Sanhedrin 46
הַשְׁתָּא דִּמְרַחֲקִי מֵהֲדָדֵי, אַהֲנִי לְרַבּוֹיֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, דְּדָמֵי לֵיהּ בְּכֹל מִילֵּי.
Now that the generalization and the detail are distant from each other, i.e., they are written in different verses, the verses serve to include one who was found guilty of idol worship, as he is similar to the blasphemer in all matters. He too is subject to be hung after he is executed.
וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר דָּרֵישׁ רִיבּוּיֵי וּמִיעוּטֵי, ״וְהוּמָת וְתָלִיתָ״ – רִבּוּי, ״כִּי קִלְלַת״ – מִיעוּט. אִי הֲווֹ מְקָרְבִי לַהֲדָדֵי, לָא הֲווֹ מְרַבִּינַן אֶלָּא עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה דְּדָמֵי לֵהּ בְּכֹל מִילֵּי. הַשְׁתָּא דִּמְרַחֲקִי מֵהֲדָדֵי, אַהֲנִי לְרַבּוֹיֵי שְׁאָר הַנִּסְקָלִין.
And Rabbi Eliezer, by contrast, interprets the verses based on the principle of amplifications and restrictions. The phrase “And he is put to death, and you shall hang him” is an amplification. The phrase “For he that is hung is a curse of God” is a restriction. Were the amplification and the restriction right next to each other, we would apply the principle of amplifications and restrictions and include only one who is guilty of idol worship, as he is similar to the blasphemer in all ways. Now that they are distant from each other, the verses serve to include all those who are liable to be stoned to death. All of their corpses are hung after they are put to death.
הָאִישׁ תּוֹלִין וְכוּ׳. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּנַן? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְתָלִיתָ אֹתוֹ״ – אוֹתוֹ, וְלֹא אוֹתָהּ. וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: ״אוֹתוֹ״ – בְּלֹא כְּסוּתוֹ.
§ The mishna teaches that according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, the corpse of a man is hung facing the people while the corpse of a woman is hung facing the tree, whereas the Rabbis say that the corpse of a woman is not hung at all. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning behind the opinion of the Rabbis? The Gemara answers: As the verse states: “And if a man has committed a sin worthy of death, and he is put to death, and you shall hang him on a tree” (Deuteronomy 21:22), which teaches that you shall hang him on a tree after his death, but you shall not hang her on a tree after her death. And Rabbi Eliezer would respond that the inference to be drawn from this verse is that after his death they hang him by himself, without his clothing.
וְרַבָּנַן, אִין הָכִי נָמֵי. אֶלָּא אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְכִי יִהְיֶה בְאִישׁ חֵטְא״ – אִישׁ, וְלֹא אִשָּׁה.
The Gemara asks: And from where do the Rabbis derive that the corpse of the executed man is hung without his clothing? The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so that they agree that the word “him” teaches that the corpse is hung without clothing. But the source of their ruling is the verse that states: “And if a man has committed a sin,” which indicates that a man is hung after he is put to death, but a woman is not hung after she is put to death.
וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, הַאי ״וְכִי יִהְיֶה בְאִישׁ״ מַאי דָּרֵישׁ בֵּיהּ? אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: הָהוּא לְמַעוֹטֵי בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה. וְהָתַנְיָא: בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה נִסְקָל וְנִתְלֶה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: לְרַבּוֹת בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה. מַאי טַעְמָא?
The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Eliezer, what does he learn from this clause of the verse: “And if a man has committed a sin”? Reish Lakish says: That clause of the verse serves to exclude a stubborn and rebellious son, who, according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, is not hung after he is executed, because he is not a man. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn’t it taught explicitly in a baraita: A stubborn and rebellious son is first stoned and afterward his corpse is hung; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer? Rather, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: That part of the verse comes to include a stubborn and rebellious son, that his corpse is also hung. What is the reason for this?
דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְכִי יִהְיֶה בְאִישׁ חֵטְא״ – אִישׁ, וְלֹא בֵּן. ״חֵטְא״ – מִי שֶׁעַל חֶטְאוֹ נֶהֱרָג, יָצָא בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה שֶׁעַל שׁוּם סוֹפוֹ נֶהֱרָג. הָוֵי מִיעוּט אַחַר מִיעוּט, וְאֵין מִיעוּט אַחַר מִיעוּט אֶלָּא לְרַבּוֹת.
