתח אמר ליה כולי האי ודאי לא שרא מר שמואל שלח ליה רבי ינאי למר עוקבא לישדר לן מר מהנך קילורין דמר שמואל שלח ליה שדורי משדרנא לך דלא תימא צר עין אנא אלא הכי אמר שמואל טובה טיפת צונן שחרית ורחיצת ידים ורגלים בחמין ערבית מכל קילורין שבעולם תניא נמי הכי אמר רבי מונא משום רבי יהודה טובה טיפת צונן שחרית ורחיצת ידים ורגלים ערבית מכל קילורין שבעולם
(108b:12)Mar Ukva said that Shmuel said: One may soak eye salves from Shabbat eve and place them on his eyes on Shabbat, and he need not be concerned that he is violating the prohibition against healing on Shabbat. The Gemara relates: Bar Liva’ei was standing before Mar Ukva on Shabbat. He saw Mar Ukva, who was opening and closing his eyes while applying a salve to them. Bar Liva’ei said to him: Master Shmuel certainly did not permit doing all of this. Rabbi Yannai sent a message to Mar Ukva: Can the master send us some of Master Shmuel’s eye salves? Mar Ukva sent him in response: I will send it to you so that you do not say I am miserly, but be aware that this is what Shmuel said: For healing the eyes, better a drop of cold water in the morning and washing the hands and feet with hot water in the evening than all the eye salves in the world. Follow these instructions and you will need nor other cures. That was also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Mona said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda: Better a drop of cold water in the morning and washing the hands and feet in the evening than all the eye salves in the world.
(108b:13)הוא היה אומר יד לעין תיקצץ יד לחוטם תיקצץ יד לפה תיקצץ יד לאוזן תיקצץ יד לחסודה תיקצץ יד לאמה תיקצץ יד לפי טבעת תיקצץ יד
(108b:13)Apropos Rabbi Mona’s statement with regard to healing, the text cites what he would say about other matters that require special attention: A hand that touches the eye should be severed because it harms the eye. A hand that touches the nose should be severed. A hand that touches the mouth should be severed. A hand that touches the ear should be severed. A hand that touches one’s wound should be severed. A hand that touches one’s member should be severed, lest one arouse himself. A hand that touches one’s anus should be severed, lest one make himself ill. A hand
