Previous daf

1)

(a) Chizkiyah dragged his father's bones around town on a bed of ropes - to attain a Kaparah for his father Achaz (one of the three worst Kings in our history).

(b) He was willing to forego his own Kavod, and he also had the right to forego that of his father, for three reasons: 1. because, based on the Pasuk in Mishpatim "ve'Nasi *be'Amcha* Lo Sa'or", one is only required to honor someone who behaves like a Yisrael; 2. because he despised himself by his abominations, as the Pasuk testifies "Nivzeh be'Einav Nim'as", and someone who does not care for his own Kavod, does not deserve to be honored by others; 3. because he was willing to forego his father's honor in order to create a Kidush Hashem.

(c) We reconcile Chizkiyah's actions with the possibility that Hesped is a matter of Kavod ha'Chayim", even if it meant that his father had a Kaparah - by pointing out that the people themselves would have wanted their king to have a Kaparah.

(a) Rebbi died in Tzipori - but he was buried in Beis-She'arim, far from Tzipori.

(b) He issued a decree - that on the way to his burial, they should only eulogize him in the large towns, but not in the villages.

(c) We reconcile this with the possibility that Hesped is a matter of Kavod ha'Chayim - by pointing out that the people's Kavod would be enhanced by doing so, particularly as the villagers would all travel to the towns anyway to hear the Hespedim.

(d) And we reconcile the possibility that Hesped is a matter of Kavod ha'Meis with the Beraisa "Helino li'Chevodo ... Eino Over Alav" (assuming this to mean that the relative delayed the burial to enhance his own honor) - by finally confining the prohibition of delaying a burial to where this is done out of apathy, but not where it is for the sake of Kavod ha'Chayim.

(a) Rebbi Nasan says in a Beraisa that if a Meis is not eulogized or buried, or whose bones are dragged away by a wild animal - it is a good sign for the Meis, as it constitutes a Kaparah for hi sins.

(b) The fourth item he adds to the list is - if it rains on his coffin during the burial.

(c) We finally prove from Rebbi Nasan - that Hesped is Kavod ha'Meis.

(a) The Pasuk in Melachim relates the following incident. When the people who were burying a Meis spotted a group of bandits - they threw the body into what turned out to be the grave of the Navi Elisha and fled. Immediately, the dead man got up and walked away.

(b) Rebbi Acha bar Chanina learns from this episode - that one may not bury a Rasha in the vicinity of a Tzadik.

(c) We refute the suggestion that this miracle only occurred in order to fulfill Elisha's request of his Rebbe, Eliyahu "vi'Yehi Na Shenayim Be'Ruchacha" - on the basis of the Pasuk, which relates how, no sooner had the dead man left the vicinity of Elisha's grave than he dropped dead.

(a) Seeing as besides the above incident, Elisha brought only one person back to life, (the son of the Shunamis) like Eliyahu, Rebbi Yochanan explains the fulfillment of Elisha's request - by comparing the curing of Na'aman's Tzara'as to revivng him from the dead.

(b) And we learn this from the Pasuk (in connection with Miriam's Tzara'as) "Al Na Tehi cam's" - which specifically does just that.

(c) Despite the fact that one may not even bury a big Rasha in the vicinity of a small one, as we see from our Mishnah, they did not arrange four grave-yards, one for each of the four Chayvei Miysah - because they had a tradition, 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai', that there had to be two grave-yards, as our Mishnah explains.

(a) Ula Amar Rebbi Yochanan rules that if someone who ate Cheilev be'Shogeg and designated his Korban, converted out and came back - his Korban, which was rejected whilst he was a Mumar, remains rejected.

(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah Amar Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan says the same - about someone who ate Cheilev be'Shogeg and designated his Korban, became insane and recovered.

(c) Having taught us the case of ...

1. ... 'Heimir Daso', Rebbi Yochanan nevertheless found it necessary to add the case of 'Nishtateh' - where the Korban might have remained Kasher, seeing as his insanity was not of his doing.
2. ... 'Nishtateh', why did Rebbi Yochanan find it necessary to add the case of 'Heimir Daso' - where the Korban might have remained Kasher, seeing as his situation was in his hands to reverse.

