Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) DOES "HAZMANAH" (DESIGNATION) TAKE EFFECT?

(a) Question (against Rava - Mishnah): A kerchief was Tamei Medras (it becomes an Av ha'Tum'ah, because she often sits on it); it was given to be used as a cover on a Sefer Torah - it is no longer Tamei Medras, but it is Tamei (because it 'touched' itself at the moment its status changed, through designation).
(b) Answer: The case is, it was wrapped on the Sefer Torah.

1. (Rav Chisda): If a cloth was designated and used to wrap Tefilin, one may not wrap coins in it;
2. If it was designated but not yet used to wrap Tefilin, or used but not designated, one may wrap coins in it.
3. According to Abaye, who says that designation takes effect, it all depends on designation:

i. If it was designated, even if it was not yet used for Tefilin, one may not wrap coins in it;
ii. If it was not designated, even if it was used for Tefilin, one may wrap coins in it.

(b) Question (against Rava - Beraisa): If a Nefesh (a tomb above ground) was built for a living person, it is permitted;

1. If a layer of stones was added for his sake after he died, it is forbidden.

(c) Answer: It is forbidden after the Mes was put inside
(d) Question: If so, even if a layer of stones was not added, it is forbidden!
(e) Answer: If a layer of stones was added, it is forbidden even after the Mes is removed.
(f) (Rafram bar Papa): If one recognizes the layer of stones added, he may remove it, and the Nefesh is permitted (after the Mes is removed).
(g) Question (against Rava - Beraisa): If one dug a grave for his father and buried him elsewhere, no one else may be buried in the first grave.
(h) Answer: There it is forbidden on account of the honor of his father.

1. Support (end of the Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Gamliel): Even if he quarried rocks for a grave for his father and buried him elsewhere, he may not use the rocks to bury anyone else.
2. Surely, this is on account of the honor of his father;

i. No one says that such a preliminary stage of designation has any effect, this is like spinning thread to be woven to make shrouds!

(i) Question (against Abaye - Beraisa): It is permitted to benefit from a new grave;

1. If a Nefel was put inside, it is forbidden to benefit from it.
2. Inference: Before putting a Nefel inside, it is permitted!

(j) Answer: No, even before putting a Nefel inside, it is forbidden;

1. The Tana comes to argues with R. Shimon ben Gamliel, who says that a Nefel does not forbid a grave (permanently, i.e. even after it is removed).

(k) Question (against Abaye - Mishnah): If money was collected to bury the dead and not all is needed, the extra is used for people who will die later;

1. If money was collected for one Mes and not all is needed, the extra is given to his heirs.
2. (Beraisa): If money was collected to bury the dead in general (Mesei Mitzvah or Mesim from poor families), the extra is used for people who will die later;
3. If money was collected for a particular Mes and not all is needed, the extra is given to his heirs (the designation had no effect)!
4. Counter-question (end of the Mishnah - R. Meir): The heirs may not use the money, it is left until Eliyahu comes;
5. R. Noson says, we use it to build another layer on his grave, or to sprinkle wine in front of his coffin.

(l) (Seemingly, Chachamim hold like Rava, R. Meir and R. Noson hold like Abaye.)
(m) Answer #1 (for Abaye): All agree that designation takes effect - Chachamim say that designation only applies to the amount needed for the Mes, R. Meir is unsure (therefore, we leave it until Eliyahu comes), R. Noson is sure that it applies to everything collected (therefore, we use it for the Mes).
(n) Answer #2 (for Rava): All agree that designation has no effect - Chachamim say that a person (when alive) pardons his disgrace (that people collect for his burial) in order to help his heirs (they should keep the extra money), R. Meir is unsure, R. Noson is sure that he does not pardon.

(a) Question (against Abaye - Beraisa): If the parents of the Mes were throwing clothes on the Mes (more than is needed), it is a Mitzvah to remove them (so they will not become forbidden, i.e. they are not yet forbidden)!

(b) Answer: That is different, they only throw out of grief (therefore, it is not designation).
(c) Question (end of the Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Gamliel): If the clothes touched the bed on which the Mes rests, they are forbidden (even though they threw from grief)!
(d) Answer (Ula): The case is, the bed will be buried with the Mes; R. Shimon ben Gamliel decrees to forbid what touches the Mes, lest people will think that shrouds are permitted.
(e) Question (against Rava): If a bag was made to hold Tefilin, one may not put coins in it;

1. If it was not made for Tefilin but Tefilin was put in it, one may put coins in it.

(f) Answer: The first clause should say, if it was made for Tefilin and Tefilin was put in, one may not put coins in it (like Rav Chisda's teaching above).
(g) Question (against Abaye - Beraisa): Reuven told a craftsman 'Make me a cover for a Sefer Torah (or for Tefilin)' - he may use it for Chulin only until he uses it for Kodesh, afterwards it is forbidden.
(h) Answer: Tana'im argue about designation.

