Gemara: If the visitor's property is forbidden to the Choleh, even sitting [should be permitted]!

Explanation: Why do you permit standing - because the visitor does his own Mitzvah. Even though the Choleh benefits automatically, it is permitted;

Therefore, even sitting you should permit for this reason!

Gemara: If the Choleh's property is forbidden to the visitor, even standing [should be forbidden]!

Explanation: He benefits from Drisas ha'Regel. Due to a Mitzvah, he should not benefit from Isur!

Explanation: There are places where they are stringent not to take wages even for sitting, even though it is permitted, since standing suffices for the Mitzvah of Bikur [Cholim];

Even so, lest people come to wages even for standing, they were stringent not to take wages even for sitting. In those places, whether he stands or sits it is permitted, since for them, also sitting is a Mitzvah;

Distinction: However, even in a place where they are not stringent, even so they may not take [wages] for standing. Therefore, the Tana says uniformly that he enters to visit him and stands, in all places, for he does a Mitzvah. The other (the Choleh, who is Mudar) benefits automatically;

However, in all places he may not sit. In a place where they are not stringent, there is no Mitzvah in sitting, so the Choleh is obligated to pay his wage. When he does not take any wages from him, he benefits him.

Reference: He says so below (42b).

Explanation: He says as follows. The law of our Mishnah applies everywhere, even in a place where they do not take wages for standing, and not for sitting.

Granted, in that place, letter of the law it is permitted whether standing or sitting. Even so, we decree lest he delay sitting more than is needed. In such a case, everywhere one should not do so without pay.

However, when he stands we do not decree lest he delay. Since we obligate him to stand, he has a reminder [not to delay].

This is unlike the case of R. Shimon ben Elyakim, like we will explain on that teaching with Hash-m's help.

Explanation: If so (the visitor may not benefit from the Choleh), we should forbid even standing, [the Gemara answered that it is permitted,] for he was not Madir him from his survival.

I.e. presumably, when the Choleh was Madir the visitor, he was not Madir him from something he needs, like here, that the Choleh benefits from his visit.

Alternate text: Some texts say "e.g. the case is, he was not Madir him from his survival."

Also according to this text, he need not say so explicitly. The Stam case is like this. This is proven [from] the challenge below. (See the coming Dibur.)

Explanation: This is why we distinguish between him and his son. When he (the Madir) is sick, he (the Mudar) enters to visit him, for presumably, he was not Madir him from his [own] survival;

When his son is sick, he asks about him in the market, but he may not enter his house, for it is possible that he was Madir him even from his son's survival.

Proof: When we say that he was not Madir him from his survival, we say this Stam, even though he did not specify;

If we required that he specify so, it is still difficult for Ula, what is the difference between him and his son? If he specified, both are permitted. If he did not specify, both are forbidden!

Conclusion: Rather, surely we discuss Stam. Stam is like specifying [that he is not Madir him from his survival] for himself, but [it is] not [like specifying] for his son.

Gemara: However, according to Shmuel, who says that [the Mishnah discusses] when the visitor's property is forbidden to the Choleh, what is the difference between him [the Mudar] and his son (which one is ill)?

Explanation: I.e. Just the contrary! When his son is ill, it is permitted more, for he did not vow from him;

If he vowed also from his son, what is the difference between him and his son? Regarding both, we should say that he may enter to visit him standing!

Gemara: He can say to you.

Explanation: Shmuel [can say], surely the Beraisa is established when the Choleh's property is forbidden to the visitor. I agree to your reasoning, that presumably, he was not Madir him from his [own] survival;

I say further than you. Even from sitting, he was not Madir him!

Therefore, we cannot establish our Mishnah like you did, i.e. when the Choleh's property is forbidden to the visitor, for if so, even sitting would be permitted! Also sitting of the visitor is (aids) the Choleh's survival, and he was not Madir him from it.

Ruling: We hold like Shmuel. Because Rava explained his opinion, and said that the Mishnah connotes like him, the Halachah follows him.

Consequence: Therefore, when the Choleh's property is forbidden to the visitor, he enters to visit him, and [may] even sit, for also sitting helps the survival of the Choleh. He was not Madir him from this, for he is pleased [that he sit to visit him when he is sick].

Distinction: However, when his son is sick, he may not enter his house at all. Rather, he asks about him in the market.

Limitation: This is only when the Choleh was Madir the visitor. We estimate his intent, that he was not Madir him from his survival. However, when the visitor forbade to himself the Choleh's property, he may not enter his house at all. In such a case there is no such presumption.

Distinction: This (that we said) is when he Choleh's property is forbidden to the visitor. When the visitor's property is forbidden to the Choleh, he enters to visit him and stands, because he is obligated to do so for free. He does his Mitzvah. The other (the Choleh) benefits automatically;

However, he may not sit, even in places where they are not stringent not to take wages even for sitting, due to a decree lest he delay sitting.

Limitation: When the visitor's property is forbidden to the Choleh, we say that he enters to visit him and stands, because he does his Mitzvah, and the other benefits automatically. This is only in a case when the Hana'ah comes automatically;

However, when he gives to him something, since he truly benefits him from hand to hand, and it is not [mere] Gerama, it is forbidden.

Support: The Mishnah below (43a) says that if one is Mudar Hana'ah from his friend, and he has nothing to eat, he goes to a grocer that he (the Madir) frequents, and says to him...

Also when two were walking on the road, and [one] has nothing to eat, [the other] puts [food] on a rock [and makes it Hefker]. We permit only in such a way, but he may not give from hand to hand, even though he does a Mitzvah...

The reason is like we said. Only Hana'ah that comes automatically is permitted in the case of a Mitzvah, but not overt Hana'ah.

Gemara: And people visit them.

Explanation: This explains "u'Fkudas Kol ha'Adam Yipaked Aleihem."

Gemara: Seven things were created before the world was created.

Explanation: I.e. Hashem had intent to create them before the world was created, for the world cannot exist without them, and as it is said that the intent to create Am Yisrael preceded all; it is impossible for the world to be without Gehinom for the wicked.

Gemara: If the mouth [of Gehinom] is not near here, it should come close.

Explanation: Merely bringing it close does not contradict "v'Ein Kol Chadash [Tachas ha'Shamesh]."

Gemara: They are fixed in the Raki'a!

Explanation: This is like it says "va'Yiten Osam Elokim bi'Rki'a ha'Shamayim", and Zevul is above the Raki'a, like it says in Chagigah (12b).

Gemara: If you will make a judgment for Ben Amram.

Explanation: In the controversy of Korach. [Rava or R. Yitzchak] hold that the verse refers to Korach's feud, because the verses [near it] in Chabakuk discuss Yetzi'as Mitzrayim and Keri'as Yam Suf;

And it says "Machatzta Rosh mi'Beis Rasha" - this implies to them Korach, and it is written after "Shemesh Yare'ach Amad Zevulah."

Gemara: Like the 10th of Rebbi.

Explanation: Each [daughter] receives a 10th of the property that remained after the previous daughter took her 10th.

Similarly, each visitor receives one part in 60 of the illness remaining after the previous visitors.

Gemara: This refers to Ben Gilo.

Explanation: The visitor was born with the same Mazal as the Choleh.

Gemara: And they all return and divide equally.

Explanation: Since they came at once to receive, it is unfair that the first get a bigger share than the others. (Rather, we calculate how much they would collectively receive if they came in succession, about 63%, and they divide this equally. - PF)