Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Berakhot

Berakhot 19 for kids: Honor That Overrules

ברכות י״ט

⚖️ This daf teaches that it's wrong to speak badly about someone who has died, especially a Torah scholar. It then lists cases where people were put out of the community for disrespecting sages, and shows how protecting a person's dignity can even push aside a Torah law.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Berakhot 19a in Daf QuestOpen Berakhot 19b in Daf Quest

In the app: the Gemara with Rashi and Tosafot, the printed page, games made from this daf, play coins and treasure chests.

Stories from Berakhot 19

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Berakhot 19 in simple English

Rashi on Berakhot 19a, in English Tab translation (34)
  1. And if it should enter your mind that they do not know — This means: they understand nothing at all; rather, what they feel is only the physical pain [of the stone, not actual disgrace].
  2. One who speaks after the dead — meaning in disgrace of the dead, after his death.
  3. A reed from the ceiling — a large, heavy reed fell from the roof.
  4. Roof — meaning the ceiling.
  5. The sack of his brain — the membrane/pouch in which the brain is held.
  6. 'But those who turn aside unto their crooked ways' — Above this verse it is written, 'Do good, O Lord, to the good,' and immediately following is written, 'But those who turn aside unto their crooked ways' — referring to those whose sins outweigh their merits, tipping the balance toward guilt.
  7. 'The Lord will lead them away with the workers of iniquity' — to Gehenna.
  8. In twenty-four places — Now it would seem that we find that the Sages excommunicated people in twenty-four places on account of the honor due to a rabbi, because they did not show proper respect to their teacher.
  9. He would say — this refers to Akavya ben Mahalalel, in Tractate Eduyot.
  10. They do not administer the drink — if her husband had warned her [about seclusion with another man] and she secluded herself with him anyway.
  11. Not the convert — because the verse states 'from the children of Israel' (Numbers 5), excluding the wife of a convert or of a freed slave.
  12. In Kharkemit — this was either her name, or she was called this after her place of origin.
  13. They gave her to drink because she was like them — Because she was similar to them [in being from converts], they gave her the drink — for Shemaya and Avtalyon themselves were descendants of the children of Sennacherib, as stated in tractate Gittin, chapter HaNizakin (57b).
  14. Rabbi Yehuda — disagrees with the earlier statement that Akavya ben Mahalalel was excommunicated.
  15. That the courtyard is not closed — This is explained in tractate Pesachim, chapter 5 (64b): the gates of the Temple courtyard would be closed while each group slaughtered their Paschal offerings, as the Paschal lamb was slaughtered in three separate groups.
  16. Over any person in Israel — meaning: when it would be closed upon them, that is, when it was filled from one end to the other, there was no one among them as distinguished in wisdom and fear of sin as Akavya ben Mahalalel.
  17. Elazar ben Ḥanokh, who cast doubt — he demeaned and belittled [the practice], and this too relates to the honor of the Sages, since he transgressed against those who had instituted the law of washing the hands.
  18. Were you not Ḥoni — whose name had already gone out in greatness and importance.
  19. You deserve to be excommunicated — because you troubled the Omnipresent regarding rainfall; did I not ask several times already? And the honor of the Omnipresent is like the honor of a teacher.
  20. Acts like a spoiled child — from the language of 'sin'; it is easy in his heart to act wrongly toward his father and trouble him to satisfy his own desire.
  21. Roasted whole [mekulasin] — roasted whole with their legs, ankles, and innards hung around them on the spit; hence called 'mekulas,' a term related to armament, as in the Targum's rendering of 'a bronze helmet on his head' (I Samuel 17:5) as 'kulsa de-nechasha.'
  22. On the nights of Passover — in remembrance of the Paschal lamb, which was roasted whole, as it says 'with its legs and with its innards' (Exodus 12:9), meaning together with its legs and innards.
  23. I hereby decree excommunication upon you — this too relates to the honor of the Sages, who prohibited the practice because it is close to causing Israelites to eat sacred foods outside [the Temple], since an onlooker might think it had been consecrated as a Paschal offering.
