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

Daf Yomi

August 31, 2017 | 讟壮 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

Sanhedrin 46

Those who were stoned were also hung – does this include all or only some of those who were stoned? 聽How did the hanging process work? 聽 Were women also hung? 聽 Many of these laws are derived from 2 verses in Devarim regarding the death penalty. 聽The dead body must be buried by nightfall. 聽 It is further derived from this verse that anyone who has a relative who dies must bury them by nightfall, unless there is an important reason to delay that would relate to respect for the dead.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讛砖转讗 讚诪专讞拽讬 诪讛讚讚讬 讗讛谞讬 诇专讘讜讬讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讚讚诪讬 诇讬讛 讘讻诇 诪讬诇讬


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.


讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚专讬砖 专讬讘讜讬讬 讜诪讬注讜讟讬 讜讛讜诪转 讜转诇讬转 专讘讜讬 讻讬 拽诇诇转 诪讬注讜讟 讗讬 讛讜讜 诪拽专讘讬 诇讛讚讚讬 诇讗 讛讜讜 诪专讘讬谞谉 讗诇讗 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讚讚诪讬 诇讛 讘讻诇 诪讬诇讬 讛砖转讗 讚诪专讞拽讬 诪讛讚讚讬 讗讛谞讬 诇专讘讜讬讬 砖讗专 讛谞住拽诇讬谉


And Rabbi Eliezer, by contrast, interprets the verses based on the principle of amplifications and restrictions. The phrase 鈥淎nd he is put to death, and you shall hang him鈥 is an amplification. The phrase 鈥淔or he that is hung is a curse of God鈥 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.


讛讗讬砖 转讜诇讬谉 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜转诇讬转 讗转讜 讗讜转讜 讜诇讗 讗讜转讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜转讜 讘诇讗 讻住讜转讜


搂 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: 鈥淎nd if a man has committed a sin worthy of death, and he is put to death, and you shall hang him on a tree鈥 (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 that the inference to be drawn from this verse is that after his death they hang him by himself, without his clothing.


讜专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讻讬 讬讛讬讛 讘讗讬砖 讞讟讗 讗讬砖 讜诇讗 讗砖讛


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 鈥渉im鈥 teaches that the corpse is hung without clothing. But the source of their ruling is the verse that states: 鈥淎nd if a man has committed a sin,鈥 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.


讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讗讬 讜讻讬 讬讛讬讛 讘讗讬砖 诪讗讬 讚专讬砖 讘讬讛 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讛讜讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 谞住拽诇 讜谞转诇讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇专讘讜转 讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗


The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Eliezer, what does he learn from this clause of the verse: 鈥淎nd if a man has committed a sin鈥? 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鈥檛 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 Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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?


讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讻讬 讬讛讬讛 讘讗讬砖 讞讟讗 讗讬砖 讜诇讗 讘谉 讞讟讗 诪讬 砖注诇 讞讟讗讜 谞讛专讙 讬爪讗 讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 砖注诇 砖讜诐 住讜驻讜 谞讛专讙 讛讜讬 诪讬注讜讟 讗讞专 诪讬注讜讟 讜讗讬谉 诪讬注讜讟 讗讞专 诪讬注讜讟 讗诇讗 诇专讘讜转


The Gemara explains: As the verse states: 鈥淎nd if a man has committed a sin,鈥 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 鈥渟in鈥 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.


讗诪专 诇讛谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讛诇讗 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 砖讟讞 转诇讛 谞砖讬诐 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘砖转讬 诪讬转讜转 讗讘诇 讘诪讬转讛 讗讞转 讚谞讬谉 讜讛讗 诪注砖讛 讚砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 砖讟讞 讚诪讬转讛 讗讞转 讛讜讗讬 讜拽讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讚讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉


搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Eliezer said to the Rabbis: Did Shimon ben Shata岣 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 岣sda 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 Shata岣 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.


讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘诪讬转讛 讗讞转 讻注讬谉 砖转讬 诪讬转讜转 讜讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讻讙讜谉 砖转讬 注讘讬专讜转 讗讘诇 讘诪讬转讛 讗讞转 讜注讘讬专讛 讗讞转 讚谞讬谉


Rather, if a ruling was stated citing Rav 岣sda, 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.


诪转讬讘 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 砖谞讬诐 讘讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘谞讜讗祝 讜谞讜讗驻转 转专讙诪讗 专讘 讞住讚讗 讘讘转 讻讛谉 讜讘讜注诇讛


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 岣sda 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.


讗讜 讘讘转 讻讛谉 讜讝讜诪诪讬 讝讜诪诪讬讛


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.


转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 砖诪注转讬 砖讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪讻讬谉 讜注讜谞砖讬谉 砖诇讗 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讜诇讗 诇注讘讜专 注诇 讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讗诇讗 讻讚讬 诇注砖讜转 住讬讬讙 诇转讜专讛


It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov 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.


