Berakhot 18a — the Talmud in English

And others do not recite a blessing on his behalf,

they do not need others to recite the blessing over bread for him .

And they do not join him for a zimun,

he does not join with two others for a zimun.

And he is exempt from reciting the Shema, from prayer, from tefillin, and from all the mitzvot stated in the Torah.

And on Shabbat,

when it is forbidden to bury on it, and he is not preoccupied with a mitzva,

he reclines, eats meat, and drinks wine,

and recites a blessing, joins for a zimun, others recite a blessing on his behalf, others join him for a zimun, and he is obligated in all the mitzvot stated in the Torah.

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says: Since he became obligated

on Shabbat

in these

things stated,

he became obligated in all of them.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: What is between them?

In what did the first tanna and Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel disagree?

Marital relations are between them —

according to Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, a mourner is obligated in the mitzva of marital conjugal duty on Shabbat. And according to the first tanna, he is exempt because he observes mourning privately.

And the Gemara concludes its objection:

At any rate, it teaches:

that an onen

is exempt from reciting the Shema, from prayer, from tefillin, and from all the mitzvot stated in the Torah,

even when he eats in his fellow’s house. Whereas from the Mishna it appears that his exemption applies only when his deceased is lying before him.

The Gemara answers:

Rav Pappa said: Explain it

—establish what is stated in the beraita, that he is exempt from all the mitzvot, specifically when he

“turns his face and eats.”

That is to say, only one who has no other house is exempt from the mitzvot because of the honor of the deceased who is with him in the house; but an onen who eats in another house is obligated in all the mitzvot .

Rav Ashi said:

In the Mishna we taught, “his deceased is lying before him,”

since it is incumbent upon him to bury him—

he is considered as though he were lying before him.

And what we taught in the beraita, “he is exempt,” also refers to an onen who eats in another house.

And proof that he is considered as though he were “lying before him”:

as it is stated

[Genesis 22:3],

“And Abraham rose from before his dead.”

And afterward, when he spoke with the children of Heth, he said, “And I will bury my dead from before me,” although the dead person was not lying before him, since

as long as it is incumbent upon him to bury him—

he is considered as though he were lying before him.

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Pappa, who established the Mishna specifically where his deceased is with him in the house: From the wording of the Mishna,

“his deceased,”

it appears that specifically

one who is a relative of the deceased is exempt, but one who watches over him—

another person who is not his relative but merely watches over him—

is not

exempt; rather, only a relative who is with him in the house and consequently watches over him is exempt .

But in the beraita we taught the opposite:

And it was taught: One who watches over the deceased

because of mice ,

even though he is not his deceased—

is exempt from reciting the Shema, from prayer, from tefillin, and from all the mitzvot stated in the Torah?!

The Gemara answers: The beraita deals with one who is not an onen over the deceased, but merely

watches over him—

even though he is not his deceased,

and therefore he is exempt only if he is with him in the same room. Whereas the Mishna deals with the exemption of an onen over

his deceased—

even though he does not watch over him.

Therefore, although he is in the same room, he is exempt only because of his relationship to the deceased, since he does not watch over him.

The Gemara infers from this answer: It appears that specifically

“his deceased and”

specifically

“he watches over him”—not

is he exempt from reciting the Shema;

but one who walks in a cemetery is not

exempt.

And it raises an objection to this from a beraita:

And it was taught: A person shall not walk

in a cemetery

with tefillin on his head and a Torah scroll on his arm

and recite

. And if he does so, he transgresses because of

[Proverbs 17:5]

“He who mocks the poor blasphemes his Maker,”

for by doing so he mocks the deceased, who cannot fulfill the mitzvot ; and it appears that even one who walks in a cemetery is exempt from the mitzvot, although he does not watch over the deceased.

The Gemara distinguishes:

There

—in a cemetery—

it is within four cubits that it is forbidden

to recite the Shema or to hold a Torah scroll, but

outside four cubits he is obligated. For the Master said: A deceased person seizes four

cubits with regard to reciting the Shema—

for it is forbidden to recite within his four cubits because of “mocking the poor” . Likewise, in a house, the entire house is not considered four cubits, and if he fulfills a mitzva outside the four cubits of the deceased, there is no “mocking the poor.” But

here,

with his deceased and one who watches over him, if he is

outside four cubits—he is

also exempt,

because he is occupied with a mitzva, and not because of “mocking the poor” .

