Berakhot 61a (סא.) — 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 be quick 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 be in awe of Him, since even if the weak were above and the mighty below, the weak would nevertheless inspire awe in the mighty; all the more so when He is both mighty and exalted.

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

Genesis 2:7]:

“And the Lord God formed the man,”

why is the word “formed” written

with two yuds?

It is to tell you that

the Holy One, blessed be He, created two inclinations within

a person,

one the good inclination and one the evil inclination.

The Maharsha understood that Rav Huna cited Rav’s statement as a continuation of the issue discussed above: even if a person is suffering, he should not pray at length for his suffering to end, because by doing so he may question the judgments of Heaven. However, the Vilna Gaon and the Tzelah understood it as referring to all prayers and requests. Rashi, in his commentary on Ecclesiastes there, and on the basis of this verse Ibn Ezra there sharply criticized the liturgical poems inserted into the order of prayer, particularly the poems of Kalir. See his lengthy remarks there. Rashi [Genesis 2:7] wrote that two formations were spoken of with regard to man: one for this world and one for the resurrection of the dead. This is unlike an animal, which does not live at the resurrection. See Maharal [Discourse for Shabbat Shuva], who explains that this is why the two faces were set facing opposite directions: they face two different worlds.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak strongly objected: If so, with regard to an animal, for which “formed” is not written with two yuds,

and is it the case that

it has no inclination

evil inclination]?

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

because of the evil inclination within it.

Rather,

necessarily, the two yuds were written to teach

in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi. 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 desires,

“woe is me because of my inclination,”

which troubles me with thoughts of transgression. Therefore, “formed” was written with two yuds, as though saying “woe” twice: one corresponding to “my Creator” and one corresponding to “my inclination.”

Alternatively,

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

in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yirmeya ben Elazar. For Rav Yirmeya ben Elazar said: Two

faces

the Holy One, blessed be He, created in the first man,

a male face at his front and a female face at his back. 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 an expression of “form”; that is, He formed two faces within him. Therefore, “formed” was written with two yuds, because He formed two forms in man.

The Gemara expounds the verse

Genesis 2:22]:

“And the Lord God built the rib that He had taken from the man into a woman, and He brought her to the man,” and Rav and

Shmuel differed over its meaning.

One

of them

said: “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

And one

of them

said: “Rib”

is

a tail, since the first man had a tail, and the Holy One, blessed be He, removed it from him, and made the woman from it.

The Gemara asks:

Granted, according to the one who says

that the rib was

a face, this is why it is written, “Behind and before You formed me,”

since He formed in him the forms 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,” since the faces were not equal?

The Gemara answers:

“Formed me” has two meanings, and the verse intends to teach

in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ami. For Rabbi Ami said: Man is

said: A human being is

“behind”

last]

in the work of Creation,

meaning that he was formed last,

and

on the other hand he is also

“before”

first]

in punishment,

and every calamity comes to him first, as follows. The Gemara considers:

Granted, “behind in the work of Creation”

is because

he was not created until the eve

evening]

of Shabbat,

after all other creatures;

but “before in punishment”—which punishment is this?

If you say

that man's punishment preceded the

punishment of the serpent

for the sin of the Tree of Knowledge, this cannot be so, because

it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi says, in honor

greatness]

one begins with the greatest

first,

but in a curse one begins with the least

first. The source for this is as follows:

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

Leviticus 10:12]:

“And Moses spoke to Aaron and to Elazar and to Itamar, his remaining sons: Take

the meal-offering that remains from the fire-offerings of the Lord and eat it unleavened beside the altar, for it is most holy.” Since it specified the names “Elazar and Itamar,” rather than writing only “his remaining sons,” it follows that it intended to teach that in all matters of honor one begins with the greatest.

But in a curse one begins with the least,

as

the serpent was cursed first, and finally,

after the curse of the serpent,

Eve was cursed, and finally

after her

Adam was cursed.

Since this is so, it is impossible to interpret “before in punishment” as referring to man's punishment for the sin of the Tree of Knowledge.

Rather,

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

generation of the Flood, as it is written

Genesis 7:23]:

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

and it is explicit that

first

man

died, and afterward

the

beast

died.

The Gemara raises another difficulty:

Granted, according to the one who says

that the rib was

a face, this is why “formed” is written with two yuds,

because He formed two facial forms, front and back;

but according to the one who says

that the rib was

a tail, what is the meaning of “formed,”

why was it written with two yuds?

The Gemara explains: The two yuds were written to teach

a

statement of

Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi

above. For

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

The Gemara raises another difficulty:

Granted, according to the one who says

that the rib was

a face, this is why it is written

Genesis 5:2]:

“Male and female He created them,”

because at the beginning of his creation man was created with 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”?

Was he not initially created only male, with the female created afterward?

The Gemara answers: The verse comes to teach

in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Abbahu, for Rabbi Abbahu raised

a contradiction between verses:

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

indicating 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,”

indicating 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 why it says, “Male and female He created them”—in thought.

But ultimately only one was created,

namely, the male alone, and this is why it says, “He made man,” since in actuality only one was created. The Gemara raises another difficulty:

Granted, according to the one who says

that the rib was

a face, this is why it is written

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

and closed flesh beneath it,”

since the two faces were joined, it was necessary to complete with flesh the place of the face that had been part of the man and was severed 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”?

The only thing severed from man was the superfluous tail, 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 incision,

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

The Gemara raises another difficulty:

Granted, according to the one who says

that the rib was

a tail, this is why it is written

there, verse 23]:

“And He built

the Lord God the rib,” since He had to construct 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”?

The woman's face already existed from the beginning of man's creation.

