Sanhedrin 47a — the Talmud in English

Ta shma:

It is stated in Psalms [15], in the psalm “Who may dwell in Your tent?” And among the ascents he enumerates there

“Despised in his eyes, he is rejected.”

And we expound:

This is Hezekiah, king of Judah, who dragged the bones of his father

King Ahaz

on a bed of ropes.

He buried him in disgrace before everyone because he was wicked, and he wanted others to learn a moral lesson from this; and Hezekiah did not have consideration for his own honor. Rather, he was “despised in his eyes, he is rejected,” for he disgraced himself on account of the sanctification of the Name.

And if

you say that all the honor shown to the dead is

because of the honor of the living,

for the sake of the living,

what is the reason

he did this? Why did Hezekiah disgrace the living?

And the Gemara rejects: He did this

so that there would be atonement for his father

through the disgrace.

And the Gemara objects: Is it so that

because of the atonement of his father, he should diminish the honor of Israel

—how was he permitted to disgrace all Israel because he wanted his father to have atonement? And the Gemara answers:

Israel themselves were pleased

that he should have atonement,

for they waived their honor for his sake

and therefore they forgave their honor.

Ta shma:

We learned in a beraita that Rabbi commanded his sons before his death and

said to them

that when they would carry his bier from his house in Sepphoris on the way to the place of his burial in Beth Shearim:

Do not eulogize me in the towns

—the small ones along the way—but only in large cities, where there are many people, and people from the small towns also gather there.

And if you say

that the eulogy is

the honor of the living, what difference does it make to him?

Why did Rabbi care that the eulogy should take place in the presence of a large crowd, since the honor is only for them?

And the Gemara rejects:

He held

Rabbi

that Israel should be honored through it more

He wanted the people of Israel to receive greater honor through his eulogy by having many participate in it.

Ta shma:

We learned in our Mishna:

If they kept

the dead person

overnight for his honor, to bring him a coffin and shrouds, one does not transgress concerning him.

Is it not so

that “for his honor” stated here means

for the honor of the dead?

It follows that the honor shown to the dead is for his sake.

And the Gemara rejects:

No!

Rather, “for his honor” means

for the honor of the

the

living.

And the Gemara objects:

And

is it so that

because of the honor of the living, from the house

[they keep]

the dead overnight?

And the Gemara answers:

Yes!

In such a case it is indeed permitted to keep the dead person overnight, for

when the Merciful One said

“You shall not leave his corpse upon the tree”

[from which we also learn concerning all other dead that it is forbidden to leave them overnight], only

in the likeness

[similar]

of the hanged person, in whom there is disgrace

—that he simply postpones the burial and leaves him hanging because he does not care about him, and this is a disgrace to the dead.

But here,

where he postpones the burial for the honor of the living relatives,

since there is no disgrace

to the dead,

it is not

included in the prohibition.

Ta shma

from that which was taught in a beraita:

If they kept him overnight for his honor, to hear

[to gather, as in “and Saul heard”]

about him

from the people of the

towns

who would come to eulogize him, or in order

to bring him wailing women

who would lament over him, or in order

to bring him a coffin and shrouds, one does not transgress concerning him

a prohibition.

Since

everyone who does

so

does so only for the honor of the dead.

It is explicitly evident that the honor is for the dead.

And the Gemara rejects:

This is what it says: Anyone who does it for the honor of the

the

living does not involve

the matter of

disgrace to the dead.

Ta shma

from that which was taught in a beraita:

Rabbi Natan says: It is a favorable sign for the dead that they are punished after death

in this world, for through this he has atonement.

Such as

a dead person who was not eulogized,

and was not buried, or whom an animal dragged, or upon whose bier rain was dripping—this is a favorable sign for the dead.

Infer from it: It is the honor of the dead

for if the honor were not for the dead, the disgrace would also not affect him; and why would it atone for him?

Infer from it!

We learned in the Mishna:

They would not bury

him in the graves of his ancestors; rather, there were two cemeteries prepared for the court, one for those executed by decapitation and strangulation, and one for those executed by stoning and burning.

And the Gemara discusses:

And why all this?

Why are they particular that he should not be buried in the graves of his ancestors?

