Sanhedrin 47a (מז.) — the Talmud in English

Come and hear:

It is stated in Psalms, chapter 15, in the psalm “Who may dwell in Your tent?” Among the virtues listed there is

“Despised in his eyes, he is rejected.”

And we expound this:

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

King

Ahaz on a bed of ropes.

He buried him disgracefully before everyone because he was wicked, and he wanted others to learn a moral lesson from this. Hezekiah did not forgo his father’s honor; rather, he was “despised in his eyes, he is rejected,” humiliating himself for the sake 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 acted in this manner? Why did Hezekiah humiliate the living?

And the Gemara rejects this: He did so

so that his father might attain atonement

so that his father would attain atonement through the humiliation.

The Gemara raises an objection: Is it that

because of his father’s atonement he could disregard the honor of Israel

—how was he permitted to humiliate all of Israel because he wanted his father to attain atonement? The Gemara answers:

Israel themselves were content

that he should attain atonement,

for they waived their honor with regard to him

and therefore they forgave their honor.

Come and hear:

Rabbi, before his death, commanded his sons and

said to them

that when they would take his bier from his home in Tzippori on the way to his burial place in Beit She’arim:

Do not eulogize me in the towns

the small towns along the way; rather, only in large cities, where there are many people and residents of the small towns also gather.

And if you say

that eulogizing is

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

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

The Gemara rejects this:

He held

Rabbi

that Israel would be honored through it to a greater degree

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

Come and hear:

We learned in our Mishna:

If they kept

the dead person

overnight for his honor, to bring him a coffin or shrouds, one does not transgress on his account.

What, is it not

that “for his honor” stated here means

for the honor of the dead?

Thus, the honor shown to the dead is for his sake.

The Gemara rejects this:

No!

Rather, “for his honor” means

for the honor of

the

living.

The Gemara asks:

And

is it

because of the honor of the living that one may, from the house,

keep

the dead person overnight?

The Gemara answers:

Yes!

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

when the Merciful One said

“You shall not leave his corpse on the stake overnight”

—from which it is also derived that it is forbidden to leave other dead persons unburied—the prohibition applies only

in a manner analogous

to

one who is hanging, in whose case there is humiliation

where he merely 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 humiliation

of the

dead,

it is not included in the prohibition.

Come and hear

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

people from the

towns

who would come to eulogize him; or in order

to bring him professional wailers

who would lament over him; or in order

to bring him a coffin or shrouds, one does not transgress on his account

a negative commandment.

This is

because anyone who does

so

does so only for the honor of the dead.

It is explicit, then, that the honor is for the dead.

The Gemara rejects this:

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

the

living does not thereby cause

the prohibition of

humiliation to the dead.

Come and hear

from that which was taught in a beraita:

Rabbi Natan says: It is a favorable sign for the dead that payment is exacted from him after death

in this world, for through this he attains atonement.

For example:

a dead person who was not eulogized,

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

Conclude from this: It is the honor of the dead

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

Conclude from this!

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 those strangled, and one for those stoned and those burned.

The Gemara discusses this:

And why all this?

Why were they particular not to bury him in the graves of his ancestors?

The Gemara answers:

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

As it is stated

in II Kings 13:21:

“And it was, as they were burying a man, and behold, they saw the band

of Moab, and out of great fear

they cast the man

who was a wicked false prophet

into the grave of Elisha; and the man touched the bones of Elisha, and he came to life and stood on his feet.”

Because the Holy One, blessed be He, did not want the wicked man to be buried beside the righteous one, He brought him back to life.

Rav Pappa said to him: But perhaps

he did not come back to life for this reason, but rather

to fulfill

Elijah’s blessing to Elisha, who had asked him before his ascension to Heaven:

“Let there be, please, a double portion of your spirit upon me,”

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

Elijah revived one dead person, the son of the woman of Zarephath, and Elisha revived the son of the Shunamite woman during his lifetime. In order for the blessing of “a double portion” to be fulfilled for him, he had to revive one more dead person. Therefore this wicked man came back to life, and not because he should not be buried beside the righteous one?

He said to him,

Rabbi Aha bar Hanina:

If so,

that he came back to life because of Elijah’s blessing,

this is what was taught in a beraita:

From the statement “and he stood on his feet,” it follows that he indeed

stood on his feet,

but

he did not go to his home;

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

Rather, certainly everything was done only so that he would leave Elisha, because a wicked person is not buried beside a righteous one.

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

but rather

“Let there be, please, a double portion”

which Elijah blessed him with,

where do you find that he revived

another dead person, thereby fulfilling the blessing?

Rabbi Yohanan said to him: When he healed

the

leprosy of Naaman.

For

leprosy

is equivalent to the dead.

As it is written

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

“Please, let her not be like the dead.”

Thus Elijah’s blessing was fulfilled: Elisha revived the son of the Shunamite woman, and he also healed Naaman of his leprosy, which was as though he had revived the dead.