  24. They cut it into rings — referring to a clay oven that is fashioned like a vessel and can be moved; it begins as clay and is hardened in a kiln like other earthenware vessels. If it becomes ritually impure, the Torah requires it to be broken down. If it was broken in such a way that it was cut all around into separate rings and then rejoined with sand-mortar between the rings, Rabbi Eliezer rules it permanently pure, since it is no longer considered a clay vessel that was fired whole in the kiln, while the Sages rule it impure.
  25. Like a snake [akhna] — like a snake that coils itself into a circle.
  26. Lemma: 'Kol taharot' — All the pure items that were made inside this oven, or that touched its airspace, which Rabbi Eliezer had declared pure, and they [the Sages] burned them.
  27. Lemma: 'Uveirakhuhu' (they 'blessed' him) — This is a euphemism for excommunicating him, because he argued this matter so insistently, as stated in Bava Metzia, chapter HaZahav (Bava Metzia 59b).
  28. Lemma: 'Nidui in the mishna we did not learn' — The fact that they 'blessed' (excommunicated) him is taught in a baraita, not in the mishna itself.
  29. Lemma: 'Medamme milta le-milta' (comparing one case to another) — Anywhere he saw in the mishna that an individual disputed against the majority in a major dispute, or that one of the Sages spoke harshly against someone greater than him, he would say: excommunication would have been fitting here.
  30. Lemma: 'Ein motzi'in et ha-met' (they do not take the dead out) — to bury him.
  31. Lemma: 'Close to the time of reciting Shema' — because they would be prevented from reciting the Shema.
  32. Lemma: 'The dead is not lying before them' — the dead is in another room, and they eulogize him here; some explain that the body is simply placed to the side.
  33. Lemma: 'And he sits silently' — referring to the mourner.
  34. Lemma: 'To say this' — meaning: 'You have not collected payment from me,' implying the word 'hefer' (collection/punishment).
Tosafot on Berakhot 19a, in English Tab translation (2)
  1. Even at a time when there is peace upon Israel — this refers to after his death, when the deceased can no longer come and quarrel with those who speak disparagingly of them. From this it is understood that the verse is speaking about [disparagement that occurs] after death.
  2. They gave her to drink because she was like them [dugma] — Rashi explains that this means she was a convert like them, for they too were converts, and so it is indicated in the Jerusalem Talmud, tractate Moed Katan, chapter 3: 'What is dugma? Something comparable.' The Arukh explains that 'dugma' means they gave her colored water to drink, but it was not actually the bitter water, and the Torah's passage was not erased over it; rather, it was done only to frighten her.
Rashi on Berakhot 19b, in English Tab translation (23)
  1. One who sees inside — the empty space behind the inner row, where the mourner sits.
  2. On their own account — and not for the sake of honor, for they did not come to console but to see what happened.
  3. There is no wisdom — [meaning: no wisdom is] considered weighty against the Lord.
  4. One [path] is impure — [because] it has a grave in it.
  5. He comes on the pure path — referring to the mourner.
  6. In a beit haperas — which is impure only by rabbinic decree. This is a field in which a grave was plowed, and the Sages were concerned that the blades of the plow scattered the bones, and one treading on them might displace them further; and a bone the size of a barley grain imparts impurity by touch and by carrying, but not through a tent overhead. And since it is impure only by rabbinic law, it was the Sages themselves who waived the honor due their own decree for the sake of the mourner's honor.
  7. A person blows — in front of him [before each step], so that if there was a bone there he would expose it; for had this been impurity by Torah law, we would not have been so lenient as to rely on blowing. And this method of inspection was permitted [only] for one performing the Paschal offering, but not for one who eats teruma, as stated in the chapter 'Chomer BaKodesh' (Chagigah 25b).
  8. That was trodden — by feet.
  9. They jump — from coffin to coffin.
  10. Toward the kings of Israel — for the sake of human dignity they would transgress [the verse], 'he shall not become impure for a dead person' (Leviticus 21:1); for Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok was indeed a priest, as stated in Bechorot (36a).
  11. By Torah law — a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai.
  12. It does not act as a barrier before the impurity — for it is called 'pressed' impurity, and it breaks through and rises upward.
  13. The prohibition — one might have thought he meant any prohibition whatsoever.