And the Gemara answers:

Because they do not bury a wicked person beside a righteous person. For Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina said: From where is it derived that they do not bury a wicked person beside a righteous person?

As it is stated

[II Kings 13:21]: “

And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that behold, they saw the band

[of Moab, and out of great fear]

and they cast the man

[who was a wicked false prophet]

into the grave of Elisha; and when the man touched the bones of Elisha, he revived and stood upon his feet.”

Because the Holy One, blessed is He, did not want the wicked person to be buried beside the righteous person, He therefore brought him to life.

Rav Pappa said to him: But perhaps

he did not rise to life for this reason, but rather

to fulfill

Elijah’s blessing to Elisha, which he requested from him before his ascent to heaven: “

Please let there be a double portion of your spirit upon me,”

and he answered him: “If you see me taken from you, so shall it be for you.”

And Elijah brought one dead person to life, namely the son of the woman of Zarephath, while Elisha brought the son of the Shunamite woman to life during his lifetime; and in order for the blessing “a double portion” to be fulfilled in him, he had to bring one more dead person to life. Therefore this wicked man rose to life, and not because he should not be buried beside the righteous person?

He said to him,

Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina:

If so,

that he rose to life because of Elijah’s blessing,

this is what was taught:

From what is stated, “and he stood upon his feet,” it follows that indeed

he stood upon his feet,

but

he did not go to his house,

rather, after he emerged from Elisha’s grave, he died again. And if it were as you say, that it was because of Elijah’s blessing, Elisha should have brought him fully back to life, just as Elijah brought the son of the woman of Zarephath back to life.

Rather, certainly everything was only so that he would depart from Elisha, because they do not bury a wicked person beside a righteous person.

Rav Pappa said to him: If so, that Elijah’s blessing was not fulfilled here,

but rather “

Please let there be a double portion”

with which Elijah blessed him,

where do we find that he brought a dead person to life

—where do we find that the blessing was fulfilled, that Elisha brought one more dead person to life?

Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: That he healed

Elisha

Naaman’s leprosy.

For

the leprosy

is equivalent to death.

As it is written

concerning Aaron, who asked Moses to pray for Miriam that she be healed of her leprosy, and said: “

Please, let her not be like a dead person.”

And through this Elijah’s blessing was fulfilled: Elisha brought the son of the Shunamite woman to life, and he also healed Naaman of his leprosy, which was as though he had brought a dead person to life.

And the Gemara continues to explain the words of the Mishna, that they made two cemeteries; the reason is:

And just as they do not bury a wicked person beside a righteous person, so they do not bury a more serious wicked person beside a less serious wicked person,

and therefore there was a separate cemetery for those executed by decapitation and strangulation, who were less serious wicked people, and a separate cemetery for those executed by stoning and burning, who were more serious wicked people.

And the Gemara discusses: If so,

let them establish four

cemeteries,

burial

for the burned ones, since those executed by burning are less serious wicked people relative to those executed by stoning?

And the Gemara answers:

Two

cemeteries

are a tradition learned by the Gemara!

This is how the halakha was stated to Moses at Sinai: there should be only two cemeteries.

Ulla said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If one ate forbidden fat

unintentionally

and set aside an offering,

a sin offering,

and

before it was sacrificed

he became an apostate,

and while he is an apostate the offering is unfit for sacrifice,

and

afterward

he returned

from his apostasy, then

since

the offering

was rejected

from being sacrificed while its owner was an apostate—

it shall remain rejected

forever! Since it was rejected for one moment, the disqualification of “rejection” took effect upon it.

It was also stated: Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If one ate forbidden fat and set aside an offering

a sin offering,

and became mentally incompetent,

and the offering thereby became unfit for sacrifice,

and then recovered

[became healthy], the offering remains disqualified, because

since it was rejected

from sacrifice when he was mentally incompetent,

it shall remain rejected

forever!

And they are necessary

—the two statements of Rabbi Yoḥanan, concerning both an apostate and a mentally incompetent person.

