Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

January 22, 2020 | 讻状讛 讘讟讘转 转砖状驻

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Berakhot 19

The court excommunicates those who mock the rabbis or don’t listen to the words of the rabbis. According to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, this is found 24 times in the mishna. The gemara tries to figure out where are these 24 occurences. the gemara delves into the issues regarding the exemptions of those attending the burial and making up the rows for the mourners. In what situations are the exempt or not exempt? Does human dignity override Torah or rabbinic law?

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚诇讗 讬讚注讬 讻讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讚讬讚注讬 诇诪讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗讞讝讜拽讬 诇讬讛 讟讬讘讜转讗 诇诪砖讛

And if it should enter your mind that the dead do not know, then what of it if he tells them? The Gemara rejects this: Rather what will you say, that they know? Then why does he need to tell them? The Gemara replies: This is not difficult, as he is telling them so that they will give credit to Moses.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讻诇 讛诪住驻专 讗讞专讬 讛诪转 讻讗诇讜 诪住驻专 讗讞专讬 讛讗讘谉 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讚诇讗 讬讚注讬 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讚讬讚注讬 讜诇讗 讗讬讻驻转 诇讛讜

On this subject, Rabbi Yitz岣k said: Anyone who speaks negatively after the deceased it is as if he speaks after the stone. The Gemara offers two interpretations of this: Some say this is because the dead do not know, and some say that they know, but they do not care that they are spoken of in such a manner.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讞讚 讗讬砖转注讬 诪讬诇转讗 讘转专讬讛 讚诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜谞驻诇 拽谞讬讗 诪讟诇诇讗 讜讘讝注讗 诇讗专谞拽讗 讚诪讜讞讬讛

The Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn鈥檛 Rav Pappa say: There was once someone who spoke disparagingly after the death of Mar Shmuel and a reed fell from the ceiling, fracturing his skull? Obviously, the dead care when people speak ill of them.

砖讗谞讬 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讚拽讜讚砖讗 讘专讬讱 讛讜讗 转讘注 讘讬拽专讬讛

The Gemara rejects this: This is no proof that the dead care. Rather, a Torah scholar is different, as God Himself demands that his honor be upheld.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讻诇 讛诪住驻专 讗讞专 诪讟转谉 砖诇 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 谞讜驻诇 讘讙讬讛谞诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛诪讟讬诐 注拽诇拽诇讜转诐 讬讜诇讬讻诐 讛壮 讗转 驻讜注诇讬 讛讗讜谉 砖诇讜诐 注诇 讬砖专讗诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖注讛 砖砖诇讜诐 注诇 讬砖专讗诇 讬讜诇讬讻诐 讛壮 讗转 驻讜注诇讬 讛讗讜谉

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said similarly: One who speaks disparagingly after the biers of Torah scholars and maligns them after their death will fall in Gehenna, as it is stated: 鈥淏ut those who turn aside unto their crooked ways, the Lord will lead them away with the workers of iniquity; peace be upon Israel鈥 (Psalms 125:5). Even if he speaks ill of them when there is peace upon Israel, after death, when they are no longer able to fight those denouncing them (Tosafot); nevertheless the Lord will lead them away with the workers of iniquity, to Gehenna.

转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诐 专讗讬转 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 砖注讘专 注讘讬专讛 讘诇讬诇讛 讗诇 转讛专讛专 讗讞专讬讜 讘讬讜诐 砖诪讗 注砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 砖诪讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讜讚讗讬 注砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讚讘专讬诐 砖讘讙讜驻讜 讗讘诇 讘诪诪讜谞讗 注讚 讚诪讛讚专 诇诪专讬讛:

On a similar note, it was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: If you saw a Torah scholar transgress a prohibition at night, do not think badly of him during the day; perhaps he has repented in the meantime. The Gemara challenges this: Does it enter your mind that only perhaps he has repented? Shouldn鈥檛 he be given the benefit of the doubt? Rather, he has certainly repented. The Gemara notes: The idea that one must always give a Torah scholar the benefit of the doubt and assume that he has repented refers specifically to matters affecting himself, but, if one witnesses a Torah scholar committing a transgression involving the property of another, one is not required to give him the benefit of the doubt. Rather, he should not assume that he has repented until he sees him return the money to its owner.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讘注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 诪拽讜诪讜转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪谞讚讬谉 注诇 讻讘讜讚 讛专讘 讜讻讜诇谉 砖谞讬谞讜 讘诪砖谞转谞讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讬讻讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讻讬 转砖讻讞

Since matters relating to the respect due Torah scholars were raised, the Gemara continues, citing Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who said: There are twenty-four places in which the court ostracizes over matters of respect due the rabbi, and we learned them all in our Mishna. Rabbi Elazar said to him: Where are those cases to be found? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to him: When you look, you will find them.

谞驻拽 讚拽 讜讗砖讻讞 转诇转 讛诪讝诇讝诇 讘谞讟讬诇转 讬讚讬诐 讜讛诪住驻专 讗讞专 诪讟转谉 砖诇 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讛诪讙讬住 讚注转讜 讻诇驻讬 诪注诇讛

He went out, analyzed, and found three examples: One who demeans the ritual of washing of the hands, one who speaks disparagingly after the bier of Torah scholars, and one who is arrogant vis-脿-vis Heaven. The Gemara cites sources for each of these cases.

讛诪住驻专 讗讞专 诪讟转谉 砖诇 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讛讜讗 讛讬讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪砖拽讬谉 诇讗 讗转 讛讙讬讜专转 讜诇讗 讗转 讛诪砖讜讞专专转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪砖拽讬谉 讜讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪注砖讛 讘讻专讻诪讬转 砖驻讞讛 诪砖讜讞专专转 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讛砖拽讜讛 砖诪注讬讛 讜讗讘讟诇讬讜谉 讜讗诪专 诇讛诐 讚讜讙诪讗 讛砖拽讜讛 讜谞讚讜讛讜 讜诪转 讘谞讚讜讬讜 讜住拽诇讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗转 讗专讜谞讜

What is the source for one who speaks disparagingly after the biers of Torah scholars? As we learned in the mishna: Akavya ben Mahalalel would say: In the case of a woman whose husband suspects her of adultery, who was warned by her husband not to seclude herself with another man and she did not listen (see Numbers 5), the court does not administer the bitter water potion of a sota to a convert or an emancipated maidservant. And the Rabbis say: The court administers the bitter water potion to them. And the Rabbis said to him as proof: There is the story of Kharkemit, an emancipated maidservant in Jerusalem, and Shemaya and Avtalyon administered her the bitter waters. Akavya ben Mahalalel said to the Sages: That is no proof. Shemaya and Avtalyon, who were also from families of converts, required the maidservant to drink the potion because she was like them [dugma]. And since Akavya ben Mahalalel cast aspersion on the deceased Torah scholars, he was ostracized and died while he was still under the ban of ostracism. And in accordance with the halakha with regard to one who dies while under a ban of ostracism, the court stoned his coffin. Apparently, one who deprecates a deceased Torah scholar is sentenced to ostracism.

讜讛诪讝诇讝诇 讘谞讟讬诇转 讬讚讬诐 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讞住 讜砖诇讜诐 砖注拽讘讬讗 讘谉 诪讛诇诇讗诇 谞转谞讚讛 砖讗讬谉 注讝专讛 谞谞注诇转 注诇 讻诇 讗讚诐 讘讬砖专讗诇 讘讞讻诪讛 讜讘讟讛专讛 讜讘讬专讗转 讞讟讗 讻注拽讘讬讗 讘谉 诪讛诇诇讗诇 讗诇讗 讗转 诪讬 谞讚讜 讗转 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 讞谞讜讱 砖驻拽驻拽 讘谞讟讬诇转 讬讚讬诐 讜讻砖诪转 砖诇讞讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讛谞讬讞讜 讗讘谉 讙讚讜诇讛 注诇 讗专讜谞讜 诇诇诪讚讱 砖讻诇 讛诪转谞讚讛 讜诪转 讘谞讚讜讬讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 住讜拽诇讬谉 讗转 讗专讜谞讜

And what is the source for one who demeans the ritual of washing of the hands? We learned later in the same mishna: Rabbi Yehuda said: That story related with regard to the ostracism of Akavya ben Mahalalel is completely untrue; God forbid that Akavya ben Mahalalel was ostracized, as the Temple courtyard is not closed on any Jew, meaning that even when all of Israel made the pilgrimage to Jerusalem, when each of the three groups that gathered to offer the Paschal lamb filled the courtyard, leading the Temple administration to close the courtyard, there was no one there as perfect in wisdom, purity and fear of sin as Akavya ben Mahalalel. Rather, whom did they excommunicate? Elazar ben 岣nokh, because he doubted and demeaned the rabbinic ordinance of washing of the hands. And when he died, the court sent instructions and they placed a large rock upon his coffin in order to teach you that one who is ostracized and dies in a state of ostracism, the court stones his coffin, as if symbolically stoning him. Apparently, one who makes light of the ritual of washing of the hands is sentenced to ostracism.

