Berakhot 19a (יט.) — the Talmud in English

And if it enters your mind that they do not know,

that the dead understand nothing at all, but merely feel the pain of their bodies

—

when Moses told the Patriarchs

what would it accomplish?

After all, they would understand nothing from this

The Gemara raises the opposite difficulty:

Rather, what

do you intend to say—that Rabbi Yonatan holds

that they do know?

If so, the reverse difficulty arises:

why does

Moses

need to tell them,

that the Holy One, blessed be He, had fulfilled His promise? They already know this on their own.

The Gemara answers: The Holy One, blessed be He, sent him to inform them

in order to enhance Moses’ merit,

because of his deeds on behalf of their descendants.

Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Anyone who speaks after the dead

disparagingly after their death is

as though he speaks after a stone.

Some say

that the reason is

that they do not know

that people are speaking about them.

And some say that they do know, but

nevertheless

they do not care.

The Gemara raises an objection:

Is that so?

How could you say that one who speaks disparagingly of the dead does not distress him?!

But Rav Pappa said: Once, someone spoke after Mar Shmuel,

speaking disparagingly of him after his death,

and a reed fell

from the roof,

a large, heavy reed falling from the roof,

and split open the case of his brain,

crushing the container in which the brain rests. This proves that his words caused Shmuel distress, and he was therefore punished.

The Gemara answers:

A Torah scholar is different—

for the Holy One, blessed be He, demands the honor due to him,

and even if the deceased himself was not distressed, the speaker is punished because he has degraded the honor of Torah.

Rabbi Yehoshua said: Anyone who speaks after the bier

of Torah scholars,

disparaging them,

falls into Gehinnom.

As it is stated

[Psalms 125:5], “Do good, O Lord, to the good” ...

“and those who turn to crooked ways”—

those who turn the judgment of the good against them by relating their disgrace,

“the Lord shall lead them with”

—together with

“the workers of iniquity”

to Gehinnom. This applies not only when one quarrels with the righteous during his lifetime and spreads an evil report about him. Even if one speaks disparagingly of him after his death, he descends to Gehinnom, as it is stated at the end of the verse:

“Peace be upon Israel”—

even when there is peace upon Israel,

meaning that even one who speaks while the righteous is peacefully resting in his grave—

“the Lord shall lead them with the workers of iniquity”.

The tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: If you see a Torah scholar who committed a transgression at night, do not contemplate him negatively during the day,

as though he still retained his sin, because

perhaps he repented.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Is it only

“perhaps

he repented

,” does this enter your mind? After all, he certainly repented!—

Rather, he certainly repented!

Rather, he certainly repented!

And this applies to matters concerning his body, but with regard to money—

until he returns it to its owner,

repentance is ineffective, and until he returns it, it is possible that he has not yet repented.

And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: In twenty-four places, the court places a person under a ban for the honor of the master. And all of them we learned in our Mishna,

in the six orders of the Mishna.

The Gemara now understood that there are twenty-four places in which the Sages placed people under a ban for the honor of the master, because they did not show honor to their teacher.

Rabbi Elazar said to him: Where did we learn this?

He said to him,

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi:

Go and find it!

Go and locate them.

He went out, examined the matter, and found three,

Mishnayot in which placing someone under a ban for the honor of the master is mentioned:

one who treats the washing of the hands with contempt, one who speaks after the bier of Torah scholars, and one who acts presumptuously toward Heaven.

The Gemara explains:

“One who speaks after the bier of Torah scholars”—

what is it?

As we learned

[Eduyot 5:6]:

He,

Akavya ben Mahalalel,

would say: We do not give the sotah water—

the water administered to a sotah—

to a convert, nor to a

maidservant who has been

emancipated.

If her husband warned her, and she secluded herself, she is not given the sotah water.

But the Sages say:

She is given it.

And they said to him,

the Sages: There was, after all,

an incident involving “Karkemit”

—that was her name—

an emancipated maidservant in Jerusalem, and Shemaya and Avtalion gave her the water.

