Previous daf

1)

(a) The Beraisa rules that a veil that was Tamei Medras and that the owner then designated for a Seifer-Torah - loses the status of Medras without even requiring Tevilah.

(b) This does not mean that it is Tahor - because in fact, it remains Tamei Maga Medras, with the Din of a regular Tamei vessel.

(c) Rava, who holds 'Hazmanah La'av Milsa Hi', will explain this Beraisa by adding that he also wrapped the veil around the Seifer-Torah.

(d) The fact that despite having wrapped it around the Seifer, he also needs to designate it for that purpose is based on a statement by Rav Chisda, who says - that a head-cloth that one either used or designated for use as a Tefilin-bag remains Chulin, and may still be used to wrap money.

(e) Abaye disagrees with Rav Chisda - inasmuch as he forbids the latter case, where one designated the cloth as a Tefilin-bag (without actually using it), though he does agree with the former case (that casual use alone does not render it forbidden).

(a) Rava will establish the Beraisa 'Nefesh (an Ohel) she'Ban'o le'Shem Chai ... Hosif Bo Dimus Echad (one row of bricks) le'Meis, Asur be'Hana'ah', when a. he actually buried a corpse there, which is why the Nefesh becomes forbidden, and b. that corpse was subsequently removed, which will explain why if not for the extra row of bricks, it would be permitted.

(b) Rav Chisda rules - that where the owner remembers which row of bricks he added, all he needs to do is to remove it, for the Ohel to become permitted once more.

(c) To conform with Rava, we establish the Beraisa that we quoted earlier, forbidding a son to be buried in the grave that he originally dug - literally, when it is the son who dug the grave for his father, and the reason for the prohibition is (not because of Hazmanah, but) because it is not respectful for a son to be buried in the grave that he dug for his father.

(d) And we prove this from Raban Shimon ben Gamliel in the Seifa, who extends the prohibition to stones that he quarried from the mine for his father. There for sure, Hazmanah is certainly not applicable, any more than 'Tavi la'Arig' (a piece of fabric that one spun with the intention of weaving it into shrouds), even according to Abaye.

(a) We already cited the Beraisa which forbids a new grave provided it contains a Nefel (a miscarriage). Assuming that there is no particular Chidush with regard to a Nefel in the Seifa, this Beraisa poses a Kashya on Abaye - inasmuch as it implies that the Reisha is permitted, even if there was Hazmanah.

(b) Abaye answers this Kashya by pointing out that the Tana specifically mentions a Nefel in the Seifa, to preclude the opinion of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, who says - that Hazmanah for a Nefel is not considered Hazmanah (and it is only as long as the grave actually contains one, that it is forbidden); but before it is buried there (even if there was Hazmanah) and after it has been removed, it is permitted.

(c) Consequently, Abaye establishes the Reisha of the Reisha of the Beraisa S'tam, when there was no Hazmanah for a Nefel.

(a) 'Mosar ha'Meisim, le'Meisim' (if Tzedakah-money that was collected specifically for the burial of Meisei Mitzvah or for poor people remains after they have buried, it must be used for other Meisim). This Beraisa continues - Mosar ha'Meis le'Yorshav'.

(b) To conform with Abaye, we establish the Seifa - when the money was claimed still during the lifetime of the person who was just buried.

(c) The continuation of the Beraisa however, seems to support Abaye. Rebbi Meir rules about the above money 'Lo Yiga Bahen ad she'Yavo Eliyahu', whereas Rebbi Nasan holds - 'Ya'asenu Dimus al Kivro O Ziluf (to sprinkle wine) Lifnei Mitaso' (apparently because he hold 'Hazmanah Milsa Hi').

(a) In fact, we conclude, both Abaye and Rava explain the Beraisa according to their own respective opinions. According to Abaye, all the Tana'im hold in principle 'Hazmanah Milsa Hi', and that explains the opinion of Rebbi Nasan. Nevertheless, the Tana Kama permits the heirs to use the remaining money - because he concedes that excess money that was not initially fit to use for what it was claimed for, is not forbidden, whereas Rebbi Nasan does not differentiate.

(b) And Rebbi Meir - is not sure whether to hold like the Tana Kama or Rebbi Nasan.

(c) Whereas according to Rava, all the Tana'im hold in principle 'Hazmanah La'av Milsa Hi', which explains the Tana Kama's opinion. Nevertheless, Rebbi Nasan insists that the leftovers go to the Meis on whose behalf the money was collected - because still during his lifetime, he was not Mochel the disgrace that he felt at having collected for his shrouds, even to allow his heirs to receive the whatever is left, whereas the Tana Kama holds that he is.

(d) And Rebbi Meir - is not sure whether to hold like Rebbi Nasan or the Tana Kama.

6)

(a) The Beraisa rules that if the deceased's parents are throwing clothes on to the bed on which their dead son is lying - it is a Mitzvah for anyone who can, to save them.

