Berakhot 19b — the Talmud in English

We learned in the Mishna:

“Those standing in the row, etc.”:

The Sages taught: The row that sees inward:

the row of those standing to console the mourner , the inner ones who see the face of the mourner,

is exempt

from reciting the Shema.

But the one that does not see inward,

the row of those concealed by those standing before them, and who are not engaged in consoling mourners—

is obligated

in reciting the Shema.

Rabbi Judah says

Those who come because of the mourner

to console him

are exempt

from reciting the Shema. But those who come

because of themselves

and not because of the honor of the deceased, who did not come to console but only to see the event,

are obligated

in reciting the Shema.

Rabbi Judah said in the name of Rav: One who finds diverse kinds

of Torah origin

in his garment —

removes it even

if he is now

in the marketplace.

Even though this causes him disgrace.

What is the reason?

Because it is stated [Proverbs 21:30:

“There is no wisdom, no understanding, and no counsel against the Lord,”

the wisdom, understanding, and counsel are of no avail to prevail against the word of the Lord .

And from here they learned that

wherever there is a desecration of the Name—

one does not accord honor to a rabbi.

For human dignity does not override an explicit negative prohibition in the Torah, even if the one transgressing the prohibition is his teacher who taught him Torah .

The Gemara raises an objection:

It was objected:

we learned:

They buried

the deceased and returned, and there were before them two paths, one pure and one impure.

If

the mourner came

along the

pure path—

those accompanying him come with him

along the pure path

as well.

And if

the mourner came

along the

impure path—

those accompanying him come with him

along the impure path

as well,

and even if there are priests among those accompanying him, they are permitted to become impure with Torah-level impurity

because of his honor,

the honor of the mourner. But if human dignity does not override a negative commandment,

why

should they go with him?

Let us say, “There is no wisdom, no understanding, and no counsel against the Lord,”

and not override the prohibition of impurity imposed upon the priests, which is a Torah prohibition, because of the honor of the mourner? The Gemara answers:

Rabbi Abba explained

the beraita as referring to a case where the impure path passes

through a beit ha-peras ,

whose impurity is only

rabbinic.

Since only the Sages prohibited a priest from passing through it, they waived their honor for the sake of the honor of the mourner [but a Torah prohibition, such as wearing diverse kinds, is not overridden for the sake of human dignity ].

And proof that the impurity of a “beit ha-peras” is only rabbinic:

for Rabbi Judah said in the name of Shmuel: A person may blow before himself,

that is, blow upon the ground, when his path passes through a

beit ha-peras, and walk

to slaughter his Pesach offering , so that he should not displace a bone with his feet and become impure through it . If its impurity were of Torah origin, they would not have been lenient with him to rely on blowing, on the assumption that no bone remained in his path.

And Rabbi Judah bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: A beit ha-peras that

is on a road established for public use, if it is

trampled

by the feet of passersby,

is pure,

because the entire concern is only a bone the size of a barley grain, and it is reasonable that by the treading of feet the bones were reduced below this size and no longer convey impurity. If its impurity were of Torah origin, they would not rely on the treading of feet to declare it pure.

The Gemara raises an objection:

Come and hear: For Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok said

the priest:

We used to leap over coffins,

from one coffin to another,

of the dead, to greet the kings of Israel. And they said this not only concerning greeting the kings of Israel

that it is permitted for a priest to leap over coffins of the dead in order to fulfill a mitzva through honoring them,

but even to greet the kings of the nations

it is permitted for him to leap, in order

that if he merits

seeing the honor of Israel,

he will distinguish between

the honor of

the kings of Israel and the kings of the nations .

It follows that for the sake of human dignity it is permitted to violate “he shall not become impure for a person,” and

why!? Let us say,

according to your words,

“There is no wisdom, no understanding, and no counsel against the Lord!”

The Gemara answers:

As Rava said. For Rava said: By Torah law,

a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai,

a tent—

anything that has an opening of a handbreadth

is

a barrier before impurity

beneath the tent, so that it does not break through above the roof of the tent, but remains inside the tent.

And

a tent

that has no opening of a handbreadth is not a barrier before impurity.

This is called compressed impurity, and it breaks through and rises, rendering impure the one who provides a tent over it.

And

since

most

coffins have an opening of a handbreadth,

therefore it is permitted to leap over them, because the impurity within the tent does not break through and rise beyond the roof of the tent .

And

the Sages

decreed concerning

coffins

that have

an opening of a handbreadth that one should not leap over them,

because of

coffins

that do not have

an opening of a handbreadth, whose prohibition is of Torah origin.

And

since when there is a handbreadth the prohibition is only rabbinic,

because of the honor of kings the Sages did not decree concerning them .

The Gemara raises an objection:

“Ta shma: The honor of created beings is great, for it overrides a negative commandment of the Torah.”

