ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Sanhedrin 47
(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
(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
(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
(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.
(d) We learn from the Pasuk ...
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.
1. ... "me'Am ha'Aretz - that a Mumar is disqualified from bringing a
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
(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?
(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]).
(b) The relatives do not need to start mourning after the pains of the grave
begin - because of 'Ho'il ve'Nidchu Yidachu'.
2. ... the Kaparah takes effect - as soon as the pains of the grave begin.
(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
(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
(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
(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).
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).
(c) The reason that ...
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)
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).
(d) Rava's reason for saying 'Hazmanah La'av Milsa Hi' is - due to the
possibility of the person retracting.
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).