(א) מי שמתו מוטל לפניו פטור מקריאת שמע מן התפלה ומן התפלין. נושאי המטה וחלופיהן וחלופי חלופיהן, את שלפני המטה ואת שלאחר המטה: את שלמטה צרך בהן פטורים, ואת שאין למטה צרך בהן חיבין.אלו ואלו פטורין מן התפלה.
(ב) קברו את המת וחזרו: אם יכולין להתחיל ולגמור עד שלא יגיעו לשורה, יתחילו. ואם לאו לא יתחילו. העומדים בשורה, הפנימים פטורים והחיצונים חיבין.
(1) One whose dead lies before him, he is exempt from reciting the Shema, from saying Shemoneh Esrei and from wearing tefillin. The pall bearers and their replacements and the replacements of the replacements, regardless of whether they are in the front or in the back of the casket: those that are needed to carry the casket are exempt, and those that are not needed to carry the casket are obligated [to recite Shema]. These and those are exempt from reciting Shemoneh Esrei.
(2) When they have buried the dead and returned: If they are able to start and to finish before they reach the [place where they stand in a] line, they should start. If not, they should not start. As for those standing in a row, the ones standing on the inside are exempt and the ones standing on the outside are obligated.
העומדים בשורה וכו': ת"ר שורה הרואה פנימה פטורה ושאינה רואה פנימה חייבת רבי יהודה אומר הבאים מחמת האבל פטורין מחמת עצמן חייבין: אמר רב יהודה אמר רב המוצא כלאים בבגדו פושטן אפי' בשוק מ"ט (משלי כא, ל) אין חכמה ואין תבונה ואין עצה לנגד ה' כ"מ שיש חלול השם אין חולקין כבוד לרב מתיבי קברו את המת וחזרו ולפניהם ב' דרכים אחת טהורה ואחת טמאה בא בטהורה באין עמו בטהורה בא בטמאה באין עמו בטמאה משום כבודו אמאי לימא אין חכמה ואין תבונה לנגד ה' תרגמה רבי אבא בבית הפרס דרבנן דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מנפח אדם בית הפרס והולך ואמר רב יהודה בר אשי משמיה דרב בית הפרס שנדש טהור ת"ש דאמר ר' אלעזר בר צדוק מדלגין היינו על גבי ארונות של מתים לקראת מלכי ישראל ולא לקראת מלכי ישראל בלבד אמרו אלא אפי' לקראת מלכי עכו"ם שאם יזכה יבחין בין מלכי ישראל למלכי עכו"ם אמאי לימא אין חכמה ואין תבונה ואין עצה לנגד ה' כדרבא דאמר רבא דבר תורה אהל כל שיש בו חלל טפח חוצץ בפני הטומאה ושאין בו חלל טפח אינו חוצץ בפני הטומאה ורוב ארונות יש בהן חלל טפח וגזרו על שיש בהן משום שאין בהן ומשום כבוד מלכים לא גזרו בהו רבנן ת"ש גדול כבוד הבריות שדוחה [את] לא תעשה שבתורה ואמאי לימא אין חכמה ואין תבונה ואין עצה לנגד ה' תרגמה רב בר שבא קמיה דרב כהנא בלאו (דברים יז, יא) דלא תסור אחיכו עליה לאו דלא תסור דאורייתא היא אמר רב כהנא גברא רבה אמר מילתא לא תחיכו עליה כל מילי דרבנן אסמכינהו על לאו דלא תסור ומשום כבודו שרו רבנן ת"ש (דברים כב, א) והתעלמת מהם פעמים שאתה מתעלם מהם ופעמים שאין אתה מתעלם מהם הא כיצד אם היה כהן והיא בבית הקברות או היה זקן ואינה לפי כבודו או שהיתה מלאכתו מרובה משל חברו לכך נאמר והתעלמת אמאי לימא אין חכמה ואין תבונה ואין עצה לנגד ה' שאני התם דכתיב והתעלמת מהם וליגמר מינה איסורא מממונא לא ילפינן ת"ש (במדבר ו, ז) ולאחותו מה תלמוד לומר הרי שהיה הולך לשחוט את פסחו ולמול את בנו ושמע שמת לו מת יכול יחזור ויטמא אמרת לא יטמא יכול כשם שאינו מטמא להם כך אינו מטמא למת מצוה ת"ל ולאחותו לאחותו הוא דאינו מטמא
As for those who stand in the row, etc. Our Rabbis have taught : The row which looks upon the inner space is exempt [from reading the Shema']; but the row which does not look upon the inner space is under the obligation. R. Judah says : Those who come out of regard for the mourner are exempt ; but those who come on their own account are under the obligation. Rab Judah said in the name of Rab : Who finds diverse kinds in his garment must divest himself thereof even in the street. What is the reason ? [As it is said,] "There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the Lord" (Prov. xxi. 30) — i.e. wherever the Divine Name is liable to be profaned, we pay no respect to a teacher. Against this teaching is quoted : Having buried the dead, and on returning there are two paths before them one clean, the other unclean, if [the mourner] enters the clean path, they follow him there, and if he enters the unclean path, they follow him there out of respect for him! Why should this be so? Let one say, "There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the Lord"! R. Abba explained that it speaks here of a Bet Peras which is declared unclean by the Rabbis. For Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel : One may blow upon a Bet Peras [to see whether there are any bones ; and if there are none] he may walk on it. And Rab Judah b. Ashe said in the name of Rab : A