(153a:1)and his soul ascends to its place beneath the Throne of Glory, and does not descend anymore.
(153a:2)אמר רב יהודה בריה דרב שמואל בר שילת משמיה דרב מהספדו של אדם ניכר אם בן העוה"ב הוא אם לאו איני והאמר ליה רב לרב שמואל בר שילת אחים בהספידא דהתם קאימנא לא קשיא הא דמחמו ליה ואחים הא דמחמו ליה ולא אחים
(153a:2)Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, said in the name of Rav: From a person’s eulogy it is apparent whether or not he has a share in the World-to-Come. If the listeners are pained and brought to tears during the eulogy, it is clear that the person was righteous. The Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn’t Rav say to Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat: Stir the hearts of those gathered during my eulogy, for I will be standing there and listening to your words? Even a person as great as Rav needed to give instructions about his eulogy. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, for this statement, which maintains that those who merit a share in the World-to-Come can be identified by their eulogies, is referring to a situation in which they attempt to stir the listener and he is stirred; while that statement is referring to a situation in which they attempt to stir the listener and he is not stirred. That is an indication that the deceased person was not righteous.
(153a:3)א"ל אביי לרבה כגון מר דסנו ליה כולהו פומבדיתאי מאן אחים הספידא א"ל מיסתיא את ורבה בר רב חנן
(153a:3)Abaye said to Rabba: In the case of the Master, i.e., Rabba, whom all of the inhabitants of his city, Pumbedita, hate, who will be stirred during his eulogy? He said to him: It is sufficient for me if you and Rabba bar Rav Ḥanan are stirred.
(153a:4)בעא מניה רבי אלעזר מרב איזהו בן העוה"ב א"ל (ישעיהו ל, כא) ואזניך תשמענה דבר מאחריך לאמר זה הדרך לכו בו כי תאמינו וכי תשמאילו ר' חנינא אמר כל שדעת רבותינו נוחה הימנו (קהלת יב, ה) וסבבו בשוק הסופדים בני גלילא אמרי עשה דברים לפני מטתך בני יהודה אמרי עשה דברים לאחר מטתך ולא פליגי מר כי אתריה ומר כי אתריה
(153a:4)Rabbi Elazar raised a dilemma before Rav: Which type of person has a share in the World-to-Come? He said to him: We can derive this from the verse: “And your ears shall hear a word behind you, saying: This is the path, walk on it, when you turn to the right or to the left” (Isaiah 30:21). In other words, if people eulogize one by saying that others should follow in his path, he must have a share in the World-to-Come. Rabbi Ḥanina said: Anyone with whom our Rabbis are pleased has a share in the World-to-Come. In interpreting the verse: “And the eulogizers walk about the marketplace” (Ecclesiastes 12:5), the people of the Galilee say: Do things that you will want people to say at your eulogy in front of your bier. The people of Judea say: Do things that you want people to say at your eulogy behind your bier. The Gemara remarks: And they do not disagree; this Sage expressed it according to the norm in his place, and this Sage expressed it differently according to the norm in his place. The custom in the Galilee was that the eulogizers would stand before the bier and the custom in Judea was that eulogizers would stand behind the bier.
(153a:5)תנן התם רבי אליעזר אומר שוב יום אחד לפני מיתתך שאלו תלמידיו את ר"א וכי אדם יודע איזהו יום ימות אמר להן וכל שכן ישוב היום שמא ימות למחר ונמצא כל ימיו בתשובה ואף שלמה אמר בחכמתו (קהלת ט, ח) בכל עת יהיו בגדיך לבנים ושמן על ראשך אל יחסר
(153a:5)We learned there in a mishna that Rabbi Eliezer says: Repent one day before your death. Rabbi Eliezer’s students asked him: But does a person know the day on which he will die? He said to them: All the more so this is a good piece of advice, and one should repent today lest he die tomorrow; and by following this advice one will spend his entire life in a state of repentance. And King Solomon also said in his wisdom: “At all times your clothes should be white, and oil shall not be absent from upon your head” (Ecclesiastes 9:8), meaning that a person always needs to be prepared.