The Gemara understood that this refers to every negative commandment:

“But why? Let us say”

according to your approach:

“‘There is no wisdom, no understanding, and no counsel against the Lord’?!”

The Gemara answers:

“Rav bar Shava explained it before Rav Kahana”:

the beraita deals only

with the negative commandment [Deuteronomy 17:11]

[Deuteronomy 17:11]

of “You shall not turn aside,”

which is the prohibition against transgressing the words of the Sages, and only this negative commandment is overridden on account of the honor of created beings.

They laughed at him:

But

the negative commandment of “You shall not turn aside”—

is it not of Torah origin?!

Rav Kahana said: “A great man has said a matter”—

“Do not laugh at him! Every matter of the Scribes, they based upon the negative commandment of ‘You shall not turn aside.’”

Every matter that is from the words of the Scribes is overridden on account of the honor of created beings, and concerning this they said that it overrides “a negative commandment,” because “You shall not turn aside” is stated regarding it,

and on account of His honor the Sages permitted it!

For the Sages waived their honor and permitted transgressing their words in a place where there is degradation of the honor of created beings. [For example, to move on Shabbat stones of a lavatory for wiping. And likewise, if the tzitzit of one’s tallit were severed on Shabbat while he was in a karmelit, the Sages did not require him to leave his tallit there and enter his house naked].

The Gemara raises an objection:

“Ta shma”:

It is stated in the Torah [Deuteronomy 22:1]: “You shall not see your brother’s donkey—fallen on the road,

and hide yourself from them.”

And they expounded:

“At times you hide yourself from them”

and you are not required to concern yourself with returning a lost object,

“and at times you do not hide yourself from them.”

“How is this so? If the finder was”

the

priest, and it was

the lost object

in a cemetery, or if the finder was

the finder is

an old man

of distinction,

and it was not

the lost object important enough

according to his honor

for him to concern himself with returning it,

or if his occupation

of the finder was

greater than that of his fellow

—for the value of the finder’s lost work in taking trouble to return the lost object exceeds the value of the lost object, and the owners will not wish to pay him more than what he returns to them, with the result that he loses—

therefore it was said

with regard to all these cases:

“‘And hide yourself.’”

And according to your words, this is difficult:

why

is an old man whose returning the lost object is not according to his honor exempt?

Let us say

that he should concern himself with returning the lost object because it is stated:

“There is no wisdom, no understanding, and no counsel against the Lord”?!

The Gemara answers:

“It is different there,”

with the mitzva of returning a lost object, for Scripture revealed that there is no obligation to fulfill it in a place involving the honor of created beings,

as it is written: “And hide yourself from them.”

The Gemara raises an objection:

“And let us derive from it”

with regard to kilayim, that he should not be required to remove them in the marketplace, on account of the honor of created beings.

The Gemara answers:

“A prohibition” [kilayim]

[kilayim]

from monetary matters [returning a lost object]

[returning a lost item]

we do not derive.

For monetary matters are more lenient than a prohibition , and it is possible that only a monetary mitzva is overridden on account of the honor of created beings.

The Gemara raises an objection:

“Ta shma”:

It is stated in the section of the nazirite [Numbers 6:6–7]: “All the days that he consecrates himself to the Lord, he shall not come upon a dead person,” and adjacent to this it is stated: “For his father, for his mother, for his brother, and for his sister—he shall not defile himself to them.” At first glance, one should wonder: after all, all these relatives are included in “he shall not come upon a dead person”; why, then, were these singled out to be written separately? Rather, they were necessarily written in order to be expounded: “

For his father”—to exclude a neglected corpse, which has no one to bury it, to which the nazirite is obligated to defile himself. “For his mother”—

to teach that if the nazirite was a priest, and he had two sanctities, even he may not defile himself specifically for his mother, but he does defile himself for a neglected corpse. “For his brother”—for example, if he was a High Priest and he was a nazirite, even he may not defile himself specifically for his brother, but he does defile himself for a neglected corpse.

“For his sister”—

what does it come to teach? If it does not concern a neglected corpse, apply it to one who was going to slaughter his Paschal offering

or

to circumcise his son, and he heard that a dead person had died for him

among his relatives ,

“Perhaps he should turn back and defile himself? You have said”—

“He shall not defile himself!”

Since it was the time for slaughtering the Paschal offering, and the mitzva of the Paschal sacrifice had devolved upon him, for one who refrains from fulfilling it is liable to karet, if he becomes defiled, he will be prevented from making the Paschal offering. And likewise, the mitzva of circumcising his son is a mitzva involving karet, and therefore he does not refrain from performing it even if he heard that his relative had died.

“Perhaps, just as he does not become defiled for them, so he does not become defiled for a neglected corpse. Scripture says: ‘And for his sister’”—

it is specifically for his sister that he does not become defiled.