讜诪注砖讛 讘讗讞讚 砖专讻讘 注诇 住讜住 讘砖讘转 讘讬诪讬 讬讜谞讬诐 讜讛讘讬讗讜讛讜 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜住拽诇讜讛讜 诇讗 诪驻谞讬 砖专讗讜讬 诇讻讱 讗诇讗 砖讛砖注讛 爪专讬讻讛 诇讻讱 砖讜讘 诪注砖讛 讘讗讚诐 讗讞讚 砖讛讟讬讞 讗转 讗砖转讜 转讞转 讛转讗谞讛 讜讛讘讬讗讜讛讜 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讛诇拽讜讛讜 诇讗 诪驻谞讬 砖专讗讜讬 诇讻讱 讗诇讗 砖讛砖注讛 爪专讬讻讛 诇讻讱


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.


诪转谞讬壮 讻讬爪讚 转讜诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪砖拽注讬谉 讗转 讛拽讜专讛 讘讗专抓 讜讛注抓 讬讜爪讗 讜诪拽讬祝 砖转讬 讬讚讬讜 讝讜 注诇 讙讘 讝讜 讜转讜诇讛 讗讜转讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讛拽讜专讛 诪讜讟讛 注诇 讛讻讜转诇 讜转讜诇讛 讗讜转讜 讻讚专讱 砖讛讟讘讞讬谉 注讜砖讬谉


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鈥檚 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.


讜诪转讬专讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪讬讚 讜讗诐 诇谉 注讜讘专 注诇讬讜 讘诇讗 转注砖讛 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 转诇讬谉 谞讘诇转讜 注诇 讛注抓 讻讬 拽讘讜专 转拽讘专谞讜 讻讬 拽诇诇转 讗诇讛讬诐 转诇讜讬 讜讙讜壮 讻诇讜诪专 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讝讛 转诇讜讬 诪驻谞讬 砖讘讬专讱 讗转 讛砖诐 讜谞诪爪讗 砖诐 砖诪讬诐 诪转讞诇诇


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: 鈥淗is 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鈥 (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鈥檚 corpse to remain hanging, reminding everybody of his transgression.


讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘砖注讛 砖讗讚诐 诪爪讟注专 砖讻讬谞讛 诪讛 诇砖讜谉 讗讜诪专转 拽诇谞讬 诪专讗砖讬 拽诇谞讬 诪讝专讜注讬 讗诐 讻谉 讛诪拽讜诐 诪爪讟注专 注诇 讚诪谉 砖诇 专砖注讬诐 砖谞砖驻讱 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 注诇 讚诪谉 砖诇 爪讚讬拽讬诐


Rabbi Meir said: The phrase 鈥渇or he that is hung is a curse [kilelat] of God鈥 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.


讜诇讗 讝讜 讘诇讘讚 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讻诇 讛诪诇讬谉 讗转 诪转讜 注讜讘专 讘诇讗 转注砖讛 讛诇讬谞讛讜 诇讻讘讜讚讜 诇讛讘讬讗 诇讜 讗专讜谉 讜转讻专讬讻讬诐 讗讬谞讜 注讜讘专 注诇讬讜


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 with-out burying him transgresses a prohibition. But if he left the deceased overnight for the sake of the deceased鈥檚 honor, e.g., to bring a coffin or shrouds for his burial, he does not transgress the prohibition against leaving him unburied overnight.


讜诇讗 讛讬讜 拽讜讘专讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘拽讘专讜转 讗讘讜转讬讜 讗诇讗 砖转讬 讘转讬 拽讘专讜转 讛讬讜 诪转讜拽谞讬谉 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讞转 诇谞讛专讙讬谉 讜诇谞讞谞拽讬谉 讜讗讞转 诇谞住拽诇讬谉 讜诇谞砖专驻讬谉 谞转注讻诇 讛讘砖专 诪诇拽讟讬谉 讗转 讛注爪诪讜转 讜拽讜讘专讬谉 讗讜转谉 讘诪拽讜诪谉 讜讛拽专讜讘讬诐 讘讗讬诐 讜砖讜讗诇讬诐 讘砖诇讜诐 讛讚讬讬谞讬谉 讜讘砖诇讜诐 讛注讚讬诐 讻诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谉 讘诇讘谞讜 注诇讬讻诐 砖讚讬谉 讗诪转 讚谞转诐


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.


讜诇讗 讛讬讜 诪转讗讘诇讬谉 讗讘诇 讗讜谞谞讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讗谞讬谞讜转 讗诇讗 讘诇讘


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.


讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬诇讜 谞讗诪专 壮讞讟讗 讜转诇讬转壮 讛讬讬转讬 讗讜诪专 转讜诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪诪讬转讬谉 讗讜转讜 讻讚专讱 砖讛诪诇讻讜转 注讜砖讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮讜讛讜诪转 讜转诇讬转壮 诪诪讬转讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 转讜诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 诪砖讛讬谉 讗讜转讜 注讚 住诪讜讱 诇砖拽讬注转 讛讞诪讛 讜讙讜诪专讬谉 讗转 讚讬谞讜 讜诪诪讬转讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 转讜诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗讞讚 拽讜砖专 讜讗讞讚 诪转讬专 讻讚讬 诇拽讬讬诐 诪爪讜转 转诇讬讬讛


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: 鈥淎nd if a man has committed a sin worthy of death, and he is put to death, and you shall hang him on a tree鈥 (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.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 壮注抓壮 砖讜诪注 讗谞讬 讘讬谉 讘转诇讜砖 讘讬谉 讘诪讞讜讘专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮讻讬 拽讘讜专壮 诪讬 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讞讜住专 讗诇讗 拽讘讜专讛 讬爪讗 讝讛 砖诪讞讜住专 拽爪讬爪讛 讜拽讘讜专讛


The Sages taught: From the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall hang him on a tree,鈥 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: 鈥淗is body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but you shall bury him [kavor tikberennu] that day鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:23). Based on the doubled verb, it is derived that not only must the transgressor鈥檚 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.


