Sanhedrin 46b — the Talmud in English

and the relatives did not

mourn

for them, because they did not observe the laws of mourning, so that the disgrace in the matter would be an atonement for them.

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

But they are onenim;

they are permitted to grieve, because

mourning exists only in the heart

alone, and this does not constitute honor for the deceased, nor will his atonement be prevented on account of it.

Gemara:

The Sages taught: Had it

been

stated, “

When there will be in a man

a sin,

a judgment of death,

and you shall hang

him on a tree,”

I would say that

one

hangs him and afterward puts him to death,

that is, one puts him to death by hanging

as the kingdom does.

The verse says: “

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

to tell you that

they put him to death and afterward hang him.

How is this done?

They delay him,

the completion of his judgment,

until close to the setting of

the sun, and they complete his judgment,

and put him to death, and afterward hang him.

One ties and one unties,

that is, the second would untie immediately,

in order to fulfill the mitzva of hanging.

And they did not hang him in the morning, lest they be negligent and not bury him immediately, since they have the entire day available and will forget him, and meanwhile the time will 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 upon an

tree.”

I would understand, whether on a

tree

severed, whether on a

tree

attached,

so that it would be possible to hang him also on a tree attached to the ground?

The verse says: “

For you shall surely bury

him.” The repetition of the wording implies that the tree upon which he was hung must also be buried . And from now we expound:

one who requires nothing other than burial.

For the tree must be such that immediately after the hanging it can be buried. That is, it must be severed from the ground.

This excludes

that which is attached to the ground,

which requires cutting and burial.

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

Rabbi Yose says:

Even if the tree is not attached but merely stuck in the ground, it is unfit for hanging, because it too is excluded by this exposition:

one who requires nothing other than burial; this excludes that which requires uprooting and burial,

for it must be removed from the ground so that it can be buried.

But the Rabbis,

who deem a tree stuck in the earth fit, hold that

uprooting is nothing.

For there is no lacking of an act here. We learned in the Mishna:

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

the Name.

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

One

of

them they appointed

as

king, and one

of

them became a bandit.

The king commanded, and they hanged

the bandit.

Everyone who sees him

hanging

says: “The king is hanging!”

because he resembles his brother, the king.

The king commanded, and they took him down

from the hanging.

So too, man was made in the likeness of the image of the Holy One, blessed is He, and it is a dishonor toward Heaven that a man should be hanging.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Meir said:

When a person suffers, what expression does the Divine Presence say? “My head is lightened for me; my arm is lightened for me.”

And the Gemara asks:

What is the implication

how is this exposition implied by “a curse of God”?

And the Gemara answers:

Abaye said: In accordance with the one who says,

as a person says,

“There is no lightness”;

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

Rava said to him:

if so, “My head is lightened for me” also means “There is no lightness,” and

if so,

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

the Mishna should have needed to say

that.

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 heavy for me”,

and this is also the meaning of “My head is lightened for me”: my head is light for me, that is, it is heavy upon me; but since it is not respectful toward Above to mention heaviness, He spoke by way of a euphemism, using the expression “light.”

And we raise an objection:

This is needed for its own matter!

For surely the verse “a curse of God” is not superfluous for the exposition “My head is lightened for me,” since it is needed for its own matter: that he is hanged because he blessed the Name [and from it we learn concerning the other people who are hanged]?

And the Gemara answers:

If so,

that it comes only for its own matter,

let the verse say

“one who curses”,

why

“a curse”?

And necessarily, it comes to expound “My head is lightened for me.”

And the Gemara objects:

But say that the entire expression comes for this alone!?

Perhaps the verse comes only for the exposition “My head is lightened for me”; and from where do we expound also that the blasphemer is hanged?

And the Gemara answers:

If so, let the verse say

“light”,

which is an expression of “light”;

why

“a curse”?

Infer from it two matters,

to expound also from the expression of cursing.

We learned in the Mishna:

And not only this

did they say; rather, anyone who leaves his dead unburied overnight violates a negative commandment.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: From where [do we know] concerning one who leaves his dead unburied overnight that he violates a negative commandment?

The verse says:

“For you shall surely bury him”,

with a doubled expression, to include all the dead, and not only those executed by the court.

From here

we learn

concerning one who leaves his dead unburied overnight that he violates a negative commandment.

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

i:

A hint to burial in the Torah—from where [do we know]

that a person is obligated to bury his dead?

The verse says:

“For you shall surely bury him.”

From here there is a hint to burial in the Torah.

Shvor Malka said to him [מלך פרס ששמו "שבור"

king of Persia whose name was “Shvor”]

to Rav Ḥama: “Burial in the Torah—from where [do we know it]?”

He was silent and did not say anything to him,

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

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said: “The world has been delivered into the hands of fools,”

for why did Rav Ḥama not answer him?

For he should have said to him,

that he ought to have said to him, since it is written in the Torah:

“For you shall surely bury.”

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

that a coffin should be made for him,

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

And the Gemara objects: He could have said to him that from the added expression

“you shall surely bury him”

it implies burial in the earth?

And the Gemara answers:

It does not appear so to him,

the gentile does not understand that one can expound from an addition in the verse. And the Gemara objects:

And let him say

why Rav Ḥama did not prove it to him

from the fact that the righteous were buried,

from the fact that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were buried?

And the Gemara answers: He could have said to him that this was only

a mere custom

that they practiced in their days to bury the dead, and not on account of the law.

