Mga Sanggunian sa Talmud para sa Deuteronomio 22:2: Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim, Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot, Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia & Sanhedrin

There, we have stated³⁴Mishnah 4. Personal healing is healing a human, which is a biblical commandment (Deut. 22:2) and cannot be abolished by a vow. Financial healing is veterinary medicine. The question is, if he is required to return what the other one had lost as required in Mishnah 2, why can he not heal his cow which is lost without medical help?: “He heals him in the sense of personal healing but not in the sense of financial healing.” Rebbi Judan and Rebbi Yose. One of them said, here if the vow refers to his body, there if the vow refers to his property³⁵Mishnah 2 refers to a vow that B cannot personally have any gain from A; therefore A may return what B lost. Mishnah 3 deals with the case that B cannot have any material advantage from A; therefore A cannot heal B’s animal.. But the other one said, here if he has somebody else who can heal him, there if there is nobody else who can heal him. If he has somebody else who can heal him, he should not be able to heal him personally! Not by everybody is a person successfully healed³⁶The personal skills of a medical man are not transferable..

“Even though there are [marks] on his body and his clothing.” Did one not state: From where that if your fellow man is lost, you return him both body and property⁵⁷The verse to which this refers is not indicated; it probably refers to Deut. 22:2 where the obligation to return a find is extended to include helping a person who is lost, since the end of the verse may be read “return him to himself.” The essence of the verse is interpreted to mean that the obligation to return property exists only after the person who claims to be the owner was examined as to the validity of this claim (Sifry Deut. 223; Mishnah Baba Meṣi‘a 2:7); in Midrash Tannaïm (Midrash Haggadol Deut, ed. S. Fisch, p. 486) the implication is that one is required the look after the medical needs of indigents and travelers.. These sources imply that examination of marks on bodies and property is accepted in biblical law. Then the question is how the Mishnah here can declare this kind of investigation as invalid. The answer given here (and in the Babli, 120b and Baba Meṣi‘a 27b) is that after death, bodily marks will rapidly change. The Babli in Baba Meṣi‘a adds that clothing or documents found on a corpse are no proofs of identity since they may belong to someone else.? There is a difference, because marks are apt to change.

MISHNAH: If somebody is forbidden by a vow any profit from another person and that one comes to make a visit, he may stand but not sit down⁷²If B is forbidden any profit from A it is obvious that B cannot sit on any of A’s chairs. But here it is stated that A cannot sit in B’s chair even if he makes a medical visit.. He heals him in the sense of personal healing but not in the sense of financial healing³⁴Mishnah 4. Personal healing is healing a human, which is a biblical commandment (Deut. 22:2) and cannot be abolished by a vow. Financial healing is veterinary medicine. The question is, if he is required to return what the other one had lost as required in Mishnah 2, why can he not heal his cow which is lost without medical help?, and may bathe with him in a large pool but not in a small one⁷³If the pool is so small that one additional person visibly raises the water level, this would be a profit and is forbidden. (In modern Hebrew, the word means “bathtub”. The root ابط means “hollow”)., and he may sleep with him on the same couch. Rebbi Jehudah says, in summer but not in the rainy season because he would profit. He can lie with him [at a dinner] on the same couch and eat with him at one table but not from the same pot⁷⁴One is afraid that he purposely would take less food so the other man would have more.. But he may eat with him from a returning pot⁷⁵As explained in the Halakhah, a pot so full that in any case it will not be emptied by the guests..