专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪讬 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讞讜住专 讗诇讗 拽讘讜专讛 讬爪讗 讝讛 砖诪讞讜住专 转诇讬砖讛 讜拽讘讜专讛 讜专讘谞谉 转诇讬砖讛 诇讗讜 讻诇讜诐 讛讬讗


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.


讻诇讜诪专 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讝讛 转诇讜讬 诪驻谞讬 砖讘讬专讱 讻讜壮 转谞讬讗 讗讜诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪砖诇讜 诪砖诇 诇诪讛 讛讚讘专 讚讜诪讛 诇砖谞讬 讗讞讬诐 转讗讜诪讬诐 讘注讬专 讗讞转 讗讞讚 诪讬谞讜讛讜 诪诇讱 讜讗讞讚 讬爪讗 诇诇讬住讟讬讜转 爪讜讛 讛诪诇讱 讜转诇讗讜讛讜 讻诇 讛专讜讗讛 讗讜转讜 讗讜诪专 壮讛诪诇讱 转诇讜讬壮 爪讜讛 讛诪诇讱 讜讛讜专讬讚讜讛讜


搂 The mishna teaches: That is to say: Were the dead man鈥檚 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鈥檚 image, and therefore God is disgraced when a corpse is hung for a transgression that the person has committed.


讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 诪砖诪注 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 拽诇 诇讬转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗诐 讻谉 讻讘讚 注诇讬 专讗砖讬 讻讘讚 注诇讬 讝专讜注讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 拽讬诇 诇讬 注诇诪讗


The mishna teaches that Rabbi Meir said that the phrase 鈥淔or he that is hung is a curse [kilelat] of God鈥 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.


讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讙讜驻讛 讗诐 讻谉 谞讬诪讗 拽专讗 诪拽诇诇 诪讗讬 拽诇诇转 讜讗讬诪讗 讻讜诇讬讛 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讗诐 讻谉 谞讬诪讗 拽专讗 拽诇转 诪讗讬 拽诇诇转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬


The Gemara asks: This word 鈥kilelatis 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.


讜诇讗 讝讜 讘诇讘讚 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 诪谞讬谉 诇诪诇讬谉 讗转 诪转讜 砖注讜讘专 注诇讬讜 讘诇讗 转注砖讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讬 拽讘讜专 转拽讘专谞讜 诪讻讗谉 诇诪诇讬谉 讗转 诪转讜 砖注讜讘专 讘诇讗 转注砖讛


搂 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 Yo岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yo岣i: From where is it derived that one who leaves his deceased relative overnight without burying him transgresses a prohibition? The verse states: 鈥淏ut you shall bury him [kavor tikberennu]鈥 (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.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 专诪讝 诇拽讘讜专讛 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 诪谞讬讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讬 拽讘讜专 转拽讘专谞讜 诪讻讗谉 专诪讝 诇拽讘讜专讛 诪谉 讛转讜专讛


There are those who say that Rabbi Yo岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yo岣i: From where in the Torah is there a hint to the mitzva of burial? The verse states: 鈥淏ut you shall bury him [kavor tikberennu],鈥 doubling the verb for emphasis. From here there is a hint to the mitzva of burial in the Torah.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讘讜专 诪诇讻讗 诇专讘 讞诪讗 拽讘讜专讛 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 诪谞讬讬谉 讗讬砖转讬拽 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讗讬诪住专 注诇诪讗 讘讬讚讗 讚讟驻砖讗讬 讚讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诪专 讻讬 拽讘讜专


The Gemara relates: King Shapur, the monarch of Persia, once said to Rav 岣ma: 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 岣ma was silent and said nothing to him, as he could not find a suitable source. Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said: The world has been handed over to the foolish, as Rav 岣ma should have said to King Shapur that the mitzva of burial is derived from the verse: 鈥淏ut you shall bury him鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:23).


讚诇讬注讘讚 诇讬讛 讗专讜谉 转拽讘专谞讜 诇讗 诪砖诪注 诇讬讛


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 岣ma could still have claimed that the mitzva of burial is derived from the doubled verb 鈥測ou shall bury him [kavor tikberennu].鈥 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.


讜谞讬诪讗 诪讚讗讬拽讘讜专 爪讚讬拽讬 诪谞讛讙讗 讘注诇诪讗 诪讚拽讘专讬讛 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诇诪砖讛 讚诇讗 诇讬砖转谞讬 诪诪谞讛讙讗


The Gemara asks: But let Rav 岣ma 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 岣ma 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.


转讗 砖诪注 讜住驻讚讜 诇讜 讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 讜拽讘专讜 讗转讜 讚诇讗 诇讬砖转谞讬 诪诪谞讛讙讗


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: 鈥淎nd all Israel shall eulogize him and bury him鈥 (I聽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.


