ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafShabbos 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
(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
*****Hadran Alach 'Sho'el'*****
(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.
- ... "be'Chol Es Yihyu Begadecha Levanim" - can also refer to the Mitzvah of Tzitzis, and ...
- ... "ve'Shemen al Roshcha Al Yechsar" - to Tefilin.
*****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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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).