(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Shabbos 153



(a) For a younger man one can tell automatically from the Hesped (i.e. the response of the people) whether he is a Ben Olam ha'Ba or not; an old man however, is different, because one does not tend to cry so easily for an old man who has died. Consequently, a warm Hesped is required to evoke the people's true inner feelings, and that is what Rav meant when he told Rav Shmuel bar Shilas to eulogize him warmly. If the people would respond to his Hesped, then everyone would know that he was a Ben Olam ha'Ba.

(b) The problem with Rabah - was that he was constantly reprimanding the people of Pumbedisa (who were pathological swindlers), they were unlikely to respond warmly to any Hesped that was made on him after his death.

(c) Although *most* people would not respond warmly to the Hespedim made over Rabah (Rabah himself conceded), at least two people *would* - Abaye and Rabah bar Rav Chanan - and that was sufficicient indication of Rabah's place in the Olam ha'Ba.

(a) The two signs that one is a Ben Olam ha'Ba - are: when, after his death, people tell others to emulate the example that he set in his lifetime, and if his Rebbes are pleased with his achievements.

(b) The B'nei Galil used to eulogize standing *in front* of the coffin; the B'nei Yehudah *behind* it. What they were both saying was that one should behave during one's lifetime in such a way that people will say nice things about him at his Hesped. (There is no Halachic difference of opinion between them).

(c) The only way of fulfilling the Mishnah 'Shuv Yom Echad Lifnei Misascha' - is by doing Teshuvah every day of one's life (like many people do before going to sleep, or at other times of the day).

(a) When Shlomoh ha'Melech said "be'Chol Es Yihyu Begadecha Levanim" - he meant that one should keep one's Neshamah clean, by doing Teshuvah every day.

(b) Is can compared to a King who invited his subjects to a party, but did not give a date. The wise ones, knowing that the royal cooks lacked nothing, and that the party would soon begin, got ready, and waited at the palace gates. The fools, on the grounds that every party requires a lot of preparation, went about their daily occupations as if nothing had happened. Suddenly, the palace gates opened, and the guests were bidden to enter. The wise ones entered clean and dressed for the occasion; the fools had to rush to the palace, and join the party - dirty and not properly dressed. The King was pleased with his wise subjects, whom he invited to sit down and partake of the party fare; but he was angry with the fools, whom he ordered to stand and watch the proceedings.

(c) Rebbi Meir's son-in-law disagreed with the above version of the Mashal - according to him, if the fools were ordered to *stand* and watch the wise subjects eating, they could make out that they were waiters. It would therefore be far more painful and embarrassing for them to *be seated* and watch the wise men eat without being able to participate. (d)

  1. ... "be'Chol Es Yihyu Begadecha Levanim" - can also refer to the Mitzvah of Tzitzis, and ...
  2. ... "ve'Shemen al Roshcha Al Yechsar" - to Tefilin.
*****Hadran Alach 'Sho'el'*****

*****Perek Mi she'Hichshich*****


(a) If someone is traveling, and Shabbos comes in - he should, if possible, give his purse to a gentile.

(b) If there is no non-Jew available - then he should place it on his donkey's back (in the way that will be described later).

(c) As soon as he reaches the first courtyard within the town's borders - he unties (or cuts) them on the donkey's back, and lets them fall to the ground.

(a) Chazal permitted giving one's purse to a gentile, in spite of the Isur of Amirah le'Nochri, because they were afraid that otherwise, he would carry directly, in order to save his money - so it is better to waive an Isur de'Rabbanan, they decided, than to allow him to transgress an Isur d'Oraysa.

(b) A person will go to great lengths to save his property from getting lost, even to the point of transgressing Shabbos, but not to save something that is not yet his.

(c) Even though one could say that, having picked up the purse, it is his, and the Din is no different than that of a purse that was originally his; one could also say that it is only by a purse for which he worked hard that Chazal waived the Isur of Amirah le'Nochri, but not for a purse which he found without the least effort.

(d) Rava concludes 'Teiku' - he does not know what to decide.

(a) It is better to give one's purse to a gentile, since Amirah le'Nochri is purely de'Rabbanan, than place it on the donkey's back, which is basically an Isur d'Oraysa.

(b) It is better to place it on the donkey's back - since a donkey is only an animal, than to give it to a Cheresh, Shoteh or Katan, who are humans (and one might go on to confuse them with another Jew, and give it to him).

(c) It is better to give the purse to a Shoteh, than to give it to a Cheresh or a Katan.

(d) Rebbi Yitzchak quoting Rebbi Eliezer - says that the Terumah of a Cheresh is a Safek, and although one is Chayav to take Terumah again from that particular stock, his Terumah must be treated like Terumah (whereas the Terumah of a Katan is not valid at all). Consequently, it is obvious that if one was accompanied by a Cheresh and a Katan, one would give the purse to the Katan and not to the Cheresh.