And

Akavya ben Mahalalel

said to them: Since Shemaya and Avtalion were

examples,

they gave her the water,

as though she were a full-fledged Israelite. That is, they did so contrary to the law.

And

because of this,

they placed him under a ban,

the Sages of Israel of that generation,

Akavya ben Mahalalel,

because he spoke about Shemaya and Avtalion after their deaths,

and he died under his ban,

and the court stoned his coffin.

The Gemara discusses the other ruling in which we find placing someone under a ban for the honor of the master:

“One who treats the washing of the hands with contempt”—

what is it?

It explains:

As we learned

[in the continuation of that Mishna],

Rabbi Yehuda said: Heaven forbid that Akavya ben Mahalalel was placed under a ban! For the Temple courtyard was never closed to any person in Israel who equaled Akavya ben Mahalalel in wisdom, purity, and fear of sin.

The gates of the courtyard were closed when the Passover offering of each group was being slaughtered; when it became filled to capacity, they closed them. Yet among all those present there was no one as great as Akavya ben Mahalalel.

Rather, whom did they place under a ban? Elazar ben Ḥanoch, who expressed skepticism,

who showed contempt,

regarding the washing of the hands.

This was “placing someone under a ban for the honor of the master,” because they banned him for violating the decree of the Sages concerning the washing of the hands.

And when he died, the court sent word and placed a large stone upon his coffin. This teaches you that whenever one who has been placed under a ban dies while under his ban, the court stones his coffin.

The Gemara discusses the other ruling in which we find placing someone under a ban for the honor of the master:

“One who acts presumptuously toward Heaven”—

what is it?

It explains:

As we learned

[Taanit 19a],

Shimon ben Shetaḥ sent to Ḥoni HaMe’aggel: You should be placed under a ban,

because you imposed upon the Omnipresent concerning rain. When he prayed and too little or too much rain came, he repeatedly said before the Holy One, blessed be He, “This is not what I requested.”

And were you not Ḥoni,

whose reputation is one of greatness and importance,

I would decree a ban upon you.

But what can I do, since you are ingratiating yourself before the Omnipresent, and He fulfills your will, like a son who ingratiates himself before his father,

and therefore finds it easy to sin against his father and trouble him to satisfy his desire,

and He fulfills his will. And concerning you the verse says

[Proverbs 23:25],

“Let your father and your mother rejoice, and let her who bore you be glad.”

This ban, which he wished to impose for the honor of the Holy One, blessed be He, is considered “placing someone under a ban for the honor of the master.”

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

And

is it the case

that there are no more

instances in which we find the matter of placing someone under a ban

for the honor of the master? But there is that which Rav Yosef taught: Todos of Rome instituted that the Romans should eat whole roasted young goats—

roasted whole, with their legs and ankles hanging down and their entrails placed around them on a spit—and they did so

on the nights of Passover,

as a commemoration of the Passover offering, which was roasted whole, as it is stated concerning it: “with its legs and with its innards.”

Shimon ben Shetaḥ sent to him: Were you not Todos,

meaning an important person,

I would decree a ban upon you, because you are feeding Israel consecrated offerings outside

the Temple courtyard. This too is “placing someone under a ban for the honor of the master,” because the Sages prohibited the practice since it could lead people to eat consecrated offerings outside: anyone seeing it might assume that the animal had been consecrated as a Passover offering, yet was eaten outside. Why, then, did Rabbi Elazar not mention this ban?

The Gemara answers:

We are speaking of our Mishna,

which contains no additional cases in which people were banned for the honor of the master.

And

if

that

ban of Todos is meant,

it is a beraita.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

And

is it true that

there is none in the Mishna? But there is that which we learned

[Kelim 5:10]:

A clay oven made as a vessel, which can be moved and whose original formation is from clay, is fired in a kiln like other earthenware. If it becomes impure, the Torah requires it to be demolished.

If one demolished it in such a manner that he

cut it into rings, and placed

sand between each ring,

cutting it all around into circular rings and then reassembling it with sand mortar between the rings—Rabbi Eliezer declares it permanently pure, since it is no longer an earthenware vessel, as it can no longer be fired in a kiln.

