Berakhot 61a — the Talmud in English

And Rav Huna said that Rav said in the name of Rabbi Meir: A person’s words should always be few

when he speaks

before the Holy One, blessed be He.

As it is stated

[Ecclesiastes 5:1]:

“Do not be hasty with your mouth, and let your heart not hasten to utter a word before God; for God is in heaven and you are on earth. Therefore, let your words be few.”

For one must have awe of Him, since even if the weak were above and the mighty below, the mighty would still fear the weak; all the more so when He is both mighty and above.

Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda interpreted: What is the meaning of that which is written

[Genesis 2:7]:

“And the Lord God formed man”

Why is “formed” written

with two yods?

It is to teach you that

the Holy One, blessed be He, created two inclinations

within a person:

one a good inclination and one an evil inclination.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak objected: If that is so, concerning an animal, for which “formed” is not written with two yods, does it not have an inclination?

It does not have the word written with two yods, and is it the case

that it has no inclination

[evil inclination]?

But we clearly see that it damages, bites, and kicks,

because of the evil inclination within it.

Rather,

it must be that the two yods were written in order to teach

as Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi taught. For Rabbi Shimon ben

Pazi said: “Woe is me because of my Creator”

if I follow the inclination,

and

if I do not follow my desire,

“woe is me because of my inclination,”

because it troubles me with thoughts of transgression. Therefore “formed” was written with two yods, as though it said “woe” twice: one corresponding to his “Creator” and one corresponding to his “inclination.”

Alternatively,

the reason “formed” was written with two yods is to teach

as Rav Yirmeya ben Elazar taught. Rav Yirmeya ben Elazar said: Two

two

faces did the Holy One, blessed be He, create in the first man:

a male face in front of him and a female face behind him. Afterward He divided them into two and made Eve from the female face.

As it is stated

[Psalms 139:5]:

“Behind and before You formed me,”

and “formed me” is related to the word “form”; that is, He formed two faces in him. Therefore “formed” was written with two yods, because He formed two forms in man.

The Gemara interprets the verse

[Genesis 2:22]: “And the Lord God built the rib

which He had taken from the man into a woman, and He brought her to the man,” and

Rav and Shmuel

one

of them

said: “The rib”

is

a face,

as they said above, that He created two faces in man and made the woman from one of them.

And one

of them

said: “The rib”

is

a tail,

for the first man had a tail, and the Holy One, blessed be He, removed it from him and made the woman from it. He the Vilna Gaon explained that all animals and beasts have tails because the male and female were created separately. Man alone, who was initially created male only, remained without a tail when the tail was taken from him to construct the woman.

The Gemara asks:

Granted, according to the one who says

that the rib was

a face, this is the meaning of what is written: “Behind and before You formed me,”

since He formed the shapes of two equal faces.

But according to the one who says

that the rib was

a tail, what is the meaning of “Behind and before You formed me”?

After all, the faces were not equal.

The Gemara answers: “You formed me” has two meanings, and the verse intends to teach

as Rabbi Ami taught. For Rabbi Ami

said: A human being is

“behind”

[last]

in the work of Creation,

meaning that he was created last,

but

on the other hand he is also

“before”

[first]

in punishment,

and every punishment comes upon him first, as follows. The Gemara discusses this:

Granted, “behind in the work of Creation”

is because

he was not created until the eve of

[evening of]

Shabbat,

after all the other creatures.

But “before in punishment”—which punishment is meant?

Perhaps

the punishment of man preceded

the punishment of the snake

for the sin of the Tree of Knowledge. But that is not so, because

it was taught in a source: Rabbi says, with regard to honor,

[respect],

one begins with the greatest

first,

but with a curse one begins with the least

first. The source for this is as follows:

With honor one begins with the greatest, as it is written

[Leviticus 10:12]:

“Moses spoke to Aaron and to Eleazar and to Ithamar, his remaining sons: Take

the meal-offering that remains from the offerings of the Lord and eat it unleavened beside the altar, for it is most holy.” Since it specified the names “Eleazar and Ithamar,” rather than writing only “his remaining sons,” it follows that it wished to teach that wherever honor is involved, one begins with the greatest.

And with a curse one begins with the least,

as

the snake was cursed first, and afterward

after the curse of the snake,

Eve was cursed, and afterward

after her,

Adam was cursed.

Since this is so, it is impossible to interpret that man was “before in punishment” with regard to the punishment for the sin of the Tree of Knowledge.

Rather,

man was “before in punishment” with regard to the punishment of

the punishment of the Flood, as it is written

[Genesis 7:23]

“And He wiped out every living thing that was upon the face of the ground, from man to beast,”

and it is explicit that

first

man

and afterward

the

beast died.

died.

The Gemara further asks:

Granted, according to the one who says

that the rib was

a face, this is the meaning of what is written: “formed” with two yods,

because He formed two facial forms, one in front and one behind.

