Sanhedrin 46b (מו:) — the Talmud in English

And the relatives

of those executed

did not mourn

for them, as they did not observe the laws of mourning, so that the disgrace involved would serve as an atonement for them.

But they do observe aninut

they are permitted to grieve, because

aninut is only a matter of the heart

alone; this does not constitute honor for the dead, and their atonement will not be prevented on account of it.

Gemara:

The Sages taught: Had it

been

stated: “When there is in a man

a

sin

worthy of death

and you shall hang

him on a tree,”

I would say

that

they hang him and then execute him

that is, they execute him by hanging,

as the monarchy does.

The verse states:

“And he shall be put to death and you shall hang him,”

which teaches you that

they execute him and then hang him.

How is this done?

They delay him

the completion of his judgment

until close to sunset, and they complete his judgment

and execute him,

and execute him, and then hang him.

One ties and one unties,

meaning that the second unties him immediately

in order to fulfill the mitzva of hanging.

They would not hang him in the morning, lest they become negligent and fail to bury him immediately, since they would have the entire day available and might forget him, and in the meantime the time would pass,

and therefore they would hang him close to sunset so that they would bury him immediately.

The Sages taught:

“And you shall hang him on a

tree.”

I might understand, whether on a

detached

tree or on a

tree

growing from the ground,

so that he could also be hung on a tree attached to the ground?

The verse states:

“For burying

you shall surely bury him.” The repetition of the language implies that the tree on which he was hung must also be buried. From this we now derive:

That which requires nothing but burial,

meaning that the tree must be of a type that can be buried immediately after the hanging; that is, it must be detached from the ground.

This excludes

a tree attached to the ground

that requires cutting and burial.

It must first be cut down, and only afterward can it be buried; therefore, it is unfit for hanging.

Rabbi Yosei says:

Even if the tree is not attached but merely driven into the ground, it is unfit for hanging, because it too is excluded by this derivation:

“That which requires nothing but burial; this excludes that which requires detaching and burial,”

as it must be removed from the ground in order to be buried.

And the Rabbis,

who deem a tree driven into the ground fit, maintain that

detaching is of no consequence.

It does not involve a deficiency requiring an act. We learned in the Mishna:

That is, why is this one hung? Because he blessed

the Name.

It was taught: Rabbi Meir says: He offered a parable. To what is this comparable? To two twin brothers in one city.

One

of

them was appointed

as

king, and the other

of

them became a bandit.

The king commanded, and they hanged

the bandit.

Anyone who saw him

hanging

would say: “The king is hanging!”

because he resembled his brother, the king.

The king commanded, and they took him down

from the hanging.

In the same way, human beings were made in the likeness of the image of the Almighty, and it is an affront to Heaven that a person should remain hanging.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Meir said:

When a person suffers, what expression does the Divine Presence use? “My head is burdened; my arm is burdened.”

And the Gemara asks:

What is the indication

of this? How does this exposition follow from “a curse of God”?

And the Gemara answers:

Abaye said: It is in accordance with the one who says

as a person says:

“Kal leit,”

meaning that this is the meaning of the word “curse”: it is not light.

Rava said to him:

If so, “My head is burdened” would also mean, “It is not light”;

if so,

“My head is heavy upon me; my arm is heavy upon me”

should have been required

for the Mishna to say.

Rather, Rava said: “Curse” means “light,”

as one who says: “The world is light for Me,”

in accordance with the one who says: ‘The world is light for me,’

that is, “light.” This is also the meaning of “My head is burdened”: My head is light upon me, meaning that it is heavy upon me. However, since it is not respectful toward Heaven to mention heaviness, it spoke euphemistically, using the expression “light.”

We raise a difficulty:

This is needed for its own matter!

The verse, “a curse of God,” is not superfluous for the exposition “My head is burdened,” since it is needed for its own matter: that he is hung because he blessed the Name [and from it we learn the rule concerning those who are hung in general]?

And the Gemara answers:

If so,

if it were stated only for its own matter,

let the verse say

“one who curses,”

why

“a curse”?

And necessarily, it also comes to expound “My head is burdened.”

The Gemara raises an objection:

But say that the entire verse comes only for this purpose!?

Perhaps the verse comes only for the exposition “My head is burdened”; and from where do we derive that one who blasphemes is hung?