Bet Peras which has been much trodden under foot is to be regarded as clean. Come and hear : R. Eleazar b. Sadok said : We used to leap upon the coffins of the dead to meet the kings of Israel, and not only to meet kings of Israel do they so permit, but even to meet the kings of other nations ; for if he be worthy, he will discern between the kings of Israel and the kings of other nations. Why should this be so? Let one say, "There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the Lord" ! It is in accord with the opinion of Raba, who said : According to the teaching of the Torah, "a tent" — i.e. anything which contains a hollow space at least a handbreadth in extent — forms a partition against uncleanness, but if it does not contain a hollow space at least a handbreadth in extent it does not form such a partition ; and most coffins have a hollow space a handbreadth in extent. But the Rabbis decreed that even those which have this hollow space [should defile] because of those which have it not ; but for the purpose of paying honour to royalty, the Rabbis do not enforce this decree. Come and hear : Great is the duty of honouring one's fellow-creatures, since it sets aside a prohibition enjoined by the Torah. Why should this be so? Let one say, "There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the Lord" ! Rab b. Shaba explained it in the presence of Rab Kahana as referring to the prohibition, "Thou shalt not turn aside from the sentence which they shall declare unto thee" (Deut. xvii. 11). They laughed at him, for is not the prohibition, "Thou shalt not turn aside" enjoined by the Torah! Rab Kahana said to them : A great man having expressed an opinion, you should not laugh at him. We base the authority for all the dicta of the Rabbis upon the prohibition, "Thou shalt not turn aside" ; but for the duty of honouring a fellow-creature the Rabbis give permission. Come and hear: [It is written :] "And hide thyself from them" (ibid. xxii. 1); i.e. there are times when thou mayest hide thyself from them, and times when thou must not hide thyself from them. How can this be? If he was a Kohen and [the straying animal] was in a cemetery ; or he was an Elder and it was derogatory to his dignity [to be seen leading the animal back] ; or his work was more important than his neighbour's — therefore it is said, "And hide thyself." Why should this be so ? Let one say, "There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the Lord"! It is different here ; for it is written, "And hide thyself from them." May one, then, conclude from this? We cannot draw an inference about a prohibition from a case involving only financial loss. Come and hear: [It is written,] "Or for his sister" (Num. vi. 7). What has this teaching to tell us ? Supposing he were on his way to sacrifice the Paschal lamb or circumcise his son, and he heard that one of his relatives had died, it is possible [to think] that he should turn back and render himself unclean ; say, then, he shall not make himself unclean. It is possible [to think] that in the same way that [under these conditions] he may not make himself unclean for his relatives, he may not make himself unclean for a Met Miswah, therefore there is a teaching to tell us "or for his sister" ; i.e. "for his sister" he may not render himself unclean,
but for a Met Miswah he must defile himself. Why should this be so? Let one say, "There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the Lord"! It is different here; because it is written "for his sister." May one, then, conclude from this ? Sit and do nothing is different. Rab Pappa asked Abbai : How were our predecessors different from us that miracles occurred for them but not for us? Is it a question of learning ? In the time of Rab Judah, their whole study was limited to the Order "Damages," whereas we study the six Orders; and when Rab Judah reached the paragraph in Mishnah 'Uksin : "If a woman presses vegetables in a pot" (some declare it was the paragraph : "Olives which are pressed with their leaves are clean"), he said, "We see here the conflicts of Rab and Samuel," whereas we study 'Uksin in thirteen lessons ! Yet, with respect to Rab Judah, when he took off one of his shoes, the rain descended ; but we afflict our souls and cry aloud and there is none that takes notice of us ! He replied : Our predecessors jeopardised their lives for the sanctification of the Name, but we do not. As it once happened with Rab Adda b. Ahabah who noticed a heathen woman wearing a karbalta in the street; thinking that she was an Israelite, he went up to her and tore it from off her. It was then discovered that she was a heathen, and they fined him four hundred Zuzim. He said to her, "What is thy name ?" She replied, "Matun." He said, "Matun, Matun, is worth four hundred Zuzim." Rav Giddel had the habit of going and sitting at the gate of the baths, saying [to the women as they entered], "Bathe thus and thus." The Rabbis said to him, "Is not the master afraid of [the promptings of] the evil impulse ?" He replied, "They are in my eyes like white geese." R. Johanan had the habit of going and sitting at the gates of the baths, saying, "When the daughters of Israel leave, let them gaze upon me, and they will have children as beautiful as I." The Rabbis said to him, "Art thou not afraid of the Evil Eye?" He answered, "I am come from the seed of Joseph against whom the Evil Eye had no power ; for it is written, 'Joseph is a fruitful vine, a fruitful vine by a fountain' (Gen. xlix. 22) ; and R. Abbahu said: Read not 'ale 'ayin 'by a fountain' but 'ole 'ayin 'overcoming the [Evil] Eye'." R. Jose b. Hannina said : From the following passage [did R. Johanan derive his reason] : "And let them grow [weyidgu] into a multitude in the midst of the earth" (ibid. xlviii. 16) ; i.e. as the fishes [dagim] in the sea are covered by the water and the Evil Eye has no power over them, in similar manner the Evil Eye has no power over the seed of Joseph. Or if thou wilt, say that the eye which desired not to partake of what did not belong to it cannot be influenced by the Evil Eye.
A CORPSE IN A BED, HE IS CULPABLE. AND LIKEWISE [IF ONE CARRIES OUT] THE SIZE OF AN OLIVE OR A CORPSE, etc. Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name, and R. Joseph said in the name of Resh Lakish: R. Shimon declared exempt
even him who carries out a corpse for burial. Raba observed: Yet R. Simeon admits in the case of [one who carries out] a spade for digging therewith or the Scroll of the Torah to read it, that he is culpable. That is obvious, for if this too should be regarded as a labour unrequired per se, how would a labour necessary per se be conceivably according to R. Simeon? — You might say, it must be [carried out] both for his requirements and for its own purpose, e.g., a spade in order to make it into a [metal] plate and for digging, a Scroll of the Law for correcting and reading: [therefore] he informs us [that it is not so].
A dead body was lying in Darukra, which R. Nahman b. Isaac allowed to be carried out into a karmelith. Said R. Nahman the brother of Mar son of Rabbana to R. Nahman b. Isaac: On whose authority? R. Simeon's! But Perhaps R. Simeon merely exempts [such] from liability to a sin-offering, yet there is a Rabbinical interdict. By God! said he to him, you yourself may bring it in. For [this is permitted] even according to R. Judah: did I then say [that it may be carried out] into the street? I [merely] said, into a karmelit: the dignity of human beings is a great thing, for it supersedes [even] a negative injunction of the Torah.
MISHNAH. [IF ONE CARRIES OUT] BONE, [THE STANDARD IS AS MUCH AS IS REQUIRED FOR MAKING A SPOON; R. JUDAH MAINTAINED: FOR MAKING THEREOF A HAF; GLASS, LARGE ENOUGH FOR SCRAPING THE TOP OF THE WHORL [OF A SPINDLE]; A CHIP OR A STONE, LARGE ENOUGH TO THROW AT A BIRD; R. ELEAZAR B. JACOB SAID: LARGE ENOUGH TO THROW AT AN ANIMAL.
...A CHIP, OR A STONE, LARGE ENOUGH TO THROW AT A BIRD: R. ELEAZAR [etc.]. R. Jacob said in R. Johanan's name: Providing that it can feel it. And what size is that? It was taught, R. Eleazar b. Jacob said: Ten zuz in weight. Zonin entered the Beth Hamidrash [and] said to them [the students]: My masters, what is the standard of the stones of a privy? Said they to him: [One] the size of an olive, [a second] the size of a nut, and [a third] the size of an egg. Shall one take [them] in a [gold] balance! he objected. [Thereupon] they voted and decided: A handful. It was taught; R. Jose said: [One] the size of an olive, [another] the size of a nut, and [a third] the size of an egg: R. Simeon b. Jose said on his father's authority: A handful.