But according to the one who says

that the rib was

a tail, what is the meaning of “formed”

and why was it written with two yods?

The Gemara explains: The two yods were written to teach

as

the words of

Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi

above. He said:

Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said: Woe is me because of my inclination, and woe is me because of my Creator.

The Gemara further asks:

Granted, according to the one who says

that the rib was

a face, this is the meaning of what is written

[Genesis 5:2]:

“Male and female He created them,”

because at the beginning of his creation man had two faces, one male and one female, and afterward He separated them into two bodies.

But according to the one who says

that the rib was

a tail, what is the meaning of “Male and female He created them”?

After all, only the male was created initially, and the female was created afterward.

The Gemara answers: The verse comes to teach

as Rabbi Abbahu taught, for Rabbi Abbahu raised

a contradiction between the verses:

It is written, “Male and female He created them,”

which implies that they were two from the beginning of their creation,

but

on the other hand

it is written

[there, 9:6]

“For in the image of God He made man,”

which implies that he was initially created alone as a male.

How is this possible?

Rather,

at first it arose in thought

before the Holy One, blessed be He,

to create two,

and this is the meaning of “Male and female He created them,” namely, in thought.

But in the end only one was created,

namely, the male alone, and this is the meaning of “He made man,” since in actuality only one was created. The Gemara further asks:

Granted, according to the one who says

that the rib was

a face, this is the meaning of what is written

[there, 2:22]: “And He took one of his ribs,”

“and He closed flesh beneath it,”

since the two faces were joined, and it was necessary to complete with flesh the place of the face that had been part of the man and was cut away from him.

But according to the one who says

that the rib was

a tail, what is the meaning of “and He closed flesh beneath it”?

After all, only the unnecessary tail was cut away from the man, and nothing was lacking from his body.

Rav Yirmeya said—and some say Rav Zevid, and some say Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: It was necessary only for the place of the cut,

to close with flesh the place where the tail had been cut from his body.

The Gemara further asks:

Granted, according to the one who says

that the rib was

a tail, this is the meaning of what is written

[there, 23]:

“And He built

the Lord God the rib,” since it was necessary to build it in the form of a woman.

But according to the one who says

that the rib was

a face, what is the meaning of “and He built”?

After all, the woman’s face already existed from the beginning of man’s creation.

The Gemara answers: “And he built” is written

in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya, for Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya expounded: What is the meaning of that which is written, “And the Lord God built the rib”?

It teaches that

beforehand

the Holy One, blessed is He, braided Eve

her hair,

and

only afterward

brought her to Adam,

so that she would find favor in his eyes. And they expounded this from the word “and he built,” which is an expression of braiding,

for in the cities of the sea they call her braiding

[her braid]

“binayata.”

Another matter: “And he built”—

Rav Hisda said, and some say that a tanna taught in a baraita: It teaches that

when she was part of the man she was like a male, and when He took her from him,

the Holy One, blessed is He, built Eve, like the construction of a storehouse

of produce.

Just as this storehouse

is built

narrow

[constricted]

above and wide below, in order to contain the produce

[for if it were narrow below and wide above, the grain would weigh upon the walls from above and push them to the sides]—

so too a woman,

was created

narrow

[constricted]

above and wide below, so that

during her pregnancy she would be able

to contain

[to hold]

the fetus.

The Gemara expounds the continuation of the verse [there]:

“And he brought her to the man”—

Rabbi Yirmeya ben

Elazar said: It teaches that the Holy One, blessed is He, became a groomsman for the first man,

as it were, He attended to Adam’s wedding and his pairing like a friend—a groomsman who is responsible for arranging the wedding ceremony.

From here the Torah taught proper conduct: Let a great person engage in the groomsman’s service

of the lesser person,

and let him not feel bad

about it, as though his honor were diminished by this, for we find that the Holy One, blessed is He, Himself engaged in this.

The Gemara discusses:

And according to the one who says

that the rib was

a countenance,

and that Adam originally had two countenances,

which of them

of the two countenances was in front, and

walked

[went]

first?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It is reasonable

that the countenance

of the male

was in front and

walked first,

and the female countenance was behind,

for

behold,

it was taught in a baraita: A person should not walk behind a woman on the road,

and even

if she is

his wife,

for although with one’s wife there is no prohibition according to strict law, nevertheless it is disgraceful for the greater to walk after the lesser.

And if

there happens to meet him

another man’s wife, who is walking before him

on the bridge

[which is a narrow place where the two cannot walk equally side by side], he should not walk after her, but

he should move her to the side

until he passes before her.

And anyone who passes behind a woman

[another man’s wife]

in a river,

if he is accustomed to do so,

has no share in the World to Come,

because she raises her garments because of the water, and he looks at her, and in the end he comes to adultery. It follows that it is impossible that the woman’s countenance went first and the man’s countenance went after her, for walking in this manner is disgraceful even with one’s wife.

