Sanhedrin 47a

תָּא שְׁמַע: ״נִבְזֶה בְּעֵינָיו נִמְאָס״ – זֶה חִזְקִיָּהוּ מֶלֶךְ יְהוּדָה, שֶׁגֵּירַר עַצְמוֹת אָבִיו עַל מִטָּה שֶׁל חֲבָלִים. וְאִי מִשּׁוּם יְקָרָא דְחַיֵּי הוּא, מַאי טַעְמָא?

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from what was taught with regard to the verse: “In his eyes a vile person is despised, but he honors them that fear the Lord” (Psalms 15:4). This is referring to Hezekiah, king of Judea, who dragged the bones of his father, Ahaz, on a bier made of ropes, and he did not bury Ahaz in a manner befitting a king in order to disgrace him for his sinful conduct. And if the eulogy and other funeral rites are meant to honor the living, what is the reason that he acted this way, in a manner that brought disgrace upon himself and all of the Jewish people?

כִּי הֵיכִי דְּתִיהְוֵי לֵיהּ כַּפָּרָה לַאֲבוּהּ, וּמִשּׁוּם כַּפָּרָה דַּאֲבוּהּ מְשַׁהוּ לֵיהּ לִיקָרָא דְיִשְׂרָאֵל? יִשְׂרָאֵל גּוּפַיְיהוּ נִיחָא לְהוּ דְּמַחֲלִי יְקָרַיְיהוּ לְגַבֵּיהּ.

The Gemara answers: Hezekiah did this so that his father would achieve atonement for his sins through his disgrace. The Gemara asks: Can it be that for his father’s atonement they would defer the honor of all of Israel, who would have been honored by a proper eulogy for their late king? The Gemara answers: It was satisfactory to the people of Israel themselves to forgo their honor for him in order that their former king achieve atonement for his sins.

תָּא שְׁמַע, אָמַר לָהֶן: אַל תִּסְפְּדוּנִי בָּעֲיָירוֹת. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ יְקָרָא דְחַיֵּי, מַאי נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִינַּהּ? קָסָבַר: לִיתְיַיקְּרוּ בֵּיהּ יִשְׂרָאֵל טְפֵי.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita : Before he died, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to his disciples: Do not eulogize me in the small towns that you pass as you take my body out for burial, but eulogize me only in the larger cities. And if you say that a eulogy is delivered in honor of the living, what difference does it make to him if he is eulogized also in the smaller towns? The Gemara answers: He thought that the people of Israel would be more greatly honored through him if they gathered together for the eulogies in the larger cities.

תָּא שְׁמַע: הֱלִינוֹ לִכְבוֹדוֹ, לְהָבִיא לוֹ אָרוֹן וְתַכְרִיכִין – אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו. מַאי לָאו לִכְבוֹדוֹ שֶׁל מֵת? לֹא, לִכְבוֹדוֹ שֶׁל חַי.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: If one left his deceased relative unburied overnight for the sake of his honor, e.g., in order to bring him a coffin or shrouds, he does not transgress the prohibition of “his body shall not remain all night.” What, is it not referring to the honor of the deceased? The Gemara answers: No, it is referring to the honor of the living relatives of the deceased.

וּמִשּׁוּם כְּבוֹדוֹ שֶׁל חַי מֵבִית לֵיהּ לְמֵת? אִין, כִּי אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: ״לֹא תָלִין נִבְלָתוֹ עַל הָעֵץ״, דּוּמְיָא דְּתָלוּי דְּאִית בֵּיהּ בִּזָּיוֹן. אֲבָל הָכָא, כֵּיוָן דְּלֵית בֵּיהּ בִּזָּיוֹן – לָא.

The Gemara asks: But can it be that due to the honor of the living, they allow the deceased to remain unburied overnight? The Gemara answers: Yes, as when the Merciful One states: “His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but you shall bury him that day” (Deuteronomy 21:23), it teaches that the prohibition applies only to cases similar to that of a person whose body is hung after his death, who suffers degradation when his corpse is left hanging overnight. But here, since the deceased does not suffer degradation when the funeral is delayed, as the delay is in order that the burial will be performed with greater dignity, there is no violation of the prohibition, and he may be left unburied overnight.

תָּא שְׁמַע: הֱלִינוֹ לִכְבוֹדוֹ, לְשַׁמֵּעַ עָלָיו עֲיָירוֹת, לְהָבִיא לוֹ מְקוֹנְנוֹת, לְהָבִיא לוֹ אָרוֹן וְתַכְרִיכִין – אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו, שֶׁכׇּל הָעוֹשֶׂה אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לִכְבוֹדוֹ שֶׁל מֵת. הָכִי קָאָמַר: כׇּל הָעוֹשֶׂה לִכְבוֹדוֹ שֶׁל חַי, אֵין בּוֹ בִּזָּיוֹן לַמֵּת.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita : If one left his deceased relative unburied overnight for the sake of his honor, for example, in order to assemble the people from the neighboring towns for the funeral, or to bring him professional lamenters, or to bring him a coffin or shrouds, he does not transgress the prohibition of “his body shall not remain all night,” as anyone who acts in such a manner does so only for the sake of honoring the dead. This indicates that the eulogy and other funeral rites are performed to honor the deceased. The Gemara rejects this argument: This is what the baraita is saying: Anyone who acts in such a manner for the sake of honoring the living does not transgress the prohibition, as there is no degradation of the dead.

תָּא שְׁמַע, רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: סִימָן יָפֶה לַמֵּת שֶׁנִּפְרָעִין מִמֶּנּוּ לְאַחַר מִיתָה. מֵת שֶׁלֹּא נִסְפַּד וְלֹא נִקְבַּר, אוֹ שֶׁחַיָּה גּוֹרַרְתּוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ גְּשָׁמִים מְזַלְּפִין עַל מִטָּתוֹ – זֶהוּ סִימָן יָפֶה לַמֵּת. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: יְקָרָא דְשָׁכְבֵי הוּא. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita : Rabbi Natan says: It is a good sign for the deceased when he is punished after his death and does not receive an honorable burial or eulogy, as his lack of honor brings him atonement for his sins. For example, if the deceased was not eulogized, or if he was not buried, or if a wild animal dragged his corpse, or if rain fell on his bier, this is a good sign for the deceased. Learn from the baraita that a eulogy is delivered for the honor of the dead, so that when he is deprived of this honor, he achieves atonement for his sins. The Gemara affirms: Learn from the baraita that this is so.

לֹא הָיוּ קוֹבְרִין כּוּ׳. וְכׇל כָּךְ לָמָּה? לְפִי שֶׁאֵין קוֹבְרִין רָשָׁע אֵצֶל צַדִּיק, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא בַּר חֲנִינָא: מִנַּיִן שֶׁאֵין קוֹבְרִין רָשָׁע אֵצֶל צַדִּיק? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיְהִי הֵם קֹבְרִים אִישׁ וְהִנֵּה רָאוּ אֶת הַגְּדוּד וַיַּשְׁלִיכוּ אֶת הָאִישׁ בְּקֶבֶר אֱלִישָׁע וַיִּגַּע הָאִישׁ בְּעַצְמוֹת אֱלִישָׁע וַיְחִי וַיָּקׇם עַל רַגְלָיו״.

§ The mishna teaches that they would not bury the executed transgressor in his ancestral burial plot, but rather in one of two special graveyards set aside for those executed by the court. The Gemara explains: And why is all this necessary? It is necessary because a wicked man is not buried next to a righteous man. As Rav Aḥa bar Ḥanina says: From where is it derived that a wicked man is not buried next to a righteous man? As it is stated: “And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that behold, they spied a raiding party; and they cast the man into the tomb of Elisha; and as the man came there, he touched the bones of Elisha, and he revived and stood up on his feet” (II Kings 13:21). The man, who was not righteous, was miraculously resurrected so that he would not remain buried alongside Elisha.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא: וְדִילְמָא לְאִיקְּיוֹמֵי ״וִיהִי נָא פִּי שְׁנַיִם בְּרוּחֲךָ אֵלָי״? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי הָכִי, הַיְינוּ דְּתַנְיָא: עַל רַגְלָיו עָמַד, וּלְבֵיתוֹ לֹא הָלַךְ.

Rav Pappa said to Rav Aḥa bar Ḥanina: What proof is there from here? Perhaps the man was resurrected in order to fulfill Elisha’s request of Elijah: “I pray you, let a double portion of your spirit be upon me” (II Kings 2:9), as now Elisha resurrected two people, the son of the Shunammite woman and this man, as opposed to Elijah, who had resurrected only one person? Rav Aḥa bar Ḥanina said to Rav Pappa: If so, there is a difficulty, as is this a reasonable explanation in light of what is taught in a baraita : The words “and stood up on his feet” indicate that he arose, but he did not go to his home. The man did not in fact live again but for a moment, indicating that he was resurrected not in order to fulfill Elisha’s request for a double portion of Elijah’s spirit, but in order to prevent the disgrace of having a wicked man buried next to Elisha.

אֶלָּא ״וִיהִי נָא פִּי שְׁנַיִם״, הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ דְּאַחֲיֵיא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שֶׁרִיפֵּא צָרַעַת נַעֲמָן, שֶׁהִיא שְׁקוּלָה כְּמֵת, דִּכְתִיב ״אַל נָא תְהִי כַּמֵּת״.

The Gemara asks: But if so, with regard to the verse: “I pray you, let a double portion of your spirit be upon me,” where do you find that Elisha resurrected a second person? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: That request was fulfilled when he cured Naaman’s leprosy (see II Kings, chapter 5), an affliction that is considered to be equivalent to death, as it is written with regard to Miriam’s leprosy: “Let her not be as one dead” (Numbers 12:12).

וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁאֵין קוֹבְרִין רָשָׁע אֵצֶל צַדִּיק, כָּךְ אֵין קוֹבְרִין רָשָׁע חָמוּר אֵצֶל רָשָׁע קַל. וְלִיתְקוֹן אַרְבַּע קְבָרוֹת! שְׁנֵי קְבָרוֹת גְּמָרָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ.

The mishna teaches that two graveyards were established for the burial of those executed by the court, one for those who were killed by decapitation or strangulation, and one for those who were stoned or burned. The Gemara explains: Just as a wicked man is not buried next to a righteous man, so too an extremely wicked man, i.e., one who committed a grave offense is not buried next to a less wicked man, i.e., one who committed a less severe offense. The Gemara challenges: If so, let them establish four different graveyards, one for each of the different modes of judicial execution. The Gemara answers. It is learned as a tradition that there are two graveyards for those executed by the court, and no more.

אָמַר עוּלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אָכַל חֵלֶב וְהִפְרִישׁ קׇרְבָּן, וְהִשְׁתַּמֵּד וְחָזַר בּוֹ – הוֹאִיל וְנִדְחָה, יִדָּחֶה.

§ Ulla says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If one unwittingly ate forbidden fat and separated an offering for this sin, and he then became an apostate and subsequently retracted his apostasy, despite his retraction, since the offering was rejected from being sacrificed while he was an apostate, it shall remain rejected.

אִיתְּמַר נָמֵי, אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אָכַל חֵלֶב וְהִפְרִישׁ קׇרְבָּן, וְנִשְׁתַּטָּה, וְחָזַר וְנִשְׁתַּפָּה – הוֹאִיל וְנִדְחָה, יִדָּחֶה.

It was also stated that Rabbi Yirmeya says that Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If one unwittingly ate forbidden fat and separated an offering for this sin, and he then became insane, and later he regained his sanity, the animal that he had dedicated as a sin-offering may not be sacrificed. Since the offering was rejected from being sacrificed while he was insane, it shall remain rejected.

וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן קַמַּיְיתָא – מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיהוּ דְּחָה נַפְשֵׁיהּ בְּיָדַיִם, אֲבָל הַאי דְּמִמֵּילָא קָא דָחֵי – אֵימָא כְּיָשֵׁן דָּמֵי.

The Gemara explains: And it was necessary for Rabbi Yoḥanan to teach us this halakha in both cases. As, had he taught us only the first halakha , with regard to the apostate, I would say that only in that case is the animal rejected forever, because the owner actively rejected himself when he became an apostate. But in this case of insanity, where the owner was rejected automatically, not of his own choice, I would say that he is considered as one who is asleep, so that as soon as he regains his sanity, his offering is once again fit.

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן הָכָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּאֵין בְּיָדוֹ לַחְזוֹר, אֲבָל הָתָם דִּבְיָדוֹ לַחְזוֹר, אֵימָא לָא. צְרִיכָא.

And had he taught us the halakha only in this second case of insanity, I would say that only in that case is the animal rejected forever, because it was not in the owner’s power to regain his sanity, as one who is insane cannot cure himself. But there, with regard to an apostate, who has the power to retract his apostasy, I would say that his animal is not permanently rejected. It was therefore necessary to teach us the halakha in both cases.

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא, הָיוּ בָּהּ קֳדָשִׁים, קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ יָמוּתוּ, קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת יִפָּדוּ. וְהָוֵינַן בַּהּ: אַמַּאי יָמוּתוּ? כֵּיוָן דְּאִיקְּטוּל הָוְיָא לְהוּ כַּפָּרָה, וְלִיסְּקוּ לְגָבוֹהַּ! לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּאָמְרִינַן: הוֹאִיל וְנִדְחוּ, יִדָּחוּ?