(d) We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "me'Am ha'Aretz - that a Mumar is disqualified from bringing a Korban.
2. ... "li'Retzono" - that someone who is insane is disqualified, too.

(a) The Mishnah in Cheilek rules that Kodshei Mizbe'ach that are found in an Ir ha'Nidchas must die (though they are not burned together with everything else). Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis - however, are redeemed.

(b) Rav Yosef tries to prove Rebbi Yochanan's two statements from the first of these two Halachos - because it is clear from the fact that the condemned men's death does not atone for their sin, in which case we will apply the principle 'Ho'il Ve'Nidchu, Yidachu' (once a Korban has been rejected it remains rejected).

(c) Abaye refute this proof however, on the grounds - that since they died without Teshuvah, their death is not a Kaparah. Consequently, there is no reason to raise the prohibition.

(d) And he proves this from a statement of Rav Sh'mayah, who Darshens from the Pasuk (in connection with a Kohen) "le'Nefesh Lo Yitama *be'Amav*, Ki im li'Sh'eiro ... " that people who deviated from the ways of the community are not included in the list of those for whom Kohen is permitted to mourn.

(a) Rava queries Abaye - by differentiating between Meis mi'Toch Rish'o, who is indeed prcluded, and Neherag mi'Toch Rish'o, who rceives a Kaparah.

(b) And he proves his point from the Pasuk "Mizmor le'Asaf ... Nasnu es Nivlas Avadecha Ma'achal le'Of ha'Shamayim, B'sar Chasidecha le'Chayso Aretz". Now if "Chasidecha" is meant literally, to whom is the Pasuk referring when it mentions "Avadecha", if not those who were Chayav Miysah and whose death is a Kaparah?

9)

(a) And Abaye counters Rava's proof, by establishing the case in Tehilim by Harugei Malchus (who are killed at the hand of Nochrim), but does not include Harugei Beis-Din, who are killed according to the law, but who did not do Teshuvah. *Their* death, he maintains, is certainly not a Kaparah.

(b) Abaye attempts to prove his point from our Mishnah 'Lo Hayu Kovrin Oso be'Kivros Avosav' - implying that death at the hand of Beis-Din is not a Kaparah for a sinner.

(c) But we counter Abaye's proof - by explaining that even if in fact, it is a Kaparah (in which case the reason by Ir Ha'Nidachas is indeed 'Ho'il ve'Nidchu Yidachu', like Rav Yosef contended), that is only on condition that he is not subsequently buried in his ancestral burial-ground.

(d) If Miysas Beis-Din is indeed a Kaparah, why should the relatives not then mourn his death, asks Rav Ada bar Ahavah from our Mishnah 'Lo Hayu Mis'ablin Ela Mis'onenin ... '. We reply - that in addition to the above, the Kaparah is only completed once the body has decomposed, and we prove this from the continuation of the Mishnah 'Nis'achel ha'Basar, Melaktin es ha'Atzamos ve'Kovrin Osan bi'Mekoman'.

(a) Rav Ashi disagrees. According to him ...

1. ... the Aveilus begins - as soon as the lid is placed on the coffin (after the burial [though no-one disputes this]).
2. ... the Kaparah takes effect - as soon as the pains of the grave begin.

(b) The relatives do not need to start mourning after the pains of the grave begin - because of 'Ho'il ve'Nidchu Yidachu'.

(c) Nevertheless, we need to wait for the body to decompose before re-burying it in its ancestral graveyard - because it is impossible to remove a decaying body from the grave prior to that.

(d) In spite of the principle 'Ho'il ve'Nidchu', the Mishnah in Mo'ed Katan obligates someone who did not begin the Shiv'ah before Yom-Tov, to sit after Yom-Tov - because the Din of Aveilus is not completely Bateil on Yom-Tov, inasmuch as people visit the Aveil are sill obligated to comfort him.

(a) People were taking earth from Rav's gave - to use as a cure for a first-day fever.

