## Sanhedrin Daf 48a

###### Sanhedrin 48a:1
[Sanhedrin 48a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/48a:1)

מְשַׁמְּשִׁין מִמְּשַׁמְּשִׁין גָּמְרִינַן, לְאַפּוֹקֵי עֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה דְּהִיא גּוּפַהּ קְדוֹשָׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**We derive** the *halakha* governing **the accessories** relating to a dead person, e.g., a shroud, **from** the *halakha* governing the **accessories** used in idol worship, e.g., the animal sacrificed to the idol. This is **to the exclusion of a heifer whose neck is broken, which is itself consecrated** for the ceremony taking place in the valley and is not an accessory used in that ceremony.


###### Sanhedrin 48a:2
[Sanhedrin 48a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/48a:2)

וְאַבָּיֵי, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא גָּמַר מֵעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה? אָמַר לָךְ: מִידֵּי דְּאוֹרְחֵיהּ מִמִּידֵּי דְּאוֹרְחֵיהּ גָּמְרִינַן, לְאַפּוֹקֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה דְּלָאו אוֹרְחָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And Abaye, what is the reason** that **he did not derive** the *halakha* by way of a verbal analogy **from** the *halakha* governing accessories used in **idol worship?** The Gemara answers: Abaye could have **said to you** that **we learn** the *halakha* governing **something that** involves a proper **way** of conduct, i.e., burying the dead, **from** the *halakha* governing **something that** involves a proper **way** of conduct, i.e., the rite relating to the heifer whose neck is broken, as these are both mitzvot by Torah law. This is **to the exclusion of** objects of **idol worship, which do not** involve a proper **way** of conduct.


###### Sanhedrin 48a:3
[Sanhedrin 48a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/48a:3)

סִימָן: כִּפָּה, נַפְשֵׁיהּ, דַּחֲצִיבָא, בְּקִבְרֵיהּ דְּיַתִּיר מֵאֲבֻהּ, בְּכִיסָא דְּאוּמָּנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara presents **a mnemonic** for the forthcoming series of attempted proofs concerning the dispute between Rava and Abaye: **Scarf; monument; that was hewed; pouch; craftsman.**


###### Sanhedrin 48a:4
[Sanhedrin 48a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/48a:4)

מֵיתִיבִי: כִּפָּה שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא מִדְרָס וּנְתָנַתּוּ לְסֵפֶר – טָהוֹר מִן הַמִּדְרָס, אֲבָל טָמֵא מַגַּע מִדְרָס. אֵימָא: נְתָנַתּוּ וּכְרָכַתּוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** against Rava from a *baraita* discussing ritual impurity that is contracted by treading: If **a scarf is ritually impure** with impurity imparted by **treading,** e.g., after a *zav* sat or lay down upon it, **and** its owner then **designated it** as a cover **for** a Torah **scroll,** it is **pure of** the more severe level of ritual impurity, that which is imparted by **treading,** even without immersion, because it is no longer an object intended to be lied on or sat upon. **But** it is still **impure** with the less severe ritual impurity, that which is contracted **by touching that which is treaded upon.** This indicates that mere designation has halakhic significance and validity. The Gemara rejects this argument: **Say** that the *baraita* should read as follows: The owner of the scarf **designated it** as a cover for a Torah scroll **and wrapped it** around the scroll, so that there was not only designation, but an action as well.