For if he had taught us the first one

alone, I would say that only in the case of an apostate is the offering rejected forever,

because he

himself

rejected himself with his own hands

through his apostasy,

but this one,

the mentally incompetent person,

who is rejected involuntarily,

since he became mentally incompetent on his own,

I might say that he is considered like one asleep,

like every person who sleeps at night, and the offering is not rejected on account of this.

It teaches us that a mentally incompetent person is not like one asleep; rather, his offering is rejected from sacrifice.

And if he had taught us this here

concerning a mentally incompetent person alone, I would say that only in his case is the offering rejected,

because it is not within his power

of the mentally incompetent person

to return

and recover himself,

but there

in the case of an apostate,

for it is within his power to return

through repentance,

I might say it is not

called rejection.

Therefore

it is necessary

for Rabbi Yoḥanan to teach us both cases.

Rav Yosef said: We too learned this

in a beraita, in accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan’s position, that since it was rejected, it shall remain rejected:

If there were

in an apostate city

consecrated animals,

the law of an apostate city, that everything within it is burned, did not take effect upon them, because it is stated: “And you shall gather all its spoil,” whereas consecrated animals are the spoil of Heaven and not “its spoil.”

Nevertheless, if these were

consecrated offerings for the altar,

the offerings of the people of the city, including even burnt offerings and peace offerings brought voluntarily, it is impossible to sacrifice them upon the altar, because it is stated: “The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination”; rather,

they shall die,

for they place them in a vault and feed them barley until their bellies burst.

And only if they are

consecrated property for Temple maintenance, they shall be redeemed,

like other consecrated property for Temple maintenance; and after their redemption they become non-sacred and are permitted for consumption.

And we discussed it:

The consecrated offerings for the altar—

why shall they die!?

For

since they were killed,

after the inhabitants of the apostate city were legally executed,

they have atonement,

their sin was atoned for, and the offering is no longer “the sacrifice of the wicked”; if so,

let them ascend to the Most High,

why should they not be sacrificed upon the altar?

No,

is it not

because we say: since they were rejected

the sacrifices from being offered before their owners were killed,

they should be rejected

forever.

And proof for Rabbi Yohanan.

And the Gemara rejects the proof:

Abaye said

to Rav Yosef:

Do you hold

that one who

dies in his wickedness has atonement

through the death alone, so that you say that the inhabitants of the condemned city certainly received atonement through their death?

It is not so; rather, one who

dies in his wickedness does not have atonement!

And if so, there is no proof for Rabbi Yohanan from the sacrifices of the inhabitants of the condemned city, because even after the owners were killed, the sacrifice is still invalid on account of “the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination.”

For Rav Shemaya taught: It might have been said

that what was said—that a priest is permitted to defile himself for his relatives who died—

even if his ancestors withdrew

of the priest

from the ways of the community,

for example, his father became an apostate,

he should defile himself

to him?

The verse states “

For a person he shall not defile himself

among his people,

but only for his relative who is close to him.” And we derive from “among his people” that only

for one who performs the deed of his people

then he shall defile himself for his relative; but if he is wicked, he shall not defile himself even for his relative.

It follows that death does not atone for a wicked person if he did not repent.

Rava said to him: Do you compare one killed in his wickedness with one who dies in his wickedness?

One who dies in his wickedness, since he dies in the ordinary course

that he dies a natural death,

does not have atonement

and therefore the priest shall not defile himself for his wicked father who died in the ordinary manner.

But

one killed in his wickedness,

such as the inhabitants of the condemned city,

since he does not die in the ordinary course, he has atonement.

Know

that this is so,

for it is written

in Psalms [79], “

A psalm of Asaph: O God, nations have entered Your inheritance; they have defiled Your holy Sanctuary;

they have made Jerusalem into ruins;

they have given the corpses of Your servants as food to the birds of the heavens, the flesh of Your pious ones to the beast of the earth.”

What is “

Your servants”

and what is “

Your pious ones”?

What is the difference between them?

Is it not

that the difference is that “

Your pious ones”

are

literally Your pious ones,

whereas “

Your servants”

are

those who were liable to judgment from the outset,

who were wicked during their lives,

and once they were killed

and after they were killed by the nations,

He calls them “

Your servants.”

It follows that one who is killed in his wickedness has atonement.