(a) The Sha'aleh, according to the Chachamim - is whether it is better to give one's purse to a Cheresh, who is never likely to become normal (in those days, a Cheresh was considered incurable [as well as sub-normal], though this is not necessarily the case nowadays), rather than to a Katan, who will one day become a Gadol; or is it perhaps better to give it to a Katan than to a Cheresh, who, after all, a Gadol, and whom one may come to confuse with a normal Gadol.

(b) The alternative method of avoiding transgressing Shabbos by carrying one's purse - is by carrying it less than four Amos at a time, until one reaches one's destination.

(c) Chazal did not want to reveal this concession however - because of the obvious stumbling-block that this will cause (by causing people to carry even more than four Amos at a time), basing their silence on the Pasuk in Mishlei "Kavod Elokim Haster Davar".

(d) We learn from "u'Chevod Melachim Chikur Davar" - that, although we have just learned that, for the sake of Hashem's honor, one may sometimes be silent, this does not apply to being silent, to preserve the honor of kings. One is obligated to pursue the Halachah to the end, in spite of the esteem of a king (like David Hamelech wrote in Tehilim: "va'Adabrah be'Eidosecha Neged Melachim ve'Lo Evosh").

(a) Rebbi Eliezer said that on the day that they decreed 'the eighteen things' (among them, the Din of our Mishnah, to hand one's purse to a gentile, and not to carry it at intervals of less than four Amos), they 'made a heaped measure' (meaning that Chazal did well to decree in this way - they added a decree which will last) - like 'a box full of cucumbers and pumpkins, into which one can always find a bit of space to throw in a pepper.

(b) Rebbi Yehoshua said - that by issuing such a decree, 'they made a squashed measure' (the decree was excessive) - like 'a dish full of honey, into which one attempts to place pomegranates and large nuts', which will result in the honey that was there before, to spill over the sides of the dish. In other words, Rebbi Yehoshua believed that this decree would be self-defeating. How? Imagine, he argued, if the person did not trust the gentile who was accompanying him. Since he is forbidden to walk at intervals of less than four Amos, what will he do? He will carry more then four Amos, as we explained above.

(c) Whenever the donkey stops to urinate - one is obligated to remove the purse from the donkey before it stops, and to replace it only after it has begun to walk, to avoid the animal making either an Akirah or a Hanachah on Shabbos.

(d) Nevertheless, he is not permitted to place his purse on another Jew's back whilst he is still walking, and remove it whenever he stops - because if the person would do this himself (i.e. if he picked up the object even whilst he was walking), he would be Chayav. Consequently, the Chachamim decreed that even when a second person places the object on him, that it should be no better than two people who perform a Melachah together, which is nevertheless Asur de'Rabbanan. And whatever is only Asur mi'de'Rabbanan when one performs with another Jew, is Mutar when one performs it with an animal.

(a) Someone who is carrying in town - is obligated to run with the object until he reaches his house.

(b) He must run as - a reminder that he is not allowed to stop.

(c) Arriving at his house (or his garden), he throws the object inside backwards (from the Reshus ha'Rabim into the Reshus ha'Yachid - to avoid making a regular Hanachah).

(a) Rabah corroborates Rami bar Chama's opinion (that Mechamer carries with it the penalty of Sekilah be'Mezid, and Chatas be'Shogeg) from the Pasuk "Lo Sa'aseh Kol Melachah Ata ... u'Vehemtecha" - by making a Hekesh: 'Behemto Dumyah Didei', just as the owner is Chayav a Chatas be'Shogeg and Sekilah be'Mezid when *he* carries, so too, is he Chayav when *his animal* carries (i.e. and he leads it, or causes it to go).

(b) Rava asks from the Semichus "Torah Achas Yihye Lachem, la'Oseh bi'Shegagah" ... "ve'ha'Nefesh Asher Ta'aseh be'Yad Ramah" - which compares all sinners who bring a Chatas to Avodah-Zarah; just as the latter are only Chayav when they personally perform an act (as the Torah writes - "la'Oseh"), so too, with all other cases of Chatas (but not for the act of one's animal).

(c) Rava also tries to disprove Rabah - from the Mishnah in Sanhedrin 'ha'Mechalel es ha'Shabbos be'Davar she'Chayavin al Shigegaso Chatas ve'al Zedono Sekilah', from which we can deduce that there are cases of Chilul Shabbos for which there is no Chatas and Sekilah - Is the Mishnah not referring to Mechamer, asks Rava?

(d) No! answers the Gemara, the Mishnah is referring to someone who leaves Techum Shabbos, according to Rebbi Akiva (because, according to the Rabbanan, Techumin is only mi'de'Rabbanan), and someone who lights a fire, according to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah (because, according to Rebbi Nasan, the Chiyuv for lighting a fire is Sekilah and Chatas).

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,