讛诪讙讬住 讚注转讜 讻诇驻讬 诪注诇讛 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 砖诇讞 诇讜 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 砖讟讞 诇讞讜谞讬 讛诪注讙诇 爪专讬讱 讗转讛 诇讛转谞讚讜转 讜讗诇诪诇讗 讞讜谞讬 讗转讛 讙讜讝专谞讬 注诇讬讱 谞讚讜讬 讗讘诇 诪讛 讗注砖讛 砖讗转讛 诪转讞讟讗 诇驻谞讬 讛诪拽讜诐 讜注讜砖讛 诇讱 专爪讜谞讱 讻讘谉 砖诪转讞讟讗 诇驻谞讬 讗讘讬讜 讜注讜砖讛 诇讜 专爪讜谞讜 讜注诇讬讱 讛讻转讜讘 讗讜诪专 讬砖诪讞 讗讘讬讱 讜讗诪讱 讜转讙诇 讬讜诇讚转讱

What is the source for the third case, one who is arrogant vis-脿-vis Heaven? The mishna relates that 岣ni HaMe鈥檃ggel, the circle-drawer, drew a circle and stood inside it, and said that he would not leave the circle until it rained, and he went so far as to make demands in terms of the manner in which he wanted the rain to fall. After it rained, Shimon ben Shata岣, the Nasi of the Sanhedrin, relayed to 岣ni HaMe鈥檃ggel: Actually, you should be ostracized for what you said, and if you were not 岣ni, I would have decreed ostracism upon you, but what can I do? You nag God and He does your bidding, like a son who nags his father and his father does his bidding without reprimand. After all, the rain fell as you requested. About you, the verse states: 鈥淵our father and mother will be glad and she who bore you will rejoice鈥 (Proverbs 23:25). Apparently, one who is arrogant vis-脿-vis Heaven would ordinarily merit excommunication.

讜转讜 诇讬讻讗 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讚转谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 转讜讚讜住 讗讬砖 专讜诪讬 讛谞讛讬讙 讗转 讘谞讬 专讜诪讬 诇讛讗讻讬诇谉 讙讚讬讬诐 诪拽讜诇住讬谉 讘诇讬诇讬 驻住讞讬诐 砖诇讞 诇讬讛 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 砖讟讞 讗诇诪诇讗 转讜讚讜住 讗转讛 讙讜讝专谞讬 注诇讬讱 谞讚讜讬 砖讗转讛 诪讗讻讬诇 讗转 讬砖专讗诇 拽讚砖讬诐 讘讞讜抓

The Gemara challenges this: And are there no more cases of excommunication or threats of excommunication? Surely there are additional cases like the one in the baraita taught by Rav Yosef: It is told that Theodosius of Rome, leader of the Jewish community there, instituted the custom for the Roman Jews to eat whole kids, young goats roasted with their entrails over their heads, as was the custom when roasting the Paschal lamb, on the eve of Passover, as they did in the Temple. Shimon ben Shata岣 sent a message to him: If you were not Theodosius, an important person, I would have decreed ostracism upon you, as it appears as if you are feeding Israel consecrated food, which may only be eaten in and around the Temple itself, outside the Temple.

讘诪砖谞转谞讜 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讜讛讗 讘专讬讬转讗 讛讬讗

The Gemara responds: This case should not be included, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that there were twenty-four cases in our Mishna, and this is merely a baraita.

讜讘诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇讬讻讗 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讛讗 讚转谞谉 讞转讻讜 讞讜诇讬讜转 讜谞转谉 讞讜诇 讘讬谉 讞讜诇讬讗 诇讞讜诇讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讟讛专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讟诪讗讬诐 讜讝讛讜 转谞讜专讜 砖诇 注讻谞讗讬

The Gemara asks: And are there none in the Mishna? Isn鈥檛 there that which we learned in the mishna: One who cut an earthenware oven horizontally into ring-shaped pieces and put sand between the pieces, Rabbi Eliezer deems the oven ritually pure, i.e., it is no longer susceptible to ritual impurity. He holds that, although the fragments of the oven were pieced together, it is not considered an intact vessel but, rather, as a collection of fragments, and a broken earthenware vessel cannot become ritually impure. And the Rabbis deem it ritually impure. Since the oven continues to serve its original function, it is still considered a single entity and a whole vessel despite the sand put between the pieces. And this is called the oven of akhnai, snake.

诪讗讬 注讻谞讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪诇诪讚 砖讛拽讬驻讜讛讜 讛诇讻讜转 讻注讻谞讗讬 讝讛 讜讟诪讗讜讛讜

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of oven of the snake? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: It is called snake to teach that the Rabbis surrounded Rabbi Eliezer with halakhot and proofs like a snake surrounds its prey, and declared the oven and its contents ritually impure.

讜转谞讬讗 讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 讛讘讬讗讜 讻诇 讟讛专讜转 砖讟讬讛专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜砖专驻讜诐 诇驻谞讬讜 讜诇讘住讜祝 讘专讻讜讛讜

And it was taught in a baraita: On that day, they gathered all of the ritually pure food items that had come into contact with the oven that Rabbi Eliezer had declared ritually pure, and burned them before him, and because he did not accept the decision of the majority, in the end they 鈥渂lessed,鈥 a euphemism for ostracized, him. This is another case that ended in ostracism.

讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 谞讚讜讬 讘诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇讗 转谞谉 讗诇讗 讘注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 诪拽讜诪讜转 讛讬讻讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪讚诪讛 诪讬诇转讗 诇诪讬诇转讗 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 诪讚诪讛 诪讬诇转讗 诇诪讬诇转讗:

The Gemara answers: Even so, we did not learn the ruling with regard to his ostracism in the mishna. The Gemara asks: Then where do you find the twenty-four places mentioned in Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi鈥檚 statement? The Gemara responds: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi likens one matter to another similar matter. Whenever he would encounter a case in a mishna where one of the Sages expressed himself inappropriately in reference to other Sages, he concluded that they should have been excommunicated. Rabbi Elazar does not liken one matter to another similar matter, and therefore located only three explicit cases of ostracism.

谞讜砖讗讬 讛诪讟讛 讜讞诇讜驻讬讛谉 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗转 讛诪转 住诪讜讱 诇拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讜讗诐 讛转讞讬诇讜 讗讬谉 诪驻住讬拽讬谉 讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗驻拽讜讛讜 住诪讜讱 诇拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讗讚诐 讞砖讜讘 砖讗谞讬:

We learned in the mishna that the pallbearers and their replacements are exempt from the recitation of Shema. On this subject, the Gemara cites that which the Sages taught in a baraita: The deceased may not be taken out to be buried adjacent to the time for the recitation of Shema, but should be buried later. And if they already started to take him out, they need not stop in order to recite Shema. The Gemara challenges: Is that so? Didn鈥檛 they take Rav Yosef out to be buried adjacent to the time for the recitation of Shema? The Gemara resolves this contradiction: The case of an important person is different, and they are more lenient in order to honor him at his burial.