  14. With the prohibition of 'you shall not deviate,' etc. They laughed at him — for they understood him to mean that even if they told him something from the Torah itself, and he were inclined to stand on human dignity, he would transgress it — but this prohibition of 'you shall not deviate' is itself a Torah law!
  15. Any matter that is of rabbinic origin, etc. — this is what he meant to tell them: a matter that is rabbinic is overridden for the sake of human dignity, and he called it a 'prohibition' because it is written 'you shall not deviate.' As for your difficulty that it is itself a Torah law — the Sages themselves waived the honor due their own enactments, [permitting] transgression of their words wherever human dignity is involved, such as moving stones from an outhouse on Shabbat for wiping (Shabbat 81b), or one whose tzitzit strings were severed in a carmelit — they did not require him to leave his garment there and enter his house naked (Menachot 38a).
  16. And it is in a cemetery — the lost item.
  17. And it is not befitting his honor — the lost item is not significant enough, relative to his honor, to justify his returning it.
  18. Or his work was extensive — meaning the value of the time lost from his work in pursuing it exceeds the value of the lost item, and the owners would not be willing to pay him more than the value of what is returned, so that he would end up at a loss.
  19. And from this it is derived — regarding the kilayim mentioned above, that one must remove them even in the marketplace.
  20. Monetary matters — are of lesser weight than [ritual] prohibitions.
  21. And for his sister, why does it need to state this? — Regarding a nazirite it is written, 'All the days of his separation to the Lord he shall not come near a dead body' (Numbers 6:6), and immediately afterward: 'for his father, or for his mother, for his brother, or for his sister, he shall not defile himself for them' (Numbers 6:7) — for all of these were already included in 'he shall not come near a dead body.' Why then were they singled out? 'For his father' excludes [the case of] a met mitzvah [an abandoned corpse with no one to bury it, for which he may become impure]. Why does it need to state 'for his mother'? It would not be necessary [to teach the exception] on account of met mitzvah, since that is derived from 'for his father' — but it is expounded in the Sifrei to teach that if this nazirite was also a priest, who had two sanctities upon him, even he may not become impure for his mother, but he may become impure for a met mitzvah. Why does it need to state 'for his brother'? [To teach] that even if he was a High Priest who was also a nazirite, he may not become impure for his brother, but he may become impure for a met mitzvah. Why does it need to state 'for his sister'? Since it is not needed for this purpose, apply it to teach about one on his way to slaughter his Paschal offering or to circumcise his son — that he may become impure for a met mitzvah even then.
  22. And he heard that a relative of his had died — one might think he may become impure for them.
  23. You might say he may not become impure — since it is the time for slaughtering the Paschal offering, and the obligation of the Paschal offering, which carries the penalty of karet, has taken effect upon him; if he becomes impure, he will be unable to perform the Paschal offering. And circumcising his son is likewise a mitzvah carrying the penalty of karet. And some say this is stated also regarding the eve of Passover [Arvei Pesachim], [teaching] that circumcising his males is indispensable for performing the Paschal offering.
Tosafot on Berakhot 19b, in English Tab translation (4)
  1. We would jump over the coffins — This is difficult according to Rashi's explanation that 'golel' means the cover of the coffin, since it was taught: 'Whoever touches on the open field' (Numbers 19:16) comes to include the golel and dofek (covering stone and supporting stones of a grave). If so, the golel would also transmit impurity via a tent (ohel), so how could they jump over it? One can answer that this is not difficult, for it is taught in tractate Semachot (ch. 4, halakha 21): any impurity for which a nazirite does not shave, a priest is not warned about; and a nazirite does not shave on account of golel and dofek, as we learn in tractate Nazir, chapter 'Kohen Gadol' (54a). Rabbeinu Tam used to say that these general rules do not hold, since it is stated there that a priest is warned even about a quarter-log of blood (which alone does not obligate a nazirite to shave, only a half-log does), as stated in chapter 'Behema HaMakshah' (Chullin 