The Gemara explains: As the verse states: “And if a man has committed a sin,” indicating that only the corpse of a man is hung, but not that of a child, thereby excluding a stubborn and rebellious son. And the word “sin” indicates that only the corpse of one who is put to death on account of a sin is hung, to the exclusion of a stubborn and rebellious son, who is executed not because of a sin that he has already committed but on account of what he is likely to do in the future. This is an example of a restrictive expression following a restrictive expression, as both expressions indicate that a stubborn and rebellious son is not hung after he is put to death. And there is a hermeneutical principle that a restrictive expression following a restrictive expression serves only to amplify the halakha and include additional cases. In this case, it serves to teach that the corpse of a stubborn and rebellious son is hung after he is put to death.
אָמַר לָהֶן רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: וַהֲלֹא שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטַח תָּלָה נָשִׁים כּוּ׳? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בִּשְׁתֵּי מִיתוֹת, אֲבָל בְּמִיתָה אַחַת – דָּנִין. וְהָא מַעֲשֶׂה דְּשִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטַח דְּמִיתָה אַחַת הֲוַאי, וְקָא אָמְרוּ לֵיהּ דְּאֵין דָּנִין!
§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Eliezer said to the Rabbis: Did Shimon ben Shataḥ not hang in Ashkelon women who were found guilty of witchcraft? And the Rabbis replied that no proof can be brought from there since he hanged eighty women on a single day, which clearly indicates that this was an extraordinary measure and therefore cannot serve as a precedent for normative halakha. Rav Ḥisda says: They taught that one court may not judge two capital cases on one day only when the two cases involve two different modes of execution, but when they involve only one mode of execution, the court may in fact judge them on the same day. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But the incident relating to Shimon ben Shataḥ involved only one mode of execution, as all the women were accused of witchcraft, and yet the Rabbis said to him that the court may not judge them on one day.
אֶלָּא, אִי אִיתְּמַר הָכִי אִיתְּמַר: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בְּמִיתָה אַחַת כְּעֵין שְׁתֵּי מִיתוֹת. וְהֵיכִי דָּמֵי? כְּגוֹן שְׁתֵּי עֲבֵירוֹת. אֲבָל בְּמִיתָה אַחַת וַעֲבֵירָה אַחַת – דָּנִין.
Rather, if a ruling was stated citing Rav Ḥisda, this is what was stated: They taught that one court may not judge two capital cases on one day only when the two cases involving one mode of execution are similar to two cases involving two different modes of execution. And what are the circumstances of such a situation? For example, when there are two different transgressions that are punishable by the same mode of execution, the court may not judge two such cases in one day. But where there is only one mode of execution and only one transgression, the court may in fact judge two cases on one day.
מֵתִיב רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: אֵין דָּנִין שְׁנַיִם בְּיוֹם אֶחָד, וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּנוֹאֵף וְנוֹאֶפֶת. תַּרְגְּמָא רַב חִסְדָּא: בְּבַת כֹּהֵן וּבוֹעֲלָהּ,
Rav Adda bar Ahava raises an objection from a baraita that states: The same court may not judge two people charged with capital transgressions on one day, not even an adulterer and an adulteress. This indicates that a court may not judge two cases on one day even if the two cases involve only one mode of execution and the same transgression. Rav Ḥisda interpreted the baraita as referring to a case of adultery involving the daughter of a priest and the man with whom she engaged in intercourse, as the daughter of a priest is liable to receive death by burning, while the man is liable to receive death by stoning if the woman was betrothed to another man, or strangulation if she was married to another man.
אוֹ בְּבַת כֹּהֵן וְזוֹמְמֵי זוֹמְמֶיהָ.
Or, the baraita is referring to a case of adultery involving the daughter of a priest and those who rendered as conspiring witnesses the witnesses who rendered as conspiring witnesses the witnesses who testified about her.
תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: שָׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁבֵּית דִּין מַכִּין וְעוֹנְשִׁין שֶׁלֹּא מִן הַתּוֹרָה, וְלֹא לַעֲבוֹר עַל דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה, אֶלָּא כְּדֵי לַעֲשׂוֹת סְיָיג לַתּוֹרָה.
It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: I heard that the court may administer lashes and capital punishment, even when not required by Torah law. And they may not administer these punishments with the intention of violating the statement of the Torah, i.e., to disregard the punishment stated in the Torah and administer another punishment; rather, they may administer these punishments to erect a fence around the Torah, so that people will fear sinning.
וּמַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁרָכַב עַל סוּס בְּשַׁבָּת בִּימֵי יְוָנִים, וֶהֱבִיאוּהוּ לְבֵית דִּין וּסְקָלוּהוּ, לֹא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁרָאוּי לְכָךְ, אֶלָּא שֶׁהַשָּׁעָה צְרִיכָה לְכָךְ. שׁוּב מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאָדָם אֶחָד שֶׁהֵטִיחַ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ תַּחַת הַתְּאֵנָה, וֶהֱבִיאוּהוּ לְבֵית דִּין וְהִלְקוּהוּ, לֹא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁרָאוּי לְכָךְ, אֶלָּא שֶׁהַשָּׁעָה צְרִיכָה לְכָךְ.
And an incident occurred involving one who rode a horse on Shabbat during the days of the Greeks, and they brought him to court and stoned him, not because he deserved that punishment, as riding a horse on Shabbat is forbidden only by rabbinic decree, but because the hour required it, as people had become lax in their observance of Shabbat and therefore it became necessary to impose the severe punishment for a relatively minor offense. Another incident occurred involving a man who engaged in intercourse with his wife in public under a fig tree, and they brought him to court and flogged him, not because that punishment was fitting for him, as such conduct is not forbidden by the Torah, but because the hour required it. People had become remiss in matters of modesty; therefore, stringent measures had to be taken to rectify the situation.
מַתְנִי׳ כֵּיצַד תּוֹלִין אוֹתוֹ? מְשַׁקְּעִין אֶת הַקּוֹרָה בָּאָרֶץ, וְהָעֵץ יוֹצֵא וּמַקִּיף שְׁתֵּי יָדָיו זוֹ עַל גַּב זוֹ, וְתוֹלֶה אוֹתוֹ. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: הַקּוֹרָה מוּטָּה עַל הַכּוֹתֶל, וְתוֹלֶה אוֹתוֹ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהַטַּבָּחִין עוֹשִׂין.
MISHNA: How do they hang the corpse of one who was put to death by stoning? They sink a post into the earth with a piece of wood jutting out, forming a T-shaped structure. And the court appointee then places the dead man’s two hands one upon the other, ties them, and hangs him by his hands. Rabbi Yosei says: The post is not sunk into the ground; rather, it leans against a wall, and he hangs the corpse on it the way that butchers do with meat.
וּמַתִּירִין אוֹתוֹ מִיָּד, וְאִם לָן – עוֹבֵר עָלָיו בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא תָלִין נִבְלָתוֹ עַל הָעֵץ כִּי קָבוֹר תִּקְבְּרֶנּוּ כִּי קִלְלַת אֱלֹהִים תָּלוּי וְגוֹ׳״. כְּלוֹמַר, מִפְּנֵי מָה זֶה תָּלוּי? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁבֵּירַךְ אֶת הַשֵּׁם, וְנִמְצָא שֵׁם שָׁמַיִם מִתְחַלֵּל.
The dead man hangs there for only a very short time, and then they immediately untie him. And if he was left hanging overnight, a prohibition is transgressed, as it is stated: “His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but you shall bury him that day, for he that is hung is a curse of God” (Deuteronomy 21:23). That is to say: Were the corpse left hanging on the tree overnight, people would ask: For what reason was this one hung after he was put to death? They would be answered: Because he blessed God, a euphemism for blasphemy. And therefore the name of Heaven would be desecrated were the dead man’s corpse to remain hanging, reminding everybody of his transgression.
אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאָדָם מִצְטַעֵר, שְׁכִינָה מָה לָשׁוֹן אוֹמֶרֶת? ״קַלַּנִי מֵרֹאשִׁי, קַלַּנִי מִזְּרוֹעִי״. אִם כֵּן הַמָּקוֹם מִצְטַעֵר עַל דָּמָן שֶׁל רְשָׁעִים שֶׁנִּשְׁפָּךְ, קַל וְחוֹמֶר עַל דָּמָן שֶׁל צַדִּיקִים.
Rabbi Meir said: The phrase “for he that is hung is a curse [kilelat] of God” should be understood as follows: When a man suffers in the wake of his sin, what expression does the Divine Presence use? I am distressed [kallani] about My head, I am distressed about My arm, meaning, I, too, suffer when the wicked are punished. From here it is derived: If God suffers such distress over the blood of the wicked that is spilled, even though they justly deserved their punishment, it can be inferred a fortiori that He suffers distress over the blood of the righteous.
וְלֹא זוֹ בִּלְבַד אָמְרוּ, אֶלָּא כָּל הַמֵּלִין אֶת מֵתוֹ עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. הֱלִינוֹ לִכְבוֹדוֹ, לְהָבִיא לוֹ אָרוֹן וְתַכְרִיכִים – אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו.