诇讗 讬住驻讚讜 讜诇讗 讬拽讘专讜 诇讚诪谉 注诇 驻谞讬 讛讗讚诪讛 讬讛讬讜 讚诇讬砖转谞讜 诪诪谞讛讙讗


The Gemara proposes another proof: Jeremiah pronounced a curse upon the wicked, saying: 鈥淭hey shall not be eulogized, nor shall they be buried; but they shall be as dung upon the face of the earth鈥 (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 岣ma was unable to adduce incontrovertible proof that there is a mitzva to bury the dead.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 拽讘讜专讛 诪砖讜诐 讘讝讬讜谞讗 讛讜讗 讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讻驻专讛 讛讜讗


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?


诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讘注讬谞讗 讚诇讬拽讘专讜讛 诇讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪砖讜诐 讘讝讬讜谞讗 讛讜讗 诇讗 讻诇 讻诪讬谞讬讛 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 诪砖讜诐 讻驻专讛 讛讜讗 讛讗 讗诪专 诇讗 讘注讬谞讗 讻驻专讛 诪讗讬


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鈥檛 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?


转讗 砖诪注 诪讚讗讬拽讘讜专 爪讚讬拽讬 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 诪砖讜诐 讻驻专讛 爪讚讬拽讬 诇讻驻专讛 爪专讬讻讬 讗讬谉 讚讻转讬讘 讗讚诐 讗讬谉 爪讚讬拽 讘讗专抓 讗砖专 讬注砖讛 讟讜讘 讜诇讗 讬讞讟讗


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: 鈥淔or there is no righteous person on earth who does good and never sins鈥 (Ecclesiastes 7:20), and so even the righteous need atonement for the few sins that they committed over the course of their lifetimes.


转讗 砖诪注 讜住驻讚讜 诇讜 讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 讜拽讘专讜 讗转讜 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚转讬讛讜讬 诇讬讛 讻驻专讛 讛谞讱 谞诪讬 诇讬拽讘专讜 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚转讬讛讜讬 诇讛讜 讻驻专讛 讛讗讬 讚爪讚讬拽 讛讜讗 转讬讛讜讬 诇讬讛 讻驻专讛 讛谞讱 诇讗 诇讬讛讜讬 诇讛讜 讻驻专讛


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the verse referring to Abijah, son of Jeroboam: 鈥淎nd all Israel shall eulogize him and bury him, for he alone of Jeroboam shall come to the grave鈥 (I聽Kings 14:13). And if you say that burial is required so that the deceased should achieve atonement, these too, i.e., Jeroboam鈥檚 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.


转讗 砖诪注 诇讗 讬住驻讚讜 讜诇讗 讬拽讘专讜 讚诇讗 转讬讛讜讬 诇讛讜 讻驻专讛


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the curse pronounced by Jeremiah upon the wicked: 鈥淭hey shall not be eulogized, nor shall they be buried鈥 (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鈥檚 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.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛住驻讬讚讗 讬拽专讗 讚讞讬讬 讛讜讬 讗讜 讬拽专讗 讚砖讻讘讬 讛讜讬 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讚讗诪专 诇讗 转住驻讚讜讛 诇讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讗讬 谞诪讬 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讬讜专砖讬谉


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鈥檚 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.


转讗 砖诪注 讜讬讘讗 讗讘专讛诐 诇住驻讚 诇砖专讛 讜诇讘讻转讛 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 诪砖讜诐 讬拽专讗 讚讞讬讬 讛讜讗 诪砖讜诐 讬拽专讗 讚讗讘专讛诐 诪砖讛讜 诇讛 诇砖专讛 砖专讛 讙讜驻讛 谞讬讞讗 诇讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬讬拽专 讘讛 讗讘专讛诐


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the verse that states: 鈥淎nd Abraham came to eulogize Sarah and weep over her鈥 (Genesis 23:2), indicating that Sarah鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.


转讗 砖诪注 讜住驻讚讜 诇讜 讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 讜拽讘专讜 讗转讜 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 诪砖讜诐 讬拽专讗 讚讞讬讬 讛讜讗 讛谞讱 讘谞讬 讬拽专讗 谞讬谞讛讜 谞讬讞讗 诇讛讜 诇爪讚讬拽讬讗 讚诪讬讬拽专讬 讘讛讜 讗讬谞砖讬


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a different resolution of this dilemma from the verse referring to Abijah, son of Jeroboam: 鈥淎nd all Israel shall eulogize him and bury him鈥 (I聽Kings 14:13). And if you say that a eulogy is delivered due to the honor of the living, are these people, Jeroboam鈥檚 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.


转讗 砖诪注 诇讗 讬住驻讚讜 讜诇讗 讬拽讘专讜 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇爪讚讬拽讬讗 讚诪讬讬拽专讬 讘专砖讬注讬讬讗


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the curse pronounced by Jeremiah upon the wicked: 鈥淭hey shall not be eulogized, nor shall they be buried鈥 (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.


转讗 砖诪注 讘砖诇讜诐 转诪讜转 讜讘诪砖专驻讜转 讗讘讜转讬讱 讛诪诇讻讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讗砖专 讛讬讜 诇驻谞讬讱 讻谉 讬砖专驻讜 诇讱 讜讛讜讬 讗讚讜谉 讬住驻讚讜 诇讱 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 诪砖讜诐 讬拽专讗 讚讞讬讬 讛讜讗 诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讬讬拽专讜 讘讬讱 讬砖专讗诇 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诪转讬讬拽专讬 讘讗讘讛转讱


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution of this dilemma from what Jeremiah said to Zedekiah: 鈥淵ou 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鈥 (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.