The Gemara continues explaining the statement of the Mishna that they made two cemeteries. The reason is:

And just as they do not bury a wicked person beside a righteous one, 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 those strangled, who were less serious wicked people, and a separate cemetery for those stoned and those burned, who were more serious wicked people.

The Gemara asks: If so,

let them establish four

cemeteries

of the dead,

since those who are burned are less serious wicked people relative to those who are stoned.

The Gemara answers:

Two

cemeteries

of the dead were received as an established tradition!

It was stated as a halakha to Moses from Sinai that there should be only two cemeteries.

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

unintentionally

and designated an offering,

a sin offering,

and

before it was sacrificed

he became an apostate,

and while he is an apostate the offering is unfit to be sacrificed,

and

afterward

he repented

of his apostasy,

since

the offering

was rejected

from being sacrificed while its owner was an apostate,

it is rejected

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

It was likewise stated: Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yohanan said: If one ate forbidden fat and designated an offering

a sin offering,

and became mentally incompetent,

and because of this the offering became unfit to be sacrificed,

and then recovered

[that is, became healthy], the offering remains unfit, because

since it was rejected

from being sacrificed while he was mentally incompetent,

it is rejected

forever!

Both statements are necessary,

the two statements of Rabbi Yohanan, concerning both an apostate and one who is mentally incompetent.

For if he had taught us the first one

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

because he

himself

rejected himself with his own hands

through his apostasy;

but this one,

the mentally incompetent person,

who rejects it involuntarily,

who became mentally incompetent on his own,

I might say that he is like one who is asleep,

like any person who sleeps at night, in whose case the offering is not rejected for that reason.

This teaches us that a mentally incompetent person is not like one who is asleep; rather, his offering is rejected from being sacrificed.

And if he had taught us this case

of the mentally incompetent person alone, I would have said that the offering is rejected only in his case

because it is not within his power

of the mentally incompetent person

to return

and restore himself to health,

but there,

in the case of an apostate,

since it is within his power to return

through repentance,

I might say that it is not

called dichui.

Therefore,

it is necessary

for Rabbi Yohanan to teach both cases.

Rav Yosef said: We too have learned this

in a beraita, in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan’s view that once an offering is rejected, it remains rejected:

If there were

in an apostate city

sacred property,

the law of an apostate city, in which everything within it is burned, does not apply to it, because it is stated: “And you shall gather all its spoils,” whereas sacred property belongs to Heaven and is not “its spoils.”

Nevertheless, if these were

sacrificial offerings,

the offerings of the city’s inhabitants, including even burnt offerings and freewill peace offerings, it is impossible to sacrifice them on the altar, because it is stated: “The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination.” Rather,

they must die,

as they are placed in an enclosure and fed barley until their bellies burst.

But only if they are

consecrated property for Temple maintenance may they be redeemed,

like other consecrated property for Temple maintenance; after their redemption they become ordinary property and may be eaten.

And we raised a discussion about it:

Sacrificial offerings—

why must they die!?

Surely,

since they were killed,

after the inhabitants of the apostate city were legally executed,

they have attained atonement,

their sin having been 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 on the altar?

No,

is it not

because we say: Since they were rejected

from being offered before their owners were executed,

they should be rejected

forever?

And this is a proof for Rabbi Yohanan.

The Gemara rejects the proof:

Abaye said

to Rav Yosef:

Do you maintain

that one who

dies in his wickedness receives atonement

through death alone, so that you say that the inhabitants of an idolatrous city were certainly granted atonement through their death?

That is not so; rather, one who

dies in his wickedness does not receive atonement!

And if so, there is no proof for Rabbi Yohanan from the sacrifices of the inhabitants of an idolatrous city, because even after their owners were executed, the sacrifice remains disqualified on account of the verse, “The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination.”

Rav Shemaya taught:

I might have said that the statement that a

kohen is permitted to become impure for his deceased relatives applies

to the kohen’s

even if his ancestors had withdrawn

from the ways of the community, for example, if his father became an apostate;

he should become impure

for him?

The verse states: “He shall not become impure for a person

among his people,

except for his close relative.” We derive from the phrase “among his people” that only

when he performs the deeds of his people

shall he become impure for his relative; but if he is wicked, he shall not become impure even for his relative.

may he become impure for his relative; but if the relative is wicked, he may not become impure even for his relative.

Thus, death does not atone for a wicked person who has not repented.

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

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

that is, he dies a natural death,

does not receive atonement,

and therefore the kohen may not become impure for his wicked father who died in the ordinary manner.

But

one executed in his wickedness,

such as the inhabitants of an idolatrous city,

since he does not die in the ordinary manner, he receives atonement.

Know

that this is so,

as 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 reduced Jerusalem to 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 beasts of the earth.”

What

“Your servants”

and what

“Your pious ones”?

What is the difference between them?

Is it not

that

“Your pious ones”

are

truly Your pious ones,

whereas

“Your servants”

are

those who were liable to judgment from the outset,

who were wicked during their lifetimes,

and once they were executed

by the nations,

He calls them

“Your servants.”

Thus, one who is executed in his wickedness receives atonement.