And the Sages said not only this, that an executed transgressor must be buried on the same day that he is killed, but they said that anyone who leaves his deceased relative overnight without burying him transgresses a prohibition. But if he left the deceased overnight for the sake of the deceased’s honor, e.g., to bring a coffin or shrouds for his burial, he does not transgress the prohibition against leaving him unburied overnight.
וְלֹא הָיוּ קוֹבְרִין אוֹתוֹ בְּקִבְרוֹת אֲבוֹתָיו, אֶלָּא שְׁתֵּי בָּתֵּי קְבָרוֹת הָיוּ מְתוּקָּנִין לְבֵית דִּין: אַחַת לַנֶּהֱרָגִין וְלַנֶּחְנָקִין, וְאַחַת לַנִּסְקָלִין וְלַנִּשְׂרָפִין. נִתְעַכֵּל הַבָּשָׂר, מְלַקְּטִין אֶת הָעֲצָמוֹת וְקוֹבְרִין אוֹתָן בִּמְקוֹמָן. וְהַקְּרוֹבִים בָּאִים וְשׁוֹאֲלִים בִּשְׁלוֹם הַדַּיָּינִין וּבִשְׁלוֹם הָעֵדִים, כְּלוֹמַר שֶׁאֵין בְּלִבֵּנוּ עֲלֵיכֶם שֶׁדִּין אֱמֶת דַּנְתֶּם.
After the executed transgressor is taken down he is buried, and they would not bury him in his ancestral burial plot. Rather, two graveyards were established for the burial of those executed by the court: One for those who were killed by decapitation or strangled, and one for those who were stoned or burned. Once the flesh of the deceased had decomposed, they would gather his bones and bury them in their proper place in his ancestral burial plot. And soon after the execution, the relatives of the executed transgressor would come and inquire about the welfare of the judges and about the welfare of the witnesses, as if to say: We hold no grudges against you, as you judged a true judgment.
וְלֹא הָיוּ מִתְאַבְּלִין, אֲבָל אוֹנְנִין, שֶׁאֵין אֲנִינוּת אֶלָּא בַּלֵּב.
And the relatives of the executed man would not mourn him with the observance of the usual mourning rites, so that his unmourned death would atone for his transgression; but they would grieve over his passing, since grief is felt only in the heart.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אִילּוּ נֶאֱמַר ״חֵטְא וְתָלִיתָ״, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר תּוֹלִין אוֹתוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מְמִיתִין אוֹתוֹ, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהַמַּלְכוּת עוֹשָׂה. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהוּמָת וְתָלִיתָ״ – מְמִיתִין אוֹתוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ תּוֹלִין אוֹתוֹ. הָא כֵּיצַד? מְשַׁהִין אוֹתוֹ עַד סָמוּךְ לִשְׁקִיעַת הַחַמָּה, וְגוֹמְרִין אֶת דִּינוֹ, וּמְמִיתִין אוֹתוֹ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ תּוֹלִין אוֹתוֹ. אֶחָד קוֹשֵׁר וְאֶחָד מַתִּיר, כְּדֵי לְקַיֵּים מִצְוַת תְּלִיָּיה.
GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: Were it stated: And if a man has committed a sin worthy of death you shall hang him on a tree, I would have said that first they hang him and only afterward they put him to death, the way the gentile government does, executing the transgressor by hanging. Therefore, the verse states: “And if a man has committed a sin worthy of death, and he is put to death, and you shall hang him on a tree” (Deuteronomy 21:22), teaching that first they put him to death, and only afterward they hang him. How so? They delay the verdict until it is near to sunset, and then they conclude his judgment, and they put him to death, and immediately afterward hang him. One ties him to the hanging post, and another immediately unties him, in order to fulfill the mitzva of hanging the corpse of the executed transgressor.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״עֵץ״ – שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי בֵּין בְּתָלוּשׁ בֵּין בִּמְחוּבָּר. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״כִּי קָבוֹר״ – מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחוּסָּר אֶלָּא קְבוּרָה, יָצָא זֶה שֶׁמְחוּסָּר קְצִיצָה וּקְבוּרָה.
The Sages taught: From the verse: “And you shall hang him on a tree,” I would derive that the body may be hung either on a tree that has been detached from the ground or on one that is still attached to the ground. Therefore, the verse states: “His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but you shall bury him [kavor tikberennu] that day” (Deuteronomy 21:23). Based on the doubled verb, it is derived that not only must the transgressor’s body be buried, but the tree on which it is hung must also be buried. As the verse employs the same term to instruct that both must be buried, the verse teaches that the corpse must be hung on a tree that has already been detached from the ground and is lacking only burial, just as the corpse is lacking only burial. This serves to exclude hanging the corpse on a tree that is still attached to the ground and is lacking both cutting down and burial.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחוּסָּר אֶלָּא קְבוּרָה – יָצָא זֶה שֶׁמְחוּסָּר תְּלִישָׁה וּקְבוּרָה. וְרַבָּנַן: תְּלִישָׁה לָאו כְּלוּם הִיא.