砖诇驻谞讬 讛诪讟讛 讜砖诇讗讞专 讛诪讟讛: 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛注讜住拽讬诐 讘讛住驻讚 讘讝诪谉 砖讛诪转 诪讜讟诇 诇驻谞讬讛诐 谞砖诪讟讬谉 讗讞讚 讗讞讚 讜拽讜专讬谉 讗讬谉 讛诪转 诪讜讟诇 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讛谉 讬讜砖讘讬谉 讜拽讜专讬谉 讜讛讜讗 讬讜砖讘 讜讚讜诪诐 讛诐 注讜诪讚讬诐 讜诪转驻诇诇讬谉 讜讛讜讗 注讜诪讚 讜诪爪讚讬拽 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛讚讬谉 讜讗讜诪专 专讘讜谉 讛注讜诇诪讬诐 讛专讘讛 讞讟讗转讬 诇驻谞讬讱 讜诇讗 谞驻专注转 诪诪谞讬 讗讞讚 诪谞讬 讗诇祝 讬讛讬 专爪讜谉 诪诇驻谞讬讱 讛壮 讗诇讛讬谞讜 砖转讙讚讜专 驻专爪讜转讬谞讜 讜驻专爪讜转 讻诇 注诪讱 讘讬转 讬砖专讗诇 讘专讞诪讬诐

In the mishna, we learned the halakha with regard to the pallbearers and their obligation to recite Shema, and a distinction was made between those who are before the bier and those after the bier. Our Rabbis taught in a baraita: Those involved in eulogy must slip away from the eulogy one by one while the deceased is laid out before them and recite Shema elsewhere. And if the deceased is not laid out before them, the eulogizers must sit and recite Shema while the bereaved sits silently. They stand and pray and he stands and justifies God鈥檚 judgment, saying: Master of the Universe, I have sinned greatly against You, and You have not collected even one one-thousandth of my debt. May it be Your will, Lord our God, to mercifully repair the breaches in our fence and the breaches of Your nation, the House of Israel.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讗讬谞砖 诇诪讬诪专 讛讻讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讜讻谉 转谞讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇注讜诇诐 讗诇 讬驻转讞 讗讚诐 驻讬讜 诇砖讟谉

Abaye said: A person should not say that, as Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said, and it was also taught in the name of Rabbi Yosei: One must never open his mouth to the Satan, i.e., one must not leave room for or raise the possibility of disaster or evil. This formula, which states that the entire debt owed due to his transgressions has not been collected, raises the possibility that further payment will be exacted from him.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讗讬 拽专讗讛 砖谞讗诪专 讻诪注讟 讻住讚讜诐 讛讬讬谞讜 诪讗讬 讗讛讚专 诇讛讜 谞讘讬讗 砖诪注讜 讚讘专 讛壮 拽爪讬谞讬 住讚讜诐:

And Rav Yosef said: What is the verse from which it is derived? As it is stated: 鈥淲e should have almost been as Sodom, we should have been like unto Gomorrah鈥 (Isaiah 1:9), after which what did the prophet reply to them? 鈥淗ear the word of the Lord, rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, people of Gomorrah鈥 (Isaiah 1:10).

拽讘专讜 讗转 讛诪转 讜讞讝专讜 讜讻讜壮: 讗诐 讬讻讜诇讬诐 诇讛转讞讬诇 讜诇讙诪讜专 讗转 讻讜诇讛 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 驻专拽 讗讞讚 讗讜 驻住讜拽 讗讞讚 诇讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 拽讘专讜 讗转 讛诪转 讜讞讝专讜 讗诐 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇讛转讞讬诇 讜诇讙诪讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 驻专拽 讗讞讚 讗讜 驻住讜拽 讗讞讚

We learned in the mishna that, in a case when they buried the deceased and returned, if they have sufficient time to begin to recite Shema and conclude before they arrive at the row formed by those who came to console the bereaved, they should begin. Here, the Gemara clarifies: This is the case only if they can begin and complete recitation of Shema in its entirety. However, if they can only complete one chapter or one verse, they should not stop to do so. The Gemara raises a contradiction from that which we learned in the baraita: After they buried the deceased and returned, if they can begin the recitation of Shema and finish even a single chapter or verse, they should begin.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 拽讗诪专 讗诐 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇讛转讞讬诇 讜诇讙诪讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 驻专拽 讗讞讚 讗讜 讗驻讬诇讜 驻住讜拽 讗讞讚 注讚 砖诇讗 讬讙讬注讜 诇砖讜专讛 讬转讞讬诇讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 诇讗 讬转讞讬诇讜

The Gemara responds: That is also what the tanna of the mishna said and this is the conclusion drawn from his statement: If one can begin and conclude even one chapter or one verse before they arrive at the row of consolers, they should begin. And if not, they should not begin.

讛注讜诪讚讬诐 讘砖讜专讛 讜讻讜壮: 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讜专讛 讛专讜讗讛 驻谞讬诪讛 驻讟讜专讛 讜砖讗讬谞讛 专讜讗讛 驻谞讬诪讛 讞讬讬讘转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛讘讗讬诐 诪讞诪转 讛讗讘诇 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪讞诪转 注爪诪谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉

We learned in the mishna that those standing in the row, those in the interior row, are exempt from reciting Shema and the others are obligated. The Sages taught this more expansively in the Tosefta: The consolers standing in a row from which one sees inside the area where the mourners are passing are exempt, and those standing in a row from which one does not see inside are obligated. And Rabbi Yehuda elaborates and says: The consolers standing in the row who come on account of the bereaved are exempt, while those who come on account of their own curiosity are obligated to recite Shema.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛诪讜爪讗 讻诇讗讬诐 讘讘讙讚讜 驻讜砖讟谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讜拽 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬谉 讞讻诪讛 讜讗讬谉 转讘讜谞讛 讜讗讬谉 注爪讛 诇谞讙讚 讛壮 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 讞诇讜诇 讛砖诐 讗讬谉 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讻讘讜讚 诇专讘

We learned that some who come to console the bereaved are exempt from Shema as a means of honoring the deceased. The Gemara expands the discussion to raise the general question: To what degree does preserving human dignity takes precedence over mitzvot enumerated in the Torah? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: One who discovers diverse kinds [kilayim], i.e., a prohibited mixture of wool and linen, in his garment, must remove them even in the public marketplace. He may not wait until he reaches home. What is the reason for this? As it is stated: 鈥淭here is neither wisdom, nor understanding, nor counsel against the Lord鈥 (Proverbs 21:30). From here, the general principle: Anywhere that there is desecration of the Lord鈥檚 name, one does not show respect to the teacher, is derived.

诪转讬讘讬 拽讘专讜 讗转 讛诪转 讜讞讝专讜 讜诇驻谞讬讛诐 砖转讬 讚专讻讬诐 讗讞转 讟讛讜专讛 讜讗讞转 讟诪讗讛 讘讗 讘讟讛讜专讛 讘讗讬谉 注诪讜 讘讟讛讜专讛 讘讗 讘讟诪讗讛 讘讗讬谉 注诪讜 讘讟诪讗讛 诪砖讜诐 讻讘讜讚讜 讗诪讗讬 诇讬诪讗 讗讬谉 讞讻诪讛 讜讗讬谉 转讘讜谞讛 诇谞讙讚 讛壮

The Gemara cites several sources to challenge this principle. The Gemara raised an objection from a baraita: After they buried the deceased and returned, and on their way there are two paths before them, one ritually pure and one ritually impure, e.g., it passes through a cemetery, if the mourner comes on the pure path, they come with him on the pure path; if he comes on the impure path, all of the funeral participants accompany him on the impure path in order to show him respect. Why would they do this? Let us say here too that, 鈥淭here is neither wisdom, nor understanding鈥gainst the Lord!鈥

转专讙诪讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘讘讬转 讛驻专住 讚专讘谞谉

Rabbi Abba explained that the baraita is referring to a path that passes through an area where there is uncertainty with regard to the location of a grave or a corpse [beit haperas]. For example, with regard to a field in which there is a grave that was plowed and no longer intact, the entire field is deemed impure due to concern that the plow scattered bones throughout the field. The field is impure only by rabbinic law but not according to Torah law. Since it is only prohibited by rabbinic law, one is permitted to walk through the field to show the mourner respect.

讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪谞驻讞 讗讚诐 讘讬转 讛驻专住 讜讛讜诇讱 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讗砖讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讘讬转 讛驻专住 砖谞讚砖 讟讛讜专

The Gemara cites proof that the legal status of a beit haperas is unlike the legal status of impurity by Torah law: Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: One who passes through a beit haperas may blow on the dust before taking each step, so that if there is a bone beneath the dust, he will expose it, avoid it, and walk. One may not rely on that method of examination with regard to impurity by Torah law. And Rav Yehuda bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: A beit haperas that has been trodden underfoot, creating a path, is pure, and one no longer need be concerned about bones. Clearly, the entire prohibition is a stringency decreed by the Sages.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专 爪讚讜拽 诪讚诇讙讬谉 讛讬讬谞讜 注诇 讙讘讬 讗专讜谞讜转 砖诇 诪转讬诐 诇拽专讗转 诪诇讻讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讗 诇拽专讗转 诪诇讻讬 讬砖专讗诇 讘诇讘讚 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇拽专讗转 诪诇讻讬 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐 砖讗诐 讬讝讻讛 讬讘讞讬谉 讘讬谉 诪诇讻讬 讬砖专讗诇 诇诪诇讻讬 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐 讗诪讗讬 诇讬诪讗 讗讬谉 讞讻诪讛 讜讗讬谉 转讘讜谞讛 讜讗讬谉 注爪讛 诇谞讙讚 讛壮

