Berakhot 62b (סב:) — the Talmud in English

It was taught: Ben Azzai says: On every bed, lie down, except on the ground,

lest you become chilled,

and on every seat, sit, except on a beam,

lest you fall from it.

Shmuel said: Sleeping at dawn

is beneficial to the body,

just

as it is beneficial

for steel

[astema],

for iron

[ferzela], [that is, it is beneficial to coat iron utensils with steel in order to strengthen them].

It is likewise beneficial to the body

to relieve oneself at dawn, like steel for iron!

Bar Kappara would sell sayings

[advice]

for dinars .

And these were his counsels:

While you are hungry

[while you are still hungry],

eat!

For if you wait until your appetite for eating has passed, the food will no longer benefit you.

While you are thirsty

[while you are still thirsty],

drink!

While your pot is boiling, pour it out

[while your pot is boiling, pour it out before it cools]. This is an analogy: when you need to relieve yourself, do not hold it in; rather, pour it out immediately .

If you hear

the horn

[the sound of a horn]

calling in Rome,

which is a signal of the fig merchants seeking to buy figs, and you

are the son of a fig seller

[the son of a fig seller], and your father is not at home,

sell your father’s figs!

Sell them even without your father’s knowledge, as long as there are people seeking to purchase them.

Abaye said to the Sages: When you enter the paths of Mehoza, in order to relieve yourselves

[in order to relieve yourselves]

in the field

[in the field],

do not look

[look]

neither in this direction nor in that direction, lest there be sitting

there

women

relieving themselves;

and it is not proper conduct to look at them!

Rav Safra entered the lavatory,

and their lavatory had no door, but their practice was that one who wished to enter would grunt [emit a coughing sound], and if someone else was inside, he would grunt back [for one may not speak in a lavatory ], and thereby he would know not to enter.

Rabbi Abba came and grunted to him

to Rav Safra

at the door.

He said to him,

Rav Safra:

Let

[him] enter,

Master!

After Rav Safra emerged,

Rav Safra,

he said to him,

Rabbi Abba:

You have not yet entered Seir

[the Land of Israel, beside which the people of Seir dwell ],

and already you have learned the ways of

the

people of Seir,

and you conduct yourself with their immodesty, [for the Persians who dwelled among them were modest in the lavatory].

But

did we not learn likewise: There was a fire

in the Chamber of the Hearth in the Temple,

and a lavatory of honor

was there,

and this was its honor—

if

he found

a person

locked in, it was known

to him

that there was someone there,

and he would not enter. But if

he found it open, it was known

to him

that no one was there,

and he could enter.

Evidently, it is not proper conduct

to speak in a lavatory , and therefore they established this signal, so that the person inside would not have to announce verbally that he was there to anyone who came to enter after him. If so, you should have grunted back at me, so that I would withdraw and leave, rather than tell me to enter with you .

And

Rav Safra, who hurried to say to him, “Let my master enter,”

he thought

that Rabbi Abba

was in danger

if he did not relieve himself immediately, and in such a case it is permitted to speak with him even from inside the lavatory [and it is likewise permitted for him to enter there together with him].

As it was taught: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:

When a person needs to relieve himself, but nevertheless holds in his bodily wastes and returns them into his body, that

returning fluid

to the body

brings a person to hydropsy

[a disease that causes his abdomen to swell].

And

a stream

of urine

returning

to the body because he holds himself back from expelling it

brings a person to jaundice.

Rabbi Elazar entered the lavatory, and a certain Persian came

and

forced him out

from there.

Rabbi Elazar rose and emerged; a serpent came

[a snake]

and tore out his rectum

[the rectum of that Persian].

Rabbi Elazar cited concerning him

[Isaiah 43]

“And I will give man in your place”—do not read “man,” but rather “Edom,”

for this Edomite was given over to death in my place.

We find that David said to Saul [I Samuel 24:10]: “Behold, this day your eyes have seen that the Lord delivered you today into my hand in the cave,

and he said to kill you, but he had pity on you,”

and it says, “I will not send forth my hand against my master, for he is the Lord’s anointed.”

The Gemara considers: Why is it stated

“and he said

to kill you”? Surely

“and I said

to kill you”

should have been required.

And likewise, why is it stated

“but he had pity

on you”? Surely

“and I had pity

on you”

should have been required.

Rabbi Elazar said: David said to Saul: According to the Torah, you are deserving of execution, for you are pursuing me

to kill me,

and the Torah said, “If one comes to kill you, rise early and kill him,”

so it follows that the Holy One, blessed be He, “said to kill you.”

Rather, it was the modesty that you possessed that had pity on you,

and saved you from death, and concerning this it is said, “but he had pity on you” .

And what was it?

Saul’s modesty?

As it is written

[there, verse 3]:

“And he came to the sheepfolds on the way, and there was a cave; and Saul came to cover his feet,”

meaning that he entered there to relieve himself, out of modesty, and even there he conducted himself modestly, as explained below.

