ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Sanhedrin 48
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(b) And Rebbi Meir - is not sure whether to hold like the Tana Kama or Rebbi
(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
(d) And Rebbi Meir - is not sure whether to hold like Rebbi Nasan or the
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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.
(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
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.
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.
(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
2. ... Rebbi Yehudah - in order to buy time, whilst Benayahu went to the
king to present his argument to Shlomoh Hamelech.
(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
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
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