The Gemara cites additional proof with regard to the extent to which human dignity overrides mitzvot in the Torah. Come and hear, as Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok the priest said: I and my fellow priests would jump over coffins of the deceased in order to hurry towards kings of Israel to greet them. And they did not say this only towards kings of Israel, but they said this even towards kings of the nations of the world, so that if one will be privileged to witness the redemption of Israel, he will distinguish between kings of Israel and kings of the nations of the world. The priest violated the Torah prohibition to become ritually impure through contact with the dead, in order to show respect for a king. And why is this? Let us say here too: 鈥淭here is neither wisdom, nor understanding, nor counsel against the Lord.鈥

讻讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讚讘专 转讜专讛 讗讛诇 讻诇 砖讬砖 讘讜 讞诇诇 讟驻讞 讞讜爪抓 讘驻谞讬 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讜砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讞诇诇 讟驻讞 讗讬谞讜 讞讜爪抓 讘驻谞讬 讛讟讜诪讗讛

The Gemara responds to this challenge by saying that it must be understood in accordance with the opinion of Rava, as Rava said: By Torah law, a tent over a corpse, as long as there is a handbreadth of space between the corpse and the tent over it, constitutes a barrier before the spread of impurity and nothing above the tent can become ritually impure due to impurity imparted by the corpse. And when there is not a handbreadth of space between the corpse and the tent over it, the tent does not constitute a barrier before the spread of impurity and the 鈥減ressed鈥 ritual impurity, can reach the heavens.

讜专讜讘 讗专讜谞讜转 讬砖 讘讛谉 讞诇诇 讟驻讞 讜讙讝专讜 注诇 砖讬砖 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讘讛谉 讜诪砖讜诐 讻讘讜讚 诪诇讻讬诐 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉

Most coffins have a handbreadth of space. Consequently, their impurity does not spread above the coffin. However, the Sages issued a decree regarding coffins in which there is a handbreadth of space because of those coffins in which there is not. Nevertheless, due to respect for kings, the Sages did not issue a decree in a case involving them and the priests were permitted to jump over the coffins, as it is permitted by Torah law. Therefore, there is no proof from here regarding the question of whether or not human dignity overrides Torah law.

转讗 砖诪注 讙讚讜诇 讻讘讜讚 讛讘专讬讜转 砖讚讜讞讛 [讗转] 诇讗 转注砖讛 砖讘转讜专讛

The Gemara cites an additional proof from a baraita: Come and hear: Great is human dignity, as it overrides a prohibition in the Torah.

讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬诪讗 讗讬谉 讞讻诪讛 讜讗讬谉 转讘讜谞讛 讜讗讬谉 注爪讛 诇谞讙讚 讛壮 转专讙诪讛 专讘 讘专 砖讘讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讘诇讗讜 讚诇讗 转住讜专 讗讞讬讻讜 注诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讚诇讗 转住讜专 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks: Why? Let us also say here: 鈥淭here is neither wisdom, nor understanding, nor counsel against the Lord.鈥 Rav bar Shaba interpreted this prohibition, which is overridden by human dignity, before Rav Kahana as referring to the prohibition of: 鈥淎ccording to the Torah taught to you and the ruling handed down to you, you shall do, you shall not deviate to the left or the right from that which they tell you鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:11). The Yeshiva students laughed at him, as the prohibition of 鈥測ou shall not deviate鈥 is by Torah law, like all other Torah prohibitions. Why should human dignity override it any more than any other Torah prohibition?

讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讙讘专讗 专讘讛 讗诪专 诪讬诇转讗 诇讗 转讞讬讻讜 注诇讬讛 讻诇 诪讬诇讬 讚专讘谞谉 讗住诪讻讬谞讛讜 注诇 诇讗讜 讚诇讗 转住讜专 讜诪砖讜诐 讻讘讜讚讜 砖专讜 专讘谞谉

Rav Kahana replied to them: A great man has spoken, do not laugh at him. The Sages based all rabbinic law on the prohibition of 鈥測ou shall not deviate鈥; however, due to concern for human dignity, the Sages permitted suspension of rabbinic law in cases where the two collide. All rabbinic decrees are predicated on the mitzva in the Torah to heed the judges in each generation and to never stray from their words. Therefore, when the Sages suspend a decree in the interest of preserving human dignity, human dignity is overriding a Torah prohibition. In any case, it only overrides rabbinic decrees.

转讗 砖诪注 讜讛转注诇诪转 诪讛诐 驻注诪讬诐 砖讗转讛 诪转注诇诐 诪讛诐 讜驻注诪讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讗转讛 诪转注诇诐 诪讛诐

The Gemara cites an additional proof from a baraita: Come and hear: With regard to the laws of returning a lost object, it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall not see the ox of your brother or his sheep go astray and ignore them; return them to your brother鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:1). The baraita explains that the seemingly extraneous expression and disregard them must be understood to give license that at times you disregard lost objects and at times you do not disregard them.

讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讗诐 讛讬讛 讻讛谉 讜讛讬讗 讘讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转 讗讜 讛讬讛 讝拽谉 讜讗讬谞讛 诇驻讬 讻讘讜讚讜 讗讜 砖讛讬转讛 诪诇讗讻转讜 诪专讜讘讛 诪砖诇 讞讘专讜 诇讻讱 谞讗诪专 讜讛转注诇诪转 讗诪讗讬 诇讬诪讗 讗讬谉 讞讻诪讛 讜讗讬谉 转讘讜谞讛 讜讗讬谉 注爪讛 诇谞讙讚 讛壮

How so? If he was a priest and the lost object was in the cemetery, or if he was an elder and it is beneath his dignity to tend to a lost object of that kind, or if he had more work to do than another person and he does not want to set it all aside when another person is available to tend to the lost object. Therefore, with regard to those cases it is stated: And disregard them to permit one to refrain from returning the object. Why? Let us say here, too: Although handling the lost object would be beneath his dignity, 鈥渢here is neither wisdom, nor understanding, nor counsel against the Lord.鈥

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛转注诇诪转 诪讛诐 讜诇讬讙诪专 诪讬谞讛 讗讬住讜专讗 诪诪诪讜谞讗 诇讗 讬诇驻讬谞谉

The Gemara answers: There it is different, as it is written: 鈥淎nd disregard them,鈥 indicating that under certain circumstances one is permitted to disregard a lost object. In that case, there is a biblical directive that creates an exception to the prohibition: 鈥淵ou may not disregard鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:3). We found a case in which human dignity overrides a Torah prohibition. The Gemara suggests: Let us derive a general principle that human dignity takes precedence over all mitzvot in the Torah from this case. This possibility is rejected: We do not derive halakhot pertaining to prohibitions from monetary laws, and the case of the lost object merely entails a monetary loss, unlike other prohibitions.

转讗 砖诪注

The Gemara cites an additional proof from a baraita. Come and hear what was said in the Torah with regard to the Nazirite: 鈥淗e shall not become impure for his father or his mother or his brother or his sister in their death, for the crown of his God is on his head鈥 (Numbers 6:7). Since it was already written with regard to the Nazirite: 鈥淗e shall not come upon a dead body鈥 (Numbers 6:6), why is it necessary to elaborate and specify his parents and siblings?

讜诇讗讞转讜 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛专讬 砖讛讬讛 讛讜诇讱 诇砖讞讜讟 讗转 驻住讞讜 讜诇诪讜诇 讗转 讘谞讜 讜砖诪注 砖诪转 诇讜 诪转 讬讻讜诇 讬讞讝讜专 讜讬讟诪讗 讗诪专转 诇讗 讬讟诪讗

The Sages derived through halakhic midrash that each of these relationships come to teach a specific nuance of the law. They learned: To what purpose did the verse state: And his sister? To teach that one who was going to slaughter his Paschal lamb and to circumcise his son, both of which are positive mitzvot that if he fails to fulfill them, he is punished with karet, and he heard that a relative of his died, I might have thought that he should return and become ritually impure with the impurity imparted by a corpse. You said: 鈥淗e shall not become impure鈥; the death of his relative will not override so significant a mitzva from the Torah.

讬讻讜诇 讻砖诐 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 诇讛诐 讻讱 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 诇诪转 诪爪讜讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜诇讗讞讜转讜 诇讗讞讜转讜 讛讜讗 讚讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗

I might have thought: Just as he does not become impure for his relatives, so he does not become impure for a corpse with no one to bury it [met mitzva]. The verse states: 鈥淎nd his sister鈥; he may not become impure for his sister, as someone else can attend to her burial,

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

daf_icon

Extempore Effusions on the Completion of Masechet Berakhot (chapters 1-3)

PEREK ALEPH: (2a) When may we say Shma at night? From the time the priests take their first bite 鈥楾il...