  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Sanhedrin 46

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sanhedrin 46

讛砖转讗 讚诪专讞拽讬 诪讛讚讚讬 讗讛谞讬 诇专讘讜讬讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讚讚诪讬 诇讬讛 讘讻诇 诪讬诇讬


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.


讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚专讬砖 专讬讘讜讬讬 讜诪讬注讜讟讬 讜讛讜诪转 讜转诇讬转 专讘讜讬 讻讬 拽诇诇转 诪讬注讜讟 讗讬 讛讜讜 诪拽专讘讬 诇讛讚讚讬 诇讗 讛讜讜 诪专讘讬谞谉 讗诇讗 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讚讚诪讬 诇讛 讘讻诇 诪讬诇讬 讛砖转讗 讚诪专讞拽讬 诪讛讚讚讬 讗讛谞讬 诇专讘讜讬讬 砖讗专 讛谞住拽诇讬谉


And Rabbi Eliezer, by contrast, interprets the verses based on the principle of amplifications and restrictions. The phrase 鈥淎nd he is put to death, and you shall hang him鈥 is an amplification. The phrase 鈥淔or he that is hung is a curse of God鈥 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.


讛讗讬砖 转讜诇讬谉 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜转诇讬转 讗转讜 讗讜转讜 讜诇讗 讗讜转讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜转讜 讘诇讗 讻住讜转讜


搂 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: 鈥淎nd if a man has committed a sin worthy of death, and he is put to death, and you shall hang him on a tree鈥 (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 that the inference to be drawn from this verse is that after his death they hang him by himself, without his clothing.


讜专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讻讬 讬讛讬讛 讘讗讬砖 讞讟讗 讗讬砖 讜诇讗 讗砖讛


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 鈥渉im鈥 teaches that the corpse is hung without clothing. But the source of their ruling is the verse that states: 鈥淎nd if a man has committed a sin,鈥 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.


讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讗讬 讜讻讬 讬讛讬讛 讘讗讬砖 诪讗讬 讚专讬砖 讘讬讛 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讛讜讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 谞住拽诇 讜谞转诇讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇专讘讜转 讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗


The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Eliezer, what does he learn from this clause of the verse: 鈥淎nd if a man has committed a sin鈥? 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鈥檛 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 Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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?


讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讻讬 讬讛讬讛 讘讗讬砖 讞讟讗 讗讬砖 讜诇讗 讘谉 讞讟讗 诪讬 砖注诇 讞讟讗讜 谞讛专讙 讬爪讗 讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 砖注诇 砖讜诐 住讜驻讜 谞讛专讙 讛讜讬 诪讬注讜讟 讗讞专 诪讬注讜讟 讜讗讬谉 诪讬注讜讟 讗讞专 诪讬注讜讟 讗诇讗 诇专讘讜转


The Gemara explains: As the verse states: 鈥淎nd if a man has committed a sin,鈥 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 鈥渟in鈥 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.


讗诪专 诇讛谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讛诇讗 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 砖讟讞 转诇讛 谞砖讬诐 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘砖转讬 诪讬转讜转 讗讘诇 讘诪讬转讛 讗讞转 讚谞讬谉 讜讛讗 诪注砖讛 讚砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 砖讟讞 讚诪讬转讛 讗讞转 讛讜讗讬 讜拽讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讚讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉


搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Eliezer said to the Rabbis: Did Shimon ben Shata岣 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 岣sda 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 Shata岣 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.


讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘诪讬转讛 讗讞转 讻注讬谉 砖转讬 诪讬转讜转 讜讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讻讙讜谉 砖转讬 注讘讬专讜转 讗讘诇 讘诪讬转讛 讗讞转 讜注讘讬专讛 讗讞转 讚谞讬谉


Rather, if a ruling was stated citing Rav 岣sda, 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.


诪转讬讘 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 砖谞讬诐 讘讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘谞讜讗祝 讜谞讜讗驻转 转专讙诪讗 专讘 讞住讚讗 讘讘转 讻讛谉 讜讘讜注诇讛


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 岣sda 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.


讗讜 讘讘转 讻讛谉 讜讝讜诪诪讬 讝讜诪诪讬讛


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.


转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 砖诪注转讬 砖讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪讻讬谉 讜注讜谞砖讬谉 砖诇讗 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讜诇讗 诇注讘讜专 注诇 讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讗诇讗 讻讚讬 诇注砖讜转 住讬讬讙 诇转讜专讛


It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov 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.


讜诪注砖讛 讘讗讞讚 砖专讻讘 注诇 住讜住 讘砖讘转 讘讬诪讬 讬讜谞讬诐 讜讛讘讬讗讜讛讜 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜住拽诇讜讛讜 诇讗 诪驻谞讬 砖专讗讜讬 诇讻讱 讗诇讗 砖讛砖注讛 爪专讬讻讛 诇讻讱 砖讜讘 诪注砖讛 讘讗讚诐 讗讞讚 砖讛讟讬讞 讗转 讗砖转讜 转讞转 讛转讗谞讛 讜讛讘讬讗讜讛讜 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讛诇拽讜讛讜 诇讗 诪驻谞讬 砖专讗讜讬 诇讻讱 讗诇讗 砖讛砖注讛 爪专讬讻讛 诇讻讱


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.