It was taught:

Saul entered

an enclosure within an enclosure

among the sheepfolds,

and

likewise he entered

a cave within a cave,

which was an exceptional degree of modesty.

The Gemara explains further: What is the meaning of

“to cover

his feet” [mentioned in this verse]?

Rabbi Elazar said: It teaches that Saul covered

his

own

self with his garments,

like a sukka,

because of the modesty he possessed.

It is further stated there [verse 4]:

“And David rose and secretly cut off the corner of the robe that belonged to Saul.”

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Hanina, said: Whoever treats garments with contempt

will

ultimately not benefit from them

. For

David treated Saul’s garments with contempt, and ultimately it

was said

of him [I Kings 1:1]:

“Now King David was old, advanced in days, and they covered him with garments, but he did not become warm.”

David said to Saul, who wanted to kill him:

“If the Lord has incited you against me, let Him accept an offering.”

If the Lord decreed this punishment upon me, I will offer Him a meal-offering, and it will be a pleasing fragrance to Him, and He will atone for me.

Rabbi Elazar said: The Holy One, blessed be He, said to David: You called Me an “inciter”; therefore I will cause you to stumble over a matter that even schoolchildren know,

so that you would sin by counting the Children of Israel without their giving an atonement for their souls. It is explicitly stated in Scripture,

as it is written

[Exodus 30:12]

“When you take a census of the heads of the Children of Israel according to their numbers, each man shall give

an atonement for his soul

to the Lord when they are counted, so that there will be no plague among them when they are counted.” Thus, without an atonement for their souls, it is forbidden to count them.

Immediately

it was stated [I Chronicles 21:1]:

“And Satan stood against Israel,

and incited David to count Israel.”

And

likewise

it is written

[II Samuel 24:1]

“And the anger of the Lord continued to burn against Israel, and He incited David against them, saying, Go, count Israel

and Judah.” Consequently, he was punished for saying that the Holy One, blessed be He, had incited him; measure for measure, Satan was sent to incite him to do this.

And once he had counted them,

he should have taken an atonement from them, but he did not do so,

and he did not take an atonement from them,

and Israel was punished for this through a plague, as

it is written: “And the Lord sent a

p

l

a

g

ue upon Israel from the morning until the appointed time.”

What is meant by “an appointed time”?

Shmuel the Elder, Rabbi Ḥanina’s father-in-law, said in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: From the time of the slaughtering of the daily offering

which is in the morning,

until the time of the sprinkling

of its blood.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Until midday

of the day

precisely!

for that is the end of the time for offering the morning daily offering.

After the Lord struck Israel with the plague, it is stated [II Samuel, loc. cit., 16]: “And the Lord relented concerning the calamity

and said to the destroying angel among the people: Now, withdraw your hand

from them.”

The Gemara explains what is meant by “the destroying angel among the people”:

Rabbi Elazar said: The Holy One, blessed be He, said to the angel: Take for Me

a

great

and distinguished man

among them, who in his death can

through his death

exact from them

from Israel

many debts

[sins], and atone for them, for “the death of the righteous atones.”

At that moment, Avishai son of Zeruiah died, who was equal to

approximately

the majority of the

of the

Sanhedrin,

and thereby the word “great” was fulfilled in the sense of “majority.”

It is further stated concerning that matter in Chronicles [loc. cit.]: “And God sent an angel to Jerusalem to destroy it,

and as he was destroying it, the Lord saw and relented

concerning the calamity.”

The Gemara explains:

What did He see

that caused Him to relent?

Rav said: He saw

at that moment the

Patriarch Jacob,

and we find with regard to Jacob the expression “seeing,”

as it is written

[Genesis 32:2]:

“And Jacob said when he saw them.”

And Shmuel said:

He saw

the ashes of Isaac;

that is, he saw the thought of Isaac, who was prepared and ready to be sacrificed upon the altar and become ashes .

As it is stated concerning him

with an expression of “seeing,” in the verse [Genesis 22:8]:

“God will see to the lamb

for a burnt offering, my son.” And by his merit the Lord halted the destroyer who stood on Mount Moriah, which is the site of the Binding.

Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa said:

He saw

the money

of the

atonements

that Israel had given in the wilderness .

He saw it!

And that same money also atoned for the count in David’s time. For the half-shekel was also given as a remembrance for future generations,

as it is stated

[Exodus 30:16]:

“And you shall take the money of the atonements from the children of Israel

and give it for the service of the Tent of Meeting, and it shall be a remembrance for the children of Israel before the Lord, to atone for your souls.” And in David’s time this money was mentioned, and it served to atone for them.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

He saw

the Temple

that would be built in the place where the destroyer had stood,

he saw it,

and there too the expression of seeing is used,

as it is written

[Genesis 22:14]:

“On the mountain of the Lord it will be seen!”

And concerning this matter,

Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi and Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani disagreed: One said that He saw the money of the atonements, and one said that He saw the Temple. And it is more reasonable according to the one who said that He saw the Temple, as it is stated: “As it is said today, on the mountain of the Lord it will be seen.”