Our Rabbis taught: One may carry three smoothly rounded stones into a privy. And what is their size? R. Meir said: As [large as] a nut; R. Judah maintained: As [large as] an egg. Rafram b. Papa observed in R. Hisda's name: Even as they differ here, so do they differ in respect to an etrog. But there it is a Mishnah, whereas here it is [only] a Baraita? Rather [say:] Just as they differ in respect to an etrog, so do they differ here. Rab Judah said: But not brittle stone [payas]. What is payas? — Said R. Zera: Babylonian pebbles. Raba said: One may not use a chip on the Sabbath [as a suppository] in the same way as one uses it on weekdays. Mar Zutra demurred: Shall one then endanger [his health]? — [It may be done] in a back-handed manner. R. Jannai said: If there is a fixed place for the privy, [one may carry in] a handful [of stones]; if not, [only] the size of the leg of a small spice mortar [is permitted]. R. Shesheth said: If there is evidence upon it, it is permitted. An objection is raised: Ten things lead to hemorrhoids in a man, and these are they: [i] eating the leaves of reeds; [ii] the leaves of vines; [iii] sprouts of grapevine; [iv] the rough flesh of an animal without salt; [v] the spine of a fish; [vi] a salted fish insufficiently cooked; [vii] drinking the lees of wine; [viii] wiping oneself with lime, [ix] with clay. [x] [and] with a chip which one's neighbor has [already] used thus. And some say, Suspending oneself in a privy too. — There is no difficulty; the one refers to a damp [stone]; the other to a dry one. Alternatively, here the reference is to the same side [of the stone]; there, to the other side. Another alternative: the one refers to his own; the other, to his neighbor's. Abaye asked R. Joseph: What if rain fell on it and it [the stain] was washed away? If the mark thereof is perceptible, he replied, it is permitted. Rabbah son of R. Shila asked R. Hisda:
Is it permissible to carry them up [the stones] after one to the roof? Human dignity is very important, he replied, and it supersedes a negative injunction of the Torah. Now, Meremar sat and reported this discussion, [whereupon] Rabina raised an objection to Meremar: R. Eliezer said: One may take a chip [lying] before him to pick his teeth therewith; but the Sages maintain: He may take only from an animal's trough? How compare! There, one appoints a place for his meal; but here, does one appoint a place for a privy?
רבי ישמעאל אומר ארבעתן ארבע מצות: אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כרבי ישמעאל ולית הלכתא כותיה
רבינא הוה קא אזיל אבתריה דמר בר רב אשי בשבתא דריגלא איפסיק קרנא דחוטיה ולא אמר ליה ולא מידי כד מטא לביתיה אמר ליה מהתם איפסיק א"ל אי אמרת לי מהתם שדיתיה והא אמר מר גדול כבוד הבריות שדוחה את לא תעשה שבתורה תרגומה רב בר שבא קמיה דרב כהנא
R. ISHMAEL SAYS, THE FOUR [fringes] ARE FOUR SEPARATE PRECEPTS. Rab Judah said in Samuel's name that the halachah agrees with R. Ishmael. The halachah, however, is not in accordance with him. Rabina was once walking behind Mar son of R. Ashi [in the street] on one of the Sabbaths preceding the Festival, when suddenly a corner of [Mar's] garment with its fringe had torn away, but Rabina told him nothing about it. When he came home and Rabina told him that it had torn away there [in the street], he said, ‘Had you told me of it I should then and there have cast it off’. But has not a Master said, Great is the dignity of man since it overrides a negative precept of the Torah? — Rab b. Shabba explained it before R. Kahana
בלאו (דברים יז, יא) דלא תסור ואיכא דאמרי מהתם א"ל וא"ל מאי דעתיך למישדייה והאמר מר גדול כבוד הבריות שדוחה את לא תעשה שבתורה והא תרגומה רב בר שבא קמיה דרב כהנא בלאו דלא תסור הכא נמי כרמלית דרבנן היא:
as referring to the prohibition, Thou shalt not turn aside.1 Another version states that [Rabina] told him of it there [in the street]; whereupon [Mar] said to him, ‘Do you think that I am going to cast it off here? Has not a Master said, Great is the dignity of man since it overrides a negative precept of the Torah?’ ‘But has not Rab b. Shabba explained it before R. Kahana as referring to the prohibition, Thou shalt not turn aside?’ ‘Here also it is only a karmelit, so that the prohibition is only Rabbinic.