诪转谞讬壮 讻讬爪讚 转讜诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪砖拽注讬谉 讗转 讛拽讜专讛 讘讗专抓 讜讛注抓 讬讜爪讗 讜诪拽讬祝 砖转讬 讬讚讬讜 讝讜 注诇 讙讘 讝讜 讜转讜诇讛 讗讜转讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讛拽讜专讛 诪讜讟讛 注诇 讛讻讜转诇 讜转讜诇讛 讗讜转讜 讻讚专讱 砖讛讟讘讞讬谉 注讜砖讬谉


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鈥檚 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.


讜诪转讬专讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪讬讚 讜讗诐 诇谉 注讜讘专 注诇讬讜 讘诇讗 转注砖讛 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 转诇讬谉 谞讘诇转讜 注诇 讛注抓 讻讬 拽讘讜专 转拽讘专谞讜 讻讬 拽诇诇转 讗诇讛讬诐 转诇讜讬 讜讙讜壮 讻诇讜诪专 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讝讛 转诇讜讬 诪驻谞讬 砖讘讬专讱 讗转 讛砖诐 讜谞诪爪讗 砖诐 砖诪讬诐 诪转讞诇诇


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: 鈥淗is 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鈥 (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鈥檚 corpse to remain hanging, reminding everybody of his transgression.


讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘砖注讛 砖讗讚诐 诪爪讟注专 砖讻讬谞讛 诪讛 诇砖讜谉 讗讜诪专转 拽诇谞讬 诪专讗砖讬 拽诇谞讬 诪讝专讜注讬 讗诐 讻谉 讛诪拽讜诐 诪爪讟注专 注诇 讚诪谉 砖诇 专砖注讬诐 砖谞砖驻讱 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 注诇 讚诪谉 砖诇 爪讚讬拽讬诐


Rabbi Meir said: The phrase 鈥渇or he that is hung is a curse [kilelat] of God鈥 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.


讜诇讗 讝讜 讘诇讘讚 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讻诇 讛诪诇讬谉 讗转 诪转讜 注讜讘专 讘诇讗 转注砖讛 讛诇讬谞讛讜 诇讻讘讜讚讜 诇讛讘讬讗 诇讜 讗专讜谉 讜转讻专讬讻讬诐 讗讬谞讜 注讜讘专 注诇讬讜


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 with-out burying him transgresses a prohibition. But if he left the deceased overnight for the sake of the deceased鈥檚 honor, e.g., to bring a coffin or shrouds for his burial, he does not transgress the prohibition against leaving him unburied overnight.


讜诇讗 讛讬讜 拽讜讘专讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘拽讘专讜转 讗讘讜转讬讜 讗诇讗 砖转讬 讘转讬 拽讘专讜转 讛讬讜 诪转讜拽谞讬谉 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讞转 诇谞讛专讙讬谉 讜诇谞讞谞拽讬谉 讜讗讞转 诇谞住拽诇讬谉 讜诇谞砖专驻讬谉 谞转注讻诇 讛讘砖专 诪诇拽讟讬谉 讗转 讛注爪诪讜转 讜拽讜讘专讬谉 讗讜转谉 讘诪拽讜诪谉 讜讛拽专讜讘讬诐 讘讗讬诐 讜砖讜讗诇讬诐 讘砖诇讜诐 讛讚讬讬谞讬谉 讜讘砖诇讜诐 讛注讚讬诐 讻诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谉 讘诇讘谞讜 注诇讬讻诐 砖讚讬谉 讗诪转 讚谞转诐


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.


讜诇讗 讛讬讜 诪转讗讘诇讬谉 讗讘诇 讗讜谞谞讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讗谞讬谞讜转 讗诇讗 讘诇讘


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.


讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬诇讜 谞讗诪专 壮讞讟讗 讜转诇讬转壮 讛讬讬转讬 讗讜诪专 转讜诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪诪讬转讬谉 讗讜转讜 讻讚专讱 砖讛诪诇讻讜转 注讜砖讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮讜讛讜诪转 讜转诇讬转壮 诪诪讬转讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 转讜诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 诪砖讛讬谉 讗讜转讜 注讚 住诪讜讱 诇砖拽讬注转 讛讞诪讛 讜讙讜诪专讬谉 讗转 讚讬谞讜 讜诪诪讬转讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 转讜诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗讞讚 拽讜砖专 讜讗讞讚 诪转讬专 讻讚讬 诇拽讬讬诐 诪爪讜转 转诇讬讬讛


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: 鈥淎nd if a man has committed a sin worthy of death, and he is put to death, and you shall hang him on a tree鈥 (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.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 壮注抓壮 砖讜诪注 讗谞讬 讘讬谉 讘转诇讜砖 讘讬谉 讘诪讞讜讘专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮讻讬 拽讘讜专壮 诪讬 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讞讜住专 讗诇讗 拽讘讜专讛 讬爪讗 讝讛 砖诪讞讜住专 拽爪讬爪讛 讜拽讘讜专讛


The Sages taught: From the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall hang him on a tree,鈥 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: 鈥淗is body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but you shall bury him [kavor tikberennu] that day鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:23). Based on the doubled verb, it is derived that not only must the transgressor鈥檚 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.