The Gemara answers:

If so, let the verse say

“light,”

which is an expression meaning “light”;

why

“a curse”?

Conclude from it two matters:

to expound both the expression of cursing and “My head is burdened.”

We learned in the Mishna:

And not only this

did they say; rather, anyone who delays the burial of his dead violates a prohibition.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: From where is it derived that one who delays the burial of his dead violates a prohibition?

The verse states:

“For burying you shall surely bury him,”

through the repetition of the expression, to include all the dead, and not only those executed by the court.

From here

we learn

that one who delays the burial of his dead violates a prohibition.

There are those who say: Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥ

ai:

What is the indication for burial from the Torah?

That a person is obligated to bury his dead?

The verse states:

“For burying you shall surely bury him.”

From here there is an indication for burial from the Torah.

Shvor Malka said to him

[the Persian king whose name was “Shvor”]

to Rav Ḥama: What is the source for burial from the Torah?

He was silent and said nothing to him

Rav Ḥama remained silent and did not answer him at all.

Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: The world has been delivered into the hands of fools,

for why did Rav Ḥama not answer him?

For he should have said

that he should have told him: It is stated in the Torah:

“For burying”?

And the Gemara answers: Rav Ḥama did not answer him from this verse because Shvor Malka could have argued and said that the verse implies only

that a coffin should be made for him,

that the dead person should be buried in a coffin; but we have not heard from here that he must be buried in the ground.

The Gemara raises an objection: He could have told him that from the additional expression

“you shall surely bury him”

it is implied that burial must be in the ground.

The Gemara answers:

It is not an indication for him.

The gentile did not understand that one may derive a law from an additional expression in the verse. The Gemara raises another objection:

And let him say

why did Rav Ḥama not prove it to him

from the fact that righteous people were buried,

as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were buried?

And the Gemara answers: He could have told him that this was merely

a custom

that they followed in their time to bury the dead, and not a matter of law.

And the Gemara raises an objection: He could have proved to him

from the fact that the Holy One, blessed be He, buried Moses

that the Holy One, blessed be He, agreed that burying the dead is obligatory?

And the Gemara answers: He could have told him that this was merely

so as not to deviate from the custom

so as not to deviate from the practice of the world in the case of Moses.

Ta shma

to prove that there is an obligation to bury the dead, as it is stated in the Book of Kings [I 14:13] that Ahijah the Shilonite said to Jeroboam’s wife, who had come before him when her son was ill, that he would die: “

And all Israel shall mourn for him and bury him.”

This indicates that the dead must be buried.

And the Gemara rejects this: It is not due to an obligation, but rather

so as not to deviate from the custom.

The Gemara cites a verse from Jeremiah [16:4], in which Jeremiah prophesied concerning the wicked, that they would die and afterward

they shall not be mourned, nor shall they be buried; they shall be as dung upon the face of

the earth.”

This indicates that Heaven agreed with the custom of burial.

The Gemara rejects this: Jeremiah cursed them

so that they would deviate from the custom

so that they would not be treated according to the practice of the world, which buries the dead; there is no proof from here that burial is an obligation.

They raised a dilemma before them: Is burial due to degradation,

that is, is the purpose of the burial commanded by the Torah to prevent the dead from being degraded in the sight of all, who would see him decomposing,

or is it due to atonement,

so that he will attain atonement by being lowered and humbled in the depths of the earth?

And we explain:

What practical difference does it make

whether burial is due to degradation or due to atonement?

It makes a difference if he says: I do not want that man to be buried,

that is, a person who instructed that he not be buried after his death.

If you say that it is due to degradation, he has no authority to do so,

he may not cause degradation to his relatives by having them leave him unburied.

And if you say that it is due to atonement, he has said: I do not want atonement,

he does not want atonement, and even if they bury him, the burial will not benefit him as atonement.

What is the ruling?

Ta shma: From the fact that righteous people were buried,

as even righteous people were buried.

And if you say that it is due to atonement,

it should be objected: Do

righteous people require atonement!?

Rather, certainly burial is due to degradation.

The Gemara rejects this:

Yes,

even righteous people require atonement,

as it is written “

For there is not a righteous person on earth who does good and does not sin.”

Ta shma:

Ahijah the Shilonite said to Jeroboam’s wife concerning her son: “

And all Israel shall mourn for him and bury him,

because he alone shall come to the grave of Jeroboam, for in him there is found something good” [as he did not obey his father’s order to stand guard so that Israel would not go up on pilgrimage to Jerusalem]; and the rest of his sons will not come to the grave.