And the Gemara challenges: He could have proved to him

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

that the opinion of the Holy One, blessed be He, agreed that it is necessary to bury the dead?

And the Gemara answers: He could have said to him that this was only

so as not to deviate from the custom

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

Come and hear

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 the wife of Jeroboam, who came before him when her son was ill, that he would die: "

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

It follows that they are required to bury the dead.

And the Gemara rejects: It is not on account of an obligation, but

so as not to deviate from the custom.

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

They shall not be mourned and they shall not be buried; they shall be for dung upon the face of

the earth."

It follows that Heaven agreed with the custom of burial.

And the Gemara rejects: Jeremiah cursed them

that they should deviate from the custom

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

They raised a dilemma before them: Is burial on account of disgrace,

is the purpose of the burial that the Torah stated in order that the dead person not be disgraced before everyone, who would see him decomposing,

or is it on account of atonement,

so that he should have atonement through the fact that he is lowered and humiliated in the depths of the earth?

And we explain:

What practical difference is there

whether burial is on account of disgrace or on account of atonement?

If he says: I do not want them to bury that man,

a person who commanded that they not bury him after he dies.

If you say it is on account of disgrace, it is not within his power

to cause disgrace to his relatives by having them not bury him.

And if you say it is on account of atonement, he said: I do not want atonement

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

What [is the answer]?

Come and hear: From the fact that righteous people were buried

for righteous people were also buried.

And if you say it is on account of atonement,

it should be difficult: Why,

do righteous people require atonement!?

Rather, certainly burial is on account of disgrace.

And the Gemara rejects:

Yes!

Righteous people also require atonement,

as it is written [A0054]Ecclesiastes 7:20: “

Каждый человек:

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

Come and hear:

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

And all Israel shall mourn for him and bury him

for this one alone shall come to the grave of Jeroboam, because there has been found in him something good” [that he did not obey his father to stand guard so that Israel would not go up on pilgrimage to Jerusalem], whereas his other sons shall not come to the grave.

And if you say

that they bury for this reason,

so that he should have atonement

for the dead person, then

these as well

the other wicked sons of Jeroboam

should be buried, so that they should have atonement

so that they should have atonement?

Rather, certainly burial is on account of disgrace, and therefore we do not care that the wicked should be disgraced. And the Gemara rejects: In fact, burial is on account of atonement. Nevertheless,

this one, because he is righteous,

only one who is righteous

shall have atonement.

But

these

who are wicked

shall not have atonement.

Come and hear

from the fact that Jeremiah cursed the wicked: “

They shall not be mourned and they shall not be buried.”

And if burial is on account of atonement, why should they not be buried, so that they should have atonement?

And the Gemara rejects:

So that they should not have atonement

since they are wicked. Therefore, it is not pleasing to the Holy One, blessed be He, that they should have atonement, because they do not repent even at the entrance to their grave.

They raised a dilemma before them: The eulogy

that they make for the dead person—is it on account of

the honor of the living,

that is, is it for the honor of the living relatives,

or is it on account of the honor of the dead,

for the honor of the dead?

And we explain:

What practical difference is there?

In a case

where he says,

the dead person:

Do not eulogize that man!

If he commanded that they not eulogize him, if the eulogy is on account of the honor of the dead, they heed him; but if it is for the honor of the living, they do not heed him, for he cannot prevent his relatives from receiving their honor.

Alternatively: To remove from the heirs

if it is possible to collect from the heirs against their will the payment of the eulogists’ wages when they do not wish to eulogize their relative: If the eulogy is on account of the honor of the dead, they compel the heirs to honor the dead and to pay the eulogists’ wages, but if it is on account of the honor of the living, they do not compel them to do so, since they do not want this honor.

Come and hear:

It is stated: “

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

And if you say

that the eulogy

is on account of the honor of the living,

why,

on account of Abraham’s honor, would he delay 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 on account of the honor of the dead person, and therefore he was permitted to delay Sarah’s burial, since it was for her honor.

And the Gemara rejects: Even if the eulogy is only for Abraham’s honor, he was permitted to delay her burial because

Sarah herself was pleased

that her burial should be delayed

so that Abraham should be honored through her

so that Abraham should be honored through her eulogy.

Come and hear:

It is stated: “

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

And if you say it is on account of the honor of the living,

why,

are these sons people of honor!?

Were not all the remaining members of Jeroboam’s household wicked, and why should they be honored through the eulogy of that son?

And the Gemara rejects: Even if it is on account of the honor of the living, nevertheless,

the righteous are pleased that people should be honored through them

the righteous want their relatives to be honored through them; therefore, although all of Jeroboam’s household were wicked, it is nevertheless fitting to eulogize that righteous son of Jeroboam, since this is his desire.

Come and hear:

It is stated: “

They shall not be mourned and they shall not be buried.”

And if the eulogy is on account of the honor of the living, why should they not eulogize the wicked? After all, among the relatives there may be righteous people whom it is fitting to honor. And the Gemara rejects:

The righteous are not pleased that they should be honored through the wicked

the righteous do not want to be honored through the wicked; therefore, the wicked should not be eulogized even though their relatives are righteous.

Come and hear:

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 bier and all his personal belongings after his death, on account of his honor]

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

And if you say it is on account of the honor of the living, what benefit is there for him from it

what benefit would Zedekiah have from the eulogy held for him, about which Jeremiah informed him?

And the Gemara rejects:

This is what he said to him

Jeremiah:

Israel shall 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 were honored through the eulogy of his fathers.