1. (Beraisa): If (the Batim of) Tefilin were covered with gold or hide of a Tamei animal, they are Pasul;
2. If they were covered with hide of a Tahor animal, they are Kosher, even if the hide was not tanned Lishmah (for the sake of Tefilin);
3. R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, if the hide was not tanned Lishmah they are Pasul.
4. (Rashi - Chachamim do not require Lishmah, for they say that designation is meaningless; R. Shimon requires it, he says that designation takes effect; R. Tam - Chachamim say that designation takes effect, therefore, this suffices in place of Lishmah; R. Shimon says that designation has no effect, therefore he requires Lishmah.)

(i) Question (Ravina (to Rava)): You argue with Abaye about shrouds made for a particular Mes - is there a place where they (do not have shrouds ready in advance, they) leave a Mes naked until they make shrouds?!
(j) Answer (Rava): Yes, in Herpanya.
(k) (Mereimar): The Halachah follows Abaye.
(l) (Rabanan): The Halachah follows Rava.
(m) The Halachah follows Rava.

(a) (Beraisa): The property of people killed by the (Yisrael) king (for rebelling against him) belongs to the king;

1. The property of people killed by Beis Din belongs to the heirs.
2. R. Yehudah says, also the property of people killed by the king belongs to the heirs.
3. Chachamim: But it says, "B'Cherem Navos Asher Yarad (Achav) Sham Lerishto"!
4. R. Yehudah: Achav was his nephew, he was the heir.
5. Chachamim: But Navos had many sons (they were his heirs)!
6. R. Yehudah: Achav killed them also - "Demei Navos v'Es Demei Vanav Ra'isi".
7. Chachamim: That refers to other children that Navos was fitting to have.

(b) Question: According to Chachamim, we understand "Berach Navos Elokim va'Melech" - the witnesses (falsely) testified that he cursed the king, in order that Achav would be entitled to his property;

1. But according to R. Yehudah, in any case Achav would inherit it, it would have sufficed to testify that he blasphemed!
2. Counter-question: Also according to Chachamim, why did they testify that he blasphemed, it would have sufficed to testify that he cursed the king (a Mored b'Malchus is killed)!

(c) Answer to both questions: They added to the story to give more justification to kill him.
(d) Question: According to R. Yehudah, we understand "Va'Yanas Yo'av El Ohel Hash-m va'Yachazek b'Karnos ha'Mizbe'ach...Ki Fo Amus" (he did not want to be judged by Shlomo, for then Shlomo would get his property);

1. But according to Chachamim, in any case his heirs would inherit it, what difference would it make?

(e) Answer: He wanted (a small) additional time to live (until Shlomo would hear and command to take him).
(f) "Ko Diber Yo'av v'Cho Anani" - Yo'av told Shlomo 'Do not do inflict a second punishment upon me - if you will kill me, accept upon yourself the curse David cursed me; if you do not accept the curse upon yourself, do not kill me'.
(g) (Rav Yehudah): "Ase Ka'asher Diber u'Fega Bo u'Kvarto" - all David's curses ("Al Yikares mi'Beis Yo'av Zav u'Metzora u'Machazik ba'Pelech v'Nofel ba'Cherev va'Chasar Lachem") came upon David's descendants:

1. Rechav'am was a Zav - it says "Rechav'am Hisametz La'also ba'Merkavah", just like "ha'Merkav Asher Yirkav Alav ha'Zav Yitma";
2. Uziyahu was a Metzora - "Veha'Tzara'as Zorcha v'Mitzcho";
3. Asa needed a cane - "L'Es Ziknaso Chalah Es Raglav".

i. (Rav Yehudah): He was stricken by Podagra (a foot sickness).
ii. (Rav Nachman): It feels like a needle in the skin.
iii. Question: How did Rav Nachman know?
iv. Answer #1: He himself suffered from this.
v. Answer #2: He had a tradition from his Rebbi.
vi. Answer #3: "Sod Hash-m li'Re'av".

4. Yoshiyahu was killed by the sword - "Va'Yoru ha'Yorim la'Melech Yoshiyahu";

i. (Rav Yehudah): They shot so many arrows into him that he resembled a sieve.

5. Yechonyah lacked bread - "Va'Aruchaso Aruchas Tamid Nitnah Lo" (but before this, he lacked food).

(h) (Rav Yehudah): It is better to be cursed (without reason) than to curse (all David's curses came back upon his descendants).