But the Sages deem it impure, and this is the oven of Aknai.

The Gemara clarifies:

What is the meaning of “Aknai”?

It explains:

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: This teaches that they surrounded it—

the Sages surrounded Rabbi Eliezer, who declared it pure,

with arguments like this Aknai,

which coils itself into a circle,

and declared it impure,

the oven, according to the law governing earthenware vessels.

And it was taught in a beraita: On that day they brought all the ritually pure objects

that had been made in this oven or had come into contact with its air,

which Rabbi Eliezer had declared pure, and burned them before him; and ultimately they placed him under a ban,

because he had persisted so extensively in disputing this matter. If so, we have found another case in the Mishna of “placing someone under a ban for the honor of the master.”

The Gemara answers:

Even so—the

“ban”

was not taught in the Mishna,

because the conclusion of the incident, “they placed him under a ban,” is mentioned only in the beraita.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

Rather, “in twenty-four places”—

where can you find this?

It explains:

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi compares one matter to another.

Whenever he saw in the Mishnayot that an individual had engaged in a major dispute with the majority, or that one of the Sages had spoken harshly against someone greater than himself, he would say: “It would have been appropriate to impose a ban here for the honor of the master”.

We learned in the Mishna:

Those who carry the bier and their replacements.

The Sages taught: The dead may not be taken out

for burial

near

the

time for

reciting the Shema,

because this would prevent those accompanying the dead from reciting it.

And if they began to take him out even after the time for reciting the Shema had arrived,

they do not interrupt.

Even if this causes the time for reciting the Shema to pass, because the mitzva of burying the dead is a matter of Torah law.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

Is that so?! But

when

Rav Yosef died,

they took him out near the time for reciting the Shema.

The Gemara answers: Rav Yosef was

an important person,

and therefore

his case is different:

it would not have been his honor for anyone to engage in anything else, even in reciting the Shema, until he had been buried honorably.

We learned in the Mishna:

Those before the bier and those after the bier.

The Sages taught: Those occupied with the eulogy

before the burial of the dead,

when the dead is lying before them,

do not interrupt the eulogy at all, so that all the people may recite the Shema in their place; rather,

they withdraw one by one and recite

the Shema, and they do not recite it in their place, so that it should not appear that they are mocking the poor, that is, the dead:

And if

the deceased is not lying before them,

as the deceased is in another house, and they are eulogizing him here, they may stop the eulogy entirely, even for prayer, which is rabbinic. Therefore,

they sit and recite, while he

the mourner

sits and remains silent.

For he is an onen and is exempt for as long as the deceased has not been buried.

And likewise,

they stand and pray, while he

the mourner

stands and acknowledges the justice of the judgment, and says: “Master of the universe, I have sinned greatly before You, yet You have not exacted from me even one thousandth. May it be Your will, Lord our God, that You repair our breaches, and the breaches of all Your people, the House of Israel, with mercy.”

Abaye said: A person should not say this, “

‘You have not exacted from me,’ because it sounds as though he is saying, ‘Exact more from me!’”

As Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said, and likewise a tanna taught in the name of Rabbi Yosei: A person should never open his mouth to the Satan.

And Rav Yosef said: What is the verse? As it is stated [Isaiah 1:9],

“

We would have almost been like Sodom.” What did the prophet respond to them?” —

“Hear the word of the Lord, you rulers of Sodom.”

We learned in the Mishna:

“They buried the deceased and returned”:

The Gemara infers: It indicates that specifically

if they can begin and complete the entire

Shema, they should recite it.

But

if they can manage to recite only

recite it!

And it raises a contradiction

from the wording of the beraita:

“They buried the deceased

and returned —

if they can begin reciting Shema and complete even one chapter or one verse.”

The Gemara answers:

This too is what

the tanna in our Mishna

said: If they can begin and complete even one chapter or even one verse before they reach the line, they should begin,

and they should recite all of it.

But if not,

as they cannot manage even one verse,

they should not begin.