(b) The problem with that was that based on the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Sham" (by Miriam's death) "ve'Arfu *Sham* es ha'Eglah" from Eglah Arufah - that a grave is Asur be'Hana'ah.

(c) Shmuel nevertheless condoned their actions, based on the Pasuk "va'Yashlech es Afarah al Kever B'nei ha'Am". We learn from ...

1. ... there - that a grave, like Avodah-Zarah, does not become Asur be'Ha'ana'ah when it is attached.
2. ... the Pasuk "Asher Atem Yorshim es *Eloheihem, al he'Harim* ha'Ramim ha'Ramim" - that Avodah-Zarah that is attached (e.g. a mountain) does not become Asur be'Hana'ah.

(a) The Beraisa - forbids someone to be buried in a grave that he originally dug to bury his father, but which remained empty, because he buried him somewhere else.

(b) Assuming that this extends to a grave that he dug for anybody else, too, we reconcile this with Shmuel's previous ruling - by establishing it by a grave that has been built above ground (which has a Din of Talush [detached], and which like Avodah-Zarah, is Asur be'Hana'ah).

(c) The Beraisa rules that a new grave is Mutar be'Hana'ah. A 'new grave' is - one that has been dug S'tam should it be needed, and not for anyone in particular.

(d) We reconcile the Seifa of the Beraisa 'Hitil Bah Nefel, Asur be'Hana'ah' with Shmuel's previous ruling - by establishing it by a Kever shel Binyan, as we did the previous Beraisa.

(a) The Beraisa, which also speaks about a Kever shel Binyan, discusses three graves. A 'Kever ha'Nimtza' is a grave which is found to have a Meis buried in it without the owner's consent - whereas a 'Kever ha'Yadu'a' is one in which a Meis is buried with the owner's consent.

(b) The Tana rules with regard to Kever ha'Nimtza 'Mutar li'Fenoso, Mekomo Tahor and Mutar be'Hana'ah'. We assume that the Meis concerned is not a Meis Mitzvah (who must be buried wherever he is found) - because if he had been, there would be 'Kol' to that effect (i.e. word would have spread that a Meis Mitzvah was buried there).

(c) With regard to a Kever ha'Yadu'a, he rules - 'Asur li'Fenoso, Mekomo Tamei ve'Asur be'Hana'ah'.

(d) The latter grave Tamei even after the body has been removed - on the basis of a Takanas Chachamim, to discourage anyone from removing the body to re-inter it elsewhere.

(e) The third grave discussed by the Beraisa is one that causes passers-by damage (by making them Tamei or by preventing them from passing).

1. On the one hand, it is not Metamei, once the corpse has been removed - because the Takanas Chachamim is unnecessary.
2. ... on the other hand, it is Asur be'Hana'ah - because that not a Takanas Chachamim, but a Torah law.

(a) Abaye renders shrouds that were woven on behalf of a Meis, Asur be'Hana'ah - because he holds 'Hazmanah Milsa Hi' (designation is considered as if the article had actually been used).

(b)

1. Abaye learns this from Eglah Arufah - via the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Sham" from "Sham" from Eglah Arufah (which we cited earlier, and which becomes Asur be'Hana'ah the moment it is designated).
2. Rava learns that the shrouds are Mutar be'Hana'ah from Avodas-Kochavim (e.g. a house or an ox that one designated for Avodah-Zarah) - via the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Sham" from "Asher Avdu *Sham* ha'Goyim" from Avodas-Kochavim (which remains Mutar be'Hana'ah until it is acually worshipped, even though it has been designated)

(c) The reason that ...

1. ... Rava declines to learn it from Eglah Arufah is - because he prefers to learn things that serve a dead person from things that serve Avodas-Kochavim (rather than from Eglah Arufah, which is the actual forbidden object itself).
2. ... Abaye declines to learn it from Avodas-Kochavim - because he prefers to learn a regular practice from a regular practice (rather than from something that is forbidden).

(d) Rava's reason for saying 'Hazmanah La'av Milsa Hi' is - due to the possibility of the person retracting.