(153a:6)א"ר יוחנן בן זכאי משל למלך שזימן את עבדיו לסעודה ולא קבע להם זמן פיקחין שבהן קישטו את עצמן וישבו על פתח בית המלך אמרו כלום חסר לבית המלך טיפשין שבהן הלכו למלאכתן אמרו כלום יש סעודה בלא טורח
(153a:6)Similarly, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said the following story as a parable to this lesson: The situation is comparable to a king who invited his servants to a feast and did not set a time for them to come. The wise among them adorned themselves and sat at the entrance to the king’s house. They said: Is the king’s house missing anything necessary for the feast? Certainly the king could invite them at any moment. The fools among them went to attend to their work and said: Is there such thing as a feast without the toil of preparing for it? While the feast is being prepared, we will attend to other matters.
(153a:7)בפתאום ביקש המלך את עבדיו פיקחין שבהן נכנסו לפניו כשהן מקושטין והטיפשים נכנסו לפניו כשהן מלוכלכין שמח המלך לקראת פיקחים וכעס לקראת טיפשים אמר הללו שקישטו את עצמן לסעודה ישבו ויאכלו וישתו הללו שלא קישטו עצמן לסעודה יעמדו ויראו
(153a:7)Suddenly, the king requested that his servants come to the feast. The wise among them entered before him adorned in their finest clothes, and the fools entered before him dirty. The king was happy to greet the wise ones and angry to greet the fools. The king said: These wise servants who adorned themselves for the feast shall sit and eat and drink, but these fools who did not adorn themselves for the feast shall stand and watch. There is a similar outcome for people who think that their day of death and judgment is far away and do not prepare themselves for it.
(153a:8)חתנו של ר"מ משום ר"מ אמר אף הן נראין כמשמשין אלא אלו ואלו יושבין הללו אוכלין והללו רעבין הללו שותין והללו צמאים שנאמר (ישעיהו סה, יג) כה אמר ה' הנה עבדי יאכלו ואתם תרעבו הנה עבדי ישתו ואתם תצמאו הנה עבדי ירונו מטוב לב ואתם תצעקו מכאב לב
(153a:8)Rabbi Meir’s son-in-law said in the name of Rabbi Meir: If the punishment for those who did not prepare themselves in advance was merely to stand and watch, it would not be severe enough because they also look like servants at the feast, which is not such a disgraceful punishment. Rather, these and these, both groups of people, sit at the feast. These wise and righteous people eat, and these wicked fools are hungry; these righteous people drink, and these wicked people are thirsty, as it is stated: “Therefore, thus said the Lord, God: Behold, My servants shall eat and you shall be hungry; behold, My servants shall drink and you shall be thirsty; behold, My servants shall rejoice and you shall be ashamed. Behold, My servants shall sing from a joyous heart and you shall scream from a pained heart” (Isaiah 65:13–14).
(153a:9)ד"א בכל עת יהיו בגדיך לבנים אלו ציצית ושמן על ראשך אל יחסר אלו תפילין:
(153a:9)Alternatively, the verse quoted above can be interpreted in the following way: “At all times let your clothes be white”; this is clothing that contains ritual fringes [tzitzit], which are white. “And oil shall not be absent from upon your head”; these words hint to phylacteries, which are worn on the head.
(153a:10)הדרן עלך שואל
(153a:11)MISHNA: One who was traveling on Shabbat eve and night fell, and Shabbat began while he was still en route, gives his money pouch to a gentile traveling with him. And if there is no gentile with him he places it on the donkey. Once he reached the outer courtyard of the city, where belongings can be securely placed, he takes the vessels that may be moved on Shabbat off the donkey. With regard to the vessels that may not be moved on Shabbat, he unties the ropes that attach his bags to the donkey, and the bags of vessels fall on their own.
(153a:11)מתני׳ מי שהחשיך בדרך נותן כיסו לנכרי ואם אין עמו נכרי מניחו על החמור הגיע לחצר החיצונה נוטל את הכלים הניטלין בשבת ושאינן ניטלין בשבת מתיר החבלים והשקין נופלין מאיליהם:
(153a:12)GEMARA: We learned in the mishna: One who was traveling on Shabbat eve and night fell, and Shabbat began while he was still en route, gives his money pouch to a gentile. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the Sages permitted him to give his pouch to a gentile? Is it not prohibited for a Jew to ask a gentile to perform a prohibited labor on Shabbat? The Gemara answers: The Sages maintain that a person does not restrain himself when faced with losing his money. If you do not permit him to give his pouch to a gentile, he will come to carry four cubits in a public domain, thereby violating a Torah prohibition.