72a), that a quarter-log of blood from two corpses is impure, derived from 'he shall not come near any dead body.' One can answer that there, in any event, it is a category of impurity for which a nazirite does shave [in some cases], whereas golel and dofek are not included at all in nazirite law, and therefore a priest is not warned about them. Alternatively, this baraita follows the view of the 'early elders' (Nazir 53a) who held that a quarter-log of blood also obligates the nazirite to shave. Still, it is difficult: why doesn't the corpse transmit impurity through the tent, since the cover itself becomes impure, and anything that can become impure does not act as a barrier to impurity — so it should transmit tent-impurity! One can answer that only the outer side becomes impure, but the inner side remains pure, as we learn in tractate Oholot, chapter 15 (mishna 9): a jar full of pure liquids sealed with a tight-fitting lid, made into a golel for a grave — one who touches it becomes impure for seven days, but the jar and liquids remain pure, because the entire inner side is pure. However, this remains difficult according to Rashi's explanation in the first chapter of Eruvin (15a) regarding the rule that one may not make a golel or dofek for a grave from living animals — for if golel means the coffin's cover, do people make coffin covers from living animals? Therefore Rabbeinu Tam explained that golel means a standing memorial stone, since it is customary to place an animal on a grave as a temporary marker until a memorial stone is set up.
  2. Most coffins have a handbreadth of empty space — One must say that the top of the coffin is open; for if it were sealed, then on the contrary, since there is a handbreadth of space inside it, it would transmit impurity even from the empty side, as stated in tractate Oholot, chapter 7 (mishna 1): a sealed corpse-container — one who touches it from the sides is pure (meaning, from the empty side), because the impurity spreads diagonally, both upward and downward; but if the space of impurity is a handbreadth by a handbreadth by a handbreadth high, one who touches it is impure regardless, since it is like a sealed grave. This shows that a sealed grave does not transmit impurity to everything around it unless there is a handbreadth of space above it; but with 'pressed' impurity, it transmits impurity only directly opposite the impure body, not from the empty side. This is elaborated further in chapter 'HaMocher Peirot' (Bava Batra 100b).
  3. 'And to his sister' — why does the verse need to state this? — Regarding a nazirite it is written 'he shall not come near any dead body,' and afterward it is written 'to his father, to his mother, to his brother, to his sister he shall not become impure' — and all of these are seemingly superfluous, since they are already derivable from 'dead body.' We expound: 'to his father' — why state this? It is unnecessary for its plain meaning, since this is already derived from 'dead body'; rather it comes to exclude the case of a met mitzvah (an abandoned corpse with no one else to bury it), for whom one is permitted to become impure. 'To his mother' — why state this? It is unnecessary for its plain meaning, and permission for met mitzvah is already derived from 'to his father.' Rather, it teaches that if he was both a nazirite and a priest, bearing two sanctities, the verse warns him not to become impure only 'to his mother' — but he may become impure for a met mitzvah. 'To his brother' — why state this? That if he was a High Priest and a nazirite, whose sanctity is more stringent (since even without being a nazirite he is forbidden to become impure for relatives), nevertheless it is only 'to his brother' that he may not become impure, but he may become impure for a met mitzvah. And if this teaching is not needed for a nazirite alone, nor for an ordinary priest who is a nazirite, apply it to a High Priest who is a nazirite. 'To his sister' — why state this? This teaches that if he was a High Priest and a nazirite, and went to offer his Paschal sacrifice or circumcise his son — situations involving many mitzvot — even so, it is only 'to his sister' that he may not become impure, but he may become impure for a met mitzvah.