(b) According to Abaye, the clothes do not become forbidden because of Hazmanah - since it is clear that the parents are only doing this because they are totally distraught, and not because they really want the clothes to become forbidden.

(c) In view of the Seifa, which renders clothes that touched the coffin Asur be'Hana'ah, we establish the Beraisa - by the coffin in which the Meis is being buried, and where the Rabbanan decreed on account of the shrouds, which people might come to think are also permitted.

(a) The Seifa of the Beraisa permits a bag which was once used for Tefilin to be used for money - the Reisha forbids be'Hana'ah a bag which was made to hold Tefilin.

(b) Rava amends this Beraisa to read - As'o ve'Hini'ach Bo Tefilin, Asur Lehani'ach Bo Ma'os'.

(c) Another Beraisa permits using a bag that was specifically commissioned to be made as a cover for a Seifer-Torah or to hold Tefilin, until it is actually used. Abaye reconciles his opinion with this Beraisa - by establishing a Machlokes Tana'im, as we shall now see.

(a) The Beraisa declares Pasul Tefilin that one overlaid with gold or that one covered with the skin of a non-Kasher animal - because of the Pasuk in Bo "Lema'an Tih'yeh Toras Hashem be'Ficha" (from which we Darshen 'min ha'Mutar be'Ficha').

(b) He permits however, the skin of a Kasher animal even if it was not tanned for the sake of the Mitzvah of Tefilin - because he holds 'Hazmanah La'av Milsa Hi' (in which case, it makes no difference how the skins are prepared); whereas Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, requires the skin to be tanned for the sake of the Mitzvah - because he holds 'Hazmanah Milsa Hi' (and it is his opinion who Abaye follows).

(c) When Ravina asked Rava how it was feasible for someone to die without shrouds having been made for him in advance, in order to bury him as quickly as possible, he replied 'K'gon Shichvi de'Harpanya' - who were very poor and who could not afford them in their lifetime.

(d) Mereimar ruled like Abaye, the Rabbanan, like Rava with regard to Hazmanah. And the Halachah is - like Rava.

(a) According to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, the property of someone killed by the king goes to the king, whereas that of someone killed by Beis-Din goes to his heirs. According to Rebbi Yehudah - both go to the dead man's heirs.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah counters the Rabbanan's ...

1. ... proof from Achav, who killed Navos for his vineyard - with the argument that as his first cousin, he was next of kin anyway.
2. ... counter-argument that Navos had many children - by citing the Pasuk "Im Lo es D'mei Navos ve'es D'mei Banav Ra'isi", which he interprets to mean that Achav also killed Navos' children.

(c) According to the Rabbanan, this Pasuk refers (not to children that he already had, but) - to children whom he would have born, had Achav not murdered him.

(d)

1. Rebbi Yehudah explains the need for the Navi to add 'Barech Navos Elokim *u'Melech* - to make the people more angry with Navos, to deflect their anger from him.
2. The Rabbanan explain the need for the Navi to add 'Barech Navos *Elokim* u'Melech - for exactly the same reason.

(a) Yo'av ran into the Azarah and held on to the Mizbe'ach, according to ...

1. ... the Rabbanan - to avoid being taken before the king and killed as a Mored be'Malchus, in which case his property would have gone to David, and not to his heirs. He therefore opted to be killed by Beis-Din.
2. ... Rebbi Yehudah - in order to buy time, whilst Benayahu went to the king to present his argument to Shlomoh Hamelech.

(b) Yo'av instructed Benayahu ben Yehoyada, whom Shlomoh had sent to kill him, to relay to the King - that he couldn't have it both ways; either he leaves him with the curses, or he kills him and accepts the curses on his descendants.

(c) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav points out how, now that Shlomoh chose to kill him, all the curses that David had placed on Yo'av, materialized on his own descendants.

1. ... Rechavam - was a Zav ...
2. ... Uziyah - contracted Tzara'as
3. ... Asa - became lame.
4. ... Yoshiyahu - was killed by the enemy (though not by the sword, as we shall see).
5. ... Yechonyah - lacked bread (he did not have his own income, but was fed each day, at the table of Evyl Merodach.

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav translates the lameness of Asa as 'Padgera'. Rav Nachman described the feeling to his son Mar Zutra as - like a needle pricking the flesh.

(b) He may have known about it because he himself went through the experience. He may also have learned it from his Rebbe. Alternatively, he knew about it - through ''Sod Hashem li'Yere'av".

(c) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav comments that when Par'oh Nechei's archers killed Yashiyah - they riddled his body with three hundred arrows.

(d) When Rav Yehudah Amar Rav commented on the episode with Shlomoh and Yo'av 'Tehei Luta ve'Al Tehei Lata' - he meant that it is (sometimes) better to be cursed than to curse others, because an undeserved curse rebounds on oneself.