###### Sanhedrin 48a:5
[Sanhedrin 48a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/48a:5)

לְמָה לִי נְתָנַתּוּ וּכְרָכַתּוּ? כִּדְרַב חִסְדָּא, דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: הַאי סוּדָרָא דְּאַזְמְנֵיהּ לְמֵיצַר בֵּיהּ תְּפִילִּין, וְצַר בֵּיהּ תְּפִילִּין – אָסוּר לְמֵיצַר בֵּיהּ פְּשִׁיטֵי. אַזְמְנֵיהּ וְלָא צַר בֵּיהּ, צַר בֵּיהּ וְלָא אַזְמְנֵיהּ – שְׁרֵי לְמֵיצַר בֵּיהּ פְּשִׁיטֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If there was an action, **why do I** need for the *baraita* to say that the owner **designated it and wrapped it?** Wouldn’t wrapping alone have sufficed? The Gemara answers: The *baraita* is **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rav Ḥisda, as Rav Ḥisda says:** With regard to **this cloth that one designated for** the purpose of **bundling phylacteries in it,** if he already **bundled phylacteries in it,** then **it is forbidden to bundle coins in it,** as it was designated and used as an accessory of a sacred object. But if **he** merely **designated it** for that purpose **but did not** yet **bundle** phylacteries **in it,** or if **he bundled** phylacteries **in it but did not** previously **designate it** for bundling phylacteries, then **it is permitted to bundle coins in it.** Consequently, in the case of the scarf, it was necessary both to designate it as a cover for the Torah scroll and to actually wrap it around the scroll.


###### Sanhedrin 48a:6
[Sanhedrin 48a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/48a:6)

ולְאַבָּיֵי דְּאָמַר: הַזְמָנָה מִילְּתָא הִיא, אַזְמְנֵיהּ – אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא צַר בֵּיהּ. צַר בֵּיהּ: אִי אַזְמְנֵיהּ – אִין, אִי לָא אַזְמְנֵיהּ – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And according to Abaye, who said** that **designation is** a significant **matter,** the *halakha* is as follows: If **he designated** the cloth for the purpose of bundling phylacteries in it, **even if he did not bundle** phylacteries **in it,** it is prohibited to bundle money in it. In a case where **he** already **bundled** phylacteries **in it, if he designated** the cloth for bundling phylacteries, **yes,** it is prohibited to bundle money in it; but **if he did not designate it** for bundling phylacteries, bundling money in the cloth is **not** prohibited.


###### Sanhedrin 48a:7
[Sanhedrin 48a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/48a:7)

תָּא שְׁמַע: נֶפֶשׁ שֶׁבְּנָאוֹ לְשֵׁם חַי – מוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה. הוֹסִיף בּוֹ דִּימוֹס אֶחָד לְשֵׁם מֵת – אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה. הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? דִּרְמָא בֵּיהּ מֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** another proof against Rava: With regard to **a monument** that was built as a memorial **for the sake of** an individual while he was still **alive,** one is **permitted to** derive **benefit** from it, as it is like any other construction; but if even a single **row** of stones **was added to it for the sake of a corpse,** one is **prohibited from** deriving **benefit** from it, apparently even before the deceased is buried there. This seems to indicate that mere designation is a significant matter. The Gemara answers: **With what are we dealing here?** We are dealing with a case **where the corpse was placed** under the monument, so that it became forbidden not through mere designation, but by way of an action.


###### Sanhedrin 48a:8
[Sanhedrin 48a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/48a:8)

אִי הָכִי, מַאי אִירְיָא הוֹסִיף? כִּי לֹא הוֹסִיף נָמֵי! לָא צְרִיכָא, אַף עַל גַּב דְּפַנְּיֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so, why** does the *baraita* **specifically** mention that a row of stones **was added?** If the deceased was buried under the monument, one should be prohibited from deriving benefit from it **even when** a row of stones **was not added,** as the entire monument has been used for the dead. The Gemara explains: **No,** it is **necessary** for the *baraita* to state that a row of stones was added in order to teach us that **even if** the corpse **was** later **removed** from the grave, the monument remains forbidden since it had been designated for a corpse.


###### Sanhedrin 48a:9
[Sanhedrin 48a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/48a:9)

אָמַר רַפְרָם בַּר פָּפָּא אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: אִם הָיָה מַכִּירוֹ, חוֹלְצוֹ וּמוּתָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rafram bar Pappa says** that **Rav Ḥisda says: If** the corpse was later removed from the grave and **one recognizes** the row of stones that had been added to the monument in the dead man’s honor, he may **remove** that row of stones, **and** it is **permitted** to derive benefit from the rest of the construction.