Berakhot 19

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Berakhot 19

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚诇讗 讬讚注讬 讻讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讚讬讚注讬 诇诪讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗讞讝讜拽讬 诇讬讛 讟讬讘讜转讗 诇诪砖讛

And if it should enter your mind that the dead do not know, then what of it if he tells them? The Gemara rejects this: Rather what will you say, that they know? Then why does he need to tell them? The Gemara replies: This is not difficult, as he is telling them so that they will give credit to Moses.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讻诇 讛诪住驻专 讗讞专讬 讛诪转 讻讗诇讜 诪住驻专 讗讞专讬 讛讗讘谉 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讚诇讗 讬讚注讬 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讚讬讚注讬 讜诇讗 讗讬讻驻转 诇讛讜

On this subject, Rabbi Yitz岣k said: Anyone who speaks negatively after the deceased it is as if he speaks after the stone. The Gemara offers two interpretations of this: Some say this is because the dead do not know, and some say that they know, but they do not care that they are spoken of in such a manner.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讞讚 讗讬砖转注讬 诪讬诇转讗 讘转专讬讛 讚诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜谞驻诇 拽谞讬讗 诪讟诇诇讗 讜讘讝注讗 诇讗专谞拽讗 讚诪讜讞讬讛

The Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn鈥檛 Rav Pappa say: There was once someone who spoke disparagingly after the death of Mar Shmuel and a reed fell from the ceiling, fracturing his skull? Obviously, the dead care when people speak ill of them.

砖讗谞讬 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讚拽讜讚砖讗 讘专讬讱 讛讜讗 转讘注 讘讬拽专讬讛

The Gemara rejects this: This is no proof that the dead care. Rather, a Torah scholar is different, as God Himself demands that his honor be upheld.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讻诇 讛诪住驻专 讗讞专 诪讟转谉 砖诇 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 谞讜驻诇 讘讙讬讛谞诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛诪讟讬诐 注拽诇拽诇讜转诐 讬讜诇讬讻诐 讛壮 讗转 驻讜注诇讬 讛讗讜谉 砖诇讜诐 注诇 讬砖专讗诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖注讛 砖砖诇讜诐 注诇 讬砖专讗诇 讬讜诇讬讻诐 讛壮 讗转 驻讜注诇讬 讛讗讜谉

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said similarly: One who speaks disparagingly after the biers of Torah scholars and maligns them after their death will fall in Gehenna, as it is stated: 鈥淏ut those who turn aside unto their crooked ways, the Lord will lead them away with the workers of iniquity; peace be upon Israel鈥 (Psalms 125:5). Even if he speaks ill of them when there is peace upon Israel, after death, when they are no longer able to fight those denouncing them (Tosafot); nevertheless the Lord will lead them away with the workers of iniquity, to Gehenna.

转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诐 专讗讬转 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 砖注讘专 注讘讬专讛 讘诇讬诇讛 讗诇 转讛专讛专 讗讞专讬讜 讘讬讜诐 砖诪讗 注砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 砖诪讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讜讚讗讬 注砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讚讘专讬诐 砖讘讙讜驻讜 讗讘诇 讘诪诪讜谞讗 注讚 讚诪讛讚专 诇诪专讬讛:

On a similar note, it was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: If you saw a Torah scholar transgress a prohibition at night, do not think badly of him during the day; perhaps he has repented in the meantime. The Gemara challenges this: Does it enter your mind that only perhaps he has repented? Shouldn鈥檛 he be given the benefit of the doubt? Rather, he has certainly repented. The Gemara notes: The idea that one must always give a Torah scholar the benefit of the doubt and assume that he has repented refers specifically to matters affecting himself, but, if one witnesses a Torah scholar committing a transgression involving the property of another, one is not required to give him the benefit of the doubt. Rather, he should not assume that he has repented until he sees him return the money to its owner.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讘注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 诪拽讜诪讜转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪谞讚讬谉 注诇 讻讘讜讚 讛专讘 讜讻讜诇谉 砖谞讬谞讜 讘诪砖谞转谞讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讬讻讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讻讬 转砖讻讞

Since matters relating to the respect due Torah scholars were raised, the Gemara continues, citing Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who said: There are twenty-four places in which the court ostracizes over matters of respect due the rabbi, and we learned them all in our Mishna. Rabbi Elazar said to him: Where are those cases to be found? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to him: When you look, you will find them.

谞驻拽 讚拽 讜讗砖讻讞 转诇转 讛诪讝诇讝诇 讘谞讟讬诇转 讬讚讬诐 讜讛诪住驻专 讗讞专 诪讟转谉 砖诇 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讛诪讙讬住 讚注转讜 讻诇驻讬 诪注诇讛

He went out, analyzed, and found three examples: One who demeans the ritual of washing of the hands, one who speaks disparagingly after the bier of Torah scholars, and one who is arrogant vis-脿-vis Heaven. The Gemara cites sources for each of these cases.

讛诪住驻专 讗讞专 诪讟转谉 砖诇 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讛讜讗 讛讬讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪砖拽讬谉 诇讗 讗转 讛讙讬讜专转 讜诇讗 讗转 讛诪砖讜讞专专转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪砖拽讬谉 讜讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪注砖讛 讘讻专讻诪讬转 砖驻讞讛 诪砖讜讞专专转 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讛砖拽讜讛 砖诪注讬讛 讜讗讘讟诇讬讜谉 讜讗诪专 诇讛诐 讚讜讙诪讗 讛砖拽讜讛 讜谞讚讜讛讜 讜诪转 讘谞讚讜讬讜 讜住拽诇讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗转 讗专讜谞讜

What is the source for one who speaks disparagingly after the biers of Torah scholars? As we learned in the mishna: Akavya ben Mahalalel would say: In the case of a woman whose husband suspects her of adultery, who was warned by her husband not to seclude herself with another man and she did not listen (see Numbers 5), the court does not administer the bitter water potion of a sota to a convert or an emancipated maidservant. And the Rabbis say: The court administers the bitter water potion to them. And the Rabbis said to him as proof: There is the story of Kharkemit, an emancipated maidservant in Jerusalem, and Shemaya and Avtalyon administered her the bitter waters. Akavya ben Mahalalel said to the Sages: That is no proof. Shemaya and Avtalyon, who were also from families of converts, required the maidservant to drink the potion because she was like them [dugma]. And since Akavya ben Mahalalel cast aspersion on the deceased Torah scholars, he was ostracized and died while he was still under the ban of ostracism. And in accordance with the halakha with regard to one who dies while under a ban of ostracism, the court stoned his coffin. Apparently, one who deprecates a deceased Torah scholar is sentenced to ostracism.

讜讛诪讝诇讝诇 讘谞讟讬诇转 讬讚讬诐 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讞住 讜砖诇讜诐 砖注拽讘讬讗 讘谉 诪讛诇诇讗诇 谞转谞讚讛 砖讗讬谉 注讝专讛 谞谞注诇转 注诇 讻诇 讗讚诐 讘讬砖专讗诇 讘讞讻诪讛 讜讘讟讛专讛 讜讘讬专讗转 讞讟讗 讻注拽讘讬讗 讘谉 诪讛诇诇讗诇 讗诇讗 讗转 诪讬 谞讚讜 讗转 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 讞谞讜讱 砖驻拽驻拽 讘谞讟讬诇转 讬讚讬诐 讜讻砖诪转 砖诇讞讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讛谞讬讞讜 讗讘谉 讙讚讜诇讛 注诇 讗专讜谞讜 诇诇诪讚讱 砖讻诇 讛诪转谞讚讛 讜诪转 讘谞讚讜讬讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 住讜拽诇讬谉 讗转 讗专讜谞讜

And what is the source for one who demeans the ritual of washing of the hands? We learned later in the same mishna: Rabbi Yehuda said: That story related with regard to the ostracism of Akavya ben Mahalalel is completely untrue; God forbid that Akavya ben Mahalalel was ostracized, as the Temple courtyard is not closed on any Jew, meaning that even when all of Israel made the pilgrimage to Jerusalem, when each of the three groups that gathered to offer the Paschal lamb filled the courtyard, leading the Temple administration to close the courtyard, there was no one there as perfect in wisdom, purity and fear of sin as Akavya ben Mahalalel. Rather, whom did they excommunicate? Elazar ben 岣nokh, because he doubted and demeaned the rabbinic ordinance of washing of the hands. And when he died, the court sent instructions and they placed a large rock upon his coffin in order to teach you that one who is ostracized and dies in a state of ostracism, the court stones his coffin, as if symbolically stoning him. Apparently, one who makes light of the ritual of washing of the hands is sentenced to ostracism.