And if you say

that they are buried

so that he may attain atonement

after death, then

these as well,

the other wicked sons of Jeroboam,

should be buried, so that they may attain atonement,

so that they should have atonement?

Rather, certainly burial is due to degradation, and therefore we do not care if the wicked are degraded. The Gemara rejects this: In fact, burial is due to atonement. Nevertheless,

this one, because he is righteous,

only one who is righteous

will attain atonement.

But

these

who are wicked

will not attain atonement.

Ta shma

from the fact that Jeremiah cursed the wicked: “

They shall not be mourned, nor shall they be buried.”

And if burial is due to atonement, why should they not be buried, so that they may attain atonement?

The Gemara rejects this:

So that they should not attain atonement,

since they are wicked. Therefore, it is not pleasing to the Holy One, blessed be He, that they attain atonement, because they do not repent even at the opening of their graves.

They raised a dilemma before them: The eulogy,

the eulogy delivered for the dead, is it for

the honor of the living,

that is, for the honor of the living relatives,

or is it for the honor of the dead,

for the honor of the deceased?

And we explain:

What practical difference does it make?

In a case

where

the deceased says:

“Do not eulogize that man!”

That is, if he instructed that he not be eulogized. If the eulogy is for the honor of the deceased, his instruction is obeyed; but if it is for the honor of the living, his instruction is not obeyed, since he cannot deprive his relatives of their honor.

Alternatively: To exclude the heirs,

that is, whether the heirs can be compelled, against their will, to pay the eulogists’ fee when they do not wish their relative to be eulogized. If the eulogy is for the honor of the deceased, the heirs are compelled to honor the deceased and pay the eulogists’ fee, but if it is for the honor of the living, they are not compelled to do so, since they do not want this honor.

Ta shma:

It is stated: “

And Abraham came to eulogize Sarah and to weep for her.”

And if you say

that the eulogy is

for the honor of the living,

then is it possible that

because of Abraham’s honor, they delayed Sarah

? How was Abraham permitted to delay Sarah’s burial until he returned from the binding of Isaac in order to eulogize her, since the eulogy was only for his honor?

Rather, certainly the eulogy is for the honor of the deceased, and therefore he was permitted to delay Sarah’s burial, since this was for her honor.

The Gemara rejects this: Even if the eulogy were only for Abraham’s honor, he would have been permitted to delay her burial because

Sarah herself was pleased

that her burial be delayed

so that Abraham would be honored through her

so that Abraham would be honored by her eulogy.

Ta shma:

It is stated: “

And all Israel shall mourn for him and bury him.”

And if you say that it is for the honor of the living,

then are

these sons people deserving honor!?

The rest of Jeroboam’s household were wicked; why should they be honored through the eulogy of that son?

The Gemara rejects this: Even if it is for the honor of the living, nevertheless,

the righteous are pleased when people are honored through them

the righteous want their relatives to be honored on their account. Therefore, although all of Jeroboam’s household were wicked, it was nevertheless fitting to eulogize that righteous son of Jeroboam, since this was his desire.

Ta shma:

It is stated: “

They shall not be mourned, nor shall they be buried.”

And if the eulogy is for the honor of the living, why should the wicked not be eulogized? Are there not righteous people among their relatives who deserve to be honored? The Gemara rejects this:

The righteous are not pleased when people are honored through the wicked;

the righteous do not want to be honored through the wicked. Therefore, the wicked should not be eulogized even when their relatives are righteous.

Ta shma:

Jeremiah said to Zedekiah [Jeremiah 34:5]: “

You shall die in peace, and with the burnings of your fathers, the former kings who were before you, so shall they burn for you

[for they would customarily burn the king’s bed and all his personal belongings after his death, out of respect for him]

and, alas, master, they shall eulogize you.”

And if you say that it is for the honor of the living, what benefit does he derive from it

? What benefit would Zedekiah derive from being eulogized, about which Jeremiah informed him?

The Gemara rejects this:

This is what he said to him:

Jeremiah said to him:

Let Israel be honored through you, just as they are honored through your fathers

Jeremiah informed him that the people of Israel would be honored through his eulogy, just as they had been honored through the eulogies for his fathers.