Rav Yosef said: We, too, learn a similar halakha in a baraita : If consecrated items were found in an idolatrous city, they are not destroyed together with the rest of the property of the city. Animals that had been consecrated to be offered on the altar must be left to die, and property that had been consecrated for Temple maintenance may be redeemed and is then desacralized. And we discussed it: Why must the animals that had been consecrated for the altar be left to die? Once the idolaters are killed, they achieve atonement, and therefore it should be possible to sacrifice their offerings to the Most High. Is it not the case that the animals must be left to die because we say: Since they were rejected when their owners engaged in idol worship, they remain rejected even after their owners achieve atonement for their sins with their death?

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: מִי סָבְרַתְּ מֵת מִתּוֹךְ רִשְׁעוֹ הָוְיָא לֵיהּ כַּפָּרָה? מֵת מִתּוֹךְ רִשְׁעוֹ לָא הָוְיָא לֵיהּ כַּפָּרָה, דְּתָנֵי רַב שְׁמַעְיָה: יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ פֵּירְשׁוּ אֲבוֹתָיו מִדַּרְכֵי צִיבּוּר יִטַּמֵּא? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בְּעַמָּיו״ – בְּעוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֵׂה עַמָּיו.

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Do you maintain that one who dies in his state of wickedness without repenting achieves atonement? This is not the case, as one who dies in his state of wickedness without repenting does not achieve atonement, as Rav Shemaya taught in a baraita : The verse states with regard to the priests: “There shall none be defiled for the dead among his people, but for his kin that is near to him, for his mother, and for his father” (Leviticus 21:1–2). One might have thought that even if his father had become an apostate and separated himself from the ways of the community, his son the priest shall become ritually impure in order to bury him. Therefore, the verse states: “Among his people,” which teaches that a priest may become ritually impure only for one who performs the actions of his people, that is, one who conducts himself as a Jew. This indicates that one who dies in his wickedness without repenting does not achieve atonement.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: מִי קָא מְדַמֵּית נֶהֱרָג מִתּוֹךְ רִשְׁעוֹ לְמֵת מִתּוֹךְ רִשְׁעוֹ? מֵת מִתּוֹךְ רִשְׁעוֹ, כֵּיוָן דְּכִי אוֹרְחֵיהּ קָמָיֵית – לָא הָוְיָא לֵיהּ כַּפָּרָה. נֶהֱרָג מִתּוֹךְ רִשְׁעוֹ, כֵּיוָן דְּלָאו כִּי אוֹרְחֵיהּ מָיֵית – הָוְיָא לֵיהּ כַּפָּרָה.

Rava said to Abaye: Are you comparing one who was killed in his state of wickedness to one who died in his state of wickedness? An unrepentant sinner who died in his state of wickedness does not achieve atonement, since he died a natural death and there was nothing to bring about his atonement. But a transgressor who was killed in his state of wickedness achieves atonement, even without repentance, since he did not die a natural death, but rather he was executed.

תִּדַּע, דִּכְתִיב: מִזְמוֹר לְאָסָף אֱלֹהִים בָּאוּ גוֹיִם בְּנַחֲלָתֶךָ טִמְּאוּ אֶת הֵיכַל קׇדְשֶׁךָ [וְגוֹ׳] נָתְנוּ אֶת נִבְלַת עֲבָדֶיךָ מַאֲכָל לְעוֹף הַשָּׁמָיִם בְּשַׂר חֲסִידֶיךָ לְחַיְתוֹ אָרֶץ״. מַאי ״עֲבָדֶיךָ״ וּמַאי ״חֲסִידֶיךָ״? לָאו ״חֲסִידֶיךָ״ – חֲסִידֶיךָ מַמָּשׁ, ״עֲבָדֶיךָ״ – הָנָךְ דִּמְחַיְּיבִי דִּינָא דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא, וְכֵיוָן דְּאִיקְּטוּל קָרֵי לְהוּ ״עֲבָדֶיךָ״.

Know that this is so, as it is written: “A song to Asaf. O God, nations are come into Your inheritance; they have defiled your Holy Temple; they have laid Jerusalem in heaps. The dead bodies of Your servants they have given to be food to the birds of the sky, the flesh of Your pious ones to the beasts of the earth” (Psalms 79:1–2). What is the meaning of “Your servants” and what is the meaning of “Your pious ones”? Is it not so that the term “Your pious ones” is referring to literally, Your pious ones, those who had always feared God; whereas “Your servants” is referring to those who had initially been liable to receive punishment for their sins, but once they were killed, they are called “Your servants”? This indicates that a transgressor who was executed achieves atonement even without repentance.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: מִי קָא מְדַמֵּית

Abaye said to Rava: Are you comparing