(153a:12)גמ׳ מאי טעמא שרו ליה רבנן למיתב כיסיה לנכרי קים להו לרבנן דאין אדם מעמיד עצמו על ממונו אי לא שרית ליה אתי לאיתויי ד' אמות ברה"ר
(153a:13)Rava said: This allowance to give the pouch to a gentile is specifically with regard to his own pouch, but in the case of a lost object that he found, no, it was not permitted. The Gemara asks: That is obvious, as we learned in the mishna: His pouch, and nothing else. The Gemara answers: Rava specified this lest you say that the same is true even with regard to a lost object, that one may give it to a gentile on Shabbat, and the mishna taught the case of his pouch merely because it is the manner in which the matter typically occurs. Therefore, Rava teaches us that the mishna is in fact establishing a halakha restricted to his pouch. The Gemara comments: And we only said that this allowance does not apply to a lost object when it did not come into his possession before Shabbat. However, if the object already came into his possession before Shabbat, its legal status is like that of his pouch.
(153a:13)אמר רבא דוקא כיסו אבל מציאה לא פשיטא כיסו תנן מהו דתימא הוא הדין אפילו מציאה והאי דקתני כיסו אורחא דמילתא קתני קמ"ל ולא אמרן אלא דלא אתי לידיה אבל אתי לידיה ככיסיה דמי
(153a:14)Some state this dilemma in a different manner. Rava raised a dilemma: With regard to a lost object that came into his possession before Shabbat, what is the ruling? Is the halakha that since it already came into his possession, its legal status is like that of his pouch? Or perhaps, since he did not exert himself to acquire it, its legal status is not like that of his pouch. Since he expended no effort, he would be capable of restraining himself even when faced with losing it. Therefore, there is no need for the Sages to permit him to give it to a gentile. The Gemara concludes: Let this dilemma stand unresolved.
(153a:14)איכא דאמרי בעי רבא מציאה הבאה לידו מהו כיון דאתא לידיה ככיסיה דמי או דילמא כיון דלא טרח בה לאו ככיסיה דמי תיקו:
(153a:15)We learned in the mishna: And if there is no gentile with him he places it on the donkey. The Gemara infers: The reason is specifically because there is no gentile with him; if there is a gentile with him, he gives it to the gentile and does not place it on a donkey. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this halakha? The Gemara answers: With regard to a donkey belonging to a Jew, you are commanded with regard to its rest on Shabbat. With regard to a gentile, you are not commanded with regard to his rest and no Torah prohibition is being violated.
(153a:15)אין עמו נכרי: טעמא דאין עמו נכרי הא יש עמו נכרי לנכרי יהיב ליה מאי טעמא חמור אתה מצווה על שביתתו נכרי אי אתה מצווה על שביתתו
(153a:16)The Gemara teaches an additional halakha: If there was no gentile with him but there was a donkey, a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor, meaning someone under thirteen years old, one places it on the donkey, but one neither gives it to the deaf-mute, nor the imbecile, nor the minor. What is the reason for this? Although they are not obligated to fulfill mitzvot, these are people, but this donkey is not a person. It is preferable to place it on the donkey rather than give it to a person. And if a deaf-mute and an imbecile were with him, he gives it to the imbecile. If an imbecile and a minor were with him, he gives it to the imbecile.