讛诪讙讬住 讚注转讜 讻诇驻讬 诪注诇讛 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 砖诇讞 诇讜 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 砖讟讞 诇讞讜谞讬 讛诪注讙诇 爪专讬讱 讗转讛 诇讛转谞讚讜转 讜讗诇诪诇讗 讞讜谞讬 讗转讛 讙讜讝专谞讬 注诇讬讱 谞讚讜讬 讗讘诇 诪讛 讗注砖讛 砖讗转讛 诪转讞讟讗 诇驻谞讬 讛诪拽讜诐 讜注讜砖讛 诇讱 专爪讜谞讱 讻讘谉 砖诪转讞讟讗 诇驻谞讬 讗讘讬讜 讜注讜砖讛 诇讜 专爪讜谞讜 讜注诇讬讱 讛讻转讜讘 讗讜诪专 讬砖诪讞 讗讘讬讱 讜讗诪讱 讜转讙诇 讬讜诇讚转讱

What is the source for the third case, one who is arrogant vis-脿-vis Heaven? The mishna relates that 岣ni HaMe鈥檃ggel, the circle-drawer, drew a circle and stood inside it, and said that he would not leave the circle until it rained, and he went so far as to make demands in terms of the manner in which he wanted the rain to fall. After it rained, Shimon ben Shata岣, the Nasi of the Sanhedrin, relayed to 岣ni HaMe鈥檃ggel: Actually, you should be ostracized for what you said, and if you were not 岣ni, I would have decreed ostracism upon you, but what can I do? You nag God and He does your bidding, like a son who nags his father and his father does his bidding without reprimand. After all, the rain fell as you requested. About you, the verse states: 鈥淵our father and mother will be glad and she who bore you will rejoice鈥 (Proverbs 23:25). Apparently, one who is arrogant vis-脿-vis Heaven would ordinarily merit excommunication.

讜转讜 诇讬讻讗 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讚转谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 转讜讚讜住 讗讬砖 专讜诪讬 讛谞讛讬讙 讗转 讘谞讬 专讜诪讬 诇讛讗讻讬诇谉 讙讚讬讬诐 诪拽讜诇住讬谉 讘诇讬诇讬 驻住讞讬诐 砖诇讞 诇讬讛 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 砖讟讞 讗诇诪诇讗 转讜讚讜住 讗转讛 讙讜讝专谞讬 注诇讬讱 谞讚讜讬 砖讗转讛 诪讗讻讬诇 讗转 讬砖专讗诇 拽讚砖讬诐 讘讞讜抓

The Gemara challenges this: And are there no more cases of excommunication or threats of excommunication? Surely there are additional cases like the one in the baraita taught by Rav Yosef: It is told that Theodosius of Rome, leader of the Jewish community there, instituted the custom for the Roman Jews to eat whole kids, young goats roasted with their entrails over their heads, as was the custom when roasting the Paschal lamb, on the eve of Passover, as they did in the Temple. Shimon ben Shata岣 sent a message to him: If you were not Theodosius, an important person, I would have decreed ostracism upon you, as it appears as if you are feeding Israel consecrated food, which may only be eaten in and around the Temple itself, outside the Temple.

讘诪砖谞转谞讜 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讜讛讗 讘专讬讬转讗 讛讬讗

The Gemara responds: This case should not be included, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that there were twenty-four cases in our Mishna, and this is merely a baraita.

讜讘诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇讬讻讗 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讛讗 讚转谞谉 讞转讻讜 讞讜诇讬讜转 讜谞转谉 讞讜诇 讘讬谉 讞讜诇讬讗 诇讞讜诇讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讟讛专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讟诪讗讬诐 讜讝讛讜 转谞讜专讜 砖诇 注讻谞讗讬

The Gemara asks: And are there none in the Mishna? Isn鈥檛 there that which we learned in the mishna: One who cut an earthenware oven horizontally into ring-shaped pieces and put sand between the pieces, Rabbi Eliezer deems the oven ritually pure, i.e., it is no longer susceptible to ritual impurity. He holds that, although the fragments of the oven were pieced together, it is not considered an intact vessel but, rather, as a collection of fragments, and a broken earthenware vessel cannot become ritually impure. And the Rabbis deem it ritually impure. Since the oven continues to serve its original function, it is still considered a single entity and a whole vessel despite the sand put between the pieces. And this is called the oven of akhnai, snake.

诪讗讬 注讻谞讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪诇诪讚 砖讛拽讬驻讜讛讜 讛诇讻讜转 讻注讻谞讗讬 讝讛 讜讟诪讗讜讛讜

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of oven of the snake? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: It is called snake to teach that the Rabbis surrounded Rabbi Eliezer with halakhot and proofs like a snake surrounds its prey, and declared the oven and its contents ritually impure.

讜转谞讬讗 讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 讛讘讬讗讜 讻诇 讟讛专讜转 砖讟讬讛专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜砖专驻讜诐 诇驻谞讬讜 讜诇讘住讜祝 讘专讻讜讛讜

And it was taught in a baraita: On that day, they gathered all of the ritually pure food items that had come into contact with the oven that Rabbi Eliezer had declared ritually pure, and burned them before him, and because he did not accept the decision of the majority, in the end they 鈥渂lessed,鈥 a euphemism for ostracized, him. This is another case that ended in ostracism.

讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 谞讚讜讬 讘诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇讗 转谞谉 讗诇讗 讘注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 诪拽讜诪讜转 讛讬讻讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪讚诪讛 诪讬诇转讗 诇诪讬诇转讗 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 诪讚诪讛 诪讬诇转讗 诇诪讬诇转讗:

The Gemara answers: Even so, we did not learn the ruling with regard to his ostracism in the mishna. The Gemara asks: Then where do you find the twenty-four places mentioned in Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi鈥檚 statement? The Gemara responds: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi likens one matter to another similar matter. Whenever he would encounter a case in a mishna where one of the Sages expressed himself inappropriately in reference to other Sages, he concluded that they should have been excommunicated. Rabbi Elazar does not liken one matter to another similar matter, and therefore located only three explicit cases of ostracism.

谞讜砖讗讬 讛诪讟讛 讜讞诇讜驻讬讛谉 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗转 讛诪转 住诪讜讱 诇拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讜讗诐 讛转讞讬诇讜 讗讬谉 诪驻住讬拽讬谉 讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗驻拽讜讛讜 住诪讜讱 诇拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讗讚诐 讞砖讜讘 砖讗谞讬:

We learned in the mishna that the pallbearers and their replacements are exempt from the recitation of Shema. On this subject, the Gemara cites that which the Sages taught in a baraita: The deceased may not be taken out to be buried adjacent to the time for the recitation of Shema, but should be buried later. And if they already started to take him out, they need not stop in order to recite Shema. The Gemara challenges: Is that so? Didn鈥檛 they take Rav Yosef out to be buried adjacent to the time for the recitation of Shema? The Gemara resolves this contradiction: The case of an important person is different, and they are more lenient in order to honor him at his burial.