Rabbi Yosei says: The tree upon which the corpse is hung is not sunk into the ground; rather, it is leaned against a wall, as the verse teaches that the tree must be lacking only burial. This serves to exclude hanging the corpse on a tree that is lacking both detachment and burial. And the Rabbis say: Detaching from the ground a tree that had already been cut down and was later sunk back into the ground is nothing, i.e., it is an insignificant act.
כְּלוֹמַר: מִפְּנֵי מָה זֶה תָּלוּי? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁבֵּירַךְ כּוּ׳. תַּנְיָא, אוֹמֵר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: מָשְׁלוּ מָשָׁל, לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה? לִשְׁנֵי אַחִים תְּאוֹמִים בְּעִיר אַחַת. אֶחָד מִינּוּהוּ מֶלֶךְ, וְאֶחָד יָצָא לְלִיסְטִיּוּת. צִוָּה הַמֶּלֶךְ וּתְלָאוּהוּ. כׇּל הָרוֹאֶה אוֹתוֹ אוֹמֵר: הַמֶּלֶךְ תָּלוּי. צִוָּה הַמֶּלֶךְ וְהוֹרִידוּהוּ.
§ The mishna teaches: That is to say: Were the dead man’s corpse to remain hanging, reminding everyone of his transgression, people would ask: For what reason was this one hung? They would be answered: Because he blessed God, a euphemism for blasphemy, and the name of Heaven would be desecrated. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir says: The Sages told a parable: To what is this matter comparable? It is comparable to two brothers who were twins and lived in the same city. One was appointed king, while the other went out to engage in banditry. The king commanded that his brother be punished, and they hanged his twin brother for his crimes. Anyone who saw the bandit hanging would say: The king was hanged. The king, therefore, commanded that his brother be taken down, and they took the bandit down. Similarly, people are created in God’s image, and therefore God is disgraced when a corpse is hung for a transgression that the person has committed.
אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר כּוּ׳. מַאי מַשְׁמַע? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר ״קַל לֵית״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אִם כֵּן, ״כָּבֵד עָלַי רֹאשִׁי״ ״כָּבֵד עָלַי זְרוֹעִי״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר ״קִיל לִי עָלְמָא״.
The mishna teaches that Rabbi Meir said that the phrase “For he that is hung is a curse [kilelat] of God” should be understood as follows: When a man suffers in the wake of his sin, the Divine Presence says: I am distressed [kallani] about My head, I am distressed about My arm. The Gemara asks: From where is this inferred? How does Rabbi Meir understand the word kilelat? Abaye says: When a man is hung after he is put to death, God is like one who said: I am not light [kal leit], meaning: My head is heavy for Me, My arm is heavy for Me. God is in distress when He has to administer punishment. Rava said to him: If so, he should have said explicitly: My head is heavy for Me, My arm is heavy for Me. Rather, Rava said: When a man is hung after he is put to death, God is like one who said: The world is light for me [kil li alma], meaning: I am light, and therefore the world is heavy for Me, and I am in distress.
הַאי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְגוּפֵהּ? אִם כֵּן, נֵימָא קְרָא ״מְקַלֵּל״. מַאי ״קִלְלַת״? וְאֵימָא: כּוּלֵּיהּ לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא? אִם כֵּן, נֵימָא קְרָא ״קַלַּת״. מַאי ״קִלְלַת״? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ תַּרְתֵּי.
The Gemara asks: This word “kilelat” is needed for what it itself teaches, namely that a blasphemer is hung after he has been stoned. How, then, can it be interpreted as alluding to God’s distress at the death of a transgressor? The Gemara answers: If so, the verse should have stated: One who curses [mekallel ]. What is the meaning of kilelat? It serves to teach the statement taught by Rabbi Meir. The Gemara asks: If so, say perhaps that the entire verse comes for this purpose, to underscore the dignity of the transgressor, who was created in God’s image, and not to teach the halakha governing a blasphemer. The Gemara responds: If so, the verse should have stated: Lightness [kilat]. What is the meaning of kilelat? Conclude two conclusions from it: Conclude that the blasphemer is hung after he has been stoned, and conclude that God is distressed at the death of a transgressor.