  4. 'You say: he shall not become impure' — Since this refers to a person who is both a nazirite and a High Priest and is also performing the Paschal offering, this implies that one who is merely performing the Paschal offering alone is permitted to become impure for relatives. This is difficult, for in tractate Zevachim (ch. 12, 100a), regarding the incident of Yosef the Priest whose wife died on the eve of Passover and whose brothers forcibly made him impure, the Gemara raises a difficulty from this very baraita, which states 'he shall not become impure.' But what is the difficulty? Perhaps the case here is different, dealing with one who holds all these sanctities together, as explained, but one who merely performs the Paschal offering alone might be permitted to become impure! Therefore it seems we should explain 'you say: he shall not become impure' to apply even to one who merely performs the Paschal offering alone. And if you ask: from where is it obvious that 'he shall not become impure' applies here? One can answer, as Rashi explained, that a positive commandment not punishable by karet does not override the prohibition against impurity for relatives, which is punishable by karet — just as it does not override a positive commandment that is punishable by karet, such as performing the Paschal offering (and circumcision too involves karet). And if you ask: how does the Gemara there, regarding Yosef the Priest, know that our passage deals with one performing the Paschal offering alone? One can answer: since the baraita did not group 'one performing the Paschal offering' together with the others ('one who was a nazirite and ordinary priest,' etc.), but rather first mentioned nazirite alone, and afterward nazirite with ordinary priest, etc. And if you ask: from where does the Gemara know that this verse (written regarding a nazirite) refers to one who performs the Paschal offering and circumcises his son? One can answer: since this teaching is not needed for a nazirite alone (as other verses already teach that he may become impure for a met mitzvah), apply it to one who goes to offer his Paschal sacrifice, etc. The Sar MiKotzi reconciles Rashi's view that this passage deals with one who holds all these sanctities together, yet the Gemara still raises the difficulty regarding Yosef the Priest — for indeed, even one who merely performs the Paschal offering alone may not become impure. For if you think that one performing the Paschal offering alone may become impure for relatives, why would the verse need 'to his sister' to teach that he may become impure for a met mitzvah, since he could already become impure for relatives? This shows that performing the Paschal offering adds no stringency at all. If so, it would be obvious that he may become impure for a met mitzvah. And if you say that nevertheless the verse is needed to teach that he may become impure for a met mitzvah because he holds three sanctities (nazirite, priest, and performer of the Paschal offering), and that really one could say that one performing the Paschal offering alone may become impure for relatives — this is not so, for we already know from 'to his father' and 'to his mother' that the sanctity of nazirite and High Priest does not help at all regarding met mitzvah. If so, the verses would only be needed for the added factor of the Paschal offering — but why would this be needed? Obviously, if he may become impure for relatives, he may all the more so for a met mitzvah! And although a verse is needed for 'to his mother' regarding an ordinary priest who is a nazirite — that he may become impure for a met mitzvah even though the verse states he may become impure for relatives, since he bears two sanctities, even though we already know from 'to his father' that the sanctity of nazirite alone does not help regarding met mitzvah — this is specifically regarding a priest, whose sanctity is permanent, and so we have reason to say that bearing two sanctities increases the sanctity, requiring a verse. But one performing the Paschal offering, whose sanctity is only temporary — if you permit him impurity for relatives, the same applies all the more to met mitzvah, for why would you grant him greater sanctity regarding met mitzvah than regarding relatives? Alternatively, one can explain that the baraita is phrased in summary: it teaches simply regarding an Israelite nazirite, then a nazirite who is an ordinary priest, then a nazirite who is a High Priest — and so logically we should say that he may not become impure for relatives, just like a nazirite and all the others — reason this out for yourself.

Sources

Kid summary and story cards written by Tab from the William Davidson Edition English (Sefaria, CC BY-NC 4.0).

Tab translation (machine-assisted) of Rashi and Tosafot, from the Vilna Edition Hebrew (public domain) on Sefaria. May contain mistakes.

In the app, the Gemara text comes from Sefaria (William Davidson Edition, CC BY-NC 4.0; Hebrew/Aramaic Vilna Edition). Rashi and Tosafot Hebrew: Vilna Edition (public domain) via Sefaria.

Also spelled: Berachot, Brachos, Berachos, Brachot 19.