砖诇驻谞讬 讛诪讟讛 讜砖诇讗讞专 讛诪讟讛: 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛注讜住拽讬诐 讘讛住驻讚 讘讝诪谉 砖讛诪转 诪讜讟诇 诇驻谞讬讛诐 谞砖诪讟讬谉 讗讞讚 讗讞讚 讜拽讜专讬谉 讗讬谉 讛诪转 诪讜讟诇 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讛谉 讬讜砖讘讬谉 讜拽讜专讬谉 讜讛讜讗 讬讜砖讘 讜讚讜诪诐 讛诐 注讜诪讚讬诐 讜诪转驻诇诇讬谉 讜讛讜讗 注讜诪讚 讜诪爪讚讬拽 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛讚讬谉 讜讗讜诪专 专讘讜谉 讛注讜诇诪讬诐 讛专讘讛 讞讟讗转讬 诇驻谞讬讱 讜诇讗 谞驻专注转 诪诪谞讬 讗讞讚 诪谞讬 讗诇祝 讬讛讬 专爪讜谉 诪诇驻谞讬讱 讛壮 讗诇讛讬谞讜 砖转讙讚讜专 驻专爪讜转讬谞讜 讜驻专爪讜转 讻诇 注诪讱 讘讬转 讬砖专讗诇 讘专讞诪讬诐

In the mishna, we learned the halakha with regard to the pallbearers and their obligation to recite Shema, and a distinction was made between those who are before the bier and those after the bier. Our Rabbis taught in a baraita: Those involved in eulogy must slip away from the eulogy one by one while the deceased is laid out before them and recite Shema elsewhere. And if the deceased is not laid out before them, the eulogizers must sit and recite Shema while the bereaved sits silently. They stand and pray and he stands and justifies God鈥檚 judgment, saying: Master of the Universe, I have sinned greatly against You, and You have not collected even one one-thousandth of my debt. May it be Your will, Lord our God, to mercifully repair the breaches in our fence and the breaches of Your nation, the House of Israel.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讗讬谞砖 诇诪讬诪专 讛讻讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讜讻谉 转谞讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇注讜诇诐 讗诇 讬驻转讞 讗讚诐 驻讬讜 诇砖讟谉

Abaye said: A person should not say that, as Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said, and it was also taught in the name of Rabbi Yosei: One must never open his mouth to the Satan, i.e., one must not leave room for or raise the possibility of disaster or evil. This formula, which states that the entire debt owed due to his transgressions has not been collected, raises the possibility that further payment will be exacted from him.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讗讬 拽专讗讛 砖谞讗诪专 讻诪注讟 讻住讚讜诐 讛讬讬谞讜 诪讗讬 讗讛讚专 诇讛讜 谞讘讬讗 砖诪注讜 讚讘专 讛壮 拽爪讬谞讬 住讚讜诐:

And Rav Yosef said: What is the verse from which it is derived? As it is stated: 鈥淲e should have almost been as Sodom, we should have been like unto Gomorrah鈥 (Isaiah 1:9), after which what did the prophet reply to them? 鈥淗ear the word of the Lord, rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, people of Gomorrah鈥 (Isaiah 1:10).

拽讘专讜 讗转 讛诪转 讜讞讝专讜 讜讻讜壮: 讗诐 讬讻讜诇讬诐 诇讛转讞讬诇 讜诇讙诪讜专 讗转 讻讜诇讛 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 驻专拽 讗讞讚 讗讜 驻住讜拽 讗讞讚 诇讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 拽讘专讜 讗转 讛诪转 讜讞讝专讜 讗诐 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇讛转讞讬诇 讜诇讙诪讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 驻专拽 讗讞讚 讗讜 驻住讜拽 讗讞讚

We learned in the mishna that, in a case when they buried the deceased and returned, if they have sufficient time to begin to recite Shema and conclude before they arrive at the row formed by those who came to console the bereaved, they should begin. Here, the Gemara clarifies: This is the case only if they can begin and complete recitation of Shema in its entirety. However, if they can only complete one chapter or one verse, they should not stop to do so. The Gemara raises a contradiction from that which we learned in the baraita: After they buried the deceased and returned, if they can begin the recitation of Shema and finish even a single chapter or verse, they should begin.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 拽讗诪专 讗诐 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇讛转讞讬诇 讜诇讙诪讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 驻专拽 讗讞讚 讗讜 讗驻讬诇讜 驻住讜拽 讗讞讚 注讚 砖诇讗 讬讙讬注讜 诇砖讜专讛 讬转讞讬诇讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 诇讗 讬转讞讬诇讜

The Gemara responds: That is also what the tanna of the mishna said and this is the conclusion drawn from his statement: If one can begin and conclude even one chapter or one verse before they arrive at the row of consolers, they should begin. And if not, they should not begin.

讛注讜诪讚讬诐 讘砖讜专讛 讜讻讜壮: 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讜专讛 讛专讜讗讛 驻谞讬诪讛 驻讟讜专讛 讜砖讗讬谞讛 专讜讗讛 驻谞讬诪讛 讞讬讬讘转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛讘讗讬诐 诪讞诪转 讛讗讘诇 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪讞诪转 注爪诪谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉

We learned in the mishna that those standing in the row, those in the interior row, are exempt from reciting Shema and the others are obligated. The Sages taught this more expansively in the Tosefta: The consolers standing in a row from which one sees inside the area where the mourners are passing are exempt, and those standing in a row from which one does not see inside are obligated. And Rabbi Yehuda elaborates and says: The consolers standing in the row who come on account of the bereaved are exempt, while those who come on account of their own curiosity are obligated to recite Shema.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛诪讜爪讗 讻诇讗讬诐 讘讘讙讚讜 驻讜砖讟谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讜拽 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬谉 讞讻诪讛 讜讗讬谉 转讘讜谞讛 讜讗讬谉 注爪讛 诇谞讙讚 讛壮 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 讞诇讜诇 讛砖诐 讗讬谉 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讻讘讜讚 诇专讘

We learned that some who come to console the bereaved are exempt from Shema as a means of honoring the deceased. The Gemara expands the discussion to raise the general question: To what degree does preserving human dignity takes precedence over mitzvot enumerated in the Torah? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: One who discovers diverse kinds [kilayim], i.e., a prohibited mixture of wool and linen, in his garment, must remove them even in the public marketplace. He may not wait until he reaches home. What is the reason for this? As it is stated: 鈥淭here is neither wisdom, nor understanding, nor counsel against the Lord鈥 (Proverbs 21:30). From here, the general principle: Anywhere that there is desecration of the Lord鈥檚 name, one does not show respect to the teacher, is derived.

诪转讬讘讬 拽讘专讜 讗转 讛诪转 讜讞讝专讜 讜诇驻谞讬讛诐 砖转讬 讚专讻讬诐 讗讞转 讟讛讜专讛 讜讗讞转 讟诪讗讛 讘讗 讘讟讛讜专讛 讘讗讬谉 注诪讜 讘讟讛讜专讛 讘讗 讘讟诪讗讛 讘讗讬谉 注诪讜 讘讟诪讗讛 诪砖讜诐 讻讘讜讚讜 讗诪讗讬 诇讬诪讗 讗讬谉 讞讻诪讛 讜讗讬谉 转讘讜谞讛 诇谞讙讚 讛壮

The Gemara cites several sources to challenge this principle. The Gemara raised an objection from a baraita: After they buried the deceased and returned, and on their way there are two paths before them, one ritually pure and one ritually impure, e.g., it passes through a cemetery, if the mourner comes on the pure path, they come with him on the pure path; if he comes on the impure path, all of the funeral participants accompany him on the impure path in order to show him respect. Why would they do this? Let us say here too that, 鈥淭here is neither wisdom, nor understanding鈥gainst the Lord!鈥

转专讙诪讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘讘讬转 讛驻专住 讚专讘谞谉

Rabbi Abba explained that the baraita is referring to a path that passes through an area where there is uncertainty with regard to the location of a grave or a corpse [beit haperas]. For example, with regard to a field in which there is a grave that was plowed and no longer intact, the entire field is deemed impure due to concern that the plow scattered bones throughout the field. The field is impure only by rabbinic law but not according to Torah law. Since it is only prohibited by rabbinic law, one is permitted to walk through the field to show the mourner respect.

讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪谞驻讞 讗讚诐 讘讬转 讛驻专住 讜讛讜诇讱 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讗砖讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讘讬转 讛驻专住 砖谞讚砖 讟讛讜专

The Gemara cites proof that the legal status of a beit haperas is unlike the legal status of impurity by Torah law: Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: One who passes through a beit haperas may blow on the dust before taking each step, so that if there is a bone beneath the dust, he will expose it, avoid it, and walk. One may not rely on that method of examination with regard to impurity by Torah law. And Rav Yehuda bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: A beit haperas that has been trodden underfoot, creating a path, is pure, and one no longer need be concerned about bones. Clearly, the entire prohibition is a stringency decreed by the Sages.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专 爪讚讜拽 诪讚诇讙讬谉 讛讬讬谞讜 注诇 讙讘讬 讗专讜谞讜转 砖诇 诪转讬诐 诇拽专讗转 诪诇讻讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讗 诇拽专讗转 诪诇讻讬 讬砖专讗诇 讘诇讘讚 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇拽专讗转 诪诇讻讬 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐 砖讗诐 讬讝讻讛 讬讘讞讬谉 讘讬谉 诪诇讻讬 讬砖专讗诇 诇诪诇讻讬 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐 讗诪讗讬 诇讬诪讗 讗讬谉 讞讻诪讛 讜讗讬谉 转讘讜谞讛 讜讗讬谉 注爪讛 诇谞讙讚 讛壮