וְלֹא זוֹ בִּלְבַד כּוּ׳. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי: מִנַּיִן לַמֵּלִין אֶת מֵתוֹ שֶׁעוֹבֵר עָלָיו בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כִּי קָבוֹר תִּקְבְּרֶנּוּ״. מִכָּאן לַמֵּלִין אֶת מֵתוֹ שֶׁעוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה.
§ The mishna teaches that everyone, not only an executed transgressor, must be buried on the day of his death, if that is at all possible. Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai: From where is it derived that one who leaves his deceased relative overnight without burying him transgresses a prohibition? The verse states: “But you shall bury him [kavor tikberennu]” (Deuteronomy 21:23), doubling the verb for emphasis. From here it is derived that one who leaves his deceased relative overnight without burying him transgresses a prohibition.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי, רֶמֶז לִקְבוּרָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה מִנַּיִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כִּי קָבוֹר תִּקְבְּרֶנּוּ״. מִכָּאן רֶמֶז לִקְבוּרָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה.
There are those who say that Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai: From where in the Torah is there a hint to the mitzva of burial? The verse states: “But you shall bury him [kavor tikberennu],” doubling the verb for emphasis. From here there is a hint to the mitzva of burial in the Torah.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ שַׁבּוּר מַלְכָּא לְרַב חָמָא: קְבוּרָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה מִנַּיִין? אִישְׁתִּיק וְלָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ וְלָא מִידֵּי. אֲמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: אִימְּסַר עָלְמָא בִּידָא דְּטַפְשָׁאֵי, דְּאִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְמֵימַר ״כִּי קָבוֹר״.
The Gemara relates: King Shapur, the monarch of Persia, once said to Rav Ḥama: From where in the Torah is there a hint to the mitzva of burial? What proof is there that the dead must be buried and not treated in some other manner? Rav Ḥama was silent and said nothing to him, as he could not find a suitable source. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: The world has been handed over to the foolish, as Rav Ḥama should have said to King Shapur that the mitzva of burial is derived from the verse: “But you shall bury him” (Deuteronomy 21:23).
דְּלֶיעֱבֵד לֵיהּ אָרוֹן. ״תִּקְבְּרֶנּוּ״! לָא מַשְׁמַע לֵיהּ.
The Gemara explains: In that case, King Shapur could have replied that the verse merely proves that a coffin should be made for the deceased so that he can be placed in it, not that the deceased should be buried in the ground, as the verse could be understood as instructing that the corpse be placed in some sort of receptacle, not in the ground. The Gemara challenges: Rav Ḥama could still have claimed that the mitzva of burial is derived from the doubled verb “you shall bury him [kavor tikberennu].” The Gemara answers: In that case, King Shapur could have replied that he does not learn anything from a doubled verb, which seems to be merely a stylistic choice and not the source of a new halakha.
וְנֵימָא: מִדְּאִיקְּבוּר צַדִּיקֵי? מִנְהֲגָא בְּעָלְמָא! מִדְּקַבְרֵיהּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמֹשֶׁה? דְּלָא לִישְׁתַּנֵּי מִמִּנְהֲגָא.
The Gemara asks: But let Rav Ḥama say that the mitzva to bury the dead is derived from the fact that the righteous forefathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were all buried. The Gemara answers: King Shapur could have said that this was merely a custom of the time, but not a mitzva. The Gemara asks: Rav Ḥama could have derived the mitzva from the fact that the Holy One, Blessed be He, buried Moses, which proves that this is the proper way to handle the dead. The Gemara answers: King Shapur could still have said that God acted in this manner in order not to deviate from the general custom, but this does not prove that burying the dead is a mitzva.
תָּא שְׁמַע: ״וְסָפְדוּ לוֹ כׇל יִשְׂרָאֵל וְקָבְרוּ אֹתוֹ״. דְּלָא לִישְׁתַּנֵּי מִמִּנְהֲגָא.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof that burying the dead is a mitzva, as the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite said about Abijah, son of Jeroboam: “And all Israel shall eulogize him and bury him” (I Kings 14:13). The Gemara answers: From here, too, there is no proof, as they may have buried Abijah in order not to deviate from the general custom of the world, and not because they were required to do so.
״לֹא יִסָּפְדוּ וְלֹא יִקָּבֵרוּ לְדֹמֶן עַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה יִהְיוּ״. דְּלִישְׁתַּנּוֹ מִמִּנְהֲגָא.