The Gemara answers: The word “vayiven” is written

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

It teaches that

first

the Holy One, blessed be He, braided Eve’s hair

for her,

and

only afterward

did He bring her to Adam

so that she would find favor in his eyes. And they expounded this from the word “vayiven,” which denotes braiding,

for in the coastal cities they call her braiding

a braid

“binyata.”

Alternatively: “And He built”

Rav Ḥisda said, and some say that it was taught in a beraita: It teaches that

when she was still part of Adam, she was male; and when she was taken from him,

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

for produce.

Just as this storehouse

is constructed

narrow

[literally, constricted]

at the top and wide at the bottom, so that it can contain the produce

[for if it were narrow at the bottom and wide at the top, the grain would weigh upon the walls from above and push them outward]—

so too a woman

was created

narrow

[constricted]

at the top and wide at the bottom, 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”

Rav Yirmeya ben

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

as it were, taking part in Adam’s wedding and arranging his match like a friend—a matchmaker responsible for conducting the wedding ceremony.

From here the Torah teaches proper conduct: A distinguished person should engage in the matchmaker’s service for an ordinary person

for the latter,

and he should not feel demeaned by it

as though his honor had been diminished thereby, for we find that the Holy One, blessed be He, Himself engaged in this task.

The Gemara discusses:

And according to the one who says

that the “rib” was

a face,

and that Adam originally had two faces,

which of them

of the two faces was in front, and

went

[walked]

first?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It stands to reason

that the face

of the man

was in front and

went first,

while the female face was behind,

for

it is

taught in a beraita: A person should not walk behind a woman on the road,

even

if she is

his wife.

Although with one’s wife there is no prohibition as a matter of law, it is nevertheless disgraceful for a distinguished person to walk behind an inferior.

And if

there happens to be before him

another man’s wife who is walking ahead of him

on a bridge

[where the passage is narrow and there is no possibility for both of them to walk side by side], he should not walk behind her; rather,

he should move her aside

until he passes in front of her.

And anyone who passes behind a woman

[another man’s wife]

in a river,

if he does so habitually,

has no share in the World to Come,

because she raises her garments on account of the water, and he looks at her, eventually coming to adultery. It follows that it is impossible that the woman’s face went first and Adam’s face followed behind her, since walking in this manner is disgraceful even with one’s wife.

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

—even if he possesses Torah and good deeds like Moses our teacher, he will not be cleansed from the judgment of Gehenna. As it is stated

[Proverbs 11:21]:

“Hand to hand, the wicked shall not go unpunished,”

and its meaning is that a wicked person 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 be He, into his own hand, nevertheless

will not be cleansed from the judgment of Gehenna.

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, even his wife.”

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak challenged

Rav Naḥman:

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

and with regard to Elisha, it is written

also concerning him [II Kings 4:30],

“And he arose and went after her”

[after the Shunamite woman], does this

also

mean that he went

“after her” literally?

Surely the verse cannot be understood in that way.

Rather,

the intention is that Elisha went

after her words

of the Shunamite woman

and after her advice,

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

here too,

with regard to Manoah, how do we know that he was an ignoramus? Perhaps the intention is not that he literally walked behind his wife, but that he went

after her words and after her advice

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

even

the verses that children read

in the schoolhouse, did he not read?

For it is an explicit verse,

as it is stated

[Genesis 24:61]:

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

this implies that they

did not

walk

before the man.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

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

behind

the

lion, rather than

walk

behind

the

woman.

If he has the choice of walking either behind a woman or behind a gentile, it is preferable that he walk

behind a woman, and not behind a gentile;

and it is preferable that he walk

behind a gentile, rather than

pass

behind a synagogue while the congregation is praying

inside it, because since he does not enter to pray with them, he appears to be casting off the yoke, and he disgraces the synagogue.

And we stated this

that one may not pass behind a synagogue

only

in a situation

where he is not carrying

[anything]

on himself,

but

if he is carrying something, there is no concern,

since this does not constitute a disgrace to the synagogue: his burden demonstrates that he does not enter because he is occupied with carrying it.

And

likewise,

we stated this

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 concern,

because there is no fear of disgrace: One who sees that he did not enter through this entrance will assume that he is going to enter through the other entrance.

And

likewise,

we stated this

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 foot.

But

if he is

riding

a

donkey, there is no concern.

And

likewise,

we stated this

that one may not pass behind a synagogue

except

in a situation

where he is not wearing phylacteries, but

if he is

wearing phylacteries, there is no concern,

since he thereby demonstrates that he is God-fearing.

Rav said: The evil inclination is similar to a fly,

which is a small and weak creature, yet it has the power to spoil something valuable ,

and

it

sits between the two entrances of the heart,

as it is stated: “Dead flies make the perfumer’s oil foul and ferment!”

And “ferment” means “bubble”: it spoils the good oil until the oil raises bubbles.

And Shmuel said:

The evil inclination

resembles a grain of wheat,

as it is stated

[Genesis 4:7],

“At the entrance sin crouches,”

and he expounded “sin” as a word resembling “wheat.” He held that the tree from which the first man ate was wheat, and thus sin came through it .

The Sages taught: A person has two kidneys; one counsels him toward good, and the other counsels him toward evil.

And it stands to reason that

the one that counsels him

toward good

is situated

on his right. And

the one that counsels him toward

evil

is situated

on his left,

as

it is written

[Ecclesiastes 10:2]:

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

The Sages taught:

The

kidneys counsel

a person’s heart regarding what he should do , while the heart understands

whether or not to heed the counsel of the kidneys.

whether or not to heed the advice of the kidneys.

The tongue cuts

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

mouth

[the lips]

completes

it and brings it out. The

esophagus brings in and takes out all kinds of food,

while the

windpipe

brings out

the

voice!

voice!