(153a:16)חמור וחרש שוטה וקטן אחמור מנח ליה לחרש שוטה וקטן לא יהיב ליה מ"ט הני אדם האי לאו אדם חרש ושוטה לשוטה שוטה וקטן לשוטה
(153a:17)A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If a deaf-mute and a minor were with him, what is the ruling? To whom does he give his pouch? The Gemara answers: According to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer you have no dilemma. Rabbi Eliezer holds that a deaf-mute has a greater degree of halakhic intelligence than does a minor, as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yitzḥak says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: The teruma of a deaf-mute that he separated from his produce
(153a:17)איבעיא להו חרש וקטן מאי אליבא דר"א לא תיבעי לך דתניא ר' יצחק אומר משום ר' אליעזר תרומת חרש
(153b:1)does not vacate its sanctified status and assume non-sacred status because his status with regard to halakhic intelligence is uncertain. According to Rabbi Eliezer, a deaf-mute apparently has a degree of halakhic intelligence, and therefore has a greater obligation in mitzvot than a minor.
(153b:1)לא תצא לחולין מפני שהוא ספק
(153b:2)When you raise this dilemma, the issue is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, as we learned in a mishna: There are five categories of people who may not separate teruma ab initio, and if they separated teruma, their teruma is not considered teruma. They are: A deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor, and one who separates teruma from produce that is not his; and a gentile who separated teruma from the produce of a Jew, even with his permission, his teruma is not considered teruma because a gentile cannot be appointed as an agent to separate teruma, and all the more so he cannot separate teruma on his own. The deaf-mute and the minor have the same legal status according to the Rabbis; therefore, a dilemma arises as to which of them should receive the pouch on Shabbat.
(153b:2)כי תיבעי לך אליבא דרבנן דתנן חמשה לא יתרומו ואם תרמו אין תרומתן תרומה אלו הן חרש שוטה וקטן והתורם את שאינו שלו ונכרי שתרם את של ישראל אפילו ברשותו אין תרומתו תרומה
(153b:3)What should one do? Should he give it to the deaf-mute because the minor will eventually reach the stage of halakhic intelligence, when he will be obligated to observe the mitzvot, and it is preferable that he not become accustomed to desecrating Shabbat? Or perhaps he should give it to the minor, because if he is allowed to give it to the deaf-mute, onlookers will mistake him for an adult with halakhic intelligence and conclude that it is permitted to give his pouch to an adult? In that case it would be preferable to give the pouch to a minor, as it is clear that he is not obligated in mitzvot. Regarding this halakha, some say that he gives it to the deaf-mute and some say that he gives it to the minor, and no definitive conclusion was reached.
(153b:4)The Gemara asks: If there is neither a gentile nor a donkey nor a deaf-mute nor an imbecile nor a minor there, what should one do? Rabbi Yitzḥak said: There was another manner of dealing with this situation, and the Sages did not want to reveal it. The Gemara asks: To what was Rabbi Yitzḥak referring when he said: There was another manner? The Gemara answers: The alternative is to move the pouch in increments, each less than four cubits, and thereby carry the object in the public domain without violating a Torah prohibition. The Gemara asks: Why didn’t the Sages want to reveal this alternative? The Gemara answers that it is due to the verse: “It is the glory of God to conceal a thing; but the glory of kings is to search out a matter” (Proverbs 25:2). And here, what glory of God is there in concealing this option? The Gemara answers: If one were to move the pouch in this manner, there is concern lest he come to carry the object four cubits in the public domain.
(153b:4)אין שם לא נכרי ולא חמור ולא חרש ולא שוטה ולא קטן מאי אמר רבי יצחק עוד אחרת היתה ולא רצו חכמים לגלותה מאי עוד אחרת היתה מוליכו פחות פחות מד' אמות אמאי לא רצו חכמים לגלותה משום (משלי כה, ב) כבוד אלהים הסתר דבר וכבוד מלכים חקור דבר והכא מאי כבוד אלהים איכא דילמא אתי לאתויי ד' אמות ברה"ר
(153b:5)The ruling that one should give his pouch to a gentile rather than carry in increments each less than four cubits was among the eighteen decrees issued in accordance with the position of Beit Shammai, enumerated in the first chapter of tractate Shabbat. Sages of later generations disagreed with regard to these eighteen decrees: It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: On that day they measured with a large se’a measurement, i.e., they did well to issue these decrees, which construct a fence around the Torah to prevent its violation. Rabbi Yehoshua said: On that very day they measured with a minimal se’a, i.e., because these decrees are difficult to observe, they not only will lead people to violate the decrees, but to violate Torah prohibitions as well.
