Berakhot 19b (יט:) — the Talmud in English

since

The Gemara raises an objection:

Come and hear: Great is human dignity, as it overrides a prohibition in the Torah.

The Gemara understood this as referring to every prohibition,

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 Sheva explained it before Rav Kahana:

the beraita is speaking only

of the prohibition

[Deuteronomy 17:11]

of “Do not deviate,”

which is the prohibition against violating the words of the Sages, and only this prohibition is overridden on account of human dignity.

They laughed at him:

But

the prohibition of “Do not deviate”—

is it not from the Torah?!

Rav Kahana said: A great man has stated a matter—

do not laugh at him! Every rabbinic matter is supported by the prohibition of “Do not deviate.”

Every matter that is of rabbinic origin is overridden on account of human dignity, and it was regarding this that they said that it overrides “a prohibition,” because it is associated with the verse “Do not deviate,”

and on account of His honor the Sages permitted it!

For the Sages waived their honor and permitted violating their words in a place where human dignity would otherwise be slighted. [For example, one may carry stones used in a lavatory on Shabbat for cleansing. Similarly, if the ritual fringes of one’s garment were severed on Shabbat while he was in a karmelit, the Sages did not require him to leave his garment there and enter his home naked.]

The Gemara raises an objection:

Come and hear:

The Torah states [Deuteronomy 22:1]: “You shall not see your brother’s ox or sheep straying,”

“and ignore them.”

And they expounded:

There are times when you may ignore them

and are not required to engage in returning a lost article,

and there are times when you may not ignore them.

What are the circumstances? If the finder was

the finder

a kohen, and it was

the lost article

in a cemetery; or if the finder was

the finder

an elderly man

of dignity,

and it was not

the lost article of sufficient importance

in view of his dignity

to engage in returning it;

or if his occupation

the finder’s

was more valuable than that of his fellow

—meaning that the value of the finder’s lost work time spent exerting himself to return the lost article would exceed the value of the article, and the owners would not agree to pay him more than the value of what he was returning to them, with the result that he would suffer a loss—

therefore it is stated

with regard to all these cases,

“and ignore them.”

According to your words, the following difficulty arises:

Why

is an elderly man who would compromise his dignity exempt from returning the lost article?

Let us say

that he should engage in returning the lost article because it is stated:

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

The Gemara answers:

There it is different,

in the mitzva of returning a lost article, for Scripture revealed that one is not obligated to fulfill it in a place involving human dignity,

as it is written: “and ignore them.”

The Gemara raises an objection:

And let us derive from it

with regard to kilayim, that one should not be required to remove the garment in the marketplace on account of human dignity.

The Gemara answers:

A prohibition

[kilayim]

from monetary law

[returning a lost article]

we do not derive.

For monetary law is more lenient than prohibitory law , and it is possible that only a monetary mitzva is overridden on account of human dignity.

The Gemara raises an objection:

Come and hear:

It is stated in the passage concerning the nazirite [Numbers 6:6–7]: “Throughout the term of his dedication to the Lord, he shall not go in where there is a dead body,” and immediately afterward it states: “For his father or his mother or his brother or his sister, he shall not defile himself.” Seemingly, one should wonder: All these relatives are already included in “he shall not go in where there is a dead body”; why, then, were these cases written separately? Rather, they must have been written for purposes of exposition:

“For his father”—excluding a met mitzva, one who has no one to bury him, for whom the nazirite is obligated to render himself impure. “For his mother” \-

to teach that if the nazirite was a kohen, and he possessed two sanctities, even he may not render himself impure specifically for his mother, but he may render himself impure for a met mitzva. “For his brother”—for example, if he was a High Priest and a nazirite; even he may not render himself impure specifically for his brother, but he may render himself impure for a met mitzva.

“For his sister”—

what does this teach? If it is not needed with regard to a met mitzva, apply it to one who was on his way to slaughter his Paschal offering

or

to circumcise his son, and heard that one of his relatives had died

,

one might have thought that he should turn back and render himself impure. You must say—

“He shall not render himself impure!”

Since it is the time for slaughtering the Paschal offering and the mitzva of the Paschal offering has devolved upon him—for one who refrains from fulfilling it is liable to karet—if he renders himself impure, he will be prevented from making the Paschal offering. The mitzva of circumcising his son is likewise a mitzva whose neglect involves karet, and therefore he does not refrain from fulfilling it even if he hears that his relative has died.

One might have thought that just as he does not render himself impure for them, so he does not render himself impure for a met mitzva. The verse therefore states: “For his sister”—

it is specifically for his sister that he may not render himself impure.