We learned in the Mishna:

A person may not enter the Temple Mount with his staff

or with his shoe, or with his wallet, or with the dust on his feet; and he may not make it a shortcut.

The Gemara inquires:

What is meant by “a shortcut”?

Rava said: Shortcut means, in accordance with

the meaning of the word, so is the interpretation of

its name!

That is, as its translation indicates, it is a shortening of the route.

And Rav Ḥana bar Adda said in the name of Rav Sama son of Rav Mari:

The translation does not express the meaning of the word; rather, it is an acronym, and

as a person says

when he wishes to shorten his route:

“While I go around the row of houses, I will enter here,”—

and all of this is included in the acronym “kafandarya.”

Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabba bar Avuha: One who enters a synagogue with the intention not to make it a shortcut

but in order to remain there, or in order to perform a mitzva there, and afterward changes his mind and wishes to continue and leave outside need not return to the entrance through which he entered; rather,

it is permitted

for him

to make it a shortcut,

and leave through another entrance in order to shorten his route.

Rabbi Abbahu said: If there was a path

running through the synagogue

from the outset

[before it was built],

it is permitted

to make it a shortcut.

Rabbi Ḥelbo said in the name of Rav Huna: One who enters a synagogue to pray

and afterward wishes to leave it need not specifically return through the entrance through which he entered; rather,

it is permitted

to make it a shortcut

and leave through another entrance.

As it is stated

concerning pilgrims who come to the Temple [Ezekiel 46:9]:

“And when the people of the land come before the Lord on the appointed occasions,

the one who enters through the northern gate to bow shall leave through the southern gate, and the one who enters through the southern gate shall leave through the northern gate; he shall not return through the gate through which he entered, for he shall leave opposite it.” Thus, one should not leave through the same entrance through which he entered, but specifically through another entrance.

We learned in the Mishna:

And

he may not spit in it,

by means of a kal va-homer!

Rav Bibi said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: Anyone who spits on the Temple Mount

nowadays

is as though he spits into the pupil of the eye

of the Holy One, blessed be He, as it were,

as it is stated

concerning the Temple [I Kings 9:3]:

“And My eyes and My heart shall be there all the days.”

Rava said: Spitting in a synagogue is permitted,

and its law is not like that of the Temple,

as is the case with a shoe,

which one is permitted to wear while walking in a synagogue.

Just as wearing a shoe on the Temple Mount is prohibited

while walking there, and nevertheless

in a synagogue it is permitted,

so too spitting

is permitted; specifically,

it is on the Temple Mount that it is prohibited

to spit, but

in a synagogue it is permitted.

Rav Pappa said to Rava—and some say

that

Ravina

said to him,

to Rava—and some say

that

Rav Adda bar Mattana

said to him

to Rava: Since you derive

the law of spitting

from wearing a shoe,

which is permitted in a synagogue, why not

derive

the law of spitting

from making a shortcut

and prohibit it even in a synagogue?

He said to him: The tanna

in the beraita

derives

the very prohibition against spitting [even in the Temple]]

from a shoe, and you say

that it is derived

from using it as a shortcut

to prohibit it even in a synagogue?! But since the source for prohibiting spitting is derived from a shoe, it is sufficient for that which is derived from the law to be like the subject from which it is derived.

And

what is it

the beraita that derived the prohibition against spitting from a shoe? —

As it is taught: A person may not enter the Temple Mount, neither with his staff in his hand, nor with his shoe on his foot,

nor with coins wrapped in his cloak, nor with his money belt

[a hollow belt in which people place coins]

slung behind him, nor may he make it

a shortcut. And spitting

is prohibited there

by a kal va-chomer from a shoe: If a shoe, which does not involve a disgraceful manner

and even so it is prohibited, for

the Torah said

to Moses when he stood at the place of the Divine Presence [Exodus 3:5]:

“Remove your shoes from your feet,”

spitting, which is a disgraceful manner, all the more so

is prohibited in the Temple?!

Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: It is not necessary

to use a kal va-chomer to prohibit spitting,

for he says

[Esther 4:2]:

“For no one may enter the king’s gate

wearing sackcloth.” And is this not a kal va-chomer: If sackcloth, which is not repulsive,

nevertheless, one who wears it is not fit to enter

before

a king

of flesh and blood,

spitting, which is repulsive,

and the person is in the Temple, where he is

before the King of kings, all the more so

must it be prohibited to spit there?!

In any event, it is clear from this beraita that the source of the prohibition against spitting is not derived from using the Temple as a shortcut; therefore, it should not be prohibited in a synagogue.

Rav Pappa said

to Rava:

This is what I am saying

regarding the derivation of the prohibition against spitting:

Let us say: Here

[on the Temple Mount]

it is stringent, and here

[in a synagogue]

it is stringent,

and in each case let us derive from the law in which they were more stringent, in order to impose an additional stringency upon it: