Berakhot 61a

הַכֹּל לְטוֹבָה.

He does for the best.

וְאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר: לְעוֹלָם יִהְיוּ דְּבָרָיו שֶׁל אָדָם מוּעָטִין לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אַל תְּבַהֵל עַל פִּיךָ וְלִבְּךָ אַל יְמַהֵר לְהוֹצִיא דָבָר לִפְנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים כִּי הָאֱלֹהִים בַּשָּׁמַיִם וְאַתָּה עַל הָאָרֶץ עַל כֵּן יִהְיוּ דְבָרֶיךָ מְעַטִּים״.

And Rav Huna said that Rav said in the name of Rabbi Meir: One’s words should always be few before the Holy One, Blessed be He, as it is stated: “Be not rash with your mouth and let not your heart be hasty to utter a word before God; for God is in heaven, and you upon earth. Therefore, let your words be few” (Ecclesiastes 5:1).

דָּרַשׁ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר רַב חִסְדָּא: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״וַיִּיצֶר ה׳ אֱלֹהִים אֶת הָאָדָם״ בִּשְׁנֵי יוֹדִין? — שְׁנֵי יְצָרִים בָּרָא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, אֶחָד יֵצֶר טוֹב וְאֶחָד יֵצֶר רָע.

Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda interpreted homiletically: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Then the Lord God formed [ vayyitzer ] man” (Genesis 2:7), with a double yod ? This double yod alludes to that fact that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created two inclinations; one a good inclination and one an evil inclination.

מַתְקִיף לַהּ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, בְּהֵמָה דְּלָא כְּתִיב בַּהּ ״וַיִּיצֶר״ לֵית לַהּ יִצְרָא? וְהָא קָא חֲזֵינַן דְּמַזְּקָא וְנָשְׁכָא וּבָעֲטָא! אֶלָּא כִּדְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן פַּזִּי, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן פַּזִּי ״אוֹי לִי מִיּוֹצְרִי וְאוֹי לִי מִיִּצְרִי״.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak strongly objects to this: If that is so, does an animal, with regard to whom vayyitzer is not written with a double yod , not have an inclination? Don’t we see that it causes damage and bites and kicks? Rather, interpret the double yod homiletically, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, as Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said: This alludes to the difficulty of human life; woe unto me from my Creator [ yotzri ] and woe unto me from my inclination [ yitzri ]. If one opts to follow either his Creator or his inclination, woe unto him from the other.

אִי נָמֵי כִּדְרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר: דּוּ פַּרְצוּפִין בָּרָא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בָּאָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אָחוֹר וָקֶדֶם צַרְתָּנִי״.

Alternatively, this duplication in the language of creation can be explained in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar, as Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar said: The Holy One, Blessed be He, created two faces [ du partzufin ] on Adam the first man; he was created both male and female in a single body, as it is stated: “You have formed me [ tzartani ] behind and before” (Psalms 139:5); tzartani is derived from the word tzura [face]. God formed two faces on a single creation, back and front.

״וַיִּבֶן ה׳ אֱלֹהִים אֶת הַצֵּלָע״.

It is stated: “And the tzela which the Lord, God, had taken from the man, He made a woman, and brought her unto the man” (Genesis 2:22).

רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל: חַד אָמַר פַּרְצוּף. וְחַד אָמַר זָנָב.

Rav and Shmuel disagree over the meaning of the word tzela : One said: It means face. Eve was originally one face or side of Adam. And one said: It means tail, which he explains to mean that the tzela was an appendage, i.e., one of the ribs in Adam’s chest.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר פַּרְצוּף — הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב ״אָחוֹר וָקֶדֶם צַרְתָּנִי״. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר זָנָב, מַאי ״אָחוֹר וָקֶדֶם צַרְתָּנִי״? כִּדְרַבִּי אַמֵּי, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: ״אָחוֹר״ — לְמַעֲשֵׂה בְרֵאשִׁית, ״וָקֶדֶם״ — לְפוּרְעָנוּת.

The Gemara analyzes this dispute: Granted, according to the one who said that tzela means face; that is why it is written: “You have formed me [ tzartani ] behind and before.” However, according to the one who said that tzela means tail, what is meant by the verse: “You have formed me [ tzartani ] behind and before”? The Gemara answers: It can be explained in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ami, as Rabbi Ami said: Behind means Adam was created at the end of the act of creation; and before means that he was first for punishment.

בִּשְׁלָמָא ״אָחוֹר״ לְמַעֲשֵׂה בְרֵאשִׁית — דְּלָא אִבְּרִי עַד מַעֲלֵי שַׁבְּתָא, אֶלָּא ״וָקֶדֶם״ לְפוּרְעָנוּת, פּוּרְעָנוּת דְּמַאי? אִילֵּימָא פּוּרְעָנוּת דְּנָחָשׁ, וְהָתַנְיָא רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: בִּגְדוּלָּה מַתְחִילִין מִן הַגָּדוֹל, וּבִקְלָלָה מַתְחִילִין מִן הַקָּטָן.

The Gemara asks: Granted, Adam was behind, or last, in the act of creation, meaning that he was not created until the sixth day, Shabbat eve; however, before, or first, for punishment, to what punishment does this refer? If you say that he was first for punishment in the wake of the episode with the snake, wasn’t it taught in a baraita that, with regard to punishment, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: In conferring honor, one begins with the greatest; in cursing, one begins with the least significant.

בִּגְדוּלָּה מַתְחִילִין מִן הַגָּדוֹל — דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיְדַבֵּר מֹשֶׁה אֶל אַהֲרֹן וְאֶל אֶלְעָזָר וְאֶל אִיתָמָר בָּנָיו הַנּוֹתָרִים קְחוּ וְגוֹ׳״. בִּקְלָלָה מַתְחִילִין מִן הַקָּטָן — בַּתְּחִלָּה נִתְקַלֵּל נָחָשׁ, וּלְבַסּוֹף נִתְקַלְּלָה חַוָּה, וּלְבַסּוֹף נִתְקַלֵּל אָדָם!

The Gemara explains: In conferring honor, one begins with the greatest, as it is written: “And Moses said unto Aaron, and Elazar and Itamar, his remaining sons: Take the meal-offering that remains” (Leviticus 10:12). Aaron, who was the greatest among those involved, is mentioned first. And in cursing, one begins with the least significant, as first the snake was cursed, then Eve was cursed, and ultimately Adam himself was cursed. The punishment did not begin with Adam.

אֶלָּא פּוּרְעָנוּת דְּמַבּוּל, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּמַח אֶת כׇּל הַיְקוּם אֲשֶׁר עַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה מֵאָדָם וְעַד בְּהֵמָה״, בְּרֵישָׁא אָדָם וַהֲדַר בְּהֵמָה.

Rather, this refers to the punishment of the flood, as it is written: “And He blotted out every living substance which was upon the face of the ground, both man and cattle, creeping things and fowl of the heaven” (Genesis 7:23); the punishment began with man, then the animals, and ultimately all the other creatures.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר פַּרְצוּף, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב ״וַיִּיצֶר״ בִּשְׁנֵי יוֹדִין. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר זָנָב, מַאי ״וַיִּיצֶר״?

Returning to interpretation of vayyitzer , the Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who said that Eve was originally a face or side of Adam; that is why it is written vayyitzer , with a double yod , which allude to the two formations. However, according to the one who said that she was a tail, or appendage, of Adam, what is conveyed by spelling vayyitzer with a double yod ?

כִּדְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן פַּזִּי, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן פַּזִּי: ״אוֹי לִי מִיּוֹצְרִי אוֹי לִי מִיִּצְרִי״.

The Gemara responds: This is interpreted homiletically in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, as Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said: This comes to emphasize that which a person says to himself in every circumstance: Woe unto me from my Creator and woe unto me from my inclination.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר פַּרְצוּף, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב ״זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בְּרָאָם״, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר זָנָב, מַאי ״זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בְּרָאָם״? כִּדְרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ, דְּרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ רָמֵי: כְּתִיב: ״זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בְּרָאָם״, וּכְתִיב ״כִּי בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים עָשָׂה אֶת הָאָדָם״! הָא כֵּיצַד? — בַּתְּחִלָּה עָלָה בְּמַחְשָׁבָה לִבְרֹאת שְׁנַיִם, וּלְבַסּוֹף לֹא נִבְרָא אֶלָּא אֶחָד.

Granted, according to the one who said that Eve was a face, that is why it is written: “Male and female, He created them” (Genesis 5:2). However, according to the one who said that Eve was a tail, what is the meaning of the verse: “Male and female, He created them”? The Gemara answers: It can be explained in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Abbahu. As Rabbi Abbahu raised a contradiction between the verses: On the one hand it is written: “Male and female, He created them,” and on the other hand it is written: “For in the image of God He made man” (Genesis 9:6), indicating that man was created alone. How, then, does he resolve the contradiction? At first, the thought entered God’s mind to create two, and ultimately, only one was actually created.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר פַּרְצוּף, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב ״וַיִּסְגֹּר בָּשָׂר תַּחְתֶּנָּה״, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר זָנָב, מַאי ״וַיִּסְגֹּר בָּשָׂר תַּחְתֶּנָּה״? אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב זְבִיד, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לִמְקוֹם חֲתָךְ.

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who said that Eve was a face, that is why it is written: “And He took one of his sides and closed up the place with flesh in its place” (Genesis 2:21), as it was necessary to close the side that was open. However, according to the one who said that Eve was originally a tail, what is meant by the verse: “And closed up the place with flesh in its place”? Rabbi Yirmeya said, and some say Rav Zevid said, and some say Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It was necessary to say that only with regard to the place of the incision.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר זָנָב, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּבֶן״, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר פַּרְצוּף, מַאי ״וַיִּבֶן״?

The Gemara challenges the other opinion: Granted, according to the one who said that Eve was a tail, that is why it is written: “And the Lord God built the tzela ” (Genesis 2:22); it was a completely new building. However, according to the one who said that Eve was a complete face or side, what is the meaning of: “And He built”? What needed to be built?

לְכִדְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא. דְּדָרֵשׁ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״וַיִּבֶן ה׳ אֶת הַצֵּלָע״? מְלַמֵּד שֶׁקִּלְּעָהּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְחַוָּה, וֶהֱבִיאָהּ לְאָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן — שֶׁכֵּן בִּכְרַכֵּי הַיָּם קוֹרִין לְקַלָּעִיתָא ״בַּנָּיְיתָא״.

The Gemara responds: This must be interpreted homiletically, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya, as Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya interpreted homiletically: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And the Lord God built the tzela ”? This verse teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, braided Eve’s hair, and then brought her to Adam, as in the coastal towns, they call braiding hair, building.

דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״וַיִּבֶן״, אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: מְלַמֵּד שֶׁבְּנָאָהּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְחַוָּה כְּבִנְיַן אוֹצָר, מָה אוֹצָר זֶה קָצָר מִלְּמַעְלָה וְרָחָב מִלְּמַטָּה כְּדֵי לְקַבֵּל אֶת הַפֵּירוֹת, אַף אִשָּׁה קְצָרָה מִלְּמַעְלָה וּרְחָבָה מִלְּמַטָּה כְּדֵי לְקַבֵּל אֶת הַוָּלָד.

Alternatively, the verse: And He built, could be understood as a description of her basic shape, as Rav Ḥisda said, and some say that it is taught in a baraita : This verse teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, built Eve like the structure of a storehouse. Just as a storehouse is built narrow on top and wide on the bottom, in order to hold produce without collapsing; so too a woman is created narrow on top and wide on the bottom, in order to hold the fetus.

״וַיְבִיאֶהָ אֶל הָאָדָם״, אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר: מְלַמֵּד שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שׁוֹשְׁבִין לְאָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן, מִכָּאן לִמְּדָה תּוֹרָה דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ שֶׁיַּחֲזוֹר גָּדוֹל עִם קָטָן בְּשׁוֹשְׁבִינוּת, וְאַל יֵרַע לוֹ.

With regard to the verse: “And brought her unto the man” (Genesis 2:22), Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar said: This verse teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, was Adam the first man’s best man. From here, the Torah taught that it is a desired mode of behavior for a greater individual to seek out a lesser individual to assist him and serve as his best man. The greater individual should help the lesser and should not feel badly about it, that it might be beneath his dignity.

וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״פַּרְצוּף״, הֵי מִינַּיְיהוּ סַגִּי בְּרֵישָׁא? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: מִסְתַּבְּרָא דְּגַבְרָא סַגִּי בְּרֵישָׁא. דְּתַנְיָא: לֹא יְהַלֵּךְ אָדָם אֲחוֹרֵי אִשָּׁה בַּדֶּרֶךְ, וַאֲפִילּוּ אִשְׁתּוֹ. נִזְדַּמְּנָה לוֹ עַל הַגֶּשֶׁר — יְסַלְּקֶנָּה לִצְדָדִין. וְכׇל הָעוֹבֵר אֲחוֹרֵי אִשָּׁה בַּנָּהָר — אֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק לְעוֹלָם הַבָּא.

The Gemara asks: And according to the one who said that Eve was a face or side of Adam, which one of them walked in front? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It is reasonable to say that the man walked in front, as it is taught in a baraita : A man should not walk behind a woman on a path, as he will look at her constantly, even if it is his wife. If a woman happens upon him along a bridge, he should walk quickly in order to move her to the sides so that she will not walk in front of him. And anyone who walks behind a woman in a river in order to see her exposed skin when she lifts her clothing as she passes through the water has no portion in the World-to-Come.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמַּרְצֶה מָעוֹת לְאִשָּׁה מִיָּדוֹ לְיָדָהּ כְּדֵי לְהִסְתַּכֵּל בָּהּ, אֲפִילּוּ יֵשׁ בְּיָדוֹ תּוֹרָה וּמַעֲשִׂים טוֹבִים כְּמֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ — לֹא יִנָּקֶה מִדִּינָהּ שֶׁל גֵּיהִנָּם. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״יָד לְיָד לֹא יִנָּקֶה רָּע״ — לֹא יִנָּקֶה מִדִּינָהּ שֶׁל גֵּיהִנָּם.

The Sages taught: One who counts money for a woman from his hand to her hand in order to look upon her, even if he has accumulated Torah and good deeds like Moses our teacher, he will not be absolved from the punishment of Gehenna, as it is stated: “Hand to hand, the evil man shall not go unpunished” (Proverbs 11:21); one who hands money from his hand to her hand, even if he received the Torah from God’s hand to his own, like Moses, he will not be absolved from the punishment of Gehenna, which is called evil.

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מָנוֹחַ עַם הָאָרֶץ הָיָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֵּלֶךְ מָנוֹחַ אַחֲרֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ״.

Rav Naḥman said: From the following verse we know that Samson’s father, Manoah, was an ignoramus, as it is written: “And Manoah…went after his wife” (Judges 13:11).

מַתְקִיף לַהּ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, גַּבֵּי אֶלְקָנָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֵּלֶךְ אֶלְקָנָה אַחֲרֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ״, וְגַבֵּי אֱלִישָׁע, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיָּקׇם וַיֵּלֶךְ אַחֲרֶיהָ״, הָכִי נָמֵי אַחֲרֶיהָ מַמָּשׁ? אֶלָּא אַחֲרֵי דְבָרֶיהָ וְאַחֲרֵי עֲצָתָהּ, הָכָא נָמֵי אַחֲרֵי דְבָרֶיהָ וְאַחֲרֵי עֲצָתָהּ.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak strongly objects to this: If that is so that you understand the verse literally, what do you say about the verse with regard to Elkana, the father of the prophet Samuel, as it is written: “And Elkana walked after his wife,” and what of the verse with regard to the prophet Elisha, as it is written: “And he arose and followed her” (II Kings 4:30)? Does this verse mean that he literally walked after her? Rather, certainly this verse means that he followed her words and advice. Here, too, then the verse concerning Manoah may be similarly interpreted; he followed his wife’s words and followed her advice, and did not literally walk behind her.

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: וּלְמַאי דְּקָאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, מָנוֹחַ עַם הָאָרֶץ הָיָה — אֲפִילּוּ בֵּי רַב נָמֵי לָא קְרָא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַתָּקׇם רִבְקָה וְנַעֲרֹתֶיהָ וַתִּרְכַּבְנָה עַל הַגְּמַלִּים וַתֵּלַכְנָה אַחֲרֵי הָאִישׁ״ — וְלֹא לִפְנֵי הָאִישׁ.

Rav Ashi said: And according to what Rav Naḥman said, that Manoah was an ignoramus; he did not even learn to read the basic Torah stories that even children learn in school, as it is stated: “Rebecca arose, and her damsels, and they rode upon the camels, and followed the man” (Genesis 24:61); they followed him and did not walk before the man.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֲחוֹרֵי אֲרִי וְלֹא אֲחוֹרֵי אִשָּׁה, אֲחוֹרֵי אִשָּׁה וְלֹא אֲחוֹרֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, אֲחוֹרֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְלֹא אֲחוֹרֵי בֵּית הַכְּנֶסֶת בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהַצִּבּוּר מִתְפַּלְּלִין.

On this topic, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is preferable to walk behind a lion and not behind a woman, and preferable to walk behind a woman and not behind idolatry, for then it will appear as if he is accompanying the idolatry. It is preferable to walk behind idolatry and not behind a synagogue when the congregation is praying, as he appears to separate himself from the community in that he does not wish to join them in prayer.

וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּלָא דָּרֵי מִידֵּי, וְאִי דָּרֵי מִידֵּי — לֵית לַן בַּהּ. וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּלֵיכָּא פִּתְחָא אַחֲרִינָא, וְאִי אִיכָּא פִּתְחָא אַחֲרִינָא — לֵית לַן בַּהּ. וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּלָא רְכִיב חֲמָרָא, אֲבָל רְכִיב חֲמָרָא — לֵית לַן בַּהּ. וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּלָא מַנַּח תְּפִילִּין, אֲבָל מַנַּח תְּפִילִּין — לֵית לַן בַּהּ.

This last halakha has numerous caveats: And we only said this in a case where he is not carrying something, and if he is carrying something, this does not apply, as everyone will understand why he did not enter the synagogue. And we only said this in a case where there is no other entrance to the synagogue, and if there is another entrance, this does not apply. And we only said this in a case where he is not riding a donkey, and if he is riding a donkey, this does not apply. And we only said this in a case where he is not donning phylacteries, but if he is donning phylacteries, this does not apply.

אָמַר רַב: יֵצֶר הָרָע דּוֹמֶה לִזְבוּב וְיוֹשֵׁב בֵּין שְׁנֵי מִפְתְּחֵי הַלֵּב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״זְבוּבֵי מָוֶת יַבְאִישׁ יַבִּיעַ שֶׁמֶן רוֹקֵחַ״. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: כְּמִין חִטָּה הוּא דּוֹמֶה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לַפֶּתַח חַטָּאת רוֹבֵץ״.

Rav said: The evil inclination is like a fly and it sits between the two entrances of the heart, as it is stated: “Dead flies make the ointment of the perfumer fetid and putrid” (Ecclesiastes 10:1). And Shmuel said: The evil inclination is like a type of wheat, as it is stated: “Transgression [ ḥatat ] couches at the door” (Genesis 4:7); ḥatat is interpreted homiletically as related to ḥitta , wheat.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שְׁתֵּי כְּלָיוֹת יֵשׁ בּוֹ בְּאָדָם, אַחַת יוֹעַצְתּוֹ לְטוֹבָה וְאַחַת יוֹעַצְתּוֹ לְרָעָה. וּמִסְתַּבְּרָא דְּטוֹבָה לִימִינוֹ וְרָעָה לִשְׂמֹאלוֹ, דִּכְתִיב: ״לֵב חָכָם לִימִינוֹ וְלֵב כְּסִיל לִשְׂמֹאלוֹ״.

The Sages taught in a baraita : A person has two kidneys; one advises him to do good and one advises him to do evil. And it stands to reason that the one advising him to do good is to his right and the one that advises him to do evil is to his left, as it is written: “A wise man’s understanding is at his right hand, but a fool’s understanding is at his left” (Ecclesiastes 10:2).

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כְּלָיוֹת יוֹעֲצוֹת, לֵב מֵבִין, לָשׁוֹן מְחַתֵּךְ, פֶּה גּוֹמֵר, וֶשֶׁט מַכְנִיס וּמוֹצִיא כׇּל מִינֵי מַאֲכָל, קָנֶה מוֹצִיא קוֹל,

Tangential to the subject of kidneys, the Gemara cites that which the Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the roles of various organs: The kidneys advise, the heart understands, the tongue shapes the sounds that emerge from the mouth, the mouth completes the shaping of the voice, the esophagus takes in and lets out all kinds of food, the trachea produces the voice,