###### Sanhedrin 48a:10
[Sanhedrin 48a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/48a:10)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הַחוֹצֵב קֶבֶר לְאָבִיו, וְהָלַךְ וּקְבָרוֹ בְּקֶבֶר אַחֵר – הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִקָּבֵר בּוֹ עוֹלָמִית. הָתָם, מִשּׁוּם כְּבוֹד אָבִיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** yet another proof against Rava from a *baraita*: If **one hewed a grave for his** deceased **father** in one place, **and** then **went and buried him in a different place,** the son **may never be buried in** the grave that he had dug. This indicates that mere designation is a significant matter. The Gemara answers: **There,** the son may not be buried in the grave that he had dug **because** that would detract from **the honor** that he must show **his father,** not because the designation is significant with regard to the status of a grave in general.


###### Sanhedrin 48a:11
[Sanhedrin 48a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/48a:11)

הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, אַף הַחוֹצֵב אֲבָנִים לְאָבִיו וְהָלַךְ וּקְבָרוֹ בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר – הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִקָּבֵר בָּהֶן עוֹלָמִית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **So, too, it is reasonable** that the son may not be buried in the grave that he had dug only because of the honor due to his father, **as the latter clause** of the same *baraita* **teaches: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even** if **one hewed stones for his father’s** grave **and** then **went and buried him in a different place,** the son himself **may never be buried** in a tomb constructed **from those** stones.


###### Sanhedrin 48a:12
[Sanhedrin 48a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/48a:12)

אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא מִשּׁוּם כְּבוֹד אָבִיו – שַׁפִּיר, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ מִשּׁוּם הַזְמָנָה: טְוִוי לַאֲרִיגָה מִי אִיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Granted, if you say** that the son may not be buried in the grave that he dug for his father **because of the honor** that must be shown **his father,** it is **well** understood why he can also not be buried in tomb constructed from stones that he hewed for his father’s grave. **But if you say** that it is **because of designation,** the son should be permitted to be buried in such a tomb, as **is there anyone who says** that **spinning** yarn in order **to weave** it into cloth for shrouds is regarded as designating an item for a dead person, resulting in a prohibition against deriving benefit from the yarn? In such a case there is certainly no prohibition, and the case of hewing stones for a tomb is analogous to a case of spinning yarn in order to weave it into cloth.


###### Sanhedrin 48a:13
[Sanhedrin 48a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/48a:13)

תָּא שְׁמַע: קֶבֶר חָדָשׁ מוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה. הֵטִיל בּוֹ נֵפֶל – אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה. הֵטִיל – אִין, לֹא הֵטִיל – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof in support of Rava from a *baraita*: With regard to **a fresh grave** that was not designated for a particular individual, one is **permitted to** derive **benefit** from it. But if even **a non-viable newborn** that died **was cast into it,** one is **prohibited from** deriving **benefit** from the grave. It may be inferred from here that if a non-viable newborn **was cast** into the grave, **yes,** one is prohibited from deriving benefit from the grave, but if it **was not cast** into the grave, one is **not** prohibited from deriving benefit from the grave, indicating that mere designation is insignificant.


###### Sanhedrin 48a:14
[Sanhedrin 48a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/48a:14)

הוּא הַדִּין דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא הֵטִיל, וּלְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל דְּאָמַר: אֵין לִנְפָלִים תְּפִיסַת הַקֶּבֶר, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this inference: **The same is true even if** a non-viable newborn **was not cast** into the grave; one is still prohibited from deriving benefit from the grave, merely by virtue of the designation. Why, then, does the *baraita* say that a non-viable newborn was cast into the grave? This serves **to exclude** the opinion **of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who says: A non-viable newborn does not take possession of its grave** to render it forbidden even once it is buried there. To counter this opinion, the *baraita* **teaches us** that this opinion is not accepted, and a non-viable newborn is treated like any other corpse.