The Sages taught: One who hands coins to a woman from his hand to her hand in order to look at her—

even if he has Torah and good deeds like Moses our teacher, he will not be cleansed from the judgment of Gehinnom. As it is said

[Proverbs 11:21]:

“Hand to hand the wicked shall not be cleansed,”

and its explanation is that a wicked man who hands coins from his hand to a woman’s hand, even if he is like Moses, who received the Torah from the hand of the Holy One, blessed is He, into his own hand, nevertheless

will not be cleansed from the judgment of Gehinnom.

Rav Naḥman said: Manoah

[Samson’s father]

was an ignoramus, as it is written

[Judges 13:11]:

“And Manoah arose and went after his wife,”

whereas we learned above: “A person should not walk behind a woman, and even his wife.”

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak challenged

Rav Naḥman:

But if that is so, regarding Elkanah, for it is written, ‘And Elkanah went after his wife,’

and regarding Elisha, for it is written

also concerning him [II Kings 4:30],

“And he arose and went after her”

[after the Shunamite woman], and is

this too

interpreted to mean that he went

“after her” literally?—

for certainly the verse cannot be interpreted in this way.

Rather,

the intention is that Elisha went

after her words

of the Shunamite woman

and after her counsel,

for she asked him to revive her son. If so,

here too,

with regard to Manoah, from where is it known that he was an ignoramus? It is possible to interpret that the intention is not that he literally went after his wife, but that he went

after her words and after her counsel

of his wife, to go out and meet the angel of the Lord.

Rav Ashi said: And according to what Rav Naḥman said,

that

“Manoah was an ignoramus,”

and he went “after her” literally, it follows that

even

the verses that children read

in the schoolhouse, he did not read?

For it is an explicit verse,

as it is said

[Genesis 24:61]:

“And Rebecca and her maidens arose, and they rode upon the camels, and they went after the man,” and

it implies that they

did not

go

before the man.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If a person is compelled to walk along one of two roads, on one of which a lion is walking and on the other of which a woman is walking, it is preferable that he walk

If a person must choose between two roads, one of which has a lion walking on it and the other of which has a woman walking on it, it is preferable that he walk

behind

the

lion, rather than

walk

behind

the

woman.

And if he has the choice of walking either behind a woman or behind an idolater, it is preferable that he walk

behind a woman, and not behind an idolater,

and it is preferable that he walk

behind an idolater, rather than

pass

behind a synagogue at the time when the congregation is praying

in it, for since he does not enter to pray with them, he appears to be casting off the yoke, and he is disgracing the synagogue.

And we said this

that one may not pass behind a synagogue

only

in a situation

where he is not carrying

[anything]

upon himself,

but

if he is carrying something, there is no matter,

for this does not constitute disgrace to the synagogue, since his burden demonstrates that he is not entering because he is occupied with his burden.

And

likewise

we said

that it is forbidden to pass behind a synagogue

only

in a situation

where there is no other entrance

to the synagogue, but

if there is another entrance, there is no matter,

for there is no concern of disgrace, since one who sees that he is not entering through this entrance will think that he is about to enter through the other entrance.

And

likewise

we said

that one may not pass behind a synagogue

only

in a situation

where he is not riding

a

donkey,

but is walking and passing on his feet.

But

if he is

riding

a

donkey, there is no matter.

And

likewise

we said

that one may not pass behind a synagogue

only in

a situation

where he is not wearing phylacteries, but

if he is

wearing phylacteries, there is no matter,

for he thereby shows that he is God-fearing.

Rav said: The evil inclination resembles a fly,

which is a small and weak creature, and nevertheless it has the power to make an important thing foul,

and

it

sits between the two openings of the heart,

as it is said, “Dead flies make the perfumer’s oil foul; it gives off a stench!”

And “it gives off” means “bubbles,” for it spoils the good oil until the oil raises bubbles.

And Shmuel said:

the evil inclination

resembles a kind of wheat,

as it is said

[Genesis 4:7]

“At the entrance sin crouches,”

and he expounded “sin” as an expression of “wheat,” and held that the tree from which the first man ate was wheat; thus, through it sin came .

The Sages taught: A person has two kidneys; one advises him for good, and one advises him for evil.

And it is reasonable that

the one that advises him

for good

is found

on his right. And

the one that advises

for evil

is found

on his left,

as

it is written

[Ecclesiastes 10:2]:

“The heart of the wise man is at his right, and the heart of the fool is at his left.”

The Sages taught: The

The

kidneys advise

the heart of a person what he should do, while the

heart understands

whether to heed the advice of the kidneys or not.

The tongue cuts

the speech into the form in which it emerges from the mouth. And the

mouth

[the lips]

completes

and brings it out. The

esophagus brings in and brings out every kind of food,

while the

while the

windpipe brings out

the

the

voice!