MISHNAH. HE WHOM GENTILES,10 OR AN EVIL SPIRIT, HAVE TAKEN OUT [BEYOND THE PERMITTED SABBATH LIMIT] HAS NO MORE THAN FOUR CUBITS [IN WHICH TO MOVE]. IF HE WAS BROUGHT BACK [HE IS REGARDED] AS IF HE HAD NEVER GONE OUT. IF HE WAS TAKEN TO ANOTHER TOWN, OR IF HE WAS PUT IN A CATTLE-PEN OR IN A CATTLE-FOLD, HE MAY, RULED R. GAMALIEL AND R. ELEAZAR B. AZARIAH, MOVE THROUGH THE WHOLE OF ITS AREA; BUT R. JOSHUA AND R. AKIBA RULED: HE HAS ONLY FOUR CUBITS [IN WHICH TO MOVE]. IT ONCE HAPPENED THAT THEY18 WERE COMING FROM BRINDISI AND WHILE THEIR SHIP WAS SAILING ON THE SEA, R. GAMALIEL AND R. ELEAZAR. B.
AZARIAH WALKED ABOUT THROUGHOUT ITS AREA, BUT R. JOSHUA AND R. AKIBA DID NOT MOVE BEYOND FOUR CUBITS BECAUSE THEY DESIRED TO IMPOSE A RESTRICTION UPON THEMSELVES. ONCE [ON A SABBATH EVE] THEY DID NOT ENTER THE HARBOR UNTIL DUSK. ‘MAY WE DISEMBARK?’ THEY ASKED R. GAMALIEL. YOU MAY’, HE TOLD THEM, ‘FOR I HAVE CAREFULLY OBSERVED [THE DISTANCE FROM THE SHORE AND HAVE ASCERTAINED] THAT BEFORE DUSK WE WERE ALREADY WITHIN THE SABBATH LIMIT’.
GEMARA. Our Rabbis learned: Three things deprive a man of his senses and of a knowledge of his creator: idolaters, an evil spirit and oppressive poverty. In what respect could this matter? — In respect of invoking heavenly mercy to be delivered from them. Three kinds of person do not see the face of Gehenna: [one who suffers from] oppressive poverty, one who is afflicted with bowel diseases, and [one who is in the hands of] the [Roman] government; and some say: Also he who has a bad wife. And the other? — It is a duty to divorce a bad wife. And the other? — It may sometimes happen that her ketubah amounts to a large sum, or else, that he has children from her and is, therefore, unable to divorce her. In what practical respect does this matter? — In respect of receiving [these afflictions] lovingly. Three [classes of person] die even while they are conversing: one who suffers from bowel diseases, a woman in confinement, and one afflicted with dropsy. In what respect can this information matter? — In that of making arrangements for their shrouds to be ready. R. Nahman stated in the name of Samuel: If a man went out deliberately [beyond his Sabbath
limit] he has only four cubits [in which to move]. Is not this obvious? If one whom gentiles have taken out has only four cubits [in which to move], is there any necessity [to mention that one who] went out deliberately [is subject to the same restriction]? — Rather read: If he returned deliberately he has only four cubits [in which to move]. Have we not, however, learnt this also: ‘IF HE WAS BROUGHT BACK by gentiles [‘HE IS REGARDED] AS IF HE HAD NEVER GONE OUT’; [from which it follows] that only if he was brought back he [is regarded] as if he had never gone out, but that if gentiles took him out and he returned of his own accord he has only four cubits? — Rather, read: If he went out of his own free will and was brought back by gentiles he has only four cubits [in which to move]. But have we not learnt this also: WHOM . . . HAVE TAKEN OUT and HE WAS BROUGHT BACK [HE IS REGARDED] AS IF HE HAD NEVER GONE OUT, [from which it is evident] that only he whom gentiles have taken out and also brought back [is regarded] as if he had never gone out, but that a man who went out of his own free will is not [so regarded]? — It might have been assumed that our Mishnah deals with two disconnected instances: [i] HE WHOM THE GENTILES . . . HAVE TAKEN OUT and he has returned on his own HAS NO MORE THAN FOUR CUBITS; but [ii] if he went out on his own and WAS BROUGHT BACK by gentiles [HE IS REGARDED] AS IF HE HAD NEVER GONE OUT. Hence we were informed [that the second clause is the conclusion of the first]. An enquiry was addressed to Rabbah: What is the ruling where a man had to attend to his needs? — Human dignity, he replied, is so important
that it supersedes a negative precept of the Torah. The Nehardeans remarked: If he is intelligent he enters into his original Sabbath limit and, once he has entered it, he may remain there.