The Gemara proposes another proof: Jeremiah pronounced a curse upon the wicked, saying: “They shall not be eulogized, nor shall they be buried; but they shall be as dung upon the face of the earth” (Jeremiah 16:4), which proves that when no curse has been pronounced, the dead should be buried. The Gemara rejects this proof: From here, too, there is no proof that it is a mitzva to bury the dead, as Jeremiah cursed the wicked, saying that they would deviate from the general custom and not be buried. Due to all these difficulties, Rav Ḥama was unable to adduce incontrovertible proof that there is a mitzva to bury the dead.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: קְבוּרָה מִשּׁוּם בִּזְיוֹנָא הוּא, אוֹ מִשּׁוּם כַּפָּרָה הוּא?
§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is burial obligatory on account of disgrace, i.e., so that the deceased should not suffer the disgrace of being left exposed as his body begins to decompose, or is it on account of atonement, i.e., so that the deceased will achieve atonement by being returned to the ground from which he was formed?
לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? דְּאָמַר: לָא בָּעֵינָא דְּלִיקְבְּרוּהּ לְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא. אִי אָמְרַתְּ מִשּׁוּם בִּזְיוֹנָא הוּא – לָא כֹּל כְּמִינֵּיהּ, וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ מִשּׁוּם כַּפָּרָה הוּא – הָא אָמַר: לָא בָּעֵינָא כַּפָּרָה. מַאי?
The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference that arises from knowing the reason that burial is necessary? The Gemara answers: There is a difference in a case where one said before he died: I do not want them to bury that man, i.e., myself. If you say that burial is required on account of disgrace, it is not in his power to waive his own burial, as his family shares in the disgrace. But if you say that burial is required on account of atonement, didn’t he effectively say: I do not want atonement, and with regard to himself one should be able to do as he wishes? What, then, is the halakha?
תָּא שְׁמַע: מִדְּאִיקְּבוּר צַדִּיקֵי, וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ מִשּׁוּם כַּפָּרָה – צַדִּיקֵי לְכַפָּרָה צְרִיכִי? אִין, דִּכְתִיב: ״אָדָם אֵין צַדִּיק בָּאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה טּוֹב וְלֹא יֶחֱטָא״.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the fact that the righteous patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were all buried. And if you say that burial is required on account of atonement, do the righteous need atonement? The Gemara rejects this proof: Yes, even the righteous are in need of atonement, as it is written: “For there is no righteous person on earth who does good and never sins” (Ecclesiastes 7:20), and so even the righteous need atonement for the few sins that they committed over the course of their lifetimes.
תָּא שְׁמַע: ״וְסָפְדוּ לוֹ כׇל יִשְׂרָאֵל וְקָבְרוּ אֹתוֹ״. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּתֶיהֱוֵי לֵיהּ כַּפָּרָה, הָנָךְ נָמֵי לִיקַּבְרוּ כִּי הֵיכִי דְּתֶיהֱוֵי לְהוּ כַּפָּרָה? הַאי דְּצַדִּיק הוּא – תֶּיהֱוֵי לֵיהּ כַּפָּרָה, הָנָךְ – לָא לֶיהֱוֵי לְהוּ כַּפָּרָה.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the verse referring to Abijah, son of Jeroboam: “And all Israel shall eulogize him and bury him, for he alone of Jeroboam shall come to the grave” (I Kings 14:13). And if you say that burial is required so that the deceased should achieve atonement, these too, i.e., Jeroboam’s other sons, should also be buried so that they should achieve atonement. The Gemara rejects this argument: This son, Abijah, who was righteous, should achieve atonement through his death and burial, but these other sons, who were wicked, should not achieve atonement even in death.
תָּא שְׁמַע: ״לֹא יִסָּפְדוּ וְלֹא יִקָּבֵרוּ״, דְּלָא תֶּיהֱוֵי לְהוּ כַּפָּרָה.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the curse pronounced by Jeremiah upon the wicked: “They shall not be eulogized, nor shall they be buried” (Jeremiah 16:4), which indicates that it is not on account of atonement that burial is required, as were that the case the wicked are certainly in need of atonement, and therefore they should be buried. The Gemara answers: This is no proof, as Jeremiah’s intention might be that the wicked should not achieve atonement. Therefore, the question of whether burial is necessary in order to prevent disgrace or achieve atonement remains unresolved.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: הֶסְפֵּידָא, יְקָרָא דְּחָיֵי הָוֵי אוֹ יְקָרָא דְּשָׁכְבֵי הָוֵי? לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? דְּאָמַר: לָא תִּסְפְּדוּהּ לְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא. אִי נָמֵי, לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִיּוֹרְשִׁין.
§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is the eulogy delivered for the honor of the living relatives of the deceased, or is it delivered for the honor of the dead? The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the two possible reasons? The Gemara answers: There is a difference in a case where one said before he died: Do not eulogize that man, i.e., myself. If the eulogy is delivered to honor the deceased, he is able to forgo this honor, but if it is delivered to honor the living, he is not, as it is not in the power of one individual to forgo the honor of others. Alternately, the difference is with regard to whether it is possible to collect the eulogist’s fee from the heirs. If the eulogy is to honor the dead, it is possible to collect this fee from the heirs, even against their will, but if it is to honor the living, they are able to forgo this honor.
תָּא שְׁמַע: ״וַיָּבֹא אַבְרָהָם לִסְפֹּד לְשָׂרָה וְלִבְכֹּתָהּ״. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ מִשּׁוּם יְקָרָא דְּחַיֵּי הוּא, מִשּׁוּם יְקָרָא דְּאַבְרָהָם מְשַׁהוּ לַהּ לְשָׂרָה? שָׂרָה גּוּפַהּ נִיחָא לָהּ, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּמִיַּיקַּר בַּהּ אַבְרָהָם.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the verse that states: “And Abraham came to eulogize Sarah and weep over her” (Genesis 23:2), indicating that Sarah’s funeral was delayed until Abraham returned from Beersheba to Hebron to eulogize her. And if you say that a eulogy is delivered due to the honor of the living, would they have unduly delayed burying Sarah due to Abraham’s honor? The Gemara rejects this argument: It was satisfactory to Sarah herself that her funeral was delayed so that Abraham could be honored by eulogizing her. Since Sarah herself would prefer that Abraham eulogize her, there was no disgrace in waiting for Abraham to arrive.
תָּא שְׁמַע: ״וְסָפְדוּ לוֹ כׇל יִשְׂרָאֵל וְקָבְרוּ אֹתוֹ״. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ מִשּׁוּם יְקָרָא דְּחַיֵּי הוּא, הָנָךְ בְּנֵי יְקָרָא נִינְהוּ? נִיחָא לְהוּ לְצַדִּיקַיָּא דְּמִיַּיקְּרִי בְּהוּ אִינָשֵׁי.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a different resolution of this dilemma from the verse referring to Abijah, son of Jeroboam: “And all Israel shall eulogize him and bury him” (I Kings 14:13). And if you say that a eulogy is delivered due to the honor of the living, are these people, Jeroboam’s surviving family, worthy of this honor? The Gemara answers: It is satisfactory to the righteous when other people are honored through them. Since that is their wish, they are eulogized even if their wicked relatives are honored as a result.
תָּא שְׁמַע: ״לֹא יִסָּפְדוּ וְלֹא יִקָּבֵרוּ״. לָא נִיחָא לְצַדִּיקַיָּא דְּמִיַּיקְּרִי בַּרְשִׁיעִיָּיא.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the curse pronounced by Jeremiah upon the wicked: “They shall not be eulogized, nor shall they be buried” (Jeremiah 16:4). If you say that a eulogy is delivered due to the honor of the living, why should the wicked not be eulogized, as perhaps they are survived by righteous people who are worthy of this honor? The Gemara answers: It is not satisfactory to the righteous when they are honored through the wicked, and therefore they prefer that a eulogy not be delivered for their wicked relatives.
תָּא שְׁמַע: ״בְּשָׁלוֹם תָּמוּת וּבְמִשְׂרְפוֹת אֲבוֹתֶיךָ הַמְּלָכִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים אֲשֶׁר הָיוּ לְפָנֶיךָ כֵּן יִשְׂרְפוּ לָךְ וְהוֹי אָדוֹן יִסְפְּדוּ לָךְ״. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ מִשּׁוּם יְקָרָא דְּחָיֵי הוּא, מַאי נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ? הָכִי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ: לִיַּיקְּרוּ בָּיךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל כִּי הֵיכִי דְּמִתְיַיקְּרִי בַּאֲבָהָתָךְ.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution of this dilemma from what Jeremiah said to Zedekiah: “You shall die in peace; and with the burnings of your fathers, the former kings that were before you, so shall they make a burning for you; and they will eulogize you, saying: Ah, master” (Jeremiah 34:5). And if you say that a eulogy is delivered due to the honor of the living relatives of the deceased, what difference does it make to him if he is eulogized? The Gemara answers: It is possible that a eulogy is to honor the living, and this is what Jeremiah is saying to Zedekiah: Enjoy the thought that Israel shall be honored through you at your funeral just as they were honored through your ancestors at their funerals.