The essential matter: One who watches over the deceased, even though he is not his deceased, is exempt from reciting the Shema, from prayer, from tefillin, and from all the mitzvot stated in the Torah.

If there were two

watching over him,

one watches and one recites,

and afterward

this one watches and this one recites.

Ben Azzai says: If they were traveling on a ship, he places him

the deceased

in this corner, and they both pray in another corner.

And the Gemara discusses it:

What is the difference between them,

in what did Ben Azzai and the first tanna disagree?

And it explains:

Ravina said: Concern for mice

is the difference between them. One

—the first tanna—

holds that we are concerned

about mice even on a ship; therefore they should not pray together, but one should watch and one should pray.

And the other

—Ben Azzai—

holds

that on a ship

we are not concerned

about mice .

The Sages taught:

One who transports the bones of a deceased

from one place to another may not place them in a leather sack,

a leather bag,

and place them on top of a donkey and ride upon them.

For he conducts himself toward them in a disgraceful manner by sitting on the bones.

But if he was afraid because of gentiles or because of bandits

and needs to ride a horse quickly,

it is permitted

even to sit upon them, since when he does so because of an evident necessity, this is not considered disgraceful.

And just as they said this with regard to bones, so they said with regard to a Torah scroll.

And the Gemara discusses it:

With regard to which

of the laws stated concerning the bones of the deceased is the law of a Torah scroll compared?

If we say, the first clause,

that just as it is forbidden to sit upon the bones of the deceased, so it is forbidden to sit upon a Torah scroll—

is it obvious?!

For is

a Torah scroll inferior to bones?!

The Gemara concludes:

Rather, the latter clause:

that if he was afraid of gentiles or bandits, he rides and sits upon a Torah scroll, just as he rides and sits upon the bones of the deceased .

Rahava said in the name of Rav Yehuda: Whoever sees the deceased

and does not escort him—

transgresses because of

[Proverbs 17:5]

“He who mocks the poor blasphemes his Maker.”

The Gemara discusses it:

And if he escorted him—

what is his reward?

Rav Asi said: Concerning him the verse says, “He who lends to the Lord

is gracious to the poor.”

And it is stated afterward:

“And he who honors Him

is gracious to the needy.”

And its explanation is that one who is gracious to the poor is called “one who lends to the Lord,” and there is no one poorer than the deceased. Therefore, one who escorts him and honors him is considered “one who lends to the Lord.”

Rabbi Hiyya and Rabbi Yohanan were walking in the cemetery. The blue thread was dragging,

the tzitzit

of Rabbi Yonatan,

and it was trailing outside.

Rabbi Hiyya said to him: Lift it,

raise it!

So that they should not say

the dead:

Tomorrow they come to us, and now they shame us,

that is, they mock us, for we cannot fulfill the mitzva of tzitzit .

He said to him,

Rabbi Yonatan:

And do the dead know

the dead

all this,

what occurs in this world?

But it is written

[Ecclesiastes 9:5],

“For the dead know nothing.”

He said to him,

Rabbi Hiyya:

If you have read

but have not studied!

You did not review your learning a second time so that you would contemplate it.

And if you studied—

you did not study it a third time! And if you studied it a third time—

it becomes clear that

they did not explain it to you

properly.

For they already expounded what is stated at the beginning of the aforementioned verse:

“For the living know that they will die”—

these are the righteous, who

also

in their death are called living .

And the meaning of “know that they will die” is that they take the day of death to heart and withdraw their hands from transgression. It follows that the end of the verse, “and the dead know nothing,” refers to the wicked during their lifetimes, who are called “dead” because they act as though they do not know and sin. [But the truly dead know what occurs among the living ].

And we find that the righteous are called living in their death,

as it is stated

[II Samuel 23:20],

“And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, the son of a living man, abundant in deeds, from Kabzeel; he struck down the two Ariels of Moab”—

for through his righteousness he was as though he had humbled all the generations throughout the years during which the two Temples existed, because there was no righteous person among them like him. And “Ariel” is a designation for the Temple, and it is also called “Moab,” after King David, who descended from Ruth the Moabite and built the Temple.

And the verse continues and says:

“And he descended and struck the lion in the midst of the pit on the day of snow.”