The Gemara cites additional proof with regard to the extent to which human dignity overrides mitzvot in the Torah. Come and hear, as Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok the priest said: I and my fellow priests would jump over coffins of the deceased in order to hurry towards kings of Israel to greet them. And they did not say this only towards kings of Israel, but they said this even towards kings of the nations of the world, so that if one will be privileged to witness the redemption of Israel, he will distinguish between kings of Israel and kings of the nations of the world. The priest violated the Torah prohibition to become ritually impure through contact with the dead, in order to show respect for a king. And why is this? Let us say here too: 鈥淭here is neither wisdom, nor understanding, nor counsel against the Lord.鈥

讻讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讚讘专 转讜专讛 讗讛诇 讻诇 砖讬砖 讘讜 讞诇诇 讟驻讞 讞讜爪抓 讘驻谞讬 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讜砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讞诇诇 讟驻讞 讗讬谞讜 讞讜爪抓 讘驻谞讬 讛讟讜诪讗讛

The Gemara responds to this challenge by saying that it must be understood in accordance with the opinion of Rava, as Rava said: By Torah law, a tent over a corpse, as long as there is a handbreadth of space between the corpse and the tent over it, constitutes a barrier before the spread of impurity and nothing above the tent can become ritually impure due to impurity imparted by the corpse. And when there is not a handbreadth of space between the corpse and the tent over it, the tent does not constitute a barrier before the spread of impurity and the 鈥減ressed鈥 ritual impurity, can reach the heavens.

讜专讜讘 讗专讜谞讜转 讬砖 讘讛谉 讞诇诇 讟驻讞 讜讙讝专讜 注诇 砖讬砖 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讘讛谉 讜诪砖讜诐 讻讘讜讚 诪诇讻讬诐 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉

Most coffins have a handbreadth of space. Consequently, their impurity does not spread above the coffin. However, the Sages issued a decree regarding coffins in which there is a handbreadth of space because of those coffins in which there is not. Nevertheless, due to respect for kings, the Sages did not issue a decree in a case involving them and the priests were permitted to jump over the coffins, as it is permitted by Torah law. Therefore, there is no proof from here regarding the question of whether or not human dignity overrides Torah law.

转讗 砖诪注 讙讚讜诇 讻讘讜讚 讛讘专讬讜转 砖讚讜讞讛 [讗转] 诇讗 转注砖讛 砖讘转讜专讛

The Gemara cites an additional proof from a baraita: Come and hear: Great is human dignity, as it overrides a prohibition in the Torah.

讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬诪讗 讗讬谉 讞讻诪讛 讜讗讬谉 转讘讜谞讛 讜讗讬谉 注爪讛 诇谞讙讚 讛壮 转专讙诪讛 专讘 讘专 砖讘讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讘诇讗讜 讚诇讗 转住讜专 讗讞讬讻讜 注诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讚诇讗 转住讜专 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks: Why? Let us also say here: 鈥淭here is neither wisdom, nor understanding, nor counsel against the Lord.鈥 Rav bar Shaba interpreted this prohibition, which is overridden by human dignity, before Rav Kahana as referring to the prohibition of: 鈥淎ccording to the Torah taught to you and the ruling handed down to you, you shall do, you shall not deviate to the left or the right from that which they tell you鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:11). The Yeshiva students laughed at him, as the prohibition of 鈥測ou shall not deviate鈥 is by Torah law, like all other Torah prohibitions. Why should human dignity override it any more than any other Torah prohibition?

讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讙讘专讗 专讘讛 讗诪专 诪讬诇转讗 诇讗 转讞讬讻讜 注诇讬讛 讻诇 诪讬诇讬 讚专讘谞谉 讗住诪讻讬谞讛讜 注诇 诇讗讜 讚诇讗 转住讜专 讜诪砖讜诐 讻讘讜讚讜 砖专讜 专讘谞谉

Rav Kahana replied to them: A great man has spoken, do not laugh at him. The Sages based all rabbinic law on the prohibition of 鈥測ou shall not deviate鈥; however, due to concern for human dignity, the Sages permitted suspension of rabbinic law in cases where the two collide. All rabbinic decrees are predicated on the mitzva in the Torah to heed the judges in each generation and to never stray from their words. Therefore, when the Sages suspend a decree in the interest of preserving human dignity, human dignity is overriding a Torah prohibition. In any case, it only overrides rabbinic decrees.

转讗 砖诪注 讜讛转注诇诪转 诪讛诐 驻注诪讬诐 砖讗转讛 诪转注诇诐 诪讛诐 讜驻注诪讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讗转讛 诪转注诇诐 诪讛诐

The Gemara cites an additional proof from a baraita: Come and hear: With regard to the laws of returning a lost object, it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall not see the ox of your brother or his sheep go astray and ignore them; return them to your brother鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:1). The baraita explains that the seemingly extraneous expression and disregard them must be understood to give license that at times you disregard lost objects and at times you do not disregard them.

讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讗诐 讛讬讛 讻讛谉 讜讛讬讗 讘讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转 讗讜 讛讬讛 讝拽谉 讜讗讬谞讛 诇驻讬 讻讘讜讚讜 讗讜 砖讛讬转讛 诪诇讗讻转讜 诪专讜讘讛 诪砖诇 讞讘专讜 诇讻讱 谞讗诪专 讜讛转注诇诪转 讗诪讗讬 诇讬诪讗 讗讬谉 讞讻诪讛 讜讗讬谉 转讘讜谞讛 讜讗讬谉 注爪讛 诇谞讙讚 讛壮

How so? If he was a priest and the lost object was in the cemetery, or if he was an elder and it is beneath his dignity to tend to a lost object of that kind, or if he had more work to do than another person and he does not want to set it all aside when another person is available to tend to the lost object. Therefore, with regard to those cases it is stated: And disregard them to permit one to refrain from returning the object. Why? Let us say here, too: Although handling the lost object would be beneath his dignity, 鈥渢here is neither wisdom, nor understanding, nor counsel against the Lord.鈥

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛转注诇诪转 诪讛诐 讜诇讬讙诪专 诪讬谞讛 讗讬住讜专讗 诪诪诪讜谞讗 诇讗 讬诇驻讬谞谉

The Gemara answers: There it is different, as it is written: 鈥淎nd disregard them,鈥 indicating that under certain circumstances one is permitted to disregard a lost object. In that case, there is a biblical directive that creates an exception to the prohibition: 鈥淵ou may not disregard鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:3). We found a case in which human dignity overrides a Torah prohibition. The Gemara suggests: Let us derive a general principle that human dignity takes precedence over all mitzvot in the Torah from this case. This possibility is rejected: We do not derive halakhot pertaining to prohibitions from monetary laws, and the case of the lost object merely entails a monetary loss, unlike other prohibitions.

转讗 砖诪注

The Gemara cites an additional proof from a baraita. Come and hear what was said in the Torah with regard to the Nazirite: 鈥淗e shall not become impure for his father or his mother or his brother or his sister in their death, for the crown of his God is on his head鈥 (Numbers 6:7). Since it was already written with regard to the Nazirite: 鈥淗e shall not come upon a dead body鈥 (Numbers 6:6), why is it necessary to elaborate and specify his parents and siblings?

讜诇讗讞转讜 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛专讬 砖讛讬讛 讛讜诇讱 诇砖讞讜讟 讗转 驻住讞讜 讜诇诪讜诇 讗转 讘谞讜 讜砖诪注 砖诪转 诇讜 诪转 讬讻讜诇 讬讞讝讜专 讜讬讟诪讗 讗诪专转 诇讗 讬讟诪讗

The Sages derived through halakhic midrash that each of these relationships come to teach a specific nuance of the law. They learned: To what purpose did the verse state: And his sister? To teach that one who was going to slaughter his Paschal lamb and to circumcise his son, both of which are positive mitzvot that if he fails to fulfill them, he is punished with karet, and he heard that a relative of his died, I might have thought that he should return and become ritually impure with the impurity imparted by a corpse. You said: 鈥淗e shall not become impure鈥; the death of his relative will not override so significant a mitzva from the Torah.

讬讻讜诇 讻砖诐 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 诇讛诐 讻讱 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 诇诪转 诪爪讜讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜诇讗讞讜转讜 诇讗讞讜转讜 讛讜讗 讚讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗

I might have thought: Just as he does not become impure for his relatives, so he does not become impure for a corpse with no one to bury it [met mitzva]. The verse states: 鈥淎nd his sister鈥; he may not become impure for his sister, as someone else can attend to her burial,

Scroll To Top