(153b:5)תניא ר"א אומר בו ביום גדשו סאה ר' יהושע אומר בו ביום מחקו סאה
(153b:6)It was taught in another baraita: The Sages articulated a parable to illustrate the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. To what is this matter similar? It is similar to a basket full of squash and gourds into which a person places mustard seeds. Just as the basket also holds the mustard, the decree will also endure. They also articulated a parable to illustrate the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua: To what is this matter similar? It is similar to a large bowl full of honey into which one places pomegranates and walnuts. Just as the bowl expels the honey from inside it, so too, the decree will cause Torah prohibitions to be violated.
(153b:6)תניא משל דר"א למה הדבר דומה לקופה מלאה קישואין ודילועין אדם נותן לתוכה חרדל והיא מחזקת משל דר' יהושע למה הדבר דומה לעריבה מלאה דבש נותן לתוכה רימונים ואגוזים והיא מקיאה
(153b:7)We learned in the mishna that the Master said: When there is no gentile with him, one places the pouch on the donkey. The Gemara asks: Isn’t he thereby driving a laden animal? And the Torah stated: “And the seventh day is Shabbat for the Lord your God, you shall not perform any manner of labor, neither you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your slave, nor your maidservant, nor your animal, nor your stranger that is within your gates” (Exodus 20:10). He is causing the prohibited labors of carrying from domain to domain and of carrying in the public domain by placing the pouch on his donkey on Shabbat.
(153b:7)אמר מר אין עמו נכרי מניחו על החמור והלא מחמר ורחמנא אמר (שמות כ, ט) לא תעשה כל מלאכה
(153b:8)Rav Adda bar Ahava said: One places the pouch on the donkey as it is walking, because in doing so he does not commit a full-fledged violation of the Torah prohibition against carrying out from domain to domain on Shabbat. A full-fledged violation consists of lifting and placing the object. Because the animal was already walking when the pouch was placed on it, the animal performed no lifting. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it impossible that the animal will not stand in its place at some point after it begins walking, either in order to urinate or to defecate, and when it begins walking again there is both an act of lifting and an act of placing performed by the donkey. The Gemara answers: There is a solution to that problem. When the donkey is walking, one places the pouch on it, and when it stands, he removes it. The Gemara asks: If so, one could even place the pouch on another Jew as well, as there would be neither lifting nor placing.
(153b:8)א"ר אדא בר אהבה מניחו עליה כשהיא מהלכת והא אי אפשר דלא קיימא להשתין מים ולהטיל גללים ואיכא עקירה והנחה כשהיא מהלכת מניחו עליה כשהיא עומדת נוטלו הימנה אי הכי אפילו חברו נמי
(153b:9)Rav Pappa said: Any action that if one performs it by himself, he is liable to bring a sin-offering for it, if he performed it by means of another, he is exempt but it is still prohibited for him to do so. And any action that if performed by means of another, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering but it is still prohibited for him to do so, performing the action by means of his donkey is permitted ab initio.
(153b:9)אמר רב פפא כל שבגופו חייב חטאת בחברו פטור אבל אסור כל שחברו פטור אבל אסור בחמורו מותר לכתחלה
(153b:10)Rav Adda bar Ahava said: One who was traveling on Shabbat eve and his package was resting on his shoulder as night fell, he runs beneath it, i.e., with his package on his shoulder, until he reaches his home. The Gemara infers: Specifically, one runs until he reaches home; however, walking a little bit at a time, no, he may not do so.
(153b:10)א"ר אדא בר אהבה היתה חבילתו מונחת לו על כתיפו רץ תחתיה עד שמגיע לביתו דוקא רץ אבל קלי קלי לא
(153b:11)The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? Since, when walking in the usual manner, he has no conspicuous reminder that it is Shabbat, there is concern lest he come to perform the acts of lifting and placing by stopping to rest on his way home. The Gemara asks: Ultimately, when he reaches his home, it is impossible that he will not stop and stand a bit, and at that point, he will have performed the prohibited labor of carrying the package from the public domain into the private domain of his house. The Gemara answers: This is referring to a case in which he does not place the package in the typical manner when he reaches his home. Rather, he throws it down in an unusual manner. Since he did not perform the action in the typical manner, it is not prohibited by Torah law.
(153b:11)מאי טעמא כיון דלית ליה היכירא אתי למיעבד עקירה והנחה סוף סוף כי מטא לביתיה אי אפשר דלא קאי פורתא וקמעייל מרשות הרבים לרה"י דזריק ליה כלאחר יד
(153b:12)With regard to the topic of driving a donkey on Shabbat, the Gemara cites that which Rami bar Ḥama said: With regard to one who drives his laden animal on Shabbat, if he does so unwittingly, he is liable to bring a sin-offering, and if he does so intentionally, he is liable to be executed by stoning. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this ruling? Rava said that the verse states: “You shall not perform any manner of labor, neither you…nor your animal” (Exodus 20:10). From this he derived: His animal is similar to himself; just as he, if he performed a prohibited labor on Shabbat unwittingly, he is liable to bring a sin-offering, and if he did so intentionally, he is liable to be executed by stoning, so too, if he performed a prohibited labor by means of his animal, if he did so unwittingly, he is liable to bring a sin-offering, and if he did so intentionally, he is liable to be executed by stoning.
(153b:12)אמר רמי בר חמא המחמר אחר בהמתו בשבת בשוגג חייב חטאת במזיד חייב סקילה מאי טעמא אמר רבא דאמר קרא לא תעשה כל מלאכה אתה ובהמתך בהמתו דומיא דידיה מה הוא בשוגג חייב חטאת במזיד חייב סקילה אף בהמתו נמי בשוגג חייב חטאת במזיד חייב סקילה
(153b:13)Rava said: There are two possible responses with which this statement can be rejected. One is, as it is written: “You shall have one law [Torah] for him that does unwittingly…and for the proselyte who resides among them. But the soul that does with a high hand, whether he be home-born or a stranger, he blasphemes the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people” (Numbers 15:29–30). This verse is referring to one who worships idolatry unwittingly. The entire Torah is juxtaposed to idolatry, and from that juxtaposition it is derived: Just as in the case of idolatry one is liable only when he performs an action with his body, i.e., himself, here too, in the case of Shabbat, he is liable only if he performs an action with his body, i.e., himself. He is not liable for an action performed by his animal.
(153b:13)אמר רבא שתי תשובות בדבר חדא דכתיב (במדבר טו, כט) תורה אחת יהיה לכם לעושה בשגגה והנפש אשר תעשה ביד רמה הוקשה כל התורה כולה לע"ז מה ע"ז דעביד מעשה בגופיה ה"נ עד דעביד מעשה בגופיה
(153b:14)And furthermore, with regard to the statement that if he drove the laden donkey he is liable to be executed by stoning, we learned in a mishna that enumerates those who are executed by stoning: One who desecrates Shabbat by performing a matter that for its unwitting performance one is liable to bring a sin-offering, and for its intentional performance one is liable to be executed by stoning. By inference, there is another matter, another prohibition, that for which its unwitting performance one is not liable to bring a sin-offering, and for which its intentional performance one is not liable to be executed by stoning.
(153b:14)ועוד תנן המחלל את השבת בדבר שחייבין על שגגתו חטאת ועל זדונו סקילה מכלל דאיכא מידי דאין חייבין על שגגתו חטאת ולא על זדונו סקילה
(153b:15)And what is that Torah prohibition? Is it not the prohibition of driving a laden animal? Apparently, driving a laden animal and other labors performed by means of animals on Shabbat are not punishable by stoning, even though they are prohibited by Torah law. The Gemara rejects this second proof. No, this is not necessarily so. It is possible that the mishna is referring to the prohibition of Shabbat limits, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who holds that it is a Torah prohibition but that one is neither liable to bring a sin-offering for violating it unwittingly, nor is he liable to be executed by stoning for violating it intentionally. And likewise, it may refer to the prohibition of kindling a fire on Shabbat in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who holds that it is not punishable by stoning but by lashes, like other prohibitions.
(153b:15)ומאי ניהו לאו דמחמר לא תחומין ואליבא דר"ע והבערה אליבא דר' יוסי