专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪讬 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讞讜住专 讗诇讗 拽讘讜专讛 讬爪讗 讝讛 砖诪讞讜住专 转诇讬砖讛 讜拽讘讜专讛 讜专讘谞谉 转诇讬砖讛 诇讗讜 讻诇讜诐 讛讬讗


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.


讻诇讜诪专 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讝讛 转诇讜讬 诪驻谞讬 砖讘讬专讱 讻讜壮 转谞讬讗 讗讜诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪砖诇讜 诪砖诇 诇诪讛 讛讚讘专 讚讜诪讛 诇砖谞讬 讗讞讬诐 转讗讜诪讬诐 讘注讬专 讗讞转 讗讞讚 诪讬谞讜讛讜 诪诇讱 讜讗讞讚 讬爪讗 诇诇讬住讟讬讜转 爪讜讛 讛诪诇讱 讜转诇讗讜讛讜 讻诇 讛专讜讗讛 讗讜转讜 讗讜诪专 壮讛诪诇讱 转诇讜讬壮 爪讜讛 讛诪诇讱 讜讛讜专讬讚讜讛讜


搂 The mishna teaches: That is to say: Were the dead man鈥檚 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鈥檚 image, and therefore God is disgraced when a corpse is hung for a transgression that the person has committed.


讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 诪砖诪注 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 拽诇 诇讬转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗诐 讻谉 讻讘讚 注诇讬 专讗砖讬 讻讘讚 注诇讬 讝专讜注讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 拽讬诇 诇讬 注诇诪讗


The mishna teaches that Rabbi Meir said that the phrase 鈥淔or he that is hung is a curse [kilelat] of God鈥 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.


讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讙讜驻讛 讗诐 讻谉 谞讬诪讗 拽专讗 诪拽诇诇 诪讗讬 拽诇诇转 讜讗讬诪讗 讻讜诇讬讛 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讗诐 讻谉 谞讬诪讗 拽专讗 拽诇转 诪讗讬 拽诇诇转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬


The Gemara asks: This word 鈥kilelatis 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.


讜诇讗 讝讜 讘诇讘讚 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 诪谞讬谉 诇诪诇讬谉 讗转 诪转讜 砖注讜讘专 注诇讬讜 讘诇讗 转注砖讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讬 拽讘讜专 转拽讘专谞讜 诪讻讗谉 诇诪诇讬谉 讗转 诪转讜 砖注讜讘专 讘诇讗 转注砖讛


搂 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 Yo岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yo岣i: From where is it derived that one who leaves his deceased relative overnight without burying him transgresses a prohibition? The verse states: 鈥淏ut you shall bury him [kavor tikberennu]鈥 (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.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 专诪讝 诇拽讘讜专讛 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 诪谞讬讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讬 拽讘讜专 转拽讘专谞讜 诪讻讗谉 专诪讝 诇拽讘讜专讛 诪谉 讛转讜专讛


There are those who say that Rabbi Yo岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yo岣i: From where in the Torah is there a hint to the mitzva of burial? The verse states: 鈥淏ut you shall bury him [kavor tikberennu],鈥 doubling the verb for emphasis. From here there is a hint to the mitzva of burial in the Torah.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讘讜专 诪诇讻讗 诇专讘 讞诪讗 拽讘讜专讛 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 诪谞讬讬谉 讗讬砖转讬拽 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讗讬诪住专 注诇诪讗 讘讬讚讗 讚讟驻砖讗讬 讚讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诪专 讻讬 拽讘讜专


The Gemara relates: King Shapur, the monarch of Persia, once said to Rav 岣ma: 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 岣ma was silent and said nothing to him, as he could not find a suitable source. Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said: The world has been handed over to the foolish, as Rav 岣ma should have said to King Shapur that the mitzva of burial is derived from the verse: 鈥淏ut you shall bury him鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:23).


讚诇讬注讘讚 诇讬讛 讗专讜谉 转拽讘专谞讜 诇讗 诪砖诪注 诇讬讛


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 岣ma could still have claimed that the mitzva of burial is derived from the doubled verb 鈥測ou shall bury him [kavor tikberennu].鈥 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.


讜谞讬诪讗 诪讚讗讬拽讘讜专 爪讚讬拽讬 诪谞讛讙讗 讘注诇诪讗 诪讚拽讘专讬讛 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诇诪砖讛 讚诇讗 诇讬砖转谞讬 诪诪谞讛讙讗


The Gemara asks: But let Rav 岣ma 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 岣ma 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.


转讗 砖诪注 讜住驻讚讜 诇讜 讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 讜拽讘专讜 讗转讜 讚诇讗 诇讬砖转谞讬 诪诪谞讛讙讗


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: 鈥淎nd all Israel shall eulogize him and bury him鈥 (I聽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.


诇讗 讬住驻讚讜 讜诇讗 讬拽讘专讜 诇讚诪谉 注诇 驻谞讬 讛讗讚诪讛 讬讛讬讜 讚诇讬砖转谞讜 诪诪谞讛讙讗


The Gemara proposes another proof: Jeremiah pronounced a curse upon the wicked, saying: 鈥淭hey shall not be eulogized, nor shall they be buried; but they shall be as dung upon the face of the earth鈥 (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 岣ma was unable to adduce incontrovertible proof that there is a mitzva to bury the dead.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 拽讘讜专讛 诪砖讜诐 讘讝讬讜谞讗 讛讜讗 讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讻驻专讛 讛讜讗


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?


诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讘注讬谞讗 讚诇讬拽讘专讜讛 诇讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪砖讜诐 讘讝讬讜谞讗 讛讜讗 诇讗 讻诇 讻诪讬谞讬讛 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 诪砖讜诐 讻驻专讛 讛讜讗 讛讗 讗诪专 诇讗 讘注讬谞讗 讻驻专讛 诪讗讬


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鈥檛 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?


转讗 砖诪注 诪讚讗讬拽讘讜专 爪讚讬拽讬 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 诪砖讜诐 讻驻专讛 爪讚讬拽讬 诇讻驻专讛 爪专讬讻讬 讗讬谉 讚讻转讬讘 讗讚诐 讗讬谉 爪讚讬拽 讘讗专抓 讗砖专 讬注砖讛 讟讜讘 讜诇讗 讬讞讟讗


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: 鈥淔or there is no righteous person on earth who does good and never sins鈥 (Ecclesiastes 7:20), and so even the righteous need atonement for the few sins that they committed over the course of their lifetimes.


转讗 砖诪注 讜住驻讚讜 诇讜 讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 讜拽讘专讜 讗转讜 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚转讬讛讜讬 诇讬讛 讻驻专讛 讛谞讱 谞诪讬 诇讬拽讘专讜 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚转讬讛讜讬 诇讛讜 讻驻专讛 讛讗讬 讚爪讚讬拽 讛讜讗 转讬讛讜讬 诇讬讛 讻驻专讛 讛谞讱 诇讗 诇讬讛讜讬 诇讛讜 讻驻专讛


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the verse referring to Abijah, son of Jeroboam: 鈥淎nd all Israel shall eulogize him and bury him, for he alone of Jeroboam shall come to the grave鈥 (I聽Kings 14:13). And if you say that burial is required so that the deceased should achieve atonement, these too, i.e., Jeroboam鈥檚 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.


转讗 砖诪注 诇讗 讬住驻讚讜 讜诇讗 讬拽讘专讜 讚诇讗 转讬讛讜讬 诇讛讜 讻驻专讛


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the curse pronounced by Jeremiah upon the wicked: 鈥淭hey shall not be eulogized, nor shall they be buried鈥 (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鈥檚 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.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛住驻讬讚讗 讬拽专讗 讚讞讬讬 讛讜讬 讗讜 讬拽专讗 讚砖讻讘讬 讛讜讬 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讚讗诪专 诇讗 转住驻讚讜讛 诇讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讗讬 谞诪讬 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讬讜专砖讬谉


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鈥檚 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.


转讗 砖诪注 讜讬讘讗 讗讘专讛诐 诇住驻讚 诇砖专讛 讜诇讘讻转讛 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 诪砖讜诐 讬拽专讗 讚讞讬讬 讛讜讗 诪砖讜诐 讬拽专讗 讚讗讘专讛诐 诪砖讛讜 诇讛 诇砖专讛 砖专讛 讙讜驻讛 谞讬讞讗 诇讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬讬拽专 讘讛 讗讘专讛诐


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the verse that states: 鈥淎nd Abraham came to eulogize Sarah and weep over her鈥 (Genesis 23:2), indicating that Sarah鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.


转讗 砖诪注 讜住驻讚讜 诇讜 讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 讜拽讘专讜 讗转讜 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 诪砖讜诐 讬拽专讗 讚讞讬讬 讛讜讗 讛谞讱 讘谞讬 讬拽专讗 谞讬谞讛讜 谞讬讞讗 诇讛讜 诇爪讚讬拽讬讗 讚诪讬讬拽专讬 讘讛讜 讗讬谞砖讬


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a different resolution of this dilemma from the verse referring to Abijah, son of Jeroboam: 鈥淎nd all Israel shall eulogize him and bury him鈥 (I聽Kings 14:13). And if you say that a eulogy is delivered due to the honor of the living, are these people, Jeroboam鈥檚 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.


转讗 砖诪注 诇讗 讬住驻讚讜 讜诇讗 讬拽讘专讜 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇爪讚讬拽讬讗 讚诪讬讬拽专讬 讘专砖讬注讬讬讗


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the curse pronounced by Jeremiah upon the wicked: 鈥淭hey shall not be eulogized, nor shall they be buried鈥 (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.


转讗 砖诪注 讘砖诇讜诐 转诪讜转 讜讘诪砖专驻讜转 讗讘讜转讬讱 讛诪诇讻讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讗砖专 讛讬讜 诇驻谞讬讱 讻谉 讬砖专驻讜 诇讱 讜讛讜讬 讗讚讜谉 讬住驻讚讜 诇讱 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 诪砖讜诐 讬拽专讗 讚讞讬讬 讛讜讗 诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讬讬拽专讜 讘讬讱 讬砖专讗诇 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诪转讬讬拽专讬 讘讗讘讛转讱


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution of this dilemma from what Jeremiah said to Zedekiah: 鈥淵ou 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鈥 (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.


Scroll To Top