###### Sanhedrin 48a:15
[Sanhedrin 48a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/48a:15)

תָּא שְׁמַע: מוֹתַר הַמֵּתִים – לְמֵתִים, מוֹתַר הַמֵּת – לְיוֹרְשָׁיו. הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? שֶׁגָּבוּ מֵחַיִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** another proof in support of Rava’s opinion from a mishna (*Shekalim* 2:5): The money **left over** from the money that was collected for burying **the dead** must be allocated **to** the burial of other **dead** people. The money **left over** from the money that was collected for burying a particular **dead person** is given **to his heirs.** Evidently, money that had been designated for the sake of a dead person but was not actually used for burying him does not become forbidden, and his heirs may use it. The Gemara rejects this proof: **With what are we dealing here?** We are dealing with money **that had been collected** for the deceased **during his lifetime.** It was thought that a certain individual was soon to die, and money was collected to cover the costs of his burial. Since at the time the money was collected the person was alive, the money had not been designated for the sake of a dead person. Therefore, one is permitted to derive benefit from it, and it is given to the heirs of the deceased.


###### Sanhedrin 48a:16
[Sanhedrin 48a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/48a:16)

הָא לָא תָּנֵי הָכִי, דִּתְנַן: מוֹתַר הַמֵּתִים – לְמֵתִים, מוֹתַר הַמֵּת – לְיוֹרְשָׁיו. וְתָנֵי עֲלַהּ: כֵּיצַד? גָּבוּ לְמֵתִים סְתָם – זֶהוּ מוֹתַר הַמֵּתִים לְמֵתִים, גָּבוּ לְמֵת זֶה – זֶהוּ מוֹתַר הַמֵּת לְיוֹרְשָׁיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises an objection: **But we were not taught this, as we learned** in the mishna: The money **left over** from the money that was collected for burying **the dead** must be allocated **to** the burial of other **dead** people. The money **left over** from the money that was collected for burying a particular **dead** person is given **to his heirs. And it is taught with regard to this** mishna in a *baraita*: **How so?** If **they collected** money **for the** purpose of burying the **dead without specification, this is** the case about which they said that the money **left over** from the money that was collected for burying **the dead** must be allocated **to** the burial of other **dead** people. But if **they collected** money **for** the sake of **this** particular **dead** person, **this is** the case about which they said that the money **left over** from the money that was collected for burying a particular **dead** person is given **to his heirs.** This indicates that the mishna is discussing a case where the money was designated for one who had already died.


###### Sanhedrin 48a:17
[Sanhedrin 48a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/48a:17)

וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, לֹא יִגַּע בָּהֶן עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ. רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: יַעֲשֶׂנּוּ דִּימוֹס עַל קִבְרוֹ אוֹ זִילּוּף לִפְנֵי מִטָּתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **And according to your reasoning, say the latter clause** of that same mishna, which appears to support the opinion of Abaye: **Rabbi Meir says:** If money was left over from the sum collected for the burial of a particular dead person, the money **may not be touched until Elijah comes** and resolves the uncertainty as to whether or not the money is forbidden. **Rabbi Natan says:** The leftover money shall be **used** for the laying of another **row** of stones **over the grave of** the deceased **or** for the **sprinkling** of fragrant wine **before his bier** as he is brought for burial. This indicates that there are certain *tanna’im* who maintain that mere designation is in fact significant.


###### Sanhedrin 48a:18
[Sanhedrin 48a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/48a:18)

אֶלָּא, אַבָּיֵי מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ וְרָבָא מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ. אַבָּיֵי מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא הַזְמָנָה מִילְּתָא הִיא. תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: דַּחֲזֵי לֵיהּ – תָּפֵיס, דְּלָא חֲזֵי לֵיהּ – לָא תָּפֵיס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Abaye** can **explain** the entire mishna **according to his** line of **reasoning, and Rava,** too, can **explain** the entire mishna **according to his** line of **reasoning.** The Gemara explains: **Abaye** can **explain** the entire mishna **according to his** line of **reasoning,** as follows: **According to everyone,** i.e., the first *tanna*, Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Natan, mere **designation is** a significant **matter.** The **first *tanna* holds** that the sum **that** it **is fitting to** spend for the burial of the particular dead person **is encompassed** by the prohibition, and the sum **that** it **is not fitting to** spend **is not encompassed** by the prohibition. Therefore, whatever money is not required for his burial is given to his heirs, as it was never included in the prohibition.


###### Sanhedrin 48a:19
[Sanhedrin 48a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/48a:19)

וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ, אִי תָּפֵיס אִי לָא תָּפֵיס. הִלְכָּךְ, לֹא יִגַּע בָּהֶן עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ. וְרַבִּי נָתָן פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ דְּוַדַּאי תָּפֵיס, הִלְכָּךְ יֵעָשֶׂה דִּימוֹס עַל קִבְרוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Meir is uncertain** as to **whether** the sum that it is not fitting to spend for his burial **is encompassed** by the prohibition **or is not encompassed** by the prohibition. **Therefore,** the leftover money **may not be touched until Elijah comes** and clarifies the matter. **And** it is **obvious to Rabbi Natan that** all of the money collected **is certainly encompassed** by the prohibition, including the money that it is not fitting to spend for the deceased’s burial. **Therefore,** whatever money is left over should be **used** for the laying of another **row** of stones **over the grave of** the deceased or for the sprinkling of fragrant wine before his bier.


###### Sanhedrin 48a:20
[Sanhedrin 48a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/48a:20)

וְרָבָא מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ: לְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא הַזְמָנָה לָאו מִילְּתָא הִיא. תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: כִּי בָּזוּ לֵיהּ, אַחוֹלֵי מַחֵיל זִילוּתֵיהּ גַּבֵּי יוֹרְשִׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rava,** too, can **explain** the mishna **according to his** line of **reasoning,** as follows: **According to everyone,** i.e., the first *tanna*, Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Natan, mere **designation is nothing,** and so the money collected for the burial of a particular dead person does not become forbidden. And the disagreement is about an entirely different manner. The **first *tanna* holds** that even though the heirs of the deceased **disgraced him** by collecting money for his burial, the deceased still **forgoes his disgrace for** the benefit of his **heirs,** and therefore the leftover money is given to them.


###### Sanhedrin 48a:21
[Sanhedrin 48a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/48a:21)

וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ אִי מַחֵיל אִי לָא מַחֵיל, הִלְכָּךְ לֹא יִגַּע בָּהֶן כּוּ׳. וְרַבִּי נָתָן פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ דְּלָא מַחֵיל, הִלְכָּךְ יֵעָשֶׂה דִּימוֹס עַל קִבְרוֹ אוֹ זִילּוּף לִפְנֵי מִטָּתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Meir is uncertain** as to **whether** the deceased **forgoes** his disgrace **or does not forgo** it. **Therefore,** the leftover money **may not be touched** until Elijah comes and clarifies the issue. **And** it is **obvious to Rabbi Natan that** the deceased **does not forgo** his disgrace. **Therefore,** whatever money is left over should be **used** for the laying of another **row** of stones **over the grave of** the deceased, **or** for the **sprinkling** of fragrant wine **before his bier.**


###### Sanhedrin 48a:22
[Sanhedrin 48a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/48a:22)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הָיוּ אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ מְזָרְקִין בּוֹ כֵּלִים, מִצְוָה עַל הָאֲחֵרִים לְהַצִּילָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** another proof in support of Rava’s opinion from a *baraita*: **If the father and the mother of** the deceased **were throwing garments onto** their late son’s bier so that they would be buried along with him, it is **a mitzva for the others** present **to save** those garments from being lost. This indicates that mere designation is insignificant, as were it significant, one would be prohibited to derive